I would simply say that this is about clarity of communication. The council have appropriated a sign to mean something it has not previously been understood to mean. This creates ambiguity, which leads to bad choices being made by drivers in split-second decision situations . If you say the sign is clear then why are so many people being caught by it? Yes, thousands of people are caught every day breaking various laws and traffic regulations but not in one specific spot. The measures the council have taken (in the interests of the residents to protect them from this dangerous and annoying practice) have clearly not worked - for over three years. It could be argued that the only people who have benefited from the measures are the council, financially. This is my last post. Thanks for all your thoughts and feedback. M.

Also, drivers do not just put the car into reverse for a couple of feet. They turn into the driveway of a block of residential flats and then reverse back out on the road.

"Typically this sign is used on dual carridgeways perhaps with a break in the central reserve, and they don't want drivers nipping into the gap and back up the other side of the dual" You are correct. And if you enquired about how many people had been caught doing a u-turn in one of those locations you would probably find maybe a handful every month, perhaps even a couple of dozen. Not 5000!

"I think you will find that most motorists would take that sign to mean exactly what the council describe" If you think that then how do you explain the fact that after the signs were erected many thousands of drivers have been caught and (as has been revealed due to a freedom of information request) are still being caught?

Hi I should say that I am not involved in this legal case - I am just helping the driver gather some information because he is not a user of the internet. But, in response to the point you made above: The traffic management order does not contain a legal definition of a u-turn. There is, currently, no legal definition of a u-turn. The only definition of a u-turn provided by any official body that he has been able to find is from the DSA which states that a u-turn means to turn the vehicle round without reversing. What the council have done in this case is to say that, for their purposes, this particular no u-turn sign means something different from what it is generally understood by all drivers to mean - namely to do a turn in the shape of a U by driving forward (and not reversing). But how do drivers that see that sign know that in this particular instance it means something different from what they have always understood it to mean? If they wanted to stop this practice they could have put a sign saying 'No Turning Round'. This is his main argument - there are also other issues relating to visibility. This is why so many motorists (at one point it was around 50 - 60 per day) have been caught out by this. Thanks, M

He is aware that the costs could be very large. I am not sure whether it is possible to predict what the council's court costs could be if he lost? Thanks, MT

Hello I have read several threads about this particular traffic sign at Gliddon Road and the motorists who have received fines for carrying out what the council asserts is a U-turn. The aggrieved motorists argument has consistently been that the type of turn they carried out was not a U-turn but a 3-point turn. The council maintains that this amounts to a u-turn but there is no legal definition of a u-turn. Furthermore, the number of people who have been caught since the signs were erected is in the thousands (I have seen figures - through a freedom of information request - that show the revenue this particular sign has generated in fines runs into the millions of pounds) which suggests there is an element of ambiguity about the sign which the council are profiting from. If they wanted to prevent this manoeuver being carried out the measures they have taken have plainly failed. I know someone who has received a fine for performing this manoeuver and is considering going to the high court to seek judicial review to overturn the PATAS decision rejecting his appeal of the original PCN issued. I would be grateful for any advice or information about the procedure for making an application to the High Court. He is still well within the 3 month period following the rejection of the appeal to the PATAS decision so there is still plenty of time. Has anyone researched this or know where to start? Many thanks!