Are These Road Signs Illegal ?

[green_and_mean]

yeah,the op should go all the way with it,even if it takes years and keeps mounting up,green and mean is gonna contribute to the costs if it fails so there you go rds,phone them up in the morning and tell them you aint paying them nothing and the reasons why,sorted.

 

I have an idea, if you are so convinced he is guilty and should pay why don't you offer to give the money you think he should send to the Council to charity should he win?

[fletch70]

Bloody mad all of you....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If one of you 'experts' would care to check either the Highway Code or directgov site on road signs you will find that the sign shown in this thread is one for

indicting a bus lane at road junction, this case pertains to an infringement at a junction NOT the start at a bus lane as has been put forward as part of a proposed defence.

 

The sign is correct the offence stands.

[citizenkain]

Brigadier,Im no expert but I did check the sign shown also the surrounding roads and signs in that area,I told the op that on page 1,I notice we are on page 4 now. The op seems to want everyone to agree with him which isnt really possible on a public forum.He has been advised by others to appeal,Ive told him good luck with that,obviously if he loses that appeal and carries on down that road court costs,bailliffs costs will mount up,Ive pointed this out.Its really up to the op what he does,me personally,I would give them their £30 and get on with the rest of my life! Thats all Ive got to say on the matter,I wont be texting anymore on this thread cos Im fed up trying to tell someone.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I agree!

 

If they challenge this they will lose hands down though, the sign is the one required for a road junction and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Should this end up before magistrates or a district judge sitting at a magistrates court there will be no defence.

 

As you say costs, possibility of bailiffs cost as well, not worth all this for £30.00 when the offence has obviously been committed.

[Michael Browne]

Brigadier, you are wrong. This is from theTraffic Signs Manual (my bold)

 

15.16 The sign to diagram 962 may be provided onside roads to warn emerging drivers of the presenceof a with-flow bus lane on the major road. The sign should not be necessary where a bus lane commences downstream of the junction, provided that a driver turning into the major road would see a sign to diagram 958 in good time to react to it.

The arrow on the sign indicates the direction of travel within the bus lane. The sign is most likely to be used where the bus lane is on the same side of the major road as the side road; in this case the arrow will point to the left. It will not normally be necessary to provide a sign where the bus lane is on the opposite side of the major road; in most cases the presence of the continuous line to diagram 1049 and a sign to diagram 959 should give adequate warning to drivers as they turn right at the junction. Drivers turning left at the junction do not need to be told that there is a bus lane on the opposite side of the road.

Where there is a banned turn from the side road and this prevents traffic from turning into the major one in the direction of travel of the bus lane,a sign to diagram 962 should not be used.

[fletch70]

regardless of the situation I would say an appeal is definitely worth a punt. Brig I can not see anywhere on the sites you mentioned that said the signs were enough, they are ambiguous.

 

Citizenkain , you are being just bloody minded The only person who suggested going all the way to court is you, if there is no extra costs incurred apart from postage then by all means appeal

[Jamberson]

The problem here is not whether the sign is "correct" in the sense of being a proscribed sign - it is whether it conveys the correct information for that specific junction.

 

Yes, it is appropriate signage at some junctions, when there is a bus lane in the direction of the arrow.

 

The problem is, this sign on its own does not convey to the driver the additional, and crucial, information that there is no available carriageway at all, and therefore that there is no possibility of making a legal left turn.

 

If the bus lane was parallel to an ordinary lane into which one could turn left, and the motorist could make the left turn without violating the bus lane, then fine. They have been advised that there is a bus lane in that direction and they need to be aware not to enter it. But in this case, having been advised that there is a bus lane, they find themselves unwittingly turning into a stretch of road where there is no right of way.

 

To communicate the road layout to the motorist, additional signage would be needed - "no left turn", "buses and taxis ONLY" - that kind of thing.

 

I'm not pretending to be an expert on road signs (as some apparently are, having leafed through their Highway Code) but making a logical, rational judgment, which is what I think an adjudicator would do.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

How is Bus Lane arrow left and a time scale ambiguous?

[Jamberson]

How is Bus Lane arrow left and a time scale ambiguous?

 

See my post just before yours. There is a difference between there being a bus lane next to the car lane, and their being ONLY a bus lane. There's the uncertainty the motorist faces - the ambiguity, in other words.

[Michael Browne]

How is Bus Lane arrow left and a time scale ambiguous?

 

Because it doesn't inform the driver that by turning left there is only a bus lane on the major road. and that during the restricted times a left turn is effectively banned

[filrobbo]

Iam no expert but I would challenge this.

[green_and_mean]

A bus lane is by definition a 'lane' ie it runs alongside regular traffic, this is a bus only route so the sign should state no left turn except buses/cycles 7am to 7pm. The white sign is an advance warning sign it is not a restriction in itself this has been stated numerous times it is really that hard to understand? The restriction is at the start of the lane where it says 'no motor vehicles except taxis and buses' 7am to 7pm, the OP did not drive past this or any other restriction.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Sign appears to be correct under 1994 Traffic signs regulations.

[king12345]

The problem here is not whether the sign is "correct" in the sense of being a proscribed sign - it is whether it conveys the correct information for that specific junction.

 

Yes, it is appropriate signage at some junctions, when there is a bus lane in the direction of the arrow.

 

The problem is, this sign on its own does not convey to the driver the additional, and crucial, information that there is no available carriageway at all, and therefore that there is no possibility of making a legal left turn.

 

If the bus lane was parallel to an ordinary lane into which one could turn left, and the motorist could make the left turn without violating the bus lane, then fine. They have been advised that there is a bus lane in that direction and they need to be aware not to enter it. But in this case, having been advised that there is a bus lane, they find themselves unwittingly turning into a stretch of road where there is no right of way.

 

To communicate the road layout to the motorist, additional signage would be needed - "no left turn", "buses and taxis ONLY" - that kind of thing.

 

I'm not pretending to be an expert on road signs (as some apparently are, having leafed through their Highway Code) but making a logical, rational judgment, which is what I think an adjudicator would do.

AMEN!

[green_and_mean]

Sign appears to be correct under 1994 Traffic signs regulations.

 

 

Correct for what?? The regs (btw the 1994 ones are outdated) do not state what the correct signage is it just says the sign means 'bus lane on road at junction ahead' it does not restrict any type of traffic!! There is also no variation of that sign to indicate if cycles, motorcycles or taxis are allowed in the lane so how would anyone know?? The answer is when you turn left there would be a blue restictive bus lane sign and an alternative lane if you are not in a permitted vehicle. You can argue until you are blue in the face but I have a whole list of qualifications that would tend to indicate I do know what I am talking about!!

[Michael Browne]

Sign appears to be correct under 1994 Traffic signs regulations.

No-one is saying it's an illegal/unauthorised sign as such, but that it's the incorrect sign to use in these particular circumstances

[Jamberson]

Sign appears to be correct under 1994 Traffic signs regulations.

 

The sign is correct! It just doesn't belong at this type of junction.

[sailor sam]

Has anyone got a hammer and chisel?

[caro]

Come on guys. Unless anyone has any new advice for the OP let's draw a line under this.

[crem]

I agree!

 

If they challenge this they will lose hands down though, the sign is the one required for a road junction and ignorance of the law is no excuse.

 

Should this end up before magistrates or a district judge sitting at a magistrates court there will be no defence.

 

As you say costs, possibility of bailiffs cost as well, not worth all this for £30.00 when the offence has obviously been committed.

 

Brigagier, it is disappointing that as an ex site team member, you aren't standing back and looking at the full picture, especially as I am sure you are aware some of the posters in this thread have demonstrated their in depth understanding of council PCNs. Not least G&M who, although we know can be quite cutting at times, has a very detailed understanding of council workings and is just as happy to say "pay it" as not if he thinks the signs are OK.

 

No one in this thread has said the sign in question is "wrong" pursae, but what is being said is that this sign alone is insufficient to convey the correct instruction.

 

The appeals process is free and, should the OP loose, he will be required only to pay the value of the PCN as stated in law. There is no escalation of costs or court fees or solicitors to pay for. Please don't pour oil on citizenkain's fire unless you can explain these costs as has been asked of citizenkain.

Edited December 2, 2013 by crem

[crem]

Come on guys. Unless anyone has any new advice for the OP let's draw a line under this.

 

I think there is quite a lot of advise in the thread albeit somewhat clouded by certain peoples repetitive (and downright wrong) advise about the (non-existant) risk of huge costs following an appeal.

 

1 OP can pay it now and it will go away and he will be down the cost of the PCN

2 He can appeal it for free to the council and maybe win. Cost would be zero

3 He can appeal it for free to the council and maybe loose. Then pay it at the cost of the PCN.

4 On loosing he can appeal to PATAS for free and maybe win. Cost would be zero

5 He can appeal it for free to PATAS and maybe loose. Then pay it at the cost of the PCN.

 

Seems like lots of choices and enough info in the thread to help the OP make a choice.

Edited December 1, 2013 by crem

[Jamberson]

Come on guys. Unless anyone has any new advice for the OP let's draw a line under this.

 

It's important to get to the bottom of this sign issue - it's essential to the case. It's true that some of the posts have been less than constructive, but in the end we seem to be getting somewhere.

[caro]

It's important to get to the bottom of this sign issue - it's essential to the case. It's true that some of the posts have been less than constructive, but in the end we seem to be getting somewhere.

 

Constructive is good but let's keep it civil and explain where advice is flawed. As you say, it's for the OP to research the advice and make an informed decision on how to proceed.

[citizenkain]

hmm,I know several people that have contested similar tickets and it has snowballed for one reason and another into a bigger court case,ie,letters being lost,moving home etc,the op has had some good advice here and certain people have offered to pay any costs so the op cant really lose,in a similar situation I would just tell luton council Im not paying them nothing and just take any fine going,eventually it will add up a bit but thats ok,theres folk at cag chipping in!,lol,just do that rds,I would if I was you!dont bother just paying the £30 and getting on with your life.