FPN Wrong way through temporary no entry, followed police car through temporary no entry sign Options

[Tiempo]

Hi,

My wife was following a police car and another car the other evening. They went through a temporary no entry sign, apparently some emergency roadworks. A policeman stopped my wife and issued her with a FPN for failing to obey the notice - even though she pointed out that she was following the police car and the other car - and other cars were going through the sign when he had stopped her.

Apparently a workman was putting one of the no entry signs up as she was speaking with the policeman.

FPN here:

I've also attached the temporary traffic order

What's the best thing for her to do? She's produced her licence and said that she would take it to court.

[Advertisement]

[Logician]

She can either:
a) Opt for a quiet life, accept the ticket and suffer 3 points and a £60 penalty, or
b) do as she said she would and take it to court. If she wins, then she suffers no penalty. If she loses, then the fine will be higher and based on her income, there will be a surcharge of 10% minimum £20 and costs will be up to £620.

Points to note:
Other vehicles going through have little relevance, except possible mitigation that she was misled by them.
Timing is crucial, if the signs were being put up when when she was speaking to the officer, then presumably they were not completely up when she went through. The temporary TRO states "4. This notice will not have effect until all necessary traffic signs have been erected, covered or removed in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002." Note the word "all", if any of the work on the signs was not complete, then the TRO has no effect. I would serve a FoI request on the Council, asking when the work was completed. This may give her a very solid defence.

[glasgow_bhoy]

Any pictures of the signage?

[Tiempo]

Here's the signage.



Any thoughts?

This post has been edited by Tiempo: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 - 20:10

[southpaw82]

Yes. The backing boards must be grey or orange, not white. The signs are arguably unlawful.

[sgtdixie]

I would never like to commit to stating what constitutes white, off white, cream or grey from an internet photo, but I believe the significant element is

Apparently a workman was putting one of the no entry signs up as she was speaking with the policeman.

I do not believe based on this 2nd hand account that the signage was complete at the time the alleged offence occurred. This will almost certainly require a court appearance.

[Tiempo]

Thanks guys, my wife can't say categorically that one of the no entry signs was or wasn't there, so she can't go down that route (pardon the pun). So it looks like the only option is to argue about the legality of the sign. I've tried to find the appropriate part of the traffic signs manual in chapters 3 and 8 but I've failed to find the wording that says what colour the background should be. Could someone give me a pointer please?

Links below. Thanks.

Chapter 3
Chapter 8

[southpaw82]

Direction 42 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

[Tiempo]

Thank you southpaw82 - I'll check that.

Also Chapter 7

USE OF BACKING BOARDS
14.19 To improve conspicuity against a complex or
dark background, a sign may be mounted on either a
grey or a yellow backing board (direction 42(5)). This
board must not be provided with an additional black
border. White backing boards are not permitted. No
legend may be applied directly to a backing board.

[southpaw82]

Yes but the TSM is not law. The TSRGD is.

[Tiempo]

OK, I'm really happy! But now I guess the hard work will start. Tactically, should my wife wait until close to the 28 days specified on the fpn and then respond? Is there a standard letter that can be written?

Thanks very much.

I'm going to bed now! (not that I'm expecting any kind of reward )

[southpaw82]

No reason to wait.

[Logician]

Thanks guys, my wife can't say categorically that one of the no entry signs was or wasn't there, so she can't go down that route (pardon the pun).

It doesn't matter whether she can say that or not, what matters is when all the erection of the temporary signage was completed, and any other necessary changes were made. That migh not be until, say, a sign for traffic coming the other way was erected. As I say, serve an FoI request on the Council Highways Dept asking the exact time when this was completed. It may give you another string to your bow, or could be the clincher. Magistrates may not see the colour of the backing boards as of much importance but if there is a letter from the Council stating that a condition of the TRO was not complied with until after your wife's alleged offence, that can hardly be disputed.

[Tiempo]

Logician, the signage had been there for a few days before (approx. 22nd March) and was taken down the next day (28th March). I understand you to mean that if they were to have been setting the signage up then there would be a case.

[sgtdixie]

Logician, the signage had been there for a few days before (approx. 22nd March) and was taken down the next day (28th March). I understand you to mean that if they were to have been setting the signage up then there would be a case.

You need to make up your mind what the facts are. Originally you said

Apparently a workman was putting one of the no entry signs up as she was speaking with the policeman

.

How can we effectively advise when your story changes so fundamentally?

[Tiempo]

My previous posts were not intended to be ambiguous.
Wife followed police car through "no entry".
Policeman at side of road let police car pass and stopped wife.
During discussion with Policeman, wife noticed someone putting a sign up. I showed her the photo last night and she cannot remember which sign the person was putting up.
A number of cars went through the "no entry" while my wife was talking with the police officer.
Police officer issued PCN above.
The traffic Order attached to my first post indicates that it was active from 22nd March and we know that the signs and roadworks were removed the day after my wife was stopped - i.e. 28th March.
We do not know exactly which signs were erected and when.

I think, on the advice given and the fact that, with evidence, the signage was not as per TSRGD this is the best defence therefore I would ask if anyone can help with the correct format/wording for a defence please?

This post has been edited by Tiempo: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 - 07:39

[The Rookie]

So as well as the backing board colour, you raise the issue that the signage was not complete as work was seen to be ongoing, the onus will then be on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was complete, if she can testify that they were working on 'a' (any) sign that could be enough for reasonable doubt.

The law requires the signs to adequately portray the restriction, both issues are opportunities for your wife to argue that was not the case and hence she had no reason to believe the restriction was in place (in a legal rather than 'wishful' sense).

[southpaw82]

RTA 88 s. 36(2) troubles me. A sign can be lawfully placed if it either conveys a restriction, prohibition etc or is specified. The no entry sign is specified, IIRC, so does it matter that any TRO was not in force (because not all the signs had been placed)? Is it still lawfully placed simply by virtue of being specified? This is where the white backing board comes into play, because an unlawful sign can never be lawfully placed.

[Tiempo]

I'm having a little trouble here. I can't find the actual Direction 42 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. Am I looking in the right place?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/3113/contents/made


I've found this wording but I don't know if this is Direction 42 or not.

70.
Direction 42(1) requires the backs of any signs provided under regulation 53 or Schedules 1 to 5, 7 or 12 (apart from certain specified exceptions) to be grey, black or in a non-reflective metallic finish.
BACKING BOARDS
77.
The only colours permitted for backing boards are grey or yellow. White is not prescribed (and is particularly inappropriate for white background national speed limit signs to diagram 671). Direction 42(7) specifies that if a yellow backing board is used for a sign other than a boundary sign to diagram 2402.1 it must be rectangular. Contoured yellow borders are not backing boards and signs with red roundels or triangles do not conform to the signs prescribed in the Schedules if they have yellow borders. However, grey backing boards can be non-rectangular to minimise sign clutter and environmental intrusion.


Meanwhile, I'm composing the letter .....

[southpaw82]

That's guidance on direction 42.


Mounting and backing of signs

42.—(1) The back of any sign shown in a diagram in Schedules 1 to 5, 7, Part II of Schedule 10 or in Schedule 12, or prescribed by regulation 53, other than the sign shown in diagram 651, 970, 971, 972, 973.2, 973.3, 2610, 2610.1, 2610.2, 7101.1, 7102, 7103, 7104 or 7105 shall be coloured—

(a)black if the sign is mounted on the same post as that on which light signals prescribed by regulation 33(1) (or those signals as varied in accordance with regulation 34) or light signals prescribed by regulation 33(2) and regulation 35 are mounted; or
(b)grey, black or in a non-reflective metallic finish in any other case, except that—
(i)information about sites for placing and the ownership of the sign and an identification code for maintenance purposes may be indicated on the back of the sign in characters not exceeding 25 millimetres in height, where they are shown in a contrasting colour, or in characters not exceeding 50 millimetres in height, where they are embossed in the same colour; and
(ii)information about the manufacture of the sign required in order to comply with British Standard Specification BS 873 or a corresponding EEA Standard, occupying an area not exceeding 30 square centimetres, may be indicated on the back of the sign in characters not exceeding 5 millimetres in height.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall apply to the back of any backing board or other fitting provided for the assembly of such a sign as is referred to in paragraph (1) (including any container enclosing apparatus for the illumination of such a sign).

(3) The back of the sign shown in diagram 7104 or 7105 shall be coloured grey, red, white, black or yellow, except that—

(a)information about sites for placing and the ownership of the sign may be indicated on the back of the sign in characters not exceeding 50 millimetres in height, where they are shown in a contrasting colour, or in characters not exceeding 80 millimetres in height, where they are embossed in the same colour; and
(b)information about the manufacture of the sign required in order to comply with British Standard Specification BS 873 or a corresponding EEA Standard, occupying an area not exceeding 30 square centimetres, may be indicated on the back of the sign in characters not exceeding 5 millimetres in height.
(4) The back of the sign shown in diagram 651, 970, 971, 972, 973.2, 973.3, 2610, 2610.1 or 2610.2 may be of any colour.

(5) The front of any backing board for a sign mounted otherwise than as described in paragraph (1)(a) shall be coloured either grey or yellow.

(6) A yellow backing board for a sign (except one for the sign shown in diagram 2402.1) shall be rectangular in shape.

(7) A backing board for the sign shown in diagram 2402.1 may be of any shape including rectangular.

(8) The sign shown in diagram 2403.1 shall not be mounted on a backing board with any other sign.

(9) In this direction “backing board” in relation to a sign includes any background (except a wall to which the sign is affixed) against which the sign is displayed.