Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Reading Bus Fine: Minister Street
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Matthew1
Hi, hope you can help me.

I recently did some promo work in Reading (I'm unfamiliar with the area) and my dad received a letter in the post yesterday for driving west on Minister Street about 9am. (he's the registered keeper)


The thing is, I honestly didn't see any signage specific to this road, and even if I had, the road isn't easy to reverse course on anyway.

I really want to contest, just as it seems unfair that I hadn't seen the signage (and I would consider myself to be a competent driver and able to obey the signs if I see them...)

I'll upload the files later tonight when I have my scanner working.

Any advice muchly appreciated!

Kind regards,

Matt
John U.K.
QUOTE
I'll upload the files later tonight when I have my scanner working.


Please also post a GSV (Google Street View) link to location.
For guidance on posting paperwork:
As usual, please post up the PCN (both sides)

Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.

Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
Matthew1
Here you go!





And here's the street view link.

Thanks for the advice for upload

Kind regards,
Matt

As I look on the street maps I see the a sign that I believe is supposed to warn me that the road will turn into a bus lane - but by the time it's close enough to read (and there's a wall of text on that sign so it cant be done from far back) it's too late to turn around.

Here's the street map of the signs in question, and their placement

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4551026,-...3312!8i6656

Note all other routes from that point are no entry. So if you reach that traffic light you are practically guaranteed a ticket unless you do a u-turn, in oncoming traffic, on a busy high street area, at a low visibility bend.

That seems rather unfair.. sad.gif
PASTMYBEST
Can you mark on the map your route to minster st. My thinking is the lack of advance warning signs, then once you are there, there is nowhere else to go

But i cannot work out how you got there
Matthew1
Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/SM2+5DZ,+...33;2d51.4536142

There's the exact journey I used from google to get to the Oracle Shopping Centre (and promptly then left to find free parking further afield!)

Thank you for your assistance! You are all such lovely people smile.gif

Kind regards,
Matt
Matthew1
Going back quite a ways I came across this sign - but again it's a wall of text that you haven't a great deal of time to read.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4549342,-...3312!8i6656
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Thu, 3 Sep 2015 - 22:51) *
Going back quite a ways I came across this sign - but again it's a wall of text that you haven't a great deal of time to read.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4549342,-...3312!8i6656


gottcha

the signs are a mess, and do give adequate warning, then you are left with nowhere to go. Will check the regs tomorrow and see what signage should/could have been used
Matthew1
Thank you so much! smile.gif Really appreciate the help!
Incandescent
Lack of/missing/misleading signage is grounds for cancellation of the PCN, but you will have to take the matter to TPT as Reading, a particularly venal and rapacious council never give way. So steel yourself to put the full PCN penalty in play if you fight this one. As your father is responsible for the PCN as owner, he is responsible for payment if the adjudicator decides against you, and bailiffs will chase him not you if you lost at TPT, the adjudicators. So you need to agree with your father who will cough up if the case is lost.
Matthew1
Hi Incandescent.

My dad has made it absolutely clear it's my problem if I challenge.

But yes I am aware of the risks involved, but I seem to have been herded into a trap, and I don't like it at all. I'm happy to fight as much as needed!

I just don't know how to appropriately, so I am grateful for all the advice being given here smile.gif

Matt
PASTMYBEST
The only TRO i could find, it is an experimental order that has expired, so we will need the order that makes in permanent.


http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/files/RG141B.pdf

But according to this order then minster street is not a bus lane so any offence committed would be failing to comply with a road sign.
Matthew1
Interesting find, thank you. And, does that mean that the bus lane contravention is incorrect and therefore void?

Provided of course that TRO (Traffic...Regulation Order?) is still active?

Sorry for my confusion.
Matthew1
I'm also looking what appears to be a provisional copy of The Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook (Second Edition)

If someone can confirm if the wording in whatever publication is now in effect is the same for article 5.1.2?


5.1.2 Every image of the offence shall show, in addition to the offending vehicle, in the order
given: the date in days, month, and year, the time in hours, minutes, and seconds, the
day of the week, location and frame count from the beginning of the recording. The
data shall be imprinted on the image or included in the violation record at the time the
offence is recorded.


If so then I have further grounds, which I quote from the wonderful Gooner case:
QUOTE
The images do not show all the required data and do not show it in the order given.
Only “approved devices” can be used for CCTV enforcement. The failure to show the correct information and in the correct order must mean that the device used was not approved and therefore not lawful and the images are inadmissible to show any contravention or alleged contravention. The failure of the PCN to show lawful images renders it void and therefore there is no evidence of a breach of the bus lane order or regulation.


The missing/incorrect info would be the day of the week omitted, location in wrong...location, and frame count in wrong location.
Matthew1
In continuing to search for info I came across this on Reading.gov's site, a list of signage before Minister road.

On it it brings up the two signs that I've previously mentioned, but also a road marking instructing vehicles to turn left.

Apart from the fact I most certainly did NOT see that road marking (I can only assume it was obscured by a vehicle in front though I cannot honestly remember), the road marking appears moments before the wall of text sign that can sometimes allow vehicles to proceed straight ahead.

And in none of these signs do I see mention of incoming bus lane!

Here's a link to the Reading.gov info: http://beta.reading.gov.uk/media/2780/Mins...et_Bus_Lane.pdf

Kind regards,
Matt
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Thu, 3 Sep 2015 - 23:59) *
Interesting find, thank you. And, does that mean that the bus lane contravention is incorrect and therefore void?

Provided of course that TRO (Traffic...Regulation Order?) is still active?

Sorry for my confusion.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


Subsection 5(b) allows the definition of bus lane so no go there, but ask the council for a copy of the TRO anyway,can't believe they would not have one, but stranger things have happened
Incandescent
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Thu, 3 Sep 2015 - 23:32) *
Hi Incandescent.

My dad has made it absolutely clear it's my problem if I challenge.

But yes I am aware of the risks involved, but I seem to have been herded into a trap, and I don't like it at all. I'm happy to fight as much as needed!

I just don't know how to appropriately, so I am grateful for all the advice being given here smile.gif

Matt

Your Dad cannot escape responsibility, but can authorise you to act for him. If at the end, the case is lost, your father retains responsibility for payment.
Matthew1
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 4 Sep 2015 - 09:34) *
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


Subsection 5(b) allows the definition of bus lane so no go there, but ask the council for a copy of the TRO anyway,can't believe they would not have one, but stranger things have happened


Does that mean I should go ahead with the formal challenge now, and ask for the TRO regarding Minister Street as part of the appeal?

Also, do I still have grounds if it's definitely a bus lane? I still didn't realize till it was too late..
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Fri, 4 Sep 2015 - 13:07) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 4 Sep 2015 - 09:34) *
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/section/144


Subsection 5(b) allows the definition of bus lane so no go there, but ask the council for a copy of the TRO anyway,can't believe they would not have one, but stranger things have happened


Does that mean I should go ahead with the formal challenge now, and ask for the TRO regarding Minister Street as part of the appeal?

Also, do I still have grounds if it's definitely a bus lane? I still didn't realize till it was too late..


You can challenge on the basis that the signage was insufficient to convey the restriction.

Ask for the TRO now, but do not miss the deadline to make your challenge I make that the 14th sept
Matthew1
Okay thanks, is the TRO I ask the council directly or do I include it as part of my formal appeal ?

Also, Is there anything in pursuing the grounds that the cameras do not conform to requirements as I mentioned above.

Gonna start writing my appeal now smile.gif
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Fri, 4 Sep 2015 - 13:25) *
Okay thanks, is the TRO I ask the council directly or do I include it as part of my formal appeal ?

Also, Is there anything in pursuing the grounds that the cameras do not conform to requirements as I mentioned above.

Gonna start writing my appeal now smile.gif



E mail and ask for the tro straight away.

I thought there was something not quite right about the signs, but the have been authorised.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2390.pdf

That being the case we will have to focus on the sign in your post 6 link on King st.

I would argue that the sign as it is (would be viewed as an information sign by a motorist navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island, and being wary of pedestrians, it would only warrant a cursory glance. To give it more prominence and warn drivers of the upcoming restriction A sign warning of the prohibition(619 and 620 as authorized with supplementary plate giving distance ahead) this would draw a drivers attention to a prohibition, but as a single sign could still be obscured by large vehicles and so missed. placing further signs on the other side of duke street would help minimize this

This will have no effect whatsoever on the council who will just say our signs are ok. But they may fail to consider your arguments properly and give a further avenue of appeal.

It may point an adjudicator however, in the direction you want, that the signage is insufficient
Matthew1
Here is my current appeal as it stands:

I wish to appeal against this Penalty Charge Notice.

In doing so I take note of the article on the reading.gov website regarding current signposts and road markings currently in use to advise motorists of the bus lane restriction. The article can be found in the below link:

http://beta.reading.gov.uk/media/2780/Mins...et_Bus_Lane.pdf

In appealing against this notice I also take note of the plan GT50/124/004 taken from the Department for Transport website and highlight the diagrams labled diag.619 and diag.620 as supplied. This information can be found in the below link.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2390.pdf

My grounds for appeal are:

1. That the bus lane is not adequately and/or lawfully signed

The signs erected at the beginning of Minister Street are not visible or able to be clearly read until after a motorist has reached the end of Kings Street. At this point, the only possible route is following Minister Street as all other routes are clearly signposted as No Entry using approved signs. At this point, even if the only option available to avoid proceeding down Minister Street was for a motorist to perform a u-turn, in oncoming traffic, on a busy high street area and at a low visibility bend, this would not be possible either as traffic only flows in one direction down this part of Kings Street and the motorist would be forced to drive into oncoming traffic.

The sign posted before the box junction kings street I would argue that as it is would be viewed as an information sign by a motorist navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island, and being wary of pedestrians. As such it would only warrant a cursory glance. The sign also is excessively worded, preventing a motorist, navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island and being wary of pedestrians, from reading the entire sign. As a result I would argue that the sign is insufficient to warn motorists of the oncoming, unavoidable bus lane ahead.
To give it more prominence and warn drivers of the upcoming restriction a sign warning of the prohibition(619 and 620 as authorized with supplementary plate giving distance ahead) should be used. This would draw a drivers attention to a prohibition, but as a single sign could still be obscured by large vehicles and so missed. placing further signs on the other side of duke street would help minimize this.

The road marking prior to the aforementioned sign was obscured by traffic in front of the vehicle and as such was not seen my the driver. Had the marking been read however, it also does not qualify to warn the driver of an oncoming bus restriction ahead, and therefore on it's own would be insufficient warning for a motorist navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island, and being wary of pedestrians.

2. That there were no signs stating enforcement cameras were in use.

The enforcement camera sign on Kings Road is not visible to a driver entering Kings Street via Abbey Street. Therefore, on the route the driver took on the day in question, there were no signs warning the driver on oncoming enforcement cameras.

3. The evidence fails to capture the alleged offence.

4. The enforcement camera involved does not meet operational requirements and therefore evidence captured on this enforcement camera is invalid.

The pictures of the alleged contravention supplied on the PCN do not conform to The Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook published by the Home Office.
This states as an “operational requirement” in item 5.1.2 that:
“Every image of the offence shall show, in addition to the offending vehicle, in the order given: the date in days, month, and year, the time in hours, minutes, and seconds, the day of the week, location and frame count from the beginning of the recording. The data shall be imprinted on the image or included in the violation record at the time the offence is recorded.”
The images do not show all the required data and do not show it in the order given.
Only “approved devices” can be used for CCTV enforcement. The failure to show the correct information and in the correct order must mean that the device used was not approved and therefore not lawful and the images are inadmissible to show any contravention or alleged contravention. The failure of the PCN to show lawful images renders it void and therefore there is no evidence of a breach of the bus lane order or regulation.

Should these representations be rejected then please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following documents:

a) A copy of the bus lane order or regulation giving effect to the Bus Lane.
b) A copy of the Safety Audit for this road layout.
c) A copy of the engineer’s scale diagrams showing the layout of this Bus Lane, the road markings and the signage (including warnings of camera enforcement).
d) Copies of any approvals of deviations of signage from TSRGD.
e) Logs of maintenance visits verifying existence and condition of the signs.
f) Certification of type approval of the CCTV device.
g) Details of the number of times that the videotape used has been degaussed and reused.
h) A copy of the Camera Enforcement logbook recording the alleged contravention.
i) Copies of the still images showing all the required information in the correct order.
j) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location.
k) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and cancel following informal challenges.
l) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and cancelled by them following formal appeal to them.
m) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and cancelled following appeal to a PATAS adjudicator.
n) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and not pursued by them for any other reason.
o) The average monthly penalty revenue raised in respect of this location.


How am I looking?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Mon, 7 Sep 2015 - 21:43) *
Here is my current appeal as it stands:

I wish to appeal against this Penalty Charge Notice.

In doing so I take note of the article on the reading.gov website regarding current signposts and road markings currently in use to advise motorists of the bus lane restriction. The article can be found in the below link:

http://beta.reading.gov.uk/media/2780/Mins...et_Bus_Lane.pdf

In appealing against this notice I also take note of the plan GT50/124/004 taken from the Department for Transport website and highlight the diagrams labled diag.619 and diag.620 as supplied. This information can be found in the below link.

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2390.pdf

My grounds for appeal are:

1. That the bus lane is not adequately and/or lawfully signed

The signs erected at the beginning of Minister Street are not visible or able to be clearly read until after a motorist has reached the end of Kings Street. At this point, the only possible route is following Minister Street as all other routes are clearly signposted as No Entry using approved signs. At this point, even if the only option available to avoid proceeding down Minister Street was for a motorist to perform a u-turn, in oncoming traffic, on a busy high street area and at a low visibility bend, this would not be possible either as traffic only flows in one direction down this part of Kings Street and the motorist would be forced to drive into oncoming traffic.

The sign posted before the box junction kings street I would argue that as it is would be viewed as an information sign by a motorist navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island, and being wary of pedestrians. As such it would only warrant a cursory glance. The sign also is excessively worded, preventing a motorist, navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island and being wary of pedestrians, from reading the entire sign. As a result I would argue that the sign is insufficient to warn motorists of the oncoming, unavoidable bus lane ahead.
To give it more prominence and warn drivers of the upcoming restriction a sign warning of the prohibition(619 and 620 as authorized with supplementary plate giving distance ahead) should be used. This would draw a drivers attention to a prohibition, but as a single sign could still be obscured by large vehicles and so missed. placing further signs on the other side of duke street would help minimize this.

The road marking prior to the aforementioned sign was obscured by traffic in front of the vehicle and as such was not seen my the driver. Had the marking been read however, it also does not qualify to warn the driver of an oncoming bus restriction ahead, and therefore on it's own would be insufficient warning for a motorist navigating a junction narrowed by a traffic island, and being wary of pedestrians.

2. That there were no signs stating enforcement cameras were in use.

The enforcement camera sign on Kings Road is not visible to a driver entering Kings Street via Abbey Street. Therefore, on the route the driver took on the day in question, there were no signs warning the driver on oncoming enforcement cameras.

3. The evidence fails to capture the alleged offence.

4. The enforcement camera involved does not meet operational requirements and therefore evidence captured on this enforcement camera is invalid.

The pictures of the alleged contravention supplied on the PCN do not conform to The Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook published by the Home Office.
This states as an “operational requirement” in item 5.1.2 that:
“Every image of the offence shall show, in addition to the offending vehicle, in the order given: the date in days, month, and year, the time in hours, minutes, and seconds, the day of the week, location and frame count from the beginning of the recording. The data shall be imprinted on the image or included in the violation record at the time the offence is recorded.”
The images do not show all the required data and do not show it in the order given.
Only “approved devices” can be used for CCTV enforcement. The failure to show the correct information and in the correct order must mean that the device used was not approved and therefore not lawful and the images are inadmissible to show any contravention or alleged contravention. The failure of the PCN to show lawful images renders it void and therefore there is no evidence of a breach of the bus lane order or regulation.

Should these representations be rejected then please treat this as a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for the following documents:

a) A copy of the bus lane order or regulation giving effect to the Bus Lane.
b) A copy of the Safety Audit for this road layout.
c) A copy of the engineer’s scale diagrams showing the layout of this Bus Lane, the road markings and the signage (including warnings of camera enforcement).
d) Copies of any approvals of deviations of signage from TSRGD.
e) Logs of maintenance visits verifying existence and condition of the signs.
f) Certification of type approval of the CCTV device.
g) Details of the number of times that the videotape used has been degaussed and reused.
h) A copy of the Camera Enforcement logbook recording the alleged contravention.
i) Copies of the still images showing all the required information in the correct order.
j) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location.
k) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and cancel following informal challenges.
l) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and cancelled by them following formal appeal to them.
m) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and cancelled following appeal to a PATAS adjudicator.
n) The number of PCNs issued in respect of this location and not pursued by them for any other reason.
o) The average monthly penalty revenue raised in respect of this location.


How am I looking?



Hate the last bit , the ROI request, most of what you are asking for is irrelevant and just marks you out as someone who has done no more that cut and paste a lot of outdated info from the net. But your choice
Matthew1
Fair enough - that's because that's exactly what I did with the FOI bit tongue.gif I'll leave that out then as I guess I can always ask for that directly.

The rest sounds okay?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Mon, 7 Sep 2015 - 23:06) *
Fair enough - that's because that's exactly what I did with the FOI bit tongue.gif I'll leave that out then as I guess I can always ask for that directly.

The rest sounds okay?


It covers the points so unless others think differently fire away. Don't miss the 14 day deadline
Matthew2
I am the OP. The hotmail email fiasco going on with Fightback is causing no end of stress.

Anyway, I've got this back after I sent off my appeal...not sure where to go from here, or if my concerns were properly addressed or just given a blanket reply..





Any help appreciated, as I'm not sure whether to give in or not..
Incandescent
Not a bad letter of rejection, so maybe Reading have read my description of them as "ruthless, venal, and rapacious" and decided to reform a teeny-weeny bit !!

Essentially they are trying to refute the points made in your appeal, and have now challenged you to either pay-up at the discounted rate, or take the matter to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal with the full PCN amount in play. This is the "double-or-quits" part of the enforcement process. BTW, in offering the discount in their rejection they are behaving reasonably. Not everybody does this, Nottingham are particularly ruthless and even say on their PCNs that if you appeal you won't get the discount; needless to say they are now the new prize winner on this forum for ruthlessness, venality and rapacity !! Aat least in my eyes).

SO it is now up to you. They say everything is tickety-boo, you say it's not by any means. To see who is right, you would have to go to the TPT. You would need to prepare carefully and provide photos refuting their claim it is all OK.

Matthew2
Well, that's what I wanted advice on. Do you all think its worth giving up at this point, or do I still have valid grounds? I do feel like they failed to listen to my argument that the single sign beforehand is both too long to read in full when driving past and also not clear enough to warn of the trap ahead. And they never responded to my argument about the camera sign not being there on the route I took. They just said where the sign is, and didn't respond to my claim. As for the camera itself, they just say it's an approved device, and don't address the concern I have which implies that the camera should not have been approved at all.


So yeah, I need help with what I should do now, and what to write if I continue to appeal.

Disheartened is an understatement at this point...sad.gif
Incandescent
QUOTE
I do feel like they failed to listen to my argument that the single sign beforehand is both too long to read in full when driving past and also not clear enough to warn of the trap ahead.

If you go to TPT, then this would be your main point of appeal, and you have to convince the adjudicator. If the sign is placed where a motorists eyes would be elsewhere, pedestrian crossing, traffic lights, etc, etc, you could appeal on this, but it is subjective, I'm afraid, some adjudicators may agree, others may not. You would have to emphasise the difficulty of first seeing and then reading the sign and understanding it in the time it takes when you first see it to passing it. I agree they haven't addressed this point, so you could point this out too, to the adjudicator.

Absence of camera signs is not grounds for cancellation, they are merely recommended.

If it were me, I'd probably go to TPT, but I can afford to lose the £60, maybe you can't. There is no guarantee of a win here, I'm afraid
Matthew1
Update:

Success at tribunal! smile.gif


Finally got on to my original account, so can post as OP again.

It went to tribunal, and Reading sent a whole load of information to try and address every point, including sending copies of the legislation that the cameras are supposedly conforming to.

As a note for others wanting to use the "information on cameras not supplied" take note however, that Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook is no longer one of the documents that cameras need to conform to, and the operational requirements are now significantly different from that handbook. Oh well.

However, my appeal was still a success - the adjudicator could see where my confusion regarding inadequate signage lied, and said that "Minister Street has improved significantly with it's signage from my past cases, however, in my opinion, not enough."


Thanks for your help, Incandescent and PASTMYBEST, much appreciated!
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Matthew1 @ Sun, 29 Nov 2015 - 03:26) *
Update:

Success at tribunal! smile.gif


Finally got on to my original account, so can post as OP again.

It went to tribunal, and Reading sent a whole load of information to try and address every point, including sending copies of the legislation that the cameras are supposedly conforming to.

As a note for others wanting to use the "information on cameras not supplied" take note however, that Bus Lane Enforcement Camera Handbook is no longer one of the documents that cameras need to conform to, and the operational requirements are now significantly different from that handbook. Oh well.

However, my appeal was still a success - the adjudicator could see where my confusion regarding inadequate signage lied, and said that "Minister Street has improved significantly with it's signage from my past cases, however, in my opinion, not enough."


Thanks for your help, Incandescent and PASTMYBEST, much appreciated!


please post up the decision letter it may be of help to others
Matthew1

No paperwork arrived, only information delivered online. However the PCN no longer appears on the Reading site so guess they cba with sending an actual cancellation letter, haha!

I've copied and pasted the response below:

Adjudicator’s Decision

xxxxxxxxxxx and Reading Borough Council

Penalty Charge Notice xxxxxxxxxxxxx £0.00

Appeal allowed on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

I direct the Council to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Mr xxxxxxxxxxx took part in a telephone hearing; the Council did not participate.

PCN dated 27 August 2015 was issued by post in respect of a contravention on 23 August 2015 at 09:15 relating to vehicle xxxxxxxxxx in Minster St (Westbound) for being in a bus lane.

Mr xxxxxxxxx explained that he had not been alerted to the presence of the bus gate until he was about to enter it: by that point he was unable to avoid driving into it as the alternative would have caused unnecessary danger to pedestrians and other road users.

The Council’s evidence shows that the signs used at the start of the bus lane comply with the special authorisation granted by the DfT and that they are therefore lawful signs.

The photographs also show an advance warning sign advising that traffic ahead is restricted and that other traffic should turn left:

In addition, the carriageway at this point bears the legend “ALL TRAFFIC”:

Mr xxxxxxxxxxx explained that the legend was covered by another vehicle and he simply did not see it. Whilst he was aware of the written sign he was unable to absorb its meaning in the second or two it took to pass by. He had no idea, then, that there was a bus lane ahead or that he should not be heading that way.

When he arrived at the entrance to the bus lane he saw the signs, realised he should not drive though, but considered it entirely unsafe to attempt to manoeuvre his way back. He did not know that there would not be traffic coming towards him from Minster Street.

In my view, whilst the signs are lawful, they are not adequate in the particular circumstances of this location.

The advance warning sign is placed on King’s Road, before its junction with Duke Street. It is Duke Street that non-authorised traffic should take. Ahead is King Street which, at its end, turns into Minster Street and the bus gate.

The absence of any advance warning on King Street of the approaching bus gate is an unfortunate omission from the sign arrangement here, particularly since the only advance warning sign is unusually wordy for reading from a moving vehicle. I do not criticise the sign itself merely that on its own it is insufficient.

The appeal is allowed and no payment is required from Mr xxxxxxxxxx.

M F Kennedy

Adjudicator 2 December 2015
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.