Tribunal brands Park Way bridge signs illegal Options

[DJE]

Are you sure it was a council that put this up?

No, I'm not sure the council erected the yellow signs, which is why I said 'it looks like'.

The signs are either on the public highway, or on the (council-controlled) car park, so a council (WBC? Newbury?) certainly has responsibility for taking them down.

One of the yellow signs is attached to street furniture ( a signpost IIRC), very low, and for good measure has a reinforcing bar at the back with sharp ends near eye-height.

I cannot believe WBC is unaware of these signs and WBC is asking for trouble by leaving them in place.

[DJE]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a thread on here a while back at around the time the facelift for the museum was being unveiled which made comment about the big ugly yellow sign on a massive pole directly outside the front entrance of said tourist hotspot?

Depending on your favoured architectural viewpoint you may have thought the revamp was a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much loved Newbury friend, or thought it a visionary link between old and new. Both camps however seemed to think the big eyesore of a sign to be a big sorry blot on a reasonable vista and gateway into the town.

That big ugly pole and sign is gone..



That's good isn't it?.....


What's the issue? The bollards are just a physical means of reinforcing a traffic ban, which helps keep pedestrians safe in the pedestrian zone right?

One sign is more than enough in a 20mph zone anyway...


(...sits back, settles down, opens bag of popcorn and waits to see if DJE takes the bait....)

Bait taken. And Yes, I meant the museum not the library, whoops.

Yes, the left hand 'Pedestrian Zone' sign by the Museum in the photo a few posts above has since been taken down - perhaps because some of the public have requested it. So the council is fully aware of the present state of the signs.

But (and I may be wrong on this point), I understand that the law requires signs on both sides of the carriageway at all entrances to a traffic zone.

The missing sign might invalidate the entire traffic zone and in turn invalidate the legal permissions for all the rising bollards. That might be a costly mistake for the taxpayer if a car is damaged.

[DJE]

The legality of the signage is trivial compared to the ridiculous road-layout in the area and the poor traffic management in the town.

The most important issue is that we have a council that pursues motorists for fines knowing full well that road signs are not lawful (and is responsible for erecting the signs to boot), and yet sees itself as above the law when it comes to erecting signs, complying with traffic regulations, fulfilling their obligations to properly inform motorists of their rights of appeal, and repaying funds they have knowingly illegally obtained.

Punishing people for non-existent technical crimes while breaking the law themselves with apparent impunity.

That is what angers me.

For the record, I have never been fined by the council. It's not personal, it is the principle.

[spartacus]

Yes, the left hand 'Pedestrian Zone' sign by the Museum in the photo a few posts above has since been taken down - perhaps because some of the public have requested it. So the council is fully aware of the present state of the signs.

But (and I may be wrong on this point), I understand that the law requires signs on both sides of the carriageway at all entrances to a traffic zone.

The missing sign might invalidate the entire traffic zone and in turn invalidate the legal permissions for all the rising bollards. That might be a costly mistake for the taxpayer if a car is damaged.

You're observant if you've noticed the sign has gone as I hadn't, but there's no problem with the legality. Traffic Sign Regulations from 2002 (the current legislation on all things related to signs and road markings) directed that Pedestrian Zone signs had to be placed on both sides for the restriction to be legal. However there have been numerous amendments in the last 12 years and following the Red Tape Challenge in 2013 there have been even more wide ranging amendments during 2014 - one of the very latest amendments removes the requirement for two signs for Pedestrian Zones. It's all part of removing 'sign clutter' on the roads. I'd say that WBC must have removed the sign pretty much as soon as the new regulation came into play.

There are a great deal more changes underway and the update of the Traffic Regulations, to be published early 2015, will see the old style phonebook sized document reduced to something the size of a Thompson Local directory.

As well as being intended to cut down on 'sign clutter', the new regulations are attempting to address the lighting requirements for signs (and thereby cut down on electricity costs and being a little bit more Green). The adhesive films which make up traffic signs are designed to be highly reflective and visible and so the argument is that individual lighting of most signs will no longer be necessary.

[spartacus]

Stop trying to deflect again User. Why have the council not taken them down and started investigations/prosecutions against those who put them up?

They're in a WBC car park. Assuming WBC put them up, why would they need to start prosecutions?

[spartacus]

Punishing people for non-existent technical crimes while breaking the law themselves with apparent impunity.

For the record I think it was people who drove over the bridge after passing large bright yellow signs (on BOTH sides of the road) who were using the 'technicality' of them not being lit to get off the offence. In a street lit area, with 3M Diamond Grade reflective film making up the sign and a yellow backing board, they can't exactly be said to blend in with the background. They stand out like a dog's... ermm.... Well they just stand out that's all.....

[DJE]

For the record I think it was people who drove over the bridge after passing large bright yellow signs (on BOTH sides of the road) who were using the 'technicality' of them not being lit to get off the offence. In a street lit area, with 3M Diamond Grade reflective film making up the sign and a yellow backing board, they can't exactly be said to blend in with the background. They stand out like a dog's... ermm.... Well they just stand out that's all.....

Thanks for the update re the signage of zones.

As for the bridge, no-one was risking overloading the bridge by driving a car over it, and it is traffic-light controlled. No-one was at risk, no-one died. The only alleged harm was a supposed breach of a law, that law being a purely technical piece of legislation. 'Do not pass this road sign'.

The law is binary; something is either illegal or it isn't. When someone is penalised for breaking a regulation, it is only fair and reasonable that the regulation, and its enforcement, should be clear and unambiguous. Ideas about 'substantive compliance' is nonsense that some people bandy about; grey areas in law should not be introduced when regulations such as road sign specifications are printed black and white.

The road signs supposedly enforcing a technical regulation did not themselves technically comply with the law. It is unjust to allow the council a technical breach in order to create a supposed technical crime by a driver when one was not committed.

When councillors and state apparachniks think otherwise, it is time to stand up to them.

[spartacus]

As for the bridge, no-one was risking overloading the bridge by driving a car over it, and it is traffic-light controlled.

There was a risk of overloading the bridge. Not by weight, but by traffic volume.

Too many vehicles of all sorts queueing to get over would have impacted on the buses and introduced timetable delays. These days local authorities are trying to encourage increased public transport use by Joe Public. It does nothing for that cause if Joe is kept waiting.

There are enough reasons for buses to be delayed. This one was within the control of the council to remove.

[blackdog]

btw I'm not sure if the sign has by now been turned back to face drivers as they come out of the car park? (As it was probably intended to be facing them)
I would suspect from the photo below that the photographer for the NWN may have got his spanners out and loosened it off to twist it so that both the new sign and the regulatory sign in the background were both in the same shot.

Last time I saw this sign (which was after this picture was published the sign was rotated 90deg from this - so it could be seen by drivers leaving the car park.

And User - if the council did not put this up then I would assume they would have removed it by now as it is on their land.