Westbound representations

Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual advises:

4.5.3. For safety reasons, drivers should not need to divert their eyes more than ten degrees away from the road ahead, meaning that the message on a sign must be fully absorbed before a driver reaches that position. As speeds increase, so must the legible distance, in order that the sign can be assimilated without unduly distracting attention from the road ahead.

The map-type sign is displaced 6-8m laterally from the line of sight of westbound motorists. That means that it ceases to lie within 10° of the line of sight once motorists have come within 40m of it. At that distance, the sign is seen as a vertical black line with a a right turn at a roundabout onto a horizontal black line. 

There are three patches of blue. Two are for parking (the large white "P" can be made out). The other, right at the top, so psychologically far away, is a blue roundel. The blue surrounding the white P indicates permission. Prohibitions are shown on our signs using red.

The sign's 

• lateral placement

• positioning of the blue roundel so far from the roundabout

• surrounding signs, especially that to the right for the Restricted Parking Zone

render it ineffective in providing advance notice of the bus gate.

Legal Test for Adequacy of Signage

It is well-established case law that, if someone transgresses the terms of a traffic order, no contravention occurs if the local authority has failed to make adequate information available about the traffic order. 

In R (Neil Herron et al) v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905, Lord Justice Burnton found  (Lord Justice Aikens and Sir David Keene concurring) :

35. It has long been recognised that the enforceability of a [traffic order] requires that adequate notice of the applicable restriction is given to the road user. This principle is derived from the duty imposed by Regulation 18 of [LATOR 1996]. In Macleod v Hamilton 1965 SLT 305 Lord Clyde said, at 308

It was an integral part of the statutory scheme for a traffic regulation order that notice by means of traffic signs should be given to the public using the roads which were restricted so as to warn users of their obligations. Unless these traffic signs were there accordingly and the opportunity was thus afforded to the public to know what they could not legally do, no offence would be committed. It would, indeed, be anomalous and absurd were the position otherwise. ...

36. That principle was approved and applied by the Divisional Court in James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Giving a judgment with which the other members of the court [Justices Ashworth and Widgery] agreed, [Lord Justice] Winn said:

... The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected. …

This was a judgment in the Court of Appeal, so is binding on the High Court as well as on tribunals and adjudicators.

The assessment of the adequacy of the signage therefore covers not only signs which were present but also signs which could have been placed.

Possible Alternative Advance Signage

What would be much more effective would be a sign to diagram 877 TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 2 Item 22). The sign would be the mirror image of the leftmost lane in the version in the second row. It would show a single vertical black line with a red bar across it, above which would be the words "Bus lane". There would be a right-pointing arrow before the red bar. 

This conveys the essential information and can be read and understood quickly. As the lateral displacement of the sign means that it would be read from far away, it would need to be large, preferably a height of 1800. This is smaller than the current sign. 

Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual recommends that this sign should be placed 30m before the junction. That would separate it from the Restricted Parking Zone sign and allow the message which it conveys to be assimilated before the roundabout is reached.

The Roundabout ... or is it?

Although it looks like a roundabout and has a circular path for vehicles and a circular centre of a different colour, it doesn't have the features which are required to make it legally a roundabout or a mini-roundabout:

• dashed white lines across the carriageway which vehicles must cross to reach the circular path;

• a centre

Signage at the Roundabout

There are no road markings on the approach to the roundabout suggesting the direction in which to turn. In this situation, it would be normal for there to be a right-turn arrow to diagram 1038 before the roundabout with the words "ALL ROUTES" before it. 

At the roundabout, the blue roundels of the bus restriction are more than 40m away. They are 600mm in diameter. They are the only visible indication of a bus restriction on proceeding straight ahead. At the exit from the roundabout there should be a map-type advance direction sign which takes the form of the top half of the current advance direction sign at the junction with Trent Street. 

This sign should be designed and implemented under current legislation, i.e. TSRGD 2016 and not be a hybrid of a sign prescribed under Schedule 12 of TSRGD 2016 with symbols from TSRGD 2016 Schedule 12 Part 20 and a specially-authorised plate which can only be used under TSRGD 2002 (see the special authorisation). Either there should be no plate beneath the blue roundel or it should be the prescribed plate "and authorised vehicles". This would, in any case, be more appropriate as security vehicles with uniformed security personnel are also permitted through the bus gate.

The road marking "CAR PARK" on the first exit would be more effective in indicating that this exit leads for most traffic only to the car park if it were closer to the roundabout. The drivers of buses and wheelchair-accessible taxis know where they're going and don't need to be told that they can pass through the bus gate.

Conclusion

In the words of Lord Justice Winn in James v. Cavey,

The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take such steps as they were required to take under that regulation. They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate information to be given to persons using the road by the signs which they erected.

Written 14th November 2025; last updated 14th November 2025