The High Court in Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin) provides useful lessons on the adequacy of traffic signs when enforcing, or defending, contraventions of road traffic regulation orders (TROs). This case was specifically concerned with the adequacy of traffic signs for a bus lane in a form contrary to the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual.
This case concerned a contravention of a TRO made by Nottingham City Council (NCC), pursuant to section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, so as to create a pedestrian zone and bus lane in Shakespeare Street Nottingham.
The relevant law relating to contravention of TROs can be summarised as follows:
- driving in a pedestrian zone is a moving traffic contravention and, outside of the London, is only enforceable by the Police and Magistrates’ Court in criminal proceedings. Therefore, such local traffic authorities (like NCC) do not have powers to issue penalty contravention notices (PCNs);
- driving in a bus lane is a separate contravention and, pursuant to section 144 of the Transport Act 2000 and the Bus Lane Regulations 2005, approved Local Authorities (like NCC) can impose PCNs for a bus lane contravention;
- a PCN on a bus lane contravention may be appealed to the Bus Lane Adjudicator under regulation 14 of the Bus Lane Regulations 2005 (and any decision challengeable by judicial review);
- regulation 18 of the Local Authorities Traffic Order Regulations 1996 requires traffic authorities to take such steps necessary to secure, before the coming into force of a TRO, the placing of traffic signs in such places so that ‘adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road’. If adequate traffic signs are not present at any time whilst the TRO is in force then no contravention can occur; and
- the legal requirements for traffic signs are regulated and controlled by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2015 (TSRGD) together with the guidance in the Government’s Traffic Signs Manual 2008
In this case, a PCN had been issued to a taxi driver who had contravened the TRO. The driver appealed against the decision on the grounds of inadequate signage. Specifically, NCC had erected a blue bus lane sign 100 metres from the entry to the bus lane but at the entrance had used pedestrian zone signage. The pedestrian zone signage was in compliance with the TSRGD but was contrary to the recommendations in the Traffic Signs Manual for bus lane signage.
The bus lane adjudicator concluded that the signage, namely the immediate signage being contrary to the Traffic Signs Manual and the blue bus lane sign being too far from the entry point, was unclear and inadequate for persons to understand in using the road and overturned the PCN. Initially NCC sought a review of the adjudicator’s decision by a different bus lane adjudicator pursuant to regulation 23 of the Bus Lane Regulations. However, upon such adjudicator confirming agreement with the first adjudicator, they judicially reviewed the decision on Wednesbury unreasonableness grounds.
The High Court re-confirmed that the test of adequacy of signage was an objective test as opposed to subjective to each driver. It was further concluded that the adjudicator was entitled, on the facts, to find that the failure to follow the recommendations in the Traffic Signs Manual was a material consideration in deciding whether the signage was adequate to persons using the road and the adjudicator’s overall conclusions were therefore reasonable in the Wednesbury sense. The judicial review was therefore dismissed.
Lesson: councils will have great difficulty enforcing contraventions of bus lanes where such bus lanes are not signed in accordance with the TSRGD and the Traffic Signs Manual. Signage should be reviewed in line with any updates to these documents. Recipients of PCNs for bus lane contraventions should carefully review the signage before deciding whether to challenge or pay the PCN.
