21st November 2016 at 3:49 pm #3405Ryan BoydKeymaster
A limited consultation to “Stakeholders” was emailed on 11 November 2016 concerning proposed amendments to both TSRGD 2016 and legislation relating to civil enforcement. DfT have confirmed that these documents may be shared, so I have put them into a single PDF on the Buchanan Computing website here.
Responses are required by 9 December. Any comments posted here I will include in the IHE’s reply to DfT.1st November 2017 at 12:13 pm #4062
November 2017 edited November 2017
The amendment regs were laid before Parliament yesterday and come into force on 13 December. SI here.
The most important change is to reinstate ‘no entry’ as a sign which is enforceable in its own right (not just the underlying traffic order) and one which magistrates would award penalty points (and potentially disqualification) for disobeying.
The new definition of a “refuge for pedestrians and cyclists” is a surprise. This is added in order to be clear about when you can use hatching within the controlled area of a crossing (which now includes ‘chevron-filled’ hatching for one-way streets).
Comparing this new SI with the draft of November 2016, it corrects about 8 further errors, mainly ones pointed out by the Institute of Highways Engineers.
In Buchanan Computing’s SignPlot Sign Illumination Tool, we had faithfully reproduced the error in TSRGD 2016 that required the diagram 7011 & 7021 series signs for temporary traffic signals to be lit in a 30mph or higher street-lit area. This has now been corrected, so we will shortly issue a new version of the tool (also called ‘SignLit’) to implement this change.1st November 2017 at 12:14 pm #4063
Excellent new regarding the use of No Entry signs. There are several situations where providing an Order seems overkill when the sign serves a valid safety purpose (e.g. widely segregated dual carriageways), or where you have splitter islands at signalised junctions.1st November 2017 at 12:14 pm #4064
November 2017 edited November 2017
Unfortunately the amendment regs only make the no-entry sign enforceable. They don’t allow you to put one up if there’s no traffic order. Arguably the statutory requirement implicit in creating a dual carriageway might be sufficient to meet the need for an “Act, order, regulation, bylaw, resolution or notice” that restricts the road. However, other signs for dual carriageways have an explicit exemption from the need for an Act, etc., thereby implying that a dual carriageway status alone does not confer sufficient powers for an authority to erect these signs without something more explicit.
I wonder though if an authority could just make one blanket order (or even just pass a “resolution”, since that’s in the list) for all its dual carriageways (and their slip roads) that then allowed them to erect no-entry signs wherever necessary.
For signalled junctions, the bigger problem is turn-left and ahead-only box signs attached to the signal heads to direct traffic the correct side of a splitter island. These also need a traffic order, but are often put up without one in my experience. For the opposite direction, a no-entry sign without an order is perhaps a lesser sin!1st January 2018 at 12:14 pm #4065
No Entry’s at signalised junctions are often overused and contribute to sign clutter. A simple diag 610 on a RSRB is enforceable on its own and often adequately does the job.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.