Road Signage - A Particular Case

[Galant]

Alright Hexites, I'm curious as to your opinions on this one.

I just got hit with a £100 fine for contravening a traffic sign. Not the most pleasant experience. I doubt I'll challenge the ticket, but I've been thinking this through because I was genuinely shocked to have been fined. I had no idea a certain no-entry sign was even there, had not seen it/registered before, and the whole thing seems to be a case of getting hit with a technicality and facing confusing and potentially contradictory signage; although with legal matters it's less common sense and more technicalities that are important. I can deal with the fact that ignorance isn't a defence and I was technically at fault, but it's made me look at the scenario and wonder if it makes any sense.

Here's what happened. I was riding a moped (in Gibraltar, so down the right hand side, not the left) looking for parking. There were some possible spaces on the left side, but traffic was pretty busy, so rather than wait and try to pull straight across, I decided to proceed further down the road where I new there was a side street, and use that to turn around and head back to the parking spaces. I'd actually done the exact same thing about 20 mins beforehand. As I came to the side street and pulled across into it, I had made it about a metre into the street when a motorcycle police officer pulled me aside. He advised me he was citing me for contravention of a road sign. I was in genuine confusion. What road sign? I knew that I couldn't park there because it was loading and unloading only for commercial permit holders, but I wasn't parking. He told me I'd ignored a 'No Entry' sign. I had no idea where. He pointed to a concrete road block I'd passed which was on the other side of the road. Sure enough, there was a standard, circular 'No Entry' sign fastened to the front of that block, although I can say I had honestly never seen /registered it before. Perhaps this is in part because commercial traffic regularly enters that street and the block itself is positioned on an angle. It doesn't "seem" like it's block entry to the road.

I tried to explain I was just turning around but the office wasn't having it. I can only assume he thought I was making up and excuse and anyone turning around would have pulled a full u-turn in the street rather than enter the side street to loop around. And that was that, £100 ticket for trying to not obstruct traffic and use a small turning area/side street to turn around. Seems a bit much.

I'm going to add some photos of the area. I'd appreciate anyone's insight. Here are some details on the area itself:

The main road is a busy one with lots of traffic during the mornings and afternoons. There's a side "street" that goes in about 10 meters before coming to a paved pedestrian street that is well known as such. The area before the paved area, has a known "parking for permit holders only" area, and also some public recycling bins. There's also a shop on one side, and coming off the side street a smaller side "street"/"back street" that only admits pedestrian traffic.

At some point in the recent past two concrete road block were added to the the entrance to the side street in question on the right hand side. - Bear in mind that traffic in Gibraltar drives down the right not the left like the UK. The concrete block nearest the centre of the road is at an angle and has a no entry sign on it (something I only just realised - I'm going to take some photos during traffic time because I suspect it may be obscured by traffic whenever things are busy).

There are traffic signs on the left of the side street, and one slightly inside the side street on the right.











Now the intention of the signs seems to be to prevent all traffic into that side street except commercial permit holders for loading and unloading. However, the way they've set it up isn't necessarily the clearest.

First, the concrete blocks. Those are not things you often see or expect on roads except in special or temporary cases and generally are put in place not as signage but to block traffic physically. In this case the placement/use of blocks is unclear. On the one hand they seem to be placed to block incoming traffic down the right hand lane which might make sense if it were one-way traffic only - using just the left lane. However, that's not the case since commercial traffic is permitted to enter. So all they do is force all commercial to use just the left lane to enter and exit the area. Some through-traffic is permitted early in the morning for deliveries down the pedestrianised street, and they can exit at the other end, but that's strictly first thing in the morning early on, and there's no mention of that at this junction. So the concrete blocks could be being used simply to deploy a no-entry sign there...? Seems odd though. In addition, the additional smaller 'back street' is behind those concrete blocks, so it could be perceived, understandably, that they're there to stop any traffic going down that back street - since one block is angled, and the back street permits only pedestrians, strictly.

Second, the street signs. The normally, "no entry at any time, except..." sign is used, but while it says 'No vehicles' it also displays the circular no entry signs for cars, vans and bicycles/rollerblades. Since motorbikes and mopeds are heavily used in Gibraltar, the absence of the motorcycle from those images seems odd. If the intention is to prevent all traffic, why list some and not all, or not just simply leave it at 'No vehicles'? I can't claim tons of experience with this, but might it be understandable for someone to think motorcycles are permitted? "No vehicles" is clear, but the extra symbols clutter the sign and potentially confuse the issue.

Placement is also of interest, there are two identical signs, one on a pole to the left, and one down the street on the wall, but potentially visible from the main street. Which ones apply where? Is it simply a case of throwing up multiple signs in a 'shotgun coverage' attempt to make it all clear (but having the reverse effect)? Are signs down the side street legally applicable to prevent entry to that street?

Lastly, what's not there. Theses are the only signs indicating the restrictions. There are no signs further down the main street indicating any sort of turning restriction or 'no entry' status. I'm not sure there are any legal requirements for this sort of additional signage, but from a practical perspective, advance warning in a busy area only helps direct traffic and make things clear.

Thanks for letting me complain a bit guys... appreciate any thoughts you may have.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Had a mate hit with a parking fine due to misleading signage. So there was a sign which said free parking between certain hours. Then he returned and saw a parking notice. Apparently there was another sign nearby which was totally overgrown with Ivy(?) and the council said that was the sign and wouldn't budge.

[Galant]

Had a mate hit with a parking fine due to misleading signage. So there was a sign which said free parking between certain hours. Then he returned and saw a parking notice. Apparently there was another sign nearby which was totally overgrown with Ivy(?) and the council said that was the sign and wouldn't budge.

Ridiculous.... if they're going to slam you for something, make sure it makes sense, works, and people can understand it.

I once got caught in Manchester for parking. I saw a sign there, got out, checked it to make sure, I was within the time restrictions etc. Assured myself it was okay. Came back to see I'd been towed.... no arguing that one either.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Ridiculous.... if they're going to slam you for something, make sure it makes sense, works, and people can understand it.

I once got caught in Manchester for parking. I saw a sign there, got out, checked it to make sure, I was within the time restrictions etc. Assured myself it was okay. Came back to see I'd been towed.... no arguing that one either.

Their word against yours,and the longer you don't pay the fine,the more it goes up,and OFC you could take them to the courts but that is more time and money.

I actually saw the picture and went LOLWTFBBQ.

[Galant]

It seems to me that they could easily achieve their aims by simply changing the restrictions to No Parking and No Waiting at any time except for Permit Holders/Loading & Unloading. Add a Dead End sign if they want. I don't see any reason that needs to be a No Entry sign because it's essentially a No Through road.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It seems to me that they could easily achieve their aims by simply changing the restrictions to No Parking and No Waiting at any time except for Permit Holders/Loading & Unloading. Add a Dead End sign if they want. I don't see any reason that needs to be a No Entry sign because it's essentially a No Through road.

Its done to confuse people on purpose so they can make money off fines. The fact is,that these kinds of things are increasingly being done,to make up for shortfalls in budgets.

[DanceswithUnix]

Of no practical help, but if you haven't seen it this story of dealing with a parking fine for parking in a taxi rank should at least raise a smile...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gkiw7zpULo

[Galant]

I've just spotted that the ticket issued has the wrong address listed for the company designated to take payment of the fine. They moved recently. The company name is correct but the address is wrong. There's a phone number too, I suspect that's still correct.

A colleague of mine just let me know he got off a ticket because the office who filled it out forgot to put the date on it. So it was unenforceable.

[Saracen]

Had a mate hit with a parking fine due to misleading signage. So there was a sign which said free parking between certain hours. Then he returned and saw a parking notice. Apparently there was another sign nearby which was totally overgrown with Ivy(?) and the council said that was the sign and wouldn't budge.

I can't really comment on Galant's situation and have no idea of the readover from UK to Gib, but I did come across some inreresting figures on UK parking but, oh, 3, 4 maybe 5 years ago.

Essentially, it was a list of success rates of parking appeals that went to independent adjudication.

Bear in mind, the process is go appeal to the relevant vouncil first. If tgat succeeds, the case goes away and it doesn't feature, either way, in the independent adjudication process.

So, those independent appeals .... something like 50% (IIRC) were successful, and in some councils, I think Westminster topped the list, it was moee like 72%.


Now, don't read too much into that. It is NOT saying 72% of fines were wrong. I suspect the vast majority are, first, valid and, second, paid without appeal at all.


But what those figures do show is that, often, the council zppeals process gets it wrong denying the appeal when it ought to have allowed it. It suggests some councils adopt domething close to a 'deny' rubber-stamp on all appeals.


Finally, there's a TV prog, the name of which escapes me, where Dom Littlewood goes out with various 'ticketers' fomm police to council litter officers, parking guys, and even fly-tipping officers. The relevant bit is you iften get ti sit in on some of the independent appeals ans see just how they are conducted.

My conclusion is that they :-

a) follow the law
b) are evidence-based, and heavily so
c) WILL take into account that road markings, signage etc, is compliant with laws, AND clearly visible.


I've seen cases similar to that ivy case that have been thrown our because signs aren't visible. It often comes down to "reasonable". A motorist trying to use a minor obstruction as an excuse probably won't work, but an unreadablly obstructed sign, if required to issue tickets would.

Your mate, if wanting to challenge it, should have immediately taken copious numbers of photos, clise-up and wider area, abd then appealed, both to council and to the final independent arbiter. It would quite possibly have succeeded.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I can't really comment on Galant's situation and have no idea of the readover from UK to Gib, but I did come across some inreresting figures on UK parking but, oh, 3, 4 maybe 5 years ago.

Essentially, it was a list of success rates of parking appeals that went to independent adjudication.

Bear in mind, the process is go appeal to the relevant vouncil first. If tgat succeeds, the case goes away and it doesn't feature, either way, in the independent adjudication process.

So, those independent appeals .... something like 50% (IIRC) were successful, and in some councils, I think Westminster topped the list, it was moee like 72%.


Now, don't read too much into that. It is NOT saying 72% of fines were wrong. I suspect the vast majority are, first, valid and, second, paid without appeal at all.


But what those figures do show is that, often, the council zppeals process gets it wrong denying the appeal when it ought to have allowed it. It suggests some councils adopt domething close to a 'deny' rubber-stamp on all appeals.


Finally, there's a TV prog, the name of which escapes me, where Dom Littlewood goes out with various 'ticketers' fomm police to council litter officers, parking guys, and even fly-tipping officers. The relevant bit is you iften get ti sit in on some of the independent appeals ans see just how they are conducted.

My conclusion is that they :-

a) follow the law
b) are evidence-based, and heavily so
c) WILL take into account that road markings, signage etc, is compliant with laws, AND clearly visible.


I've seen cases similar to that ivy case that have been thrown our because signs aren't visible. It often comes down to "reasonable". A motorist trying to use a minor obstruction as an excuse probably won't work, but an unreadablly obstructed sign, if required to issue tickets would.

Your mate, if wanting to challenge it, should have immediately taken copious numbers of photos, clise-up and wider area, abd then appealed, both to council and to the final independent arbiter. It would quite possibly have succeeded.

It was quite obviously well obstructed as none of us could see it until he pointed it out to us and does not change the fact they should have taken down the "old sign",but in the end they wouldn't entertain any kind of movement and IIRC hinted via other correspondence that the longer he waited the more he would pay. He should have gone to arbitration,etc but in the end his time was also a consideration,so he paid it. It was in London BTW.

Personally if had been me,they wouldn't have escaped so easily. I have a feeling the obstructed sign was the old sign as it was obviously so important they allowed it to be covered by months if not years of growth,and kept the other sign clear. In fact I feel they on purpose didn't remove the old sign,to catch people out,and then by being obtuse people would cave in and pay it anyway especially with the veiled threats saying "early payment" will help you.

Also many London councils are LOLWORTHY - don't get me started on the council tax saga which happened to a mate. It was like talking to people with split personality disorder,especially with contradiction after contradiction(literally letters sent for 2 years contradicting each other).

[Saracen]

Yeah, ultimtely, the appeals pricess is a case of whether it's worth the time, and/or hassle. I think that is what they rely on. That, and the fact that there's really no downside to the council losing, as all that happens is the ticket is cancelled.

Now, if the system was that if the ticket is upheld by tge arbitrator, the motorist pays but if the appeal is upheld, the council pays the ticket value to the motorist as compensation, I bet we'd see less rubber-stamp appeal denials by councils.

[pp05]

Anything that obstructs visibility of a sign is a good case on appeal.

[TeePee]

Appeal it. While the 'I was just turning around' goes no where, because you did enter the road, the sign appears to be improper. I'm sure there's a document that defines how signs are required to be displayed in that area, so find it, and show that this sign was not compliant. More paperwork the better. Then demand costs.