Is this restriction enforceable?

Discussion about street lighting, road signs, traffic signals - and all other street furniture - goes here.

Moderator: Site Management Team

avtur
Member
Posts: 4902
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 16:51
Location: Haywards Heath

Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by avtur »

Signs stating 'Residents access only - black on yellow' have recently appeared on a section of road near me, I'm interested to know if the restriction is enforceable? The road is unclassified S1, some parts are very narrow and as can be seen from the other signs the road has a width restriction. In some places it is just just one car wide, other parts can accommodate two cars passing, but only just. The road is in rural Sussex and links with several other similar roads which criss-cross the local countryside. However, the section subject to the 'residents only' restriction covers about 1 mile of road which can be used to access a local industrial estate from a nearby main road.

I am wondering if the signs have appeared as a result of complaints from residents on the road (maybe 12 properties over the mile of restriction) about vehicles using the road to access the industrial estate. I've often seen vans from Citroen Bipper size up to 7.5-ton box vans using the road and I'd put money on them using it to gain access to the industrial estate.

The nature of the yellow and black signs suggests (to me) that they are not intended to be a permanent fixture but have perhaps been placed there to placate the local residents. I presume that an enforceable restriction of use to 'residents-only' use would require some sort of traffic order which would result in different and more permanent signage.

Interested to hear comments from any of our resident traffic management experts. Thanks.
Attachments
residents only.jpg
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by Conekicker »

The width restriction is enforceable. I severely doubt the residential one is, given that it's a public highway, as evidenced by the existence of the width restriction.

Having said that, you have to ask yourself how much enforcement of the width restriction the police will be doing. The complaints of a few residents about some vehicles passing their properties on a public highway will only attract their interest if there is a clear and proven road safety issue. That means accidents and casualties. Absent those, the police have far better things to be doing with their time than placating a few vociferous locals. They would very likely shunt it towards the local highway authority to try to fix the problem first.

Indeed one could argue that "Residents access only", were it enforceable, precludes access by the bin lorry and parcel delivery vehicles.

Absent enforcement, the only way to prevent vehicles using the road to access the industrial estate is to make it a cul-de-sac, which might inconvenience some, but not all, of the residents.

The road giveth and the road taketh away.
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
JohnnyMo
Member
Posts: 6982
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2003 13:56
Location: Letchworth, Herts, England

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by JohnnyMo »

Those signs are normally associated with road works, normally means the road is blocked further along so advisory that "Residents access only". If that is not the case then I assume enterprising resident has "borrowed" the sign with the hope of dissuading through traffic.
“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie" - Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn
Johnny Mo
User avatar
Truvelo
Member
Posts: 17456
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 21:10
Location: Staffordshire
Contact:

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by Truvelo »

I would have thought the best solution is to fit width barriers to prevent large vehicles getting through. I've seen it used on country lanes before such as here to stop lorries using it as a quicker route to the M40 than the A355.
How would you like your grade separations, Sir?
Big and complex.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by jervi »

For an actual permanent restriction it would have to have a TRO, likely stopping all motor traffic except for access.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85634 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.14973 ... 312!8i6656
Or alternatively the residents of the road could seek a stopping up order to make their road a dead end (except for cycles & horseys)
crazyknightsfan
Member
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 22:32
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by crazyknightsfan »

jervi wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 23:32 For an actual permanent restriction it would have to have a TRO, likely stopping all motor traffic except for access.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85634 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.14973 ... 312!8i6656
Or alternatively the residents of the road could seek a stopping up order to make their road a dead end (except for cycles & horseys)
The first example on the A27, how enforceable is it?
The direction sign points to Binsted 1/2 mile, so presumably motorised vehicles are allowed to travel at least as far as Binsted?
But also the prohibition is only signed in one direction - i.e. no similar signs are at the Binsted Ln/Hedgers Hill intersection - so you can use it to reach the A27 in the other direction?
:confused: :confused:
Edit: Guess this is why the TRO is in place - https://goo.gl/maps/QbMzxufPVNE8ks6X7
User avatar
Conekicker
Member
Posts: 3743
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 22:32
Location: South Yorks

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by Conekicker »

crazyknightsfan wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 07:10
jervi wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 23:32 For an actual permanent restriction it would have to have a TRO, likely stopping all motor traffic except for access.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85634 ... 312!8i6656
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.14973 ... 312!8i6656
Or alternatively the residents of the road could seek a stopping up order to make their road a dead end (except for cycles & horseys)
The first example on the A27, how enforceable is it?
The direction sign points to Binsted 1/2 mile, so presumably motorised vehicles are allowed to travel at least as far as Binsted?
But also the prohibition is only signed in one direction - i.e. no similar signs are at the Binsted Ln/Hedgers Hill intersection - so you can use it to reach the A27 in the other direction?
:confused: :confused:
Edit: Guess this is why the TRO is in place - https://goo.gl/maps/QbMzxufPVNE8ks6X7
If you zoom further out on the overhead, you'll see that the network south of the junction is effectively a dead end, hence the lack of signing at the Binsted Lane/Hedgers Hill junction.

The other obvious access point to this area is here, which is signed:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.84864 ... 6656?hl=en

The third, possibly less likely, access point is signed incorrectly here, although the incorrect sign might have more effect than the regulatory signs elsewhere:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.85552 ... 6656?hl=en
Patience is not a virtue - it's a concept invented by the dozy beggars who are unable to think quickly enough.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by traffic-light-man »

jervi wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 23:32Or alternatively the residents of the road could seek a stopping up order to make their road a dead end (except for cycles & horseys)
If they're allowing pedestrians, cycles and horses, then it'd only be a TRO required to restrict motor vehicles, surely?
Simon
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by jervi »

traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:22
jervi wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 23:32Or alternatively the residents of the road could seek a stopping up order to make their road a dead end (except for cycles & horseys)
If they're allowing pedestrians, cycles and horses, then it'd only be a TRO required to restrict motor vehicles, surely?
Just because there is a sign prohibiting motor vehicles, doesn't mean that people will stop using it. Many people (myself included - although I follow the traffic signs) believe that if I've been able to use a road since forever, why should I have to stop now, especially if nothing has physically changed with the road.

Also just realized that the OP if from the same town as me, and by looking at the street name starting with "stai", it is clearly stairbridge lane. At the moment (as locals would be aware) the A2300 is being made into a dual carriageway, this is at the other end of the stairbridge lane where there is traffic management taking place.
Access to Bolney Grange Industrial estate has recently had its turns banned from the north (from/to the end of the road with this sign) and have to use access of the A2300. Maybe there will be a sign erected saying "no motor vehicular access to Bolney Grange, access off A2300 only", or something to the alike. However, it is unlikely that there will be an increase of traffic on this road due to the A2300 dualing (if anything a reduction since it will be a lilo off the A2300), so I doubt there is any need to actually place any additional restrictions on the road than what is there currently.
avtur
Member
Posts: 4902
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 16:51
Location: Haywards Heath

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by avtur »

jervi wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:51
traffic-light-man wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:22
jervi wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 23:32Or alternatively the residents of the road could seek a stopping up order to make their road a dead end (except for cycles & horseys)
If they're allowing pedestrians, cycles and horses, then it'd only be a TRO required to restrict motor vehicles, surely?
Just because there is a sign prohibiting motor vehicles, doesn't mean that people will stop using it. Many people (myself included - although I follow the traffic signs) believe that if I've been able to use a road since forever, why should I have to stop now, especially if nothing has physically changed with the road.

Also just realized that the OP if from the same town as me, and by looking at the street name starting with "stai", it is clearly stairbridge lane. At the moment (as locals would be aware) the A2300 is being made into a dual carriageway, this is at the other end of the stairbridge lane where there is traffic management taking place.
Access to Bolney Grange Industrial estate has recently had its turns banned from the north (from/to the end of the road with this sign) and have to use access of the A2300. Maybe there will be a sign erected saying "no motor vehicular access to Bolney Grange, access off A2300 only", or something to the alike. However, it is unlikely that there will be an increase of traffic on this road due to the A2300 dualing (if anything a reduction since it will be a lilo off the A2300), so I doubt there is any need to actually place any additional restrictions on the road than what is there currently.
Well spotted Jervi, I intentionally didn't name the location to see if anyone would search it out. I have a part-time job delivering parts for a motor factor business based in Burgess Hill, we have six customers on the Bolney Grange Industrial Estate that we regularly deliver to (every day) and many more customers in the surrounding area which means that using Stairbridge Lane (in both directions) has been a regular occurrence for the last couple of years. The 'resident-only' signs have only appeared in the last 3-4 months and you're probably right to connect that with the work on the A2300, I hadn't made that connection but thinking about it I'm sure you're right. There are a number of junction closures and no right turn restrictions which make navigating around the area quite time-consuming.

I am quite happy to use Stairbridge Lane in a considerate way, i.e. not hurtling along at 60mph, even though it would be legal, It is a generally narrow lane with multiple concealed entrances, many of which are to farms which means there is a frequent traffic of large tractors and farm equipment. However, I know full well from what I have seen that there are many 'distribution drivers' using Stairbridge Lane like a race track. That is probably why the 'residents only' signs have appeared.

I will continue to use Stairbridge Lane in the way I have always used it, which is respecting that it is a narrow lane with multiple concealed entrances along its length. However I know there are other van drivers that will hurtle along the lane with little, or no, appreciation of the risk to themselves and/or to others on the lane.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by jervi »

avtur wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 19:57 Well spotted Jervi, I intentionally didn't name the location to see if anyone would search it out. I have a part-time job delivering parts for a motor factor business based in Burgess Hill, we have six customers on the Bolney Grange Industrial Estate that we regularly deliver to (every day) and many more customers in the surrounding area which means that using Stairbridge Lane (in both directions) has been a regular occurrence for the last couple of years. The 'resident-only' signs have only appeared in the last 3-4 months and you're probably right to connect that with the work on the A2300, I hadn't made that connection but thinking about it I'm sure you're right. There are a number of junction closures and no right turn restrictions which make navigating around the area quite time-consuming.

I am quite happy to use Stairbridge Lane in a considerate way, i.e. not hurtling along at 60mph, even though it would be legal, It is a generally narrow lane with multiple concealed entrances, many of which are to farms which means there is a frequent traffic of large tractors and farm equipment. However, I know full well from what I have seen that there are many 'distribution drivers' using Stairbridge Lane like a race track. That is probably why the 'residents only' signs have appeared.

I will continue to use Stairbridge Lane in the way I have always used it, which is respecting that it is a narrow lane with multiple concealed entrances along its length. However I know there are other van drivers that will hurtle along the lane with little, or no, appreciation of the risk to themselves and/or to others on the lane.
As long as your van is under 6'6" wide then I don't see the problem (unless turning right out of the ind. estate).
Also interestingly the width restriction is between the A272 & Jobs corner, with "unsuitable for HGVs" north of the Ind. Estate. Surely the "unsuitable for HGVs" sign is redundant since you are only allowed on the road if you are under 6'6" (except for access), and since right turns are banned out of the ind. estate that means the only vehicles it would apply to is those farms that have direct access off the road.
Would of been better if they reviewed the restrictions and amended it to only have the restriction between the Ind. Estate and A272 and unrestrict between Jobs Corner & ind. estate.
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by traffic-light-man »

jervi wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:51 Just because there is a sign prohibiting motor vehicles, doesn't mean that people will stop using it. Many people (myself included - although I follow the traffic signs) believe that if I've been able to use a road since forever, why should I have to stop now, especially if nothing has physically changed with the road.
The highways authority could legitimately install a physical modal filter (i.e. bollards or dare I say it, plant pots) and it would still only require a TRO, as I understand it. If you're allowing non-motorised traffic, you're not stopping up the highway (which would remove the public right of way), you're prohibiting motorised traffic on a section of it.
Simon
User avatar
KeithW
Member
Posts: 19178
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 13:25
Location: Marton-In-Cleveland North Yorks

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by KeithW »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 00:16
jervi wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:51 Just because there is a sign prohibiting motor vehicles, doesn't mean that people will stop using it. Many people (myself included - although I follow the traffic signs) believe that if I've been able to use a road since forever, why should I have to stop now, especially if nothing has physically changed with the road.
The highways authority could legitimately install a physical modal filter (i.e. bollards or dare I say it, plant pots) and it would still only require a TRO, as I understand it. If you're allowing non-motorised traffic, you're not stopping up the highway (which would remove the public right of way), you're prohibiting motorised traffic on a section of it.
A lot depends on the status, there are after all highways and byways. The government ordered a review of definitive rights of way after 2000 that meant county councils had to review the status of such roads and in that review a number of unclassified roads that had been Byways Open to All Traffic (BOATS) were reclassified as Restricted Byways - essentially Bridle Paths

This unsurfaced road to Cockayne Hatley from Hatley St George was one example.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.14849 ... 6656?hl=en

Common Road from Potton to Gamlingay via Gamlingay Great Heath was another. Part of the reason for doing this was that some of the yahoos in large 4x4's going green laning were destroying them. One US style monster truck can destroy in a day a road that has been used by cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders for 100 years. In one case a green laning club sent a convoy of 8 4x4's that left nothing but a muddy ditch behind them.

https://www.cambrian-news.co.uk/article ... hyear=2018
User avatar
Britain
Member
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2019 19:32

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by Britain »

avtur wrote: Thu Nov 05, 2020 03:40 Signs stating 'Residents access only - black on yellow' have recently appeared on a section of road near me, I'm interested to know if the restriction is enforceable? The road is unclassified S1, some parts are very narrow and as can be seen from the other signs the road has a width restriction. In some places it is just just one car wide, other parts can accommodate two cars passing, but only just. The road is in rural Sussex and links with several other similar roads which criss-cross the local countryside. However, the section subject to the 'residents only' restriction covers about 1 mile of road which can be used to access a local industrial estate from a nearby main road.

I am wondering if the signs have appeared as a result of complaints from residents on the road (maybe 12 properties over the mile of restriction) about vehicles using the road to access the industrial estate. I've often seen vans from Citroen Bipper size up to 7.5-ton box vans using the road and I'd put money on them using it to gain access to the industrial estate.

The nature of the yellow and black signs suggests (to me) that they are not intended to be a permanent fixture but have perhaps been placed there to placate the local residents. I presume that an enforceable restriction of use to 'residents-only' use would require some sort of traffic order which would result in different and more permanent signage.

Interested to hear comments from any of our resident traffic management experts. Thanks.
I've seen white on red "ACCESS ONLY" temporary signs before and assumed they weren't enforceable, though I'm happy to be corrected.
I'm nobody special, just somebody who enjoys looking at and talking about infrastructure. Eager to learn as much as I can about the roads of the UK 🇬🇧 - please help me with this.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by jervi »

Just an update on the OP.

New signage was installed at and on the approach to the junction.
I believe it was done between the 15th and 19th of this month as part of the A2300 dualing works.

Apologies for the low quality dashcam snaps
wb approach-min.PNG
Approach westbound ^
at junction-min.PNG
At the junction ^
A nice arrangement of signs on a single pole that really shouldn't all be there. First of all a terminal limit sign shouldn't be on a shared post unless it would be clearly be excessive, and usually a pole shouldn't have more than three signs inc supplementary plates anyway. Second of all a width limit (except for access) with a "unsuitable for HVGs", clearly the first one is all that is really needed. A better sign to have would be "for Bolney Grange Ind Est follow signs for Burgess Hill (A2300)"
avtur
Member
Posts: 4902
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 16:51
Location: Haywards Heath

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by avtur »

jervi wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 21:26 Just an update on the OP.

... New signage was installed at and on the approach to the junction.
I believe it was done between the 15th and 19th of this month as part of the A2300 dualing works...

... A better sign to have would be "for Bolney Grange Ind Est follow signs for Burgess Hill (A2300)" ...
Thanks for the update, I haven't been that way for a couple of weeks. I think your last comment about access to 'Bolney Grange' is actually what the restrictions are all about. I have a part time job driving a Fiat Fiorino van (a small car derived van) on car parts delivery and do use that road to access the industrial estate. The van is small vehicle and I drive 'thoughtfully' because of the possibility of meeting large pieces of farming equipment. I've seen plenty of instances of other vehicles, particularly larger ones, being drive too quickly for the conditions and coming head to head with farming equipment. I would imagine that is where the appetite for restrictions originated.

Looking at the new signs it appears I can legitimately continue to use the road.
User avatar
Vierwielen
Member
Posts: 5661
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2008 21:21
Location: Hampshire

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by Vierwielen »

traffic-light-man wrote: Sat Nov 07, 2020 00:16
jervi wrote: Fri Nov 06, 2020 11:51 Just because there is a sign prohibiting motor vehicles, doesn't mean that people will stop using it. Many people (myself included - although I follow the traffic signs) believe that if I've been able to use a road since forever, why should I have to stop now, especially if nothing has physically changed with the road.
The highways authority could legitimately install a physical modal filter (i.e. bollards or dare I say it, plant pots) and it would still only require a TRO, as I understand it. If you're allowing non-motorised traffic, you're not stopping up the highway (which would remove the public right of way), you're prohibiting motorised traffic on a section of it.
How easy would it be to get authorisation? How many fire engines or ambulances are under 2 metres in width?
User avatar
traffic-light-man
Member
Posts: 4723
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 18:45
Location: Liverpool, UK

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by traffic-light-man »

Vierwielen wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 18:06 How easy would it be to get authorisation? How many fire engines or ambulances are under 2 metres in width?
I'm not a TRO expert by any stretch, but I believe a TRO of this type wouldn't require authorisation. There's a statutory consultancy, which is the opportunity for the emergency services to formally voice their concerns to the highway authority about the proposal for the TRO.

We were discussing a TRO restricting motor traffic, versus the original suggestion of a stopping-up order, which would remove the right to use the road from all road users by removing the right of way altogether.

jervi then mentioned that the signs would be ignored, so I was just stating that, as far as I'm aware, a motor vehicle ban can be self enforcing through the use of a physical barrier as long as the correct signage and associated TRO are present. Of course, if you were to make an exception in the order for emergency vehicles, then you'd need to make an allowance for them to get through the said physical barrier in one way or another.
Simon
AndyB
SABRE Developer
Posts: 11036
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 21:58
Location: Belfast N Ireland
Contact:

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by AndyB »

The TRO can easily include exemptions for fire, police and ambulance purposes regardless - especially if as in that case there is an access exemption until the physical restriction.
User avatar
jervi
Member
Posts: 1594
Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2017 16:29
Location: West Sussex

Re: Is this restriction enforceable?

Post by jervi »

I raised the issue with West Sussex Highways a few weeks back about the new signage.
I got an email from them today saying they are "looking to address the issue" - normally I don't get an email, they just set the report as "closed" and say they are investigating it.

I got the email from someone at the position of "Project Manager, Major Projects" which suggests to be that it is related to the A2300 dualing scheme. So hopefully it will be sorted.
Post Reply