Access sign - ambiguity. Opinions welcome

[Mattia223]

Hello there, first post from me.

I would like to get opinions on the meaning of a particular set of traffic signs in my neighbourhood. There seems to be an ambiguity and divided opinions to the point where even the police are unsure as to their specific meaning. It's a long standing issue related to rat running and pedestrian safety.

The signs are round signs with a red border, car and motorbike on the inside. There's an extra sign saying 'except for access'.

This is a link to the lane in question, connecting Shaldon Rd and Elmcroft Crescent: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BH6UFuvuSfevMJ9b7

My question is:

-who can access the lane?
-who can travel through the lane without stopping?

The google link should provide the necessary details but I'm happy to provide further information where needed.

Kind regards and thanks for any info.

[JohnnyMo]

Welcome to SABRE,

-who can access the lane? -- Anyone who can fit
-who can travel through the lane without stopping? -- Anyone not using a motor vehicle, bikes pedestrians. Not sure about e-scooters

This is basic highway code, police should know exactly what is allowed and it should not be used as a rat run, that said I can't see why anyone would.

[Isleworth1961]

Hello there, first post from me.

I would like to get opinions on the meaning of a particular set of traffic signs in my neighbourhood. There seems to be an ambiguity and divided opinions to the point where even the police are unsure as to their specific meaning. It's a long standing issue related to rat running and pedestrian safety.

The signs are round signs with a red border, car and motorbike on the inside. There's an extra sign saying 'except for access'.

This is a link to the lane in question, connecting Shaldon Rd and Elmcroft Crescent: https://maps.app.goo.gl/BH6UFuvuSfevMJ9b7

My question is:

-who can access the lane?
-who can travel through the lane without stopping?

The google link should provide the necessary details but I'm happy to provide further information where needed.

Kind regards and thanks for any info.

I know the area quite well, but not intimately. These 'back lanes' are there to specifically serve, or give access to, the rear garages and back access to the houses. I expect the lads from up the road in Lockleaze or even further afield, used to ride 'borrowed' motorcycles up and down those lanes, causing a nuisance as well as being dangerous (they're still seen occasionally on the road with no numberplates, helmets or road sense), but I don't think it's such a big problem since the estates have been redeveloped in recent times. The signs are there to legally prohibit them without having to resort to gates at all the entrances on the roads. Gates have been erected in other parts of Bristol and South Glos (and elsewhere) where misuse and security has been a problem. Maybe these residents didn't all want to be inconvenienced by having gates, so signs have been tried first to deter the unauthorised. Access using a motor vehicle would include the residents (obviously), their visitors, deliveries, workmen, council service vehicles etc - but not anyone who has no business to be down there. Anyone can walk, cycle, horse ride down there though.

[Chris5156]

Welcome to SABRE!

This is basic highway code, police should know exactly what is allowed and it should not be used as a rat run, that said I can't see why anyone would.

I agree, if the police are saying they don’t understand the restriction or that it can’t be enforced then there’s something wrong at the local police station. Even if they can’t understand it themselves - which is remarkable, these are standard traffic signs - the council will have a traffic order to back them up that makes plain the nature of the restriction.

This has already been explained but to add weight to this:

The red circular sign prohibits motor vehicles. If your vehicle is motorised it prohibits you from entering.

The plate underneath is an exception that allows you to take a motor vehicle past the sign if you are using the road to access an adjoining property.

You (or the police, or anyone) can look these signs up in the Highway Code, or in Know Your Traffic Signs, or for the full technical detail, in a document called Traffic Signs General Rules and Directions (TSRGD).

Sorry if the above comes across as a little direct - it’s not personal, I’m just astonished the police might say they don’t know how to enforce some very ordinary road signs.

[Mattia223]

Hello @Chris5156 and the other posters,

thanks for your replies and apologies for the delayed response. I wasn't near my computer but have found the correspondence with the Avon and Somerset police department.

The lane is used as a rat run in order to avoid the traffic light and associated traffic at peak times.

A few months ago, some residents provided the police, via their 'dashcam' video submission portal, clips of about 40 infractions recorded in 2 hours. The footage was time-stamped, high resolution and showed vehicles entering the lane on one end, and exiting it on the other end turning right onto the main road. It was filmed from the middle of the lane with 2 cameras.

After a month, the police responded with the following, among other points:


As my colleague Nick has already pointed out, the signage says Access only, but access to what. Is it access to garages, the rear of the adjoining properties, or something else. The signage is sufficiently vague to make a politician proud, so to prosecute a driver, we must prove is exactly what that sign prohibits and then we would have to prove that each vehicle had entered that location in contravention of the sign.


In a follow-up email I asked the officer to outline how exactly the lane is meant to be used, however, I received no further information on that point. In conclusion, the police force decided not to reach out to the motorists recorded. No cautions, warnings or fines.

The reason for my original post was to get to the bottom of the intended use of the lane, or a way to find out the nuances. It's still unclear to me if residents accessing the front of the properties on the surrounding roads are officially authorised to do so via the lane.

Thanks for any further insight.

[Isleworth1961]

The reason for my original post was to get to the bottom of the intended use of the lane, or a way to find out the nuances. It's still unclear to me if residents accessing the front of the properties on the surrounding roads are officially authorised to do so via the lane.

Thanks for any further insight.

Well if they have a gateway or garage fronting the lane (which a great number do), then I think it's reasonable to assume that in order to be able to use said gateway or garage, then they need to use the lane for access. Otherwise there is no purpose for the lanes to be there.

[Mattia223]

Well if they have a gateway or garage fronting the lane (which a great number do), then I think it's reasonable to assume that in order to be able to use said gateway or garage, then they need to use the lane for access. Otherwise there is no purpose for the lanes to be there.
[/quote]

By gateway you mean a 'driveway' into their garden or property?

In terms of the ambiguity suggested by the police officer, I'm trying to ascertain whether any through traffic (entering and exiting the lane in one go) would be permitted under certain circumstances.

[wallmeerkat]

There's a bit of controversy in Belfast city centre where one of the old cobbled streets was half-heartedly pedestrianised.

The signage is a yellow sign declaring that the road is closed apart from business access

https://www.google.com/maps/@54.6028135 ... ?entry=ttu

What this means in practice is that taxis, delivery vans etc still use the road.

[Isleworth1961]

Well if they have a gateway for pedestrian use or for a vehicle, or a garage fronting the lane (which a great number do), then I think it's pretty obvous that in order to be able to use said gateway or garage, then they need to use the lane for access. Otherwise there is no purpose for the lanes to be there.

By gateway you mean a 'driveway' into their garden or property?

In terms of the ambiguity suggested by the police officer, I'm trying to ascertain whether any through traffic (entering and exiting the lane in one go) would be permitted under certain circumstances.
[/quote]

As many there have a garage designed to store a motor vehicle (whether they use it now for such a purpose is irrelevant), plus a gate direct onto the lane, clearly many need access using a motor vehicle. They could enter the lane using one entrance and leave by another, effectively being 'through traffic', but residents have a right to use motor vehicles there. If no motor vehicles were permitted at all, there would be physical restrictions preventing access, such as bollards, gates or something else and a different sign.
Clearly, the police can't be bothered to get involved, no doubt more important things to deal with. Try contacting Bristol City Council.

[Bryn666]

"Access" in such situations is defined as any residential frontage or off-street premises that can only be reached via the length of restriction.

The police never want to enforce these as it means sitting and observing traffic drive from one end to the other usually without stopping. A good example of where this posed huge issues was the Addenbrookes Access Road in Cambridge and the resulting answer was civil enforcement of a moving traffic offence (which takes up a LOT of local authority time to set up).

http://www.rtaylor.co.uk/access-restric ... -road.html

Basically, people exploiting the loopholes in these signs is why we are now seeing "aggressive" LTN implementation. If you really want to stop people rat-running, you have to remove the ability to drive the entire length, but without space for turning heads this would appear to be impractical.

[M4Mark]

After a month, the police responded with the following, among other points:
As my colleague Nick has already pointed out, the signage says Access only, but access to what. Is it access to garages, the rear of the adjoining properties, or something else. The signage is sufficiently vague to make a politician proud, so to prosecute a driver, we must prove is exactly what that sign prohibits and then we would have to prove that each vehicle had entered that location in contravention of the sign.

I can understand a general response officer might not have the detailed knowledge of the traffic signs legislation but the meaning of 'access' should be well known and if they don't they should be asking a traffic/roads policing officer or someone for advise before responding.
Know your Traffic Signs 2015 Page 18
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... -signs.pdf
Except for access to premises or land adjacent to the road, where there is no other route.

[FosseWay]

I suppose one solution would be to install rising bollards and issue bona fide users of the lane with remote control tags to lower the bollards. From the look of the area on Google, it doesn't seem that delivery vehicles particularly need access there - the lane just serves the garages etc. belonging to the houses. But if someone who doesn't live there needs to get in legitimately with a car, it would presumably be with the knowledge and permission of a resident, who could come with their bollard-removing tag and let the visitor in.

But, of course, none of this is going to happen, because money.

[Chris Bertram]

I suppose one solution would be to install rising bollards and issue bona fide users of the lane with remote control tags to lower the bollards. From the look of the area on Google, it doesn't seem that delivery vehicles particularly need access there - the lane just serves the garages etc. belonging to the houses. But if someone who doesn't live there needs to get in legitimately with a car, it would presumably be with the knowledge and permission of a resident, who could come with their bollard-removing tag and let the visitor in.

But, of course, none of this is going to happen, because money.

That only works until the bollard fails in the "up" position. Ask our local golf club who had bollards at the entrance/exit to their car park. They now have beam barriers instead.

[Bryn666]

Higher Croft Road in Blackburn is a fun example. It's accessible via a single track road which passes under a 9'0" railway bridge.

Prior to 1975 or so, this was the only way in and out. Houses had been built in the 30s at the top and that section was built to then contemporary standards but never adopted. A link was then connected to the new council estate which allowed access from the north, but the residents didn't want the council estate opening up a rat-run so a beam gate was placed at the top.

A local resident has the key, and they feel like God in charge of it. For my money, a more sensible solution would've been a key safe with a combi-lock at the gate itself, because said resident often leaves the gate unlocked so all the local taxis and know-alls can sneak through to avoid Blackamoor Crossroads.

After many years, the road was adopted in 2006 and resurfaced/relit. The gate was replaced at the same time, but with the same flaw.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/hPAPNF79CwyLCFML7 the gate is wide open in GSV here.

[AndyB]

All it needs is a policeman half way along with clear sight of whether a given vehicle turned in at the end and has stopped since.

“Good afternoon sir, can I ask you where you are driving today?”
“…”
“Oh. So you’re not stopping at any of the houses or business premises here.”
“…”
“Sir, there is a sign at the start of this street, which shows that motor vehicles are not allowed along here except for access.”
“…”
“And what are you accessing, sir?”
“…”
“Not how it works, sir. ‘Except for access’ is so that people who need to access houses and business premises on this road can get about their business. There wouldn’t be much point having a “no motor vehicles” restriction if you could just drive the length of it without stopping, would there?”
“…”
“Very well, sir. I am now issuing you with a fixed penalty ticket for ignoring the ‘No Motor Vehicles except for access’ signs at the start of this street.”
“What about that DHL driver?”
“He showed me a notification on his phone cancelling his pickup along here. Not his fault .”

[RichardA35]

Hello @Chris5156 and the other posters,

thanks for your replies and apologies for the delayed response. I wasn't near my computer but have found the correspondence with the Avon and Somerset police department.

The lane is used as a rat run in order to avoid the traffic light and associated traffic at peak times.

A few months ago, some residents provided the police, via their 'dashcam' video submission portal, clips of about 40 infractions recorded in 2 hours. The footage was time-stamped, high resolution and showed vehicles entering the lane on one end, and exiting it on the other end turning right onto the main road. It was filmed from the middle of the lane with 2 cameras.

After a month, the police responded with the following, among other points:


As my colleague Nick has already pointed out, the signage says Access only, but access to what. Is it access to garages, the rear of the adjoining properties, or something else. The signage is sufficiently vague to make a politician proud, so to prosecute a driver, we must prove is exactly what that sign prohibits and then we would have to prove that each vehicle had entered that location in contravention of the sign.


In a follow-up email I asked the officer to outline how exactly the lane is meant to be used, however, I received no further information on that point. In conclusion, the police force decided not to reach out to the motorists recorded. No cautions, warnings or fines.

The reason for my original post was to get to the bottom of the intended use of the lane, or a way to find out the nuances. It's still unclear to me if residents accessing the front of the properties on the surrounding roads are officially authorised to do so via the lane.

Thanks for any further insight.

We have a "back alley" (red) serving garages and back accesses for many houses along a few different roads (blue)
It is an adopted road (findmystreet.co.uk confirms) and there are signs prohibiting motor vehicles other than for access.
It looks like there are possibly a few utility installations requiring access and the bins are collected from the blue streets (GSV)

In answer to your question - as others have said - access to garages and frontages of surrounding roads would fall within "for access only" limitations. It looks like vehicles can approach the red roads from at least 4 separate entry points. It is this multiple entry points that would make enforcement difficult.
Now if the residents concerned could agree on a way forward and speak with one voice about a proposal to perhaps close one of the entries then perhaps something might be able to be done, but I'm guessing no one has organised anything and even if they have there will be no solution that finds agreement as someone will be disadvantaged by any closure.

[Chris5156]

After a month, the police responded with the following, among other points:

As my colleague Nick has already pointed out, the signage says Access only, but access to what. Is it access to garages, the rear of the adjoining properties, or something else. The signage is sufficiently vague to make a politician proud, so to prosecute a driver, we must prove is exactly what that sign prohibits and then we would have to prove that each vehicle had entered that location in contravention of the sign.

Well, that's very disappointing - proving what the sign prohibits is surely not difficult. Indeed knowing what an "except for access" plate means might be described as the sort of thing a competent police officer on traffic duty might be expected to know, since it is a standard sign with a well-documented meaning.

As to what can be done from here - I suppose you could show the police what the sign means and the documents that prove it, which might force their hand to either do something or to tell you they're not prepared to do something. Failing that I think Richard's suggestion is a good one: if agreement can be found among the people whose property adjoins the road, there could be an application to the local authority to stop up one end of the alleyway.

[swissferry]

Glasgow city centre has removed a number of no motor vehicles except for access signs. They were constantly ignored. I thought it strange for them to be applied to roads which had public parking bays. My understanding being that looking for a parking space in the vicinity didn't allow you access unless you were accessing a property on the road.

2008
2021

[Mattia223]

[/quote]
Screenshot 2023-10-16 12.42.09.png
We have a "back alley" (red) serving garages and back accesses for many houses along a few different roads (blue)
It is an adopted road (findmystreet.co.uk confirms) and there are signs prohibiting motor vehicles other than for access.
It looks like there are possibly a few utility installations requiring access and the bins are collected from the blue streets (GSV)

In answer to your question - as others have said - access to garages and frontages of surrounding roads would fall within "for access only" limitations. It looks like vehicles can approach the red roads from at least 4 separate entry points. It is this multiple entry points that would make enforcement difficult.
Now if the residents concerned could agree on a way forward and speak with one voice about a proposal to perhaps close one of the entries then perhaps something might be able to be done, but I'm guessing no one has organised anything and even if they have there will be no solution that finds agreement as someone will be disadvantaged by any closure.
[/quote]

Thanks for the various helpful messages.

Avon and Somerset Police eventually stopped engaging but the last communication was that they wouldn't pursue this as they don't have the resources to do so. In the past, they placed an officer there for a limited amount of time but it was only a short-lived solution.

Residents are trying to limit traffic in the lane between Shaldon Rd and Elmcroft Crescent as that's the stretch that's used by commuters wanting to circumvent the traffic light at the bottom of Shaldon Rd. That stretch of lane sees high footfall at peak times and is well-used by pupils heading to and from school. A variety of near-misses are reported regularly involving speeding rat-runners and pedestrians. It remains to be seen what long-term solution can be achieved.


I'm still trying to find out where to access the particular traffic regulation order for the lane in question. with that knowledge, it will be easier to find a consensus among residents who require legitimate access.

[AndyB]

Ask your council for a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order for the alley. They might accept a simple request, otherwise do an FOI.