In message , at 15:07:29 on Sun, 5 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
How few years ago? They get a special mention in
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#sch19pII2
21 (Plates to be placed only...)
(2) A plate shown...

Diagram 616 is 'No Entry'; 954.6 and 954.7 are
'Except buses and cycles' & 'Except buses cycles and taxis'.

Interestingly the rule [#69 in the table] for 954.4 "Except Cycles"
doesn't include sign 616 "No Entry".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:58:51 on Sun, 5 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
The regulations say a 'except cycles' is a permitted variant
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ab.gif

But nothing on that page says "except cycles".
--
Roland Perry

"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Hi all,.

At the north end of South Grove in Highgate, North London, are
no-entry
signs with text beneath reading "No Entry Except From East". In effect
they
are saying that you can do a left-turn into South Grove but you can't
do a
right-turn into it. There are none of the normal right-turn-banned
signs at
all. Since drivers are not legally required to carry a compass or know
the
direction in which they are travelling at a particular moment, I don't
see
how anyone could be successfully prosecuted for doing a right turn
here. I
also don't see why they didn't just mount a right-turn-banned sign.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes


I believe that all new road signs must be EU approved and one bearing
the legend "No Entry Except From East" would not be EU approved, so the
sign is in fact illegal and has no compulsion.
Regards Mike.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.752 / Virus Database: 503 - Release Date: 03-Sep-2004

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...
In message , at 14:58:51 on Sun, 5 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
The regulations say a 'except cycles' is a permitted variant
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ab.gif

But nothing on that page says "except cycles".

The table under 954.4 has item 4 with a permitted variant.

However, I now realize these round plates are mainly used on
traffic lights with banned turns, and 'No Entries', which usually
have rectangular plates underneath, might not be covered there.

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...

well in the local context of a few roads. The Cambridge City Council
continues to insist that such signs are illegal (presumably advised by
the Cambridgeshire County Council), even though they are to be found in
Peterborough (which is a Unitary Authority). The stand-off continues,
but few Peterborough traffic planners seem to end up in jail.

'Contrary to the Regulations (or Directions)' does not mean that
an offence is commited AFAIK. More likely is that the restriction
is not be enforceable, but only off-duty PCs are likely to spot
the problem, know that the sign was erected after 2002, and
bother to defend themselves in a courtroom.

In message , at 15:36:49 on Mon, 6 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
well in the local context of a few roads. The Cambridge City Council
continues to insist that such signs are illegal (presumably advised by
the Cambridgeshire County Council), even though they are to be found in
Peterborough (which is a Unitary Authority). The stand-off continues,
but few Peterborough traffic planners seem to end up in jail.

'Contrary to the Regulations (or Directions)' does not mean that
an offence is commited AFAIK. More likely is that the restriction
is not be enforceable, but only off-duty PCs are likely to spot
the problem, know that the sign was erected after 2002, and
bother to defend themselves in a courtroom.

A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street). But the Cambridge city fathers seem convinced that someone
would get cross with them if they put up a sign which wasn't in the
book.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:31:02 on Mon, 6 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
The regulations say a 'except cycles' is a permitted variant
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/023113ab.gif

But nothing on that page says "except cycles".

The table under 954.4 has item 4 with a permitted variant.

However, I now realize these round plates are mainly used on
traffic lights with banned turns, and 'No Entries', which usually
have rectangular plates underneath, might not be covered there.

Look at Item 3 of 954.4, and you'll see that it doesn't list 616 (which
is the "No Entry" sign).

Interstingly, 954.7 lists as variants:

Except local buses and cycles and
Except local buses and taxis

Now, as there is no such thing as a "local cycle", we must conclude that
the latter refers to all taxis, and not just local ones. Which answers a
different question that's been asked from time to time.

--
Roland Perry

"Mike Cawood, HND BIT" wrote in message
...

I believe that all new road signs must be EU approved
and one bearing the legend "No Entry Except From East"
would not be EU approved, so the
sign is in fact illegal and has no compulsion.

The text sign may be void, but does that mean that the No Entry roundel
above it on the same pole is also void?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:31:02 on Mon, 6 Sep
2004, Nick Finnigan remarked:
....
Look at Item 3 of 954.4, and you'll see that it doesn't list 616 (which
is the "No Entry" sign).
Interstingly, 954.7 lists as variants:
Except local buses and cycles and
Except local buses and taxis

Now, as there is no such thing as a "local cycle", we must conclude that
the latter refers to all taxis, and not just local ones. Which answers a
different question that's been asked from time to time.

Er, Hello? Did the following message propagate at all?

Nick Finnigan wrote:
"David Hansen" wrote in message
...
There are plenty of no-entry signs in Edinburgh, with plates below
them saying things like "Except for buses, cycles and taxis". A few
years ago there was mention in the paper of someone claiming these
signs were invalid. However, I have not heard more and imagine that
is because the someone has discovered their assertion is incorrect.
If their assertion had been shown to be correct you may be sure
that the paper would have made a fuss about it.

How few years ago? They get a special mention in
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2002/20023113.htm#sch19pII2
21 (Plates to be placed only...)
(2) A plate shown...

Diagram 616 is 'No Entry'; 954.6 and 954.7 are
'Except buses and cycles' & 'Except buses cycles and taxis'.

Especially my bit, which starts at the page for diag. 616:

And, from that document, signs allowed with it are 954, 954.2, 1046,
and 1048.3.
Respectively 'except buses', 'except local buses', 'no entry', and
'bus only'. (The last two are painted on the road).


Colin McKenzie

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
.uk...

A good question is: who would prosecute a cyclist for passing a sign
that said "No Entry - Except Cyclists" (in this instance it allows
access to a contra-flow solid-line cycle lane on an otherwise one-way
street).

Downing Street? I thought someone posted a while ago that
the "No Entry" signs were each side of the main 'one-way'
lane, and so the contraflow cycle lane is not "No Entry".
I think that is legitimate signing, and any vehicle which fits
in the contra-flow lane may travel the 'wrong' way.