Legality of Road Signs in Car Parks
Discussion
Close to where I work there is a supermarket whose car park has a dedicated entry and exit point. Both are controlled by 'no entry' signs erected within the car park (i.e. not on the public highway bit). The road layout is such that the exit from the car park is often heavily congested, whilst the entrance road is pretty clear. Several drivers therefore ignore the signage and leave via the entry point - with predictable results!
My question is - do such 'private' road signs have the same weight in law as those erected on the public carriageway? What effect would this have on apportioning liability in the event of hitting another vehicle or pedestrian?
My question is - do such 'private' road signs have the same weight in law as those erected on the public carriageway? What effect would this have on apportioning liability in the event of hitting another vehicle or pedestrian?
First question: Do the signs comply with legislation - i.e. design, content, sizing, lettering, placement? If the answer to any of these is NO, then the signs sure have no legal status.
e.g. in our major shopping centre, there are double yellow lines. But no signs saying times of prohibition, and the double lines are not terminated properly. So the police cannot enforce bad parking.
Also, McDonalds exit has a "no right turn" sign. Not legally enforceable as it's not at the statutory height and not of the statutory dimensions.
e.g. in our major shopping centre, there are double yellow lines. But no signs saying times of prohibition, and the double lines are not terminated properly. So the police cannot enforce bad parking.
Also, McDonalds exit has a "no right turn" sign. Not legally enforceable as it's not at the statutory height and not of the statutory dimensions.
Before you get sent off in the wrong direction, have a read of this thread on a popular motoring forum http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=946...
I have an issue with the “zebra crossings” installed in super market car parks as they are usually installed completely wrong. Peds feel they have a safe place to cross but none of the things that make them safe are installed like clearways and flashing beacons. Pointless in my opinion.
If you're going to use signs and lines from the TSRGD, at least make them “legally” correct even if they aren't enforceable, I’m sure that it would lead to more compliance; car parks often seem like an afterthought.
If you're going to use signs and lines from the TSRGD, at least make them “legally” correct even if they aren't enforceable, I’m sure that it would lead to more compliance; car parks often seem like an afterthought.
grumpyscot said:
First question: Do the signs comply with legislation - i.e. design, content, sizing, lettering, placement? If the answer to any of these is NO, then the signs sure have no legal status.
e.g. in our major shopping centre, there are double yellow lines. But no signs saying times of prohibition, and the double lines are not terminated properly. So the police cannot enforce bad parking.
Also, McDonalds exit has a "no right turn" sign. Not legally enforceable as it's not at the statutory height and not of the statutory dimensions.
Times not needed on double yellows since they are 24/7.e.g. in our major shopping centre, there are double yellow lines. But no signs saying times of prohibition, and the double lines are not terminated properly. So the police cannot enforce bad parking.
Also, McDonalds exit has a "no right turn" sign. Not legally enforceable as it's not at the statutory height and not of the statutory dimensions.
A bit of case law from a few years ago: a driver ignored the signal from a member of the public to stop. No offence as there is no legal requirement. The person then drove into the accident the MOP was signalling about. The driver was guilty of careless driving.
The signs are there for the regulation of traffic. If they are there to ensure, for instance, the safety of a pedestrian and in ignoring them you injure a pedestrian, then you'd not be able to claim in your defence to a charge of careless that it was not a legal requirement.
The signs are there for the regulation of traffic. If they are there to ensure, for instance, the safety of a pedestrian and in ignoring them you injure a pedestrian, then you'd not be able to claim in your defence to a charge of careless that it was not a legal requirement.
Derek Smith said:
A bit of case law from a few years ago: a driver ignored the signal from a member of the public to stop. No offence as there is no legal requirement. The person then drove into the accident the MOP was signalling about. The driver was guilty of careless driving.
The signs are there for the regulation of traffic. If they are there to ensure, for instance, the safety of a pedestrian and in ignoring them you injure a pedestrian, then you'd not be able to claim in your defence to a charge of careless that it was not a legal requirement.
How does this work in the cases of “zebra crossings”? Would a number of stripes on the road in a shop car park be sufficient for you to be charged if you hit a ped when a zebra on the public highway requires zig zags and belisha beacons? The signs are there for the regulation of traffic. If they are there to ensure, for instance, the safety of a pedestrian and in ignoring them you injure a pedestrian, then you'd not be able to claim in your defence to a charge of careless that it was not a legal requirement.
Type R Tom said:
How does this work in the cases of “zebra crossings”? Would a number of stripes on the road in a shop car park be sufficient for you to be charged if you hit a ped when a zebra on the public highway requires zig zags and belisha beacons?
You might be mixing up offences. The failing to comply offences are used when no one is injured (in the main). So, to use extremes, if you failed to conform to red traffic lights and ran someone over and killed them, you would (probably) be prosecuted for death by careless/dangerous, the failing to conform being part of the facts of the case.If the traffic lights malfunctioned to the extent that a case of failing to conform would be difficult to prove, then there probably would still be the death by dangerous/careless as a driver should have taken more care and not blindly cross the junction.
The evidence against the driver who ignored the person trying to stop them was that they saw the signal but drove on in the same manner and speed. The driver should have realised that there was a reason the person was signalling them to stop.
If the driver had slowed and gone into the corner carefully enough to be able to stop easily when the hazard was apparent, there would be no offence of failing to conform to a stop sign.
Be aware, though, that a police officer not in uniform can direct traffic. Failing to conform is an offence. Although it is one that is unlikely to be charged, if you might suspect that that the person was a police officer because of the circumstances, then you might be.
In the circumstances of the arrows and even 'no entry' signs in car parks of shopping centres, then I would suggest that, as there are a number of drivers who consider such signs do not apply to them, then depending on drivers not ignoring them might be less than sensible, and possibly careless.
For those who might be at the scene of an accident or other circumstances where an approaching car might make things more dangerous, I was told that the best signal in such circumstances is slow down, but done vigorously. Drivers are more likely to take note.
Derek Smith said:
You might be mixing up offences. The failing to comply offences are used when no one is injured (in the main). So, to use extremes, if you failed to conform to red traffic lights and ran someone over and killed them, you would (probably) be prosecuted for death by careless/dangerous, the failing to conform being part of the facts of the case.
If the traffic lights malfunctioned to the extent that a case of failing to conform would be difficult to prove, then there probably would still be the death by dangerous/careless as a driver should have taken more care and not blindly cross the junction.
The evidence against the driver who ignored the person trying to stop them was that they saw the signal but drove on in the same manner and speed. The driver should have realised that there was a reason the person was signalling them to stop.
If the driver had slowed and gone into the corner carefully enough to be able to stop easily when the hazard was apparent, there would be no offence of failing to conform to a stop sign.
Be aware, though, that a police officer not in uniform can direct traffic. Failing to conform is an offence. Although it is one that is unlikely to be charged, if you might suspect that that the person was a police officer because of the circumstances, then you might be.
In the circumstances of the arrows and even 'no entry' signs in car parks of shopping centres, then I would suggest that, as there are a number of drivers who consider such signs do not apply to them, then depending on drivers not ignoring them might be less than sensible, and possibly careless.
For those who might be at the scene of an accident or other circumstances where an approaching car might make things more dangerous, I was told that the best signal in such circumstances is slow down, but done vigorously. Drivers are more likely to take note.
I’ve not mixed up the offences, I know the differences. I’m a talking about the use of incorrect (illegal or) signs and lines to support a driving charge resulting from a personal injury collision. Still talking about zebras, take the example below:If the traffic lights malfunctioned to the extent that a case of failing to conform would be difficult to prove, then there probably would still be the death by dangerous/careless as a driver should have taken more care and not blindly cross the junction.
The evidence against the driver who ignored the person trying to stop them was that they saw the signal but drove on in the same manner and speed. The driver should have realised that there was a reason the person was signalling them to stop.
If the driver had slowed and gone into the corner carefully enough to be able to stop easily when the hazard was apparent, there would be no offence of failing to conform to a stop sign.
Be aware, though, that a police officer not in uniform can direct traffic. Failing to conform is an offence. Although it is one that is unlikely to be charged, if you might suspect that that the person was a police officer because of the circumstances, then you might be.
In the circumstances of the arrows and even 'no entry' signs in car parks of shopping centres, then I would suggest that, as there are a number of drivers who consider such signs do not apply to them, then depending on drivers not ignoring them might be less than sensible, and possibly careless.
For those who might be at the scene of an accident or other circumstances where an approaching car might make things more dangerous, I was told that the best signal in such circumstances is slow down, but done vigorously. Drivers are more likely to take note.
This crossing would not be legal or safe on the public highway but similar ones are installed up and down the country in supermarkets, if a pedestrian was hit by a car while using it due to, as an example, a car over taking a parked car before the crossing and failing to see the child. There are plenty of hypothetical examples of collisions but in this case there are plenty of highway laws to prevent that from happening but none of them apply on private land or if the zebra doesn’t have the correct markings.
I believe there was a case recently in an airport where a badly designed zebra resulted in a fatal; I think the land owner was prosecuted by the HSE.
Type R Tom said:
I’ve not mixed up the offences, I know the differences. I’m a talking about the use of incorrect (illegal or) signs and lines to support a driving charge resulting from a personal injury collision. Still talking about zebras, take the example below:
This crossing would not be legal or safe on the public highway but similar ones are installed up and down the country in supermarkets, if a pedestrian was hit by a car while using it due to, as an example, a car over taking a parked car before the crossing and failing to see the child. There are plenty of hypothetical examples of collisions but in this case there are plenty of highway laws to prevent that from happening but none of them apply on private land or if the zebra doesn’t have the correct markings.
I believe there was a case recently in an airport where a badly designed zebra resulted in a fatal; I think the land owner was prosecuted by the HSE.
If you ran someone down on that crossing, failing to comply is not the issue, the issue is you ran someone down. The prosecution would argue you had reasonable warning irrespective of the legality of the markings. Your airport example may well have resulted in two prosecutions. This crossing would not be legal or safe on the public highway but similar ones are installed up and down the country in supermarkets, if a pedestrian was hit by a car while using it due to, as an example, a car over taking a parked car before the crossing and failing to see the child. There are plenty of hypothetical examples of collisions but in this case there are plenty of highway laws to prevent that from happening but none of them apply on private land or if the zebra doesn’t have the correct markings.
I believe there was a case recently in an airport where a badly designed zebra resulted in a fatal; I think the land owner was prosecuted by the HSE.
Its consistent with what I've been told about motorway advisory speed limits (the gantry ones with flashing lights top and bottom, not in a circle). If you ignore them you're not breaking the law, but if you have an accident at the higher speed you've little excuse for not being warned. Its the same as ignoring someone trying to warn you or make you stop.
Funny how when a car driving towards you flashes their headlights as a warning, people tend to slow down
Jonsv8 said:
If you ran someone down on that crossing, failing to comply is not the issue, the issue is you ran someone down. The prosecution would argue you had reasonable warning irrespective of the legality of the markings. Your airport example may well have resulted in two prosecutions.
This was pretty much what I was going to say. In the OP's example of a car driving out the entrance, there would not be any traffic sign offences committed unless the signs were authorised by the local council and to spec (very unlikely), but if spotted by a police car, or if they caused an accident it could amount to careless driving or worse.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff