Legal Status of 'Road Closed' Notice

[bruncher]

I can't find this specific Notice in the online Highway Code. The type I'm interested in is rectangular, red background, white text which says "Road Closed". It is a moveable foldable lightweight notice typically used by road works crews.

Is this sign for information? Is it a warning sign? Is it an offence to drive past and see for yourself if the road is actually closed?

[Mike4]

I can't find this specific Notice in the online Highway Code. The type I'm interested in is rectangular, red background, white text which says "Road Closed". It is a moveable foldable lightweight notice typically used by road works crews.

Is this sign for information? Is it a warning sign? Is it an offence to drive past and see for yourself if the road is actually closed?

Given this format of sign is not in the Highway Code I'd say Mr Plod would have a hard time making a prosecution stick. So it can only be for information and warning.

We had them here a year or two ago when the water company were replacing a water main along a heavily used local country road about three miles long. The detour was about seven miles but at the end of each day the workers helpfully left a way past all their gear, so after 5pm all the locals just ignored the "Road Closed" signs and used the road as normal. No enforcement from Mr Plod and no-one was prosecuted AFAIK.

[GoSeigen]

I can't find this specific Notice in the online Highway Code. The type I'm interested in is rectangular, red background, white text which says "Road Closed". It is a moveable foldable lightweight notice typically used by road works crews.

Is this sign for information? Is it a warning sign? Is it an offence to drive past and see for yourself if the road is actually closed?

All rectangular signs are for information. Triangular signs are warnings and circular ones are obligatory.

GS

[Lootman]

I can't find this specific Notice in the online Highway Code. The type I'm interested in is rectangular, red background, white text which says "Road Closed". It is a moveable foldable lightweight notice typically used by road works crews.

Is this sign for information? Is it a warning sign? Is it an offence to drive past and see for yourself if the road is actually closed?

Given this format of sign is not in the Highway Code I'd say Mr Plod would have a hard time making a prosecution stick. So it can only be for information and warning.

I'd agree with you and others that this can only be advisory. If the local authority wanted an absolute ban on vehicles they would be much more aggressive. Maybe place a physical barrier to block traffic. Or else put up signs in advance announcing the closure along with the hours and the reason e.g. a streetfair, bike race etc.

Again if the road was closed due to an accident or police action, then there'd be a squad car at the entrance allowing in only emergency vehicles.

Absent that I'd interpret such a sign as a polite request, indicating that there might be delays or obstructions ahead, or otherwise no through road. Exceptions would be presumed for local residents wanting to access their homes or place of business, transport for seniors and disabled folks, delivery vans and so on.

More generally some naughty local authorities have been known to put up signs saying "cul de sac" or "no through route" when in fact you can go through. I've always assumed that some wealthy residents of that street use their influence to get those signs put up to deter passing traffic.

[Mike4]

More generally some naughty local authorities have been known to put up signs saying "cul de sac" or "no through route" when in fact you can go through. I've always assumed that some wealthy residents of that street use their influence to get those signs put up to deter passing traffic.

Lol we did exactly that in my last house. It was in a quiet leafy side road that was actually a short cut around a major set of traffic lights and we suffered ever-increasing traffic in rush hour bypassing the traffic lights.

We persuaded the council to put up "No Entry (Except for Access)" signs at each end, and a copper would once in a while come and book about 150 cars between 7am and 9am. I was never entirely convinced though, as I think anyone being stopped could claim they wanted access to the other end.

[bruncher]

More generally some naughty local authorities have been known to put up signs saying "cul de sac" or "no through route" when in fact you can go through. I've always assumed that some wealthy residents of that street use their influence to get those signs put up to deter passing traffic.

Lol we did exactly that in my last house. It was in a quiet leafy side road that was actually a short cut around a major set of traffic lights and we suffered ever-increasing traffic in rush hour bypassing the traffic lights.

We persuaded the council to put up "No Entry (Except for Access)" signs at each end, and a copper would once in a while come and book about 150 cars between 7am and 9am. I was never entirely convinced though, as I think anyone being stopped could claim they wanted access to the other end.

What would be the 150 drivers be charged with? If there's an advisory notice stating "no through route" or "road closed" which is not an accurate statement of the facts on the ground, then what is the offence?

[SteelCamel]

All rectangular signs are for information. Triangular signs are warnings and circular ones are obligatory.

That's not entirely the case. Bus lane signs are rectangular, and mandatory. Give Way signs are mandatory and triangular (although the other way up to warning signs), and stop signs are mandatory and octagonal. There's also things like the "20mph zone" which incorporate a circle, but the whole thing is rectangular.

Legally, signs don't have any effect on their own - it's the Traffic Regulation Order that restricts what you can do. If the Council puts up "no right turn" signs but doesn't make a TRO for it, any tickets issued for turning right are invalid. Of course a TRO may not be enforceable if it isn't correctly signed.

So if the people doing the road works simply put up a "Road Closed" sign, it's unenforceable. If they've followed the proper procedure and got a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order, and put up signs in accordance with the relevant regulations, then you can be ticketed for ignoring it.

As for the signs not being in the Highway Code :
"Although The Highway Code shows many of the signs commonly in use, a comprehensive explanation of our signing system is given in the Department’s booklet Know Your Traffic Signs, which is on sale at booksellers. The booklet also illustrates and explains the vast majority of signs the road user is likely to encounter."

Even that isn't definitive - the legal definition of signs is in the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives". And there's a process to authorise one-off signs that aren't covered by TSRGD.

Of course, if the signs are being used correctly, "Road Closed" should mean the road is closed right there, and probably physically blocked off. "Road Closed Ahead" should be used if the closure is further down the road but you need to turn off for a through route.

[Avantegarde]

More generally some naughty local authorities have been known to put up signs saying "cul de sac" or "no through route" when in fact you can go through. I've always assumed that some wealthy residents of that street use their influence to get those signs put up to deter passing traffic.

Lol we did exactly that in my last house. It was in a quiet leafy side road that was actually a short cut around a major set of traffic lights and we suffered ever-increasing traffic in rush hour bypassing the traffic lights.

We persuaded the council to put up "No Entry (Except for Access)" signs at each end, and a copper would once in a while come and book about 150 cars between 7am and 9am. I was never entirely convinced though, as I think anyone being stopped could claim they wanted access to the other end.

What would be the 150 drivers be charged with? If there's an advisory notice stating "no through route" or "road closed" which is not an accurate statement of the facts on the ground, then what is the offence?

I was once the victim of such an arrangement near where I live in south London. My car, driven by me, was captured on camera by the council's enforcement officers driving down a "cut through" road, against a sign that said "No Entry (Except for Access)". I challenged their authority to do this and they sent me chapter and verse explaining their authority. It appeared to me to be proper, if bloody annoying. Why should the residents of one particular street have the privilege of their road being deemed, effectively, for residents only?

[didds]

stop signs are mandatory and octagonal.

the reason as I understand it is that as it is the ONLY octagonal sign, even if the word "STOP" is obliterated eg by snow (As Ive seen on occassion). This the message is "dispalyed" even if the word isnt etc

didds

[didds]

"Road Closed Ahead" should be used if the closure is further down the road but you need to turn off for a through route.

The problem - at least round here ! - at times is that there then isnt any indicvation whether "ahead" is 250m, or 2 miles, and so as a driver there is no idea how far one can actually travel before the road is actually blocked.

didds

[Mike4]

Lol we did exactly that in my last house. It was in a quiet leafy side road that was actually a short cut around a major set of traffic lights and we suffered ever-increasing traffic in rush hour bypassing the traffic lights.

We persuaded the council to put up "No Entry (Except for Access)" signs at each end, and a copper would once in a while come and book about 150 cars between 7am and 9am. I was never entirely convinced though, as I think anyone being stopped could claim they wanted access to the other end.

What would be the 150 drivers be charged with? If there's an advisory notice stating "no through route" or "road closed" which is not an accurate statement of the facts on the ground, then what is the offence?

I was once the victim of such an arrangement near where I live in south London. My car, driven by me, was captured on camera by the council's enforcement officers driving down a "cut through" road, against a sign that said "No Entry (Except for Access)". I challenged their authority to do this and they sent me chapter and verse explaining their authority. It appeared to me to be proper, if bloody annoying. Why should the residents of one particular street have the privilege of their road being deemed, effectively, for residents only?

I agree with your sentiment, no reason at all and my preferred solution was to actually block off the through route (the most common solution to this problem in Wokingham and Reading) but I was overridden by neighbours disagreeing. There was a further problem of the road getting stuffed up with parked cars whenever the church on the corner was having a service or other event, so the "No Entry" signs were chosen, hoping to fix this parking problem at the same time.

To answer Bruncher, it was not an "advisory notice stating "no through route" or "road closed" ", they were proper formal circular "NO ENTRY" signs with a little white "Except For Access" sign attached to the pole under the main sign at each end of the road. So drivers were charged with passing through a "NO ENTRY" sign, whatever exact charge for that is. My son even nearly got done for it but the surly copper finally grudgingly accepted he was entitled to access as he lived there when driving licence with address produced! I guess "I live down here" is an excuse he heard many times that morning.

[dspp]

Lol we did exactly that in my last house. It was in a quiet leafy side road that was actually a short cut around a major set of traffic lights and we suffered ever-increasing traffic in rush hour bypassing the traffic lights.

We persuaded the council to put up "No Entry (Except for Access)" signs at each end, and a copper would once in a while come and book about 150 cars between 7am and 9am. I was never entirely convinced though, as I think anyone being stopped could claim they wanted access to the other end.

What would be the 150 drivers be charged with? If there's an advisory notice stating "no through route" or "road closed" which is not an accurate statement of the facts on the ground, then what is the offence?

I was once the victim of such an arrangement near where I live in south London. My car, driven by me, was captured on camera by the council's enforcement officers driving down a "cut through" road, against a sign that said "No Entry (Except for Access)". I challenged their authority to do this and they sent me chapter and verse explaining their authority. It appeared to me to be proper, if bloody annoying. Why should the residents of one particular street have the privilege of their road being deemed, effectively, for residents only?

More generally some naughty local authorities have been known to put up signs saying "cul de sac" or "no through route" when in fact you can go through. I've always assumed that some wealthy residents of that street use their influence to get those signs put up to deter passing traffic.

Lol we did exactly that in my last house. It was in a quiet leafy side road that was actually a short cut around a major set of traffic lights and we suffered ever-increasing traffic in rush hour bypassing the traffic lights.

We persuaded the council to put up "No Entry (Except for Access)" signs at each end, and a copper would once in a while come and book about 150 cars between 7am and 9am. I was never entirely convinced though, as I think anyone being stopped could claim they wanted access to the other end.

What would be the 150 drivers be charged with? If there's an advisory notice stating "no through route" or "road closed" which is not an accurate statement of the facts on the ground, then what is the offence?

They would be charged for driving through a street contrary to the Traffic Regulation Order that made it a street that was "access only" for the relevant residents and businesses in the street, and which had "access only" + "no motor vehicles" signs erected at all entrances (and with illumination if in a urban zone) . Fined and ticketed accordingly.

I live in such a street, and it does make a difference - even the taxi drivers now respect it (after quite a bit of effort from the residents, it is amazing how long we can all take to park when there is a taxi trying to rat-run, no need for the cops to be involved, though the cops did support it).

It is the round No Motor Vehicles sign per below with rectangular Access Only sign accompanying it. This however is not precisely what the OP was asking about which is the unaccompanied oblong sign advising of a road closure, and that is a different kettle of fish.



https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advice/lear ... -meanings/

It takes a considerable amount of effort to persuade a council to erect these signs, and there is ordinarily a very good set of reasons why it is done. The local authorities are very aware of the need to balance many factors in these decisions, and those of residents is only one small factor.

regards, dspp

[DrFfybes]

AFAIK nothing has changed in the last few years, so......

IF the road has been closed by a TTRO for planned works then it is an offence to use the prohibited stretch (unless accessing premises beyond the sign as far as the work zone).

Ignoring the sign and using the road is non endorsable fixed penalty offence (used to be £40, but probably £100 now like the other FPN fines) however if you were to have an accident in the closed road (like driving down a hole) then you could be prosecuted for Careless Driving, which is endorsable.

The approved diversion can often be ridiculously long as it has to be suitable for all vehicles permitted to use the closed stretch.

roadworks.org is used by most (but not all) Councils these days to show planned works, closures, and diversions. Otherwise you need to look on their website.

[edit] Having typed that, I decided to Google it. Turns out the fine is £60 according the The Express article from 3 months ago)
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/ca ... gn-offence
Paul

[bungeejumper]

AFAIK nothing has changed in the last few years, so......

IF the road has been closed by a TTRO for planned works then it is an offence to use the prohibited stretch (unless accessing premises beyond the sign as far as the work zone).

Ignoring the sign and using the road is non endorsable fixed penalty offence (used to be £40, but probably £100 now like the other FPN fines) however if you were to have an accident in the closed road (like driving down a hole) then you could be prosecuted for Careless Driving, which is endorsable.

When my wife (as she now is) was moving out of her house, the removers obtained a temporary road closure and put up the available signs. Her road was a narrow rat-run which wasn't capable of taking a removals lorry and a car simultaneously.

In fact the diversion was no more than 200 yards further, but we were surprised at how many cars attempted the rat-run anyway. And amused at how many of them (four or five) scraped their paintwork off on the stone walls while demonstrating their driving prowess.

BJ

[dspp]

"Local people will be given a chance to choose whether residential side streets should be closed to through motor traffic to make them safer for pedestrians and cyclists, under plans to be put out for consultation."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... revolution

This could get interesting
- dspp

[madhoose2k]

I was recently held hostage in my own home. I work very long days and Sunday is my only free day to go about my domestic business if you like - getting food shopping and generally running around for family etc. recently there was an event held. The local marathon whose route passed the end of our street. We live in a cul de sac and the junction where our road joins the main road was closed from 9.30am - 5.30pm. So in essence no vehicles could leave or enter the street. It could be argued that the closure was advertised and actions could have been taken to move my vehicle outwith this area and walk the rest but geographically it would be over 1/4 of a mile, and even then adjoining roads were closed which in turn affects quite a significant number of people ultimately , making it impossible to cart a load of weekly shopping to and fro through all the marathon runners.
So my question is this I understand obviously road closures usually mean one having to go a different route , but in this example it was actually prohibited for me or any fellow residents to move freely to go about our normal business and attend life in a normal manner. For example due to Sunday trading laws (10-4) I was unable to do the shop which includes the purchase of fresh items for the children’s packed lunches. (The bakery items etc are always best purchased on a Sunday due to having as long as possible best before date).
As there was no alternative route made available and essentially the street forcibly locked down (it’s a rural location) is this legal in terms of my rights to move freely as a free person. It was a very stressful day seeing everyone clad in Lycra looking like they were hating every minute, whilst the jolly spectators were in high spirits Geeing every one on, whilst I was forcibly stuck with a million essential things to do. I get that these things take place, but please don’t let your hobby have an impact on my life. Reading this back it can sound pretty petty but in the real world, homes can be a very stressful environment especially if there are children involved with conditions where their needs have to be met, and if I as a parent am prohibited from doing so then there surely is some kind of legal issue?

[JohnB]

The restrictions prevented you moving your car, not your person

[JohnB]

... and you had so many options for your children's lunches. I guess the marathon organisers had fewer.

[UncleEbenezer]

If you're genuinely so disabled that quarter of a mile is a hardship[1] then there are statutory services waiting to spring into action to help.

Most of us don't encounter or even hear of them until we need them. I did encounter them a couple of times recently (since the end of lockdown) in the context of a 97-year-old relative. They reacted very quickly and very helpfully to my explanation of his needs.

This was all publicly-provided services. No charities: I presume their role is in a grey area, helping people who perhaps experience some lesser difficulty.

[1] Not that I can imagine anyone fit to get in or out of a car seat unaided, let alone drive a car, is really in need.

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
Please stick to discussing the practical Legal issues raised in this topic. Discussion of whether a closure is justified, or a complaint about a closure is reasonable is likely to be off-topic. (chas49)