
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Signing for a Police bay</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748972</link>
<description></description>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 7 Jun 2026 17:13:28 GMT</lastBuildDate>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:26:16 GMT</pubDate>
<copyright>Copyright &#xA9; 2023 Institute of Highway Engineers</copyright>
<atom:link href="https://members.theihe.org/forums/topic_rss.asp?group=214541&amp;id=1748972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link>
<item>
<title>Signing for a Police bay</title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748972</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748972</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Arial;">We have a standalone police bay to sign. There are no other waiting restrictions in the road apart from this police bay which, in plain English, will be "No waiting at any time except police vehicles".</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Arial;">I'm trying to fathom the precise wording on the upright sign:
</span></p>
<ol>
    <li><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Arial;">TSM Chapter 3 (para 13.23.8) tells me I should omit the time period when the bay operates at all times. So, it would be "No waiting except police vehicles".
    </span></li>
    <li><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Arial;">TSRGD (S4-2-4) tells me I "must include" a time period, which in this case is "at any time". So, it would be "No waiting at any time except police vehicles". And, indeed, the DfT Working Drawing P650.2 includes an example with this exact wording.</span></li>
</ol>
<p><span style="font-size: 14px; font-family: Arial;">Another odd thing is the TSRGD describes the "No Waiting" symbol (S4-3-1) for use where waiting is "prohibited for a time that is not continuous throughout the year". Presumably because we don't erect signs for double-yellow lines ("no waiting at any time" that applies all year round). Well, what about "No waiting" for a police, taxi, or ambulance bay that IS continuous throughout the whole year?</span></p>]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 12:58:00 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title></title>
<link>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748976</link>
<guid>https://members.theihe.org/forums/posts.aspx?group=214541&amp;topic=1748976</guid>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Another case where the 2002 TSRGD was much simpler to use! The DfT working drawings are still based on this previous SI, so that's why you've found exactly the wording you want on them.</p>
<p>There are a number of errors still in 2016 TSRGD (despite the 2017 corrections), and I think you've found another one. You're right that the description of S4-3-1 precludes the use of that row for anything that <em>is</em> continuous throughout the year. So you are left searching for another row in that table to use instead, but there isn't one (unless you change from 'no waiting' to 'no stopping').</p>
<p>So strictly speaking, I think you need to apply to DfT for authorisation. That would also have the benefit of alerting them to this error to add to their list. But for all practical purposes, following a current DfT working drawing is almost certainly OK and very unlikely to be challenged.</p>
<p>DfT might prefer to authorise it with "at any time" omitted, as that shows a greater distinction from S4-3-1 in TSRGD and thus greater justification for having the authorisation. But if you're not doing that, it's probably better to follow the WD (and be a bit closer to complying with TSRGD) by including the&nbsp;<span style="font-size: 18px;">"at any time".</span></p>]]></description>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2023 13:26:16 GMT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
