A poll conducted by #BikeIsBest has found that 50% of drivers are unfamiliar with the ‘no motor vehicles’ sign used to signal a Low Traffic Neighbourhood, and 29% actually thought it meant ‘cars and motorcycles only, no trucks allowed.’ #BikeIsBest says “a more literal and obvious sign” might help to quell drivers’ frustrations, while a Hackney Councillor says the large number of fines collected from drivers flouting the rules in London are necessary to discourage rat-running drivers.
> London voters back LTNs and cycle lanes, analysis of mayoral election results reveals
As well as finding that half of drivers didn’t understand the ‘no motor vehicles’ sign even though it has been in use since 1964, the poll, conducted by YouGov for #BikeIsBest, found that 10% didn’t believe the sign represented any of the eight options given in a multiple choice question. Geographically, Scotland had the lowest understanding of the sign at 37%, while the highest rate of understanding was Yorkshire & Humber at 53%. Londoners were second-worst with a 39% rate of understanding.
The no motor vehicles sign is used to mark Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, with some councils now using Automatic Number Plate Recognition CCTV to catch drivers entering them instead of physical measures such as planters following incidents of vandalism. Rather than deliberately breaking the rules, the research from #BikeIsBest suggests that some drivers are simply unfamiliar with the signage:
“…some frustrations with Low Traffic Neighbourhoods could relate to the lack of public understanding of the required signage, leading to penalty charge notices. Although road users should keep up to date with the Highway Code, research from 2019 showed that one in five motorists haven’t referred to it in a decade”, said #BikeIsBest.
“Alternative signs for Low Traffic Neighbourhood restrictions are not currently available. The No Entry sign with an exception for cycles can be used as a contraflow for one-way streets; most streets within LTNs remain two-way and full access is maintained via alternative routes.
“It is not currently possible to put ‘except permit holders’ with a No Entry sign, which low-traffic neighbourhoods may need. The reason the Department for Transport limits exceptions to the No Entry restriction is to preserve the high level of compliance with such a safety-critical sign; the more exceptions a prohibition sign has, then the greater likelihood there is of drivers making an ‘assessment’ to ignore it.”
Figures show Hackney Council has raised £2.7 million in fines from drivers entering LTNs since June 2020, issuing over 69,000 penalty charge notices (PCNs). Speaking to Transport Xtra, Hackney councillor Mete Coban said: “LTNs are important because they discourage through-traffic from using neighbourhood streets – where there are fewer pedestrian crossings and roads are less able to handle high volumes of traffic – and encourage people to switch local car journeys for walking and cycling. We know not everyone can make this switch, which is why all addresses in LTNs can still be accessed by car.
“We don’t want to issue anyone a PCN, but unfortunately, a small minority of drivers are continuing to try to use Hackney’s residential streets as rat-runs. This is particularly a problem with vehicles originating from outside the borough – our analysis has found that 8 in 10 of the PCNs issued in LTNs have been to vehicles that aren’t registered in Hackney. The number of PCNs demonstrates the scale of the challenge we have in getting through-traffic off our residential roads, and why enforcement using CCTV is necessary.”
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs) have proved particularly divisive in London since active travel initiatives in the past year saw a number of new ones appear across the city. As explained by our news editor Simon MacMichael in the first episode of the road.cc podcast, there are numerous indications that suggest LTNs generally have the backing of the public.
Adam Tranter, founder of #BikeIsBest, said: “Low Traffic Neighbourhoods have been positioned as new and controversial but really the idea has been in use for decades. It’s quite worrying that so many road users think the No Motor Vehicle sign, in place since 1964, means the exact opposite.
“It’s easy to say that people should be reading the Highway Code regularly but I think we all know this is unlikely. LTNs are popular, time and time again, in polling so extra clarity in the signage could help bring people on board who are supportive of the concept but personally frustrated at the implementation. Given these measures are
likely to become very commonplace as part of the green recovery, it might be time for a more literal and obvious sign.”
57 thoughts on “Almost a third of drivers think ‘no motor vehicles’ sign means ‘cars and motorcycles only’ finds #BikeIsBest poll”
The planters and the number
The planters and the number of motons complaining in the local rag is a better clue than the sign to be fair. Once you’ve had your fine (which is fair enough) you know what the signs mean. Hopefully the proceeds from fining inconsiderate motoring can be out to good use by cash strapped councils.
“one in five motorists haven
“one in five motorists haven’t referred to it in a decade”
I guess 80% lied or when they say refer they looked at the fines and points page.
I always thought the sign
I always thought the sign meant there was a motorbike stunt show taking place further up the road ?
“Although road users should
“Although road users should keep up to date with the Highway Code, research from 2019 showed that one in five motorists haven’t referred to it in a decade…”
Even so, it’s still not an excuse for most, since the sign and its meaning have not changed since 1964.
Well those vandals who
Well those vandals who painted the middle of the sign white really haven’t got a clue – they’ve just made the restriction apply to all vehicles (not just the motorised variety). But thankfully, there’s still a legal way through via bike…
HoarseMann wrote:
There is: just ride. What makes a restriction enforceable is not just the sign, it’s the TRO that makes the sign applicable (thery both need to be there). Therefore, although the sign now implies (at a squint) that you cannot cycle through, the TRO should still refer to motor vehicles, and no restriction (or, therefore, enforcement) applies to cyclists.
I particularly liked “then
I particularly liked “then the greater likelihood there is of drivers making an ‘assessment’ to ignore it.””
ktache wrote:
“assessment” i.e. chose to ignore.
“It’s quite worrying that so
“It’s quite worrying that so many road users think the No Motor Vehicle sign, in place since 1964, means the exact opposite.”
No; it’s fu***ng terifying that there are so many drivers who are so incompetent. Regular re-tests for all drivers every five years; no exceptions. Fail and lose your licence for a month, fail twice and lose it for a year, fail three times, and you’re out, no licence ever.
They’re driving a lethal weapon; should we give shotgun owners who don’t know the law the same discretion?
I do think that style of sign
I do think that style of sign is poor. I’ve known a few folk who have never been near the Highway Code think the ‘No Cycling’ means a cycle path. They maybe have an excuse having been no where near the highway code but drivers who should
HLaB wrote:
I must admit I was in that category when I first moved to the UK. In lots of places, including where I learnt to drive, prohibition signs have lines through them. No line means its especially for you!
Not saying there is any excuse for drivers, 95% of whom will have done the driving test in the UK in the first place, but who should have anyway reviewed the road rules before driving if it was their first time driving in the UK.
HLaB wrote:
Literally the first thing my driving instructor taught me (and this was 35 years ago) was that the shape of signs was significant, and that a red circle meant that whatever was on the sign was not permitted.
True, that will be alien to anyone who has never had to learn the Highway Code, but no driver should be able to get away with “I don’t understand the signage”, no matter how poorly designed they think they are.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
Quite, and “it’s a crap design” = “couldn’t be arsed to read my HWC”
The thing is, you don’t
The thing is, you don’t actually need to know every sign in the highway code to know what this sign means, and we shouldn’t give these people the excuse that “I can’t be expected to know every sign in the book”.
You just need to know that a red circle means the things inside it are prohibited. If you don’t know that, and your natural response when faced with a sign you don’t understand is to ignore it, then what are you doing on the roads?
The fact that the sign has
The fact that the sign has been in existence since 1964 and people still don’t get it is an indictment of the style of sign. It’s failed in its primary purpose which is to convey information. It needs a redesign. You can bleat on about what drivers should do or concentrate on making it easier for them to understand what they need to do.
Guess which one gets you better results – stick or carrot?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I can’t see that the design of sign can be responsible for drivers failure to actually read the HWC and learn what they mean.
I’d say it’s an indictment of our current driver qualification process. It seems that people are being given licences without the understanding that they need to know the HWC, apply it, and keep up to date with it.
Test should be more rigorous, and repeated on a regular basis. Renewal of licence not to be seen as a formality – there should be a real risk of failure if you don’t make the grade.
Captain Badger wrote:
You are quite right sir, driving standards in this country are far too low and the proof is that every year on our roads about 1700 people die and several thousand more have their lives ruined. If these casualties happened on our railways or airlines there would be immediate public outrage.
I was involved in the industry for much of my working life and, certainly in the last twenty years, the Driving Standards Agency ( now the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency ) consistently applied pressure on their examiners to lower the required standard for a ‘pass’. I have, for example, heard tales of examiners being instructed to pass candidates who mounted the footpath during the reverse* exercise on the grounds that no pedestrians were around.
You may well think that the fewer re-tests the Agency has to carry out, the fewer examiners they need to employ. I couldn’t possibly comment.
We very much need a higher standard of test and regular re-tests to reduce the carnage that currently holds sway. But I’m not holding my breath, the economic case for having large numbers of drivers in the general population is very strong and the motor industry is a powerful lobby.
* No longer part of the test.
Captain Badger wrote:
Whoosh! Thats the sound of my point flying over your’s (and nearly everyone elses tbf) heads.
Let me say it more clearly. You can enforce compliance with rules and procedures or you can design compliance into things from the get go taking account of human nature (lazy, task focused).
Guess which one stastically achieves better results? I would bet one of my bikes that a version of that sign with a slash through the center (for example) is better understood than one without.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
No need for that old boy, I understood your point, I just think you’re wrong that’s all.
Putting a slash through the centre will make it harder to read at distance – something that is highly relevant when driving, not so much when reading the back of a tin of paint. It’s almost as if highway and ISO signs have different purposes and have each been designed specifically to fulfil their requirements…..
Chin chin.
Red circle = prohibition
Red circle = prohibition
Red Triangle = warning
Blue Circle = instruction
What style are you suggesting ?
While I agree that drivers
While I agree that drivers (and indeed all road users) should be fully aware of the HWC, there is an argument that the “No Entry” sign is clearer and conveys a very similar message. I’m aware they do not currently have exactly the same meaning, but I’d be hard pressed to tell you precisely what the difference was.
I very much suspect that the meaning of the No Entry would be more widely understood, at least to the degree required to obey it (i.e. if people read the sign as Thou Shalt Not Pass then that is good enough, even if there is technically more nuance to the meaning and the implications for the road behind).
No entry means the road is
No entry means the road is one way and cannot be accessed in the direction in which you see the sign but is open to traffic in the direction of the one way sign
No flying motor bikes means the road is closed to motor vehicles.
So one allows traffic in a limited way but the other does not allow traffic.
But as others have said we need retests every few years as it is absurd that you can have passed 40-50 years ago and not have to keep up with the highway code.
hirsute wrote:
Not strictly true, no entry could just mean no entry, but once inside the road you can travel in either direction. i.e. residents or visitors can exit by either end, but can only enter from one end.
two ends of the same road
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6342554,-0.7487834,3a,75y,357.85h,75.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqmTe7FqoAn9d1Xf6C2HhRw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
No one way sign here, and note the give way lines for cars coming out.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6373629,-0.7478778,3a,75y,173.34h,72.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swGXk1N9bajEeypKjaLe8Pg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
But no entry at this end.
I have certainly seen No
I have certainly seen No Entry signs used in other contexts e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/MB3MVVz4bvVfRGsAA
I don’t think it helps that road signs aren’t always used especially consistently – for example, compare the above to https://goo.gl/maps/miHKP8r4ifWeLFiw6 which arguably conveys a very similar meaning.
More importantly, my main point was that the subtle differences in the meanings of the sign are irrelevant to the average driver. The No Entry sign is probably the clearest and most widely understood (even if not fully understood). I believe the counter argument is that, like the STOP sign, road designers prefer to reserve it for the most important places in order to avoid the meaning being diluted by “sign fatigue”.
Not really seeing any
Not really seeing any subtlety here. And why should it be irrelevant to the average driver? Do they not have a duty to know these things being in charge of 1.5T + of vehicle and using the roads under licence?
If you take the three signs –
If you take the three signs – the “No Motor Vehicles” at the top of this article, the “No Entry except buses and cyclists” and the “Cycle/Bus/Taxi only” signs as linked above, if you’re a normal car driver, they all mean exactly the same thing – don’t pass this sign. I like to think of myself as a reasonably well informed road user but I couldn’t tell you why you would choose one of those signs and not the others (assuming additional text can be modified to allow whichever classes of vehicles you want to permit in any given location).
hirsute wrote:
A half of drivers fully recognise a sign that has been in use for over 60 years. Why on earth is anyone suggesting that a long standing convention recognised by half of drivers should be changed, because some incompetents didn’t read the HWC.
A change of the sign will mean confusion, a long period of readjustment, and the incompetent drivers will still be incompetent….
There are also some
There are also some differences for emergency service vehicles (IIRC they are permitted through no vehicle or no motor vehicle signs, but not no entry).
OnYerBike wrote:
However, if they put a “No Entry” sign, then it’ll end up with cyclists getting abused for going through that way and possibly getting hassled by the police too for not following the signs.
If someone has trouble understanding the road signs, then they need to be either cajoled into learning (i.e. fined) or they’re not competent enough to be in charge of a motorised vehicle.
No Entry except cycles ought
No Entry except cycles ought to be pretty clear e.g. https://goo.gl/maps/P1CVNX9BLfv2bkDz7
It’s hard to say exactly what the best solution is. Of course we would like all drivers to obey the HWC all the time, but we’re a long way from that. If there are alternative signs that can be used, that would increase compliance and result in fewer angry drivers having a vendetta against cyclists then I think that would be, on balance, an improvement.
OnYerBike wrote:
Probably rising bollards which can be lowered by the emergency services, but stay up the rest of the time. Since it is clear some drivers cannot understand signs, some refuse to obey them and others will actively remove signs they disagree with.
Rising bollards can be a good
Rising bollards can be a good solution in some locations, but not practical for all of them!
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Correct. The design is crap. I don’t see why these signs can’t just have a few written words underneath, like “No motor vehicles” for example.
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Simply because symbols are more expressive and easier and faster to decode than words, particularly at distance. There’s no need to put words up, as the signal says it all. If you have bothered to read your HWC that is (no, I’m not having a dig, I know that you have and you understand it)
And yet I have seen councils
And yet I have seen councils install a round sign with a bike in it and a line through it. So if those specifying the signs don’t understand what a prohibition sign is, then is it a surpise that all drivers don’t understand?
seems to be some confusion among sign sellers too
https://www.google.com/search?q=no+cycling+sign&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1GCEB_enGB886GB886&sxsrf=ALeKk01js43N1lu0P0Br-2DhvZHF_KrOCw:1626161695530&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=VLcH9UhVgxyZCM%252CWIzVsQaBxIJOPM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kT9iCoNlqSXQ_YGLfT8hygqghV_ag&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjR99WxxN_xAhWwQkEAHRUQAbgQ9QF6BAgaEAE&biw=1536&bih=722&dpr=1.25#imgrc=oUO09h2z1BDdFM
Red round circle with a line
Red round circle with a line through is a prohibition sign
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_7010
Mb747 wrote:
I was going to say, not in the highway code, but then I see the no right turn, no left turn and no U turn signs all use the diaganal line through, while the no motor vehicles, no overtaking, no cycles, no buses, no explosives all use the standard circle with no line.
And yet both types are prohibitions, almost like when they add they line they hint that this time they really mean it, while those others are guidelines.
Quote:
So why not try to address this root problem, instead of the symptom, by, say, requiring regular retests, instead of fiddling around with the signs, which they can then continue to ‘fail to recognise’.
Stupidity shouldn’t be
Stupidity shouldn’t be rewarded or used as an excuse. Driving is a high skill activity that we should have low tolerance for errors with. If people are so stupid that they do not understand basic signs that are commonly used, highly consistent, and a core part of the UK’s driving rules, then they should be heavily fined and have their licences stripped until they can pass a theory test.
I think the confusion is due
I think the confusion is due to the design of non-motoring prohibitation signs (No Smoking, No Dogs, etc) which are all a red circle with a line. The standard for these is ISO 7010 – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_7010
Not sure it’s realistic to change the design of road signs, hopefully drivers will learn pretty quickly if it’s going to cost them £65 a pop.
Beat me to it. Completely
Beat me to it. Completely agree. Yes people should know, but it’s a poorly designed sign.
No sure I know what the
The dog one is clearly dog only areas
And the bike one must be bike only pedestrian areas
Well, tell you what, why don
Well, tell you what, why don’t you try it next time you see the sign? Let us know how you get on.
Morgoth985 wrote:
Nah, it’s the other signs that are badly designed….
Tom_77 wrote:
If only there was some handbook or guide, that advised of the principles of how the signs worked.
We could make it cover all kinds of information to do with driving, even bits of law, bits of good practice.
We could call it the Road Guidelines. It’d be brilliant, we could include it in a kind of test that you have to take before you’re allowed to drive. We could do like a practical test and a written test to make sure that people had actually read the Road Guidelines. That way everyone would know how it worked, or at least know where they could find out if they weren’t sure…..
Indeed. I’m fairly sure the
Indeed. I’m fairly sure the road signs existed first, so it’s the newer ISO standard signs for Health and Safety etc that have confused the public.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Yep, and only the subset of the driving public that can’t bother their arses to read the HWC…
Captain Badger wrote:
Reading may not be enough – actually understanding what they read seems to be a problem for a significant proportion of the populace.
But then the Highway Code
But then the Highway Code does also use the crossed out circle for prohibitions, sometimes…
Sriracha wrote:
Bastards, they should be brought in line…..
The red circle is literally
The red circle is literally in every single speed limit sign. 20 + red circle = 20 mph speed limit. Or what else could it mean?
Drivers are impacted by it every day, so they can’t say they are not sure of the meaning, unless they completely ignore speed limits and other road signs…
fredca_91 wrote:
Well a lot of people seem to think it means ‘target speed – at least 20mph’.
agree with comments below,
agree with comments below, the signs have been in the highway code for as long as the vast majority of current drivers have been on the roads, everyone should know what they mean.
However a red circle with a 30 in it states that you may drive at 30mph but not more, while a red circle with a car and motorbike in it does not mean that you may drive cars and motorbikes, but nothing larger.
So there is a lack of consistency, I think the line through as pr tom 77s other signs would have been clearer, but we are where we are.
As pointed out painting over the no motor vehicles sign just means no vehicles, so they still would not be able to drive there, and painting over the camera sign is irrelevant, as the camera sign is a courtesy, nothing more. It is not mandatory to advise of every camera, but they do it anyway to be kind to drivers who routinely break the law. Because catching bad drivers without telling them you are trying to catch them would be unfair in some way.
Oh dear, why am I not
Oh dear, why am I not surprised? The lack of knowledge by a large section of motorists is depressing, and seriously worrying.
All they have to do is look in their copy of The Highway Code…….Yeah, right, they probably haven’t read it since their test.
Velophaart_95 wrote:
If they read it they’d realise that 99% of their anti cycling whines are nonsense, apart from that time last January they saw someone on a bike blow through an amber….
It’s freely available online,
It’s freely available online, has been for a very long time, so there are no excuses:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code
Yes, I know..I also have a
Yes, I know..I also have a paper copy, and one on my phone/tablet – as well as the Road signs/markings book. But, that is because I’m interested, and wish to be more informed.
These people simply don’t care, they passed their test, so they’re ‘top drivers’.