Knowledge Network

Comment is from David Lambert, West Sussex

There is an apparent conflict between design guidance in MFS and the law regarding the meaning of the Give Way line in TSRGD and the Traffic Sign Manual:

Manual for Streets 2007 advocates the use of 'x' distances of 2.4m in most built-up situations, and allows a reduction to 2m in very lightly trafficked and low speed situations.

TSRGD 2002 Regulation 25 (2) states "Except as provided by paragraphs (3) to (6), the requirement conveyed by the transverse lines shown in diagram 1003 whether or not they are placed in conjunction with the sign shown in diagram 602 or 1023, shall be that no vehicle shall proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer the major road into that road in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of or any passenger in a vehicle on the major road or to cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident"

The problem therefore is that for new junctions with x distance of less than about 3m, and certainly for 'x' distances of 2.4m, it will be necessary for some vehicles to edge out to achieve visibility, which is illegal - Ref section 64 of Road traffic Regulation Act 1984

The problem is further confused by Ch 5 of the Traffic signs Manual, Para 3.15 which states: "With the exceptions mentioned in para 3.22(refers to dual carriageway slip roads), the Give Way marking is intended for use at all junctions other than those which are controlled by STOP signs or by traffic signals (except for movements not controlled by those signals). It is not generally used at private accesses, or on minor estate roads where traffic speeds and flows are low and visibility is good."

This implies that 'x' distances of less than about 3m may only be used at junctions where flows and layout are such that a give way line isn't required. - i.e low flow and low speeds with good approach visibility.

DfT declined to comment on this issue because it is a "legal matter".

Unable to attend but very intersted in the debate, could any papers or minutes produced be circulated?
Bruce Evans / Tuesday 6 January 2009

Any chance this event will be repeated 'oop North?
Ian Calderbank / Tuesday 6 January 2009

MfS has moved us away from the relative safety of quoting and using DMRB for highway design persa. MfS is welcome in that it will open up new sites that were previously being held back due to the proposed access could not meet DMRB standards, this due to not having sufficient land to meet the required visibility areas. I suggest that each site has to be assessed individually at the point were the access meets the existing road. The existing highway has to be assessed as to whether it reflects the functions of a street as prescibed in MfS, for example it can be seen to be a place. If it does not generally meet the functions then then I would recommend that the junction should meet DMRB standards. I suspect that a lot more decisions will be challengedin the future.

It is disappointing that the debate is to be held in London, I know the debate would have been better represented if it had been held more centrally.
Ken Jones / Tuesday 6 January 2009

I agree with the other comments posted here. London is not a very central location for a debate. I would however be interested to see a copy of the minutes of the debate.
Chris Lloyd / Wednesday 7 January 2009

On a recent planning application the appointed Consulting Engineers tried to apply MfS sight visibility standards to a Rural 60mph location, attempting to suggest that DMRB was now only applicable to Motorways and Trunk Roads, this point was clearly contested and the planning application was refused on the failure to meet DMRB sight visibility requirements. It appears that some Consulting Engineers may have their own interpretation of MfS, which is different to Local Authority Highway Development Control Officers and as such there may be need for clearer, more concise definitions of where Mfs and DMRB standards apply.
Alan Glenwright / Wednesday 7 January 2009

I am unable to attend but would like to recive a copy of the meeting notes.

Furthermore, given the importance of the subject i would recommend that similar discussions are needed on a regional basis to ensure that there is concensus on matters raised as i am sure that whatever difficulties raised and any solutions found are likely to be common to all at some stage.
Ron Parker / Wednesday 7 January 2009

I am unable to attend but would suggest that emphasis now should be on educating consultants and developers to consider appropriate application of the document rather than ridiculously presenting its use in all circumstances. Whilst having a couple of 'odd' decisions made by the Inspectorate early last year, I am pleased to report that a more circumspect approach is now emerging.
Sue Reynolds / Wednesday 7 January 2009

I agree with comments posted here.
It is a topic of much debate and as such I think the debate should continue at a venue further North. Failing this any notes / comments / findings should be made available.
Ian Griffiths / Wednesday 7 January 2009

We have experienced similar problems in the Highlands to that described by Chris Lloyd 7.1.09 in that consultants are trying to apply MfS visibility standards to high speed rural roads in order to get round planning conditions which have imposed visibility improvements at junctions which cannot be delivered because the developer does not control the land. MfS does not yet apply in Scotland.
Les Houlker / Thursday 8 January 2009

I concur with Alan Glenwrght's final paragraph and blame p.5 of MfS for suggesting that DMRB only applies to trunk roads. Although this was watered down in the summary produced by DfT in December 07, the damage had already been done. I believe that the inappropriate use of the document is prejudicing many practitioners against its use. I have been less fortunate with appeal decisions and two inspectors have accepted the application of MfS to roads which form part of the strategic network. If Alan Glenwright (or anyone else)would care to contact me, I'd be keen to compare decision notices.
Ian Calderbank / Friday 9 January 2009

Unable to attend but would like to see a copy of the meeting minutes etc. MFS does focus on lightly trafficked streets and does enable LA to use either DMRB and/or thier own Local highway design guide standards which is the case with this Council. Agree that a meeting held in the north would be of benefit.
David M Jarvis / Monday 12 January 2009

AS a transport consultant whose main role is advising developers on sightline requirements the advice in MfS was a breath of fresh air in updating standards. We set up workshops involving a number of local authorities to discuss and hopefully formulate opinion. We have found that many local authorities take a reasonable approach in interpreting MfS and these are perhaps the ones who did before. What we have found is that some who may be have doubts about the research have not embraced it fully. Some say that MfS does not apply on classified roads or high category roads in their maintenance regime regardless of the "place" through which the road passes (or vehicle speeds) and we have disputed that. It is only in the last few months that appeal decisions are coming out in favour of the MfS approach and it will be interesting to see how the local authorities treat these in relation to developments in their areas. A copy of the notes would be appreciated please.
Eric Appleton / Monday 12 January 2009

Can I also request a copy of the notes please and fully support the need for a more central venue! Some interesting comments here. As Transport Advisor to Developers we have also had recent experience dealing with the application and interpretation of MfS and I agree there is still a variety of responses to this issue. Ultimately though, it all comes down to sensible use of well researched vehicle/driver characteristics in terms of stopping distances etc. together with traffic stream composition so I`m not convinced that fuller guide lines are necessary.
David Nicholson / Friday 16 January 2009

Just tried to book but it appears to be full. I would be grateful if any papers or minutes could be circulated also.
Katie Taylor / Friday 16 January 2009

Manual for Streets is a welcome change in emphasis in the layout and appearance of residential streets, giving much greater flexibility to enable the creation of quality places. However the ambiguity over SSDs seriously affects how highway authorities operate and can compromise our position at planning appeals. If the science behind the MfS figures is robust, why has the HA not adopted it? If it is suggested that the MfS values only relate to certain environments because driver reaction times vary according to visual stimuli, then what are the criteria for us assess a site by? MfS is not clear.

Would it be possible to make minutes/summaries of questions and answers available for those of use who were unable to attend?

Will there be another meeting in the future?
Ian Holloway / Monday 19 January 2009

I am unable to attend but would like to recive a copy of the meeting notes.
Hernan Castano / Tuesday 20 January 2009

This is an important subject and needs to be debated regionally. Not just in London
Steve Mangan / Wednesday 4 February 2009

I think that some people are missing the point between MfS and DMRB. Especially concerning the inter-relationship between SSD, Visibility and Width of roads.

Due consideration needs to be assessed as the DMRB standards are based on information that is currently under review, and this is especially so in light of the research that was undertaken in demonstrating the said requirements within MfS
Eric Woodgate / Wednesday 4 February 2009

I would be glad to receive a copy of the minutes.
Kerry Flower / Wednesday 4 February 2009

This is set to continue for a long time untill the DFT undertake the stop gap and issue the further document which is designer for urban roads. MfS is designed for slow residential streets which have parents and children using them, not roads for commuters.
Bill Pitcher / Wednesday 4 February 2009

Having suffered at the hands of engineers who count DMRB as 'the default' for the design of anything not covered by the Kent Design Guide (and especially for S278 schemes at the entrance point to otherwise well-designed developments), I consider there to be an urgent need to develop the 'think about it' philosophy up to where DMRB actually applies. A good example is emerging in the form of guidance for the Kent Downs AONB, but we should be rolling that out to cover all county roads.
Bob White
Transport & Development Business Manager
Kent Highway Services
Bob White / Thursday 5 February 2009

MfS vs DMRB Presentation.
I regret that I was unable to attend the presentations but found the downloads of interest, as did many of my colleagues. Was a transcript made or is it possible to obtain a copy of the presenters notes, please.
Roger Doe / Thursday 5 February 2009