Agenda item

(1)       The County Council for many years had not supported the use of traffic mirrors on the highway despite other Highway Authorities and the Department for Transport (DfT) allowing them in certain circumstances. It was now proposed that the County Council adopted a new policy allowing the limited use of traffic mirrors at specific locations to assist in the delivery of one of the key objectives of reducing road causalities.  Growth Without Gridlock stated road safety as a priority for central and local government.

(2)       If the policy was adopted the County Council would bear the costs of installation and maintenance of a traffic mirror if introduced as a casualty reduction measure. If a Member wished to fund a mirror via their Member Highway Fund then the cost would be met from their individual allocation. If a member of the public requested a traffic mirror to assist with exiting private property then they would have to fully fund the work including the full investigation, approval and any future maintenance costs.

(3)    The Highways & Transportation department received enquiries every year requesting the installation of traffic mirrors on the highway to aid motorists at road junctions or private accesses where visibility was restricted due to the alignment of the highway, vegetation, fence, wall or building etc. Currently such requests were turned down on the basis that the placing of a mirror could adversely affect road safety.

(4)       Traffic mirrors were classified as a road traffic sign but were not currently prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). Their use on the highway currently required special authorisation by the Department for Transport (DfT). The DfT had however, indicated in their recent review of signing policy “Signing the Way” that the new revised TSRGD, due sometime after 2014, would allow the use of mirrors in prescribed conditions without the need for special authorisation.

(5)       Whilst the widespread use of mirrors should not be encouraged there were sites when their use might be a benefit to road safety. It was therefore proposed that the County Council adopted a new proactive policy that allowed their limited use. Each site would need to meet with the DfT criteria and would require an independent safety assessment to ensure that existing hazards were not increased by inducing drivers to rely on a mirror and take less care than they normally would. The assessment process would include a review of the safety record and consultation with the police. 

(6)       The County would only consider traffic mirrors on the public highway where:-

•           There was a crash history relating to a lack of visibility.

•           Visibility for vehicles emerging from the side road was severely restricted.

•           A visibility improvement scheme was not feasible.

•           Visibility could not be improved by removing hedges, walls, trees or other obstacles.

•           The speed limit on the major road was above 30mph, the introduction thereby being aimed at higher speed roads.

•           There were no other reasonable standard highway improvements possible.

(7)       Mirrors might be sited off the highway on private land and that was a matter for the land owner and the person who placed the mirror. Planning permission might be required and any applicant should be directed to the local Planning Authority. Should any private mirror overhang a highway maintainable at public expense, then a licence was required from the Highway Authority. Should the County Council ascertain that road safety was being compromised as a result of a private mirror being placed near to the public highway the County Council would use its powers to remove the mirror.

(8)       RESOLVED that:-

(a)       the policy set out in the report allowing limited use of traffic mirrors on the highway be endorsed; and

(b)       the Cabinet Member be recommended to introduce the policy.