Is the driver obliged to stop at the place indicated by the traffic controller in this situation?

Explanation

He is obliged to; the traffic controller's instruction takes precedence over the no-stopping sign.

In the picture the traffic controller is standing in the middle of the carriageway indicating the stopping place with his hand, while at the right edge of the street the "no stopping" sign (a blue circle with a red cross) is posted. The conflict is apparent, not real: in the hierarchy of traffic control, the signals and instructions of a traffic controller stand at the highest level; above traffic lights and above signs and markings. When the controller gives an instruction, the sign is set aside temporarily and you must stop where he indicates.

The safety reason for this order matters: signs are designed for the normal, pre-planned situation, but a controller appears precisely when the situation is abnormal; a crash, a signal failure, a convoy passing, a flood or a route closure. At such a moment the only person with a complete picture of the scene is the controller himself. If every driver cited a local sign and disobeyed him, management of the scene would fall apart.

Worth memorising for the exam: the order of precedence is traffic controller, then traffic lights, then signs, and finally markings. Almost any question in which a controller appears is solved by that same order.

• The option's reasoning is correct in normal circumstances, and that is what makes it tempting; but a sign loses its effect against a controller's instruction, and citing a sign in order to disregard the controller is itself an offence.

Sources and content coverage · Report a content error