Case Summary: One's own misunderstanding of the meaning of a traffic sign is not a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement of the traffic sign. (HKSAR v Ho Loy)

Case Summary: One's own misunderstanding of the meaning of a traffic sign is not a reasonable excuse for not complying with the requirement of the traffic sign. (HKSAR v Ho Loy)

HKSAR v Ho Loy
Case No.: FACC 7/2015
Date of Judgment: 23 March 2016
Citation: (2016) 19 HKCFAR 110
https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2016/20?hl=FACC%207%2F2015

Facts

On a certain day in the morning, a police officer stopped Ms. Ho Loy for riding a bicycle on a driveway. The driveway was at the end of an intersecting cycleway with a road marking of Figure No. 619 with the word ‘END’ in English (and correspondingly in Chinese); there was also the traffic sign of Figure No. 155, visible.

Figure No. 619, which indicates ‘the section of road on which it is placed is reserved for bicycles or tricycles’, is this:

Ms. Ho was prosecuted for failing to comply with the requirement indicated by the traffic sign of the type shown in Figure No. 155 in Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G), contrary to regulations 50(2) and 61(2) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G).  

Figure No. 155, as in Schedule 1 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G), is this:

The Figure includes the precise dimensions and colours, and indicates a description in words of the requirement or restriction.

Figure No. 155, in words, was an ideogram of a person with one hand on the handlebar of a bicycle and the other hand on its seat, with the lower limbs in the attitude of a person walking (and not showing the person’s feet on the pedals of the bicycle). It is sign in the shape of a circle with the border in white in colour, blue in colour in the background, and white in colour for the person and the bicycle.

Figure No. 155, in the regulations, is a ‘cycling restriction’ which indicates a requirement that ‘cycling is prohibited beyond the sign and cyclists must dismount and push their bicycle or tricycle if they wish to proceed beyond the sign’.

The actual sign of Figure No. 155, as seen on the road, is this:

Regulation 50(2) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G) requires a person riding a bicycle/tricycle on a road shall comply with the requirement indicated by a traffic sign shown in some Figures (including Figure No. 155 here).

Regulation 61(2) of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G) states that any person, who without reasonable excuse contravenes the requirement under some regulations (including regulation 50(2) here), commits an offence.

Since the trial in the magistrates’ court, Ms. Ho’s alleged defence was that she had a ‘reasonable excuse’ for contravening the regulation, because she was confused by Figure No. 155, and she honestly and reasonably thought/believed that Figure No. 155 meant cycling was permitted, rather than prohibited.

The magistrate convicted Ms. Ho and fined her $500. Ms. Ho appealed to the Court of First Instance because she considered the traffic sign (i.e. Figure No. 155) ambiguous, unclear and confusing. The judge of the Court of First Instance agreed that the sign was ambiguous and confusing, and therefore the judge quashed Ms Ho’s conviction and set aside the fine. The Prosecution appealed to the Court of Final Appeal.

Issue

What is meaning/nature/scope of the defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ here? Does the meaning of the traffic sign depend on the cyclist’s subjective interpretation? If not, does Ms. Ho’s mistaken belief in its meaning constitute a reasonable excuse?

Ruling and Reasons for Judgment

The purpose of the legislation and the regulations is the effective regulation of the use of vehicles and roads for the avoidance or minimisation of the risk of potentially fatal accidents and of injuries and damage to persons and property. One of the principal purposes of traffic signs and road markings is to make use of the road as safe as reasonably practicable. There is an important public interest in the purpose. All road users have the responsibility to familiarise themselves with the meaning of traffic signs and road markings. This was important in terms of compliance with the legislation/regulations, and also from the perspective of road safety.

Interpretation of a traffic sign was not dependent on one’s subjective interpretation or non-appreciation of the meaning conveyed by it. The meaning of the traffic sign (i.e. Figure No. 155) has been assigned by the regulations, which was clear, unambiguous, sufficiently precise, and legally certain. Its meaning can be ascertained from the readily available means of the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap 374), the Regulations (Cap 374G), and the Road Users’ Code.

There is no need to prove that the defendant (like Ms. Ho) knew of the requirement of the traffic sign, or that he/she intended to disobey that requirement.

Regarding the defence of reasonable excuse, the defendant (like Ms. Ho) has the burden to prove, on balance of probabilities, that he/she has a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with the requirement of a traffic sign. Matters for consideration include: (1) what the matters that might constitute reasonable excuse are, (2) the excuse was genuine or not, and (3) the excuse was reasonable or not.

A reasonable excuse might be where the failure is inadvertent because the sign has become obscured from view by surrounding foliage; it might also include where the failure is deliberate but has occurred because the cyclist does so to avoid or prevent an accident or to escape an assailant; or that the road marking was not noticeable, or that the road signs were inconsistent and contradictory.

A cyclist’s belief as to the meaning of a traffic sign is relevant to the genuineness and reasonableness of the excuse. However, if an honest belief that those signs had different meanings from those set out in the legislation/regulations could constitute a reasonable excuse, that would be a recipe for traffic chaos. It was unreasonable for a cyclist, like Ms. Ho, to rely on a mistaken belief (or a misunderstanding) as to the meaning of a sign, and ignorance of the law was not a defence. It may be possible to make a clearer traffic sign, but it does not follow that it is reasonable for a cyclist to ignore the sign.

The Prosecution’s appeal was allowed. But Ms. Ho’s conviction in the magistrates’ court was not restored.

Takeaway

One’s own misunderstanding of the meaning of a traffic sign is not a reasonable excuse for him/her not to comply with the requirement of the traffic sign.

Although this case concerned with a particular traffic sign restricting cyclists only, the defence of ‘reasonable excuse’ is also likely to be applicable to other traffic signs that restrict other road users (including pedestrians and drivers).