According to the Dept for Transport "Highway Art" is not covered by the Regulations relating to Road Markings, so I am wondering if a court case should also be against the DforT, ie. for issuing guidance that pointedly ignores the safety aspects of the composition and skid-resistance of materials used?
Given that the DforT maintains that the Road Marking Regulations do not cover "Highway Art" I am also wondering if there are general regulations about road surfaces that would apply and might be contravened by slippy "Highway Art"?
I did an internet search for "Rainbow Crossing Court Case" and a case in New Zealand came up top of the search results. The case was lost because NZ makes a similar distinction between "Road Markings" and
"Roadway Art".
CIV-2024-485-302 [2025] NZHC 609
DEANNA MERANIA ROA, DON GRANT TAINUI ROA AND LYNEOSA TUIQERE
vs
WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL First Respondent
and
NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY WAKA KOTAHI Second Respondent
21 March 2025
https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/assets/cases/2025/2025-NZHC-609.pdf
However, the case makes no reference to the composition of materials used to create the Rainbow Crossing "Roadway Art" that was the cause of complaint.
That judgement mentions that that crossing was created in 2018, before NZ made an addition to its Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices 2004 (TCD Rule) in 2020.
This addition lays out extra considerations for "Roadway Art" but again there is nothing about the composition of materials to be used. The judgement refers to the addition as intended to enable rather than restrict "Roadway Art".
(In case anyone has nodded off by this point - reminder this is an extract from a judgement in a NZ court, not the UK! Bolding as in original.)
What happened to the TCD Rule in 2020?
[98] In 2020, the TCD Rule was amended.39 The objective of the amendment was to “allow for the lawful installation on a roadway of markings that are not traffic control devices in particular circumstances”.40 The concept of roadway art was included in the Amended TCD Rule though, perhaps unhelpfully, there is no definition of “roadway art”. The most significant amendments for the purposes of the present case are to cl 5.5 and the insertion of a new cl 5.6 with examples. I set out both clauses and the examples below, using square brackets in cl 5.5 to indicate the changes that were made in 2020 in the Amended TCD Rule:
5.5 Markings intended for advertising purposes [or not connected with use of a road]
A person must not install, on a roadway, a marking that is intended to be used for the purpose of advertising or other purpose not connected with the use of the road [unless it is roadway art installed in accordance with 5.6(1)].
5.6 Requirements for roadway art 5.6(1) Despite anything in 5.4, a road controlling authority may install any marking on a roadway (roadway art) if the roadway art:
(a) is installed in a lower risk environment; and
(b) does not resemble and is not similar to a marking described in this Rule; and
(c) does not mislead road users about the meaning of any traffic control device; and
(d) is not part of or visually integrated into a marking specified in Schedule 2.
5.6(2) In this Rule, lower risk environment means an area—
(a) where the road controlling authority manages speeds, through the use of any combination of traffic control devices, roadside developments, roadway art and other changes in the road environment, with the aim to achieve an outcome where the operating speed of vehicles (except in emergency situations) is not more than 30km/h (whether or not the speed limit for the area is 30km/h); and
(b) in relation to which it is reasonable for the road controlling authority to believe that outcome has been or will be achieved
Example 1:
On a wide urban street with a 50km/h speed limit and that has a wideangle intersection with another street, a road controlling authority has narrowed the roadway by installing planter boxes and removing car parks. It also paints an assortment of coloured circles on the roadway. The shapes do not resemble and are not similar to any markings described in this Rule, and are also not part of or visually integrated into any markings specified in Schedule 2.
Those measures will achieve an outcome where the operating speed of vehicles (except in emergency situations) is not more than 30km/h.
The relevant area is a lower risk environment.
These painted circles are roadway art installed in accordance with
5.6(1).
Example 2:
A series of long rectangles are painted on the road, parallel to the kerb and perpendicular to oncoming vehicle traffic. These either resemble or are similar to markings for a pedestrian crossing, which are described in this Rule (see M1-1 in Schedule 2), so cannot be installed as roadway art under 5.6(1).
Example 3:
On a wide urban street that has a wide-angle intersection with another street, a road controlling authority has installed a sign advising to slow for pedestrians, with the aim of achieving an outcome where the operating speed of vehicles (except in emergency situations) is not more than 30km/h. However, it can be regularly observed that vehicles travel through the area at more than 30km/h. It is not reasonable to believe the outcome has been or will be achieved if nothing more is done. The relevant area is not a lower risk environment. Accordingly, roadway art cannot be installed in the area.
[99] The Amended TCD Rule also conferred additional powers on the Transport Agency in respect of markings and lower risk environments, but I do not intend to set these out in full here.
----
The full text of the Amended TCD Rule is in this document: 2.6 New clauses 5.6 to 5.9 inserted. Nothing about the composition of materials to be used.
Land Transport Rule: Traffic Control Devices Amendment 2020.
Patsy Reddy, Governor-General Order
in Council
At Wellington
this 27th day of July 2020
Present: The Right Hon Jacinda Ardern presiding in Council
https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/rules/docs/traffic-control-devices-amendment-2020.pdf
This is the updated NZ Rule, which is less stringent than the UK Regulations as it seems to allow any sort of paint or paint-like material to be used, the only consideration being colour:
Land Transport Rule Traffic Control Devices 2004 Rule 54002/2004 As at 19 May 2022
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/615b81c9bbf626f0003ff5c3/6453132af473eeec1fd90d6e_Transport%20Rule%20Traffic%20Control%20Devices%20Rule%2054002%202004.pdf
========
It would be good to see a UK court case take up this issue. Even if these monstrosities cannot be banned then at least they could be made safer.
Personally, I would like to see all this "Highway Art" banned. It is not all Pride/Rainbow/Trans/BLM political stuff. Some of it is very beautiful but IMHO all of it is unnecessarily risky for all road users.
AI came up with this "Overview":
"Highway art," particularly when it involves unauthorized graffiti or street art, carries risks including legal consequences for artists, property damage perceptions, and potential health hazards from toxic art materials. Additionally, the artistic merit and value of such art can be debated, leading to controversies about its place and perception within the art world and society.
Specific Risks Associated with Highway Art:
Legal Repercussions:
Much of what is considered "highway art" (especially graffiti) is created without permission, leading to charges of vandalism and potential legal consequences for artists.
Property Damage and Public Perception:
Property owners may view street art as damage rather than beautification, leading to conflicts and public debates about the line between art and crime.
Health Hazards:
Art materials, including pigments, solvents, varnishes, and lacquers, can contain toxic ingredients that pose health risks like allergic reactions, respiratory problems, and long-term damage to organs if proper safety precautions are not taken.
Controversy and Artistic Legitimacy:
The nature of street art and graffiti, often created outside conventional art institutions, can lead to debates about its artistic legitimacy and whether it belongs in traditional gallery settings.
Structural Impact:
In some rare cases, like the Centralia, Pennsylvania "Graffiti Highway" scenario, the art's creation and the subsequent events (like the underground fire) negatively impacted the structural integrity of the highway itself.