PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TFL PCN 46:Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) St Johns Wood Road, NW8
hotgrips
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 09:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



Hello

I woulp appreciate a quick look.

I stopped in a white box on a red route without thinking twice. It was no more than a minute. I had taken a wrong turning and needed a second for my GPS to reset the route.



PCN scans and photos here:
https://imgur.com/a/71pBwcA

Google streetview here (The bay in question is the one closest to "Dora House", which is visible in the default positioning):
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5296963,-...3312!8i6656


Many thanks

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 09:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 09:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 09:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,866
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Bay signs are usually facing oncoming traffic like the one opposite - both bays say no stopping except for buses.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5295834,-...3312!8i6656

you can ask for a DVD with video

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 09:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 12:08
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



As per Stamfordman, ask for a copy of the CCTV footage, if it shows a stop of less than 1 minute, then a de minimis defence may be the way to go, but would undoubtedly be at Adjudication with the full £130 Penalty at stake. If you ask for the evidence, the penalty will be held at £65 until you have had a chance to view it.

The signs should face oncoming traffic, but again, this would end up at Adjudication - some Adjudicators will go by the letter of the Law, which says that Red Route signs should face oncoming traffic, while others are content with "substantial compliance" i.e that the sign is present. Another £65 gamble at 50/50 odds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hotgrips
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 12:22
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



Thank you both

On page 2 it says "you can view the CCTV footage at the Transport for London office.... The viewing by you ... can take place between the hours of 9.00 and 17.00"

Does that rule out the possibility of obtaining the footage as a DVD or by other remote means?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 13:29
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,957
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hotgrips @ Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 13:22) *
Thank you both

On page 2 it says "you can view the CCTV footage at the Transport for London office.... The viewing by you ... can take place between the hours of 9.00 and 17.00"

Does that rule out the possibility of obtaining the footage as a DVD or by other remote means?

No, as has been said above, if you call up TFL and ask for the video they will send you a DVD in the post. I would add that the sign for the bay does not appear to be facing traffic, which is helpful.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 17:38
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871





QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (hotgrips @ Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 13:22) *
Thank you both

On page 2 it says "you can view the CCTV footage at the Transport for London office.... The viewing by you ... can take place between the hours of 9.00 and 17.00"

Does that rule out the possibility of obtaining the footage as a DVD or by other remote means?

No, as has been said above, if you call up TFL and ask for the video they will send you a DVD in the post. I would add that the sign for the bay does not appear to be facing traffic, which is helpful.


If the PCN/NtO still says £10 to have the DVD sent to you, ignore it - it's free. If you wish to, you can make an appointment to see the footage at TfLs Office - it's in Southwark.
Currently, TfL do not have the technology for online viewing.

This post has been edited by DastardlyDick: Sun, 28 Apr 2019 - 17:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hotgrips
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 08:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



Here is the footage. I was in the box for 50 seconds

https://youtu.be/E0g1db8e47s

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 08:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 08:22
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,866
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well it's ridiculous to enforce a PCN for stopping briefly in a marked bay but we are where we are with TFL.

I think I'd push this to adjudication not least because the presence of a car in the bay gives one the idea it's OK to stop in the bay. The issue is you were fiddling with your GPS though. But you didn't park and leave the bike.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 08:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 12:20
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,957
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I still can't make out the sign in the video, maybe it's facing the wrong way, or gone missing. Would be worthwhile to go back and check.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 16:21
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 372
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



It is ridiculous. Where's the evidence in that video that the signage was even present? The rider pulled over to make an adjustment to his vehicle in order continue his journey safely, not stopping.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 16:37
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,807
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (Irksome @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 17:21) *
The rider pulled over to make an adjustment to his vehicle in order continue his journey safely, not stopping.


Since when is fiddling with a satnav "making an adjustment to his vehicle" etc?
IMO the OP can either:-
(a) go with a de minimis defence as he was only stopped for 50 seconds.
(b) appeal on the ground of defective signage.
© pay up.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hotgrips
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 18:49
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



QUOTE (DastardlyDick @ Fri, 24 May 2019 - 17:37) *
Since when is fiddling with a satnav "making an adjustment to his vehicle" etc?
IMO the OP can either:-
(a) go with a de minimis defence as he was only stopped for 50 seconds.
(b) appeal on the ground of defective signage.
© pay up.


I'm quite ignorant of how this all works. Can one appeal citing both (a) and (b) or is one restricted to a single argument?

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Fri, 24 May 2019 - 18:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 24 May 2019 - 19:43
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,866
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



You can make as many arguments as you like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hotgrips
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 08:44
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



I'm about to make a representation.




Would incorrect signage come under "there has been a procedural impropriety...."?



Also, I assume photographic evidence would be required that the signage is incorrect?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 16:15
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,957
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hotgrips @ Sat, 25 May 2019 - 09:44) *
Would incorrect signage come under "there has been a procedural impropriety...."?

No, it would be that the alleged contravention did not occur.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hotgrips
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 17:30
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



I just noticed another detail.

In the google streetview archive from Nov 2016, the sign was correctly positioned


In the latest streetview image, as we have seen, it is improperly positioned. Though the latest streetview is from Nov 2018.




Does that in any way strengthen the argument?

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Sat, 25 May 2019 - 17:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 25 May 2019 - 19:12
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,957
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Not really, we need to know what the sign looks like now rather than six months ago.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hotgrips
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 16:07
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 5 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,472



Visited the location today.

Gallery here:
https://imgur.com/a/BpFwLcJ

Went overkill with the number of photos just in case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 16:13
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,957
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think if you'd stopped for as long as necessary to see the sign and then driven off, you'd have a complete defence. However you were stationary for a long time, and made no obvious attempt to locate the signage. At the same time the bay markings were white rather than red, so you had no obvious indication that you were on a red route.

You can clearly make the argument that if the signs had been facing traffic, as they should, the contravention would not have been committed, but it's not a guaranteed victory by any stretch of the imagination.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 26 May 2019 - 16:41
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,866
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Write a draft challenge and post here.

What I find odd is that in your pics there are two vehicles parked on the box yet they are not buses, which the sign says are the only ones allowed there at any time.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 22nd July 2019 - 12:49
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.