Islington 52JM Calshot Street |
Islington 52JM Calshot Street |
Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 03:07
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 18 Jul 2008 From: England Member No.: 21,186 |
52JM Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle - motor vehicles
Calshot Street - video capture Background Turned left into Calshot Street, N1 from Euston Road and parked on that street on the (literally 20 yards) other side of the crossroads with Collier St facing back towards Euston Rd. Left a couple of hours later back through Calshot St. Did not notice any signage on the way in - at Euston Rd - restricting the direction of travel or on the way back. Reviewed video and Google Streetview - on the way in from Euston Rd there are no one-way restrictions signed however the restriction is clearly posted (with lamps lit) at the Collier St crossroad. Whilst I would not have seen the restrictions on the way in the video shows my vehicle passing the restrictions signs on the way in. The PCN was forgotten over Christmas so appreciate I have 7 days to deliver representations. After reviewing the PCN and previous cases this seems pretty difficult to argue however a couple of areas jump to mind : - Based on previous comment by PASTMYBEST - the contravention should require a 619 sign (which is present) however "this would be a contravention against a required TRO". I have reviewed Islington TMOs and no relevant orders were in place on the date in question. - No signage on entrance to road indicating it is one-way for motor vehicles - Although impossible to prove based on the evidence I did not have sufficient distance to review the sign as I was parked next to the junction and was focussing on traffic in road especially from side roads. Will make representations - assume a token £65 offer is usually made once the usual rejection is sent ? |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 03:07
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 10:12
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
You turned into Calshot from Pentonville Road (not Euston Rd).
This is an odd one - is Calshot one way coming up? I presume they sign it like this because they can't stop cyclists going both ways maybe. Roadworks at time of GSV. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5335721,-0....6384!8i8192 |
|
|
Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 10:29
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5323199,-0....6384!8i8192
It's a 24/7 restriction so not sure why they don't use a no-entry sign and/or a traffic island, but it is what it is. I've asked for the TMO, they will re-offer the discount in almost all cases. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 23:22
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 18 Jul 2008 From: England Member No.: 21,186 |
You turned into Calshot from Pentonville Road (not Euston Rd). This is an odd one - is Calshot one way coming up? I presume they sign it like this because they can't stop cyclists going both ways maybe. Roadworks at time of GSV. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5335721,-0....6384!8i8192 @stamfordman : Yes -correct - it is Pentonville Road - not a regular visitor. Calshot St appears to be de facto one-way although no signs to that effect on Pentonville Road end. Roadworks at the time of my visit - just about make them out on the images. They had apparently moved on to the opposite side of the road to the GSV images. This post has been edited by MrW: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 - 23:23 |
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 00:10
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Odd one this. The sign is not a s36 so passing the sign is not a contravention and there is not a prohibition against motor vehicles, only driving them in that direction
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 01:07
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
I don’t see how (other than with SoS intervention) the signs would give effect to an order other than one which prohibits the use of a road by motor vehicles, which is plainly not the case, and are plainly being used to indicate a one-way traffic system.
-------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 10:34
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 972 Joined: 25 Jul 2010 Member No.: 39,245 |
There is a "flying motorcycle" sign just past the junction. The sign of "one way but contraflow for cycles" may have been around for a long time but not in common usage but now does appear to be in London as they seem to let cyclists go contraflow down a lot of roads, and Calshot Street has become one of them. It has long been one-way for motor vehicles in a north-bound direction from Pentonville Road towards Caledonian Road.
It appears that OP did a U-turn which would have contravened the one-way direction (not following direction on a sign) but then passed the "flying motorcycle" no motor vehicles sign and that is the contravention they have chosen to enforce. I can't actually see a get-out, it appears to be reasonably well signposted and may be worth paying the discount if available. |
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 11:24
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I don’t see how (other than with SoS intervention) the signs would give effect to an order other than one which prohibits the use of a road by motor vehicles, which is plainly not the case, and are plainly being used to indicate a one-way traffic system. Indeed, normally no entry signs are used for this purpose as they're s36 signs. Absent a TMO, the PCN is unsustainable. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 11:48
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 18 Jul 2008 From: England Member No.: 21,186 |
There is a "flying motorcycle" sign just past the junction. The sign of "one way but contraflow for cycles" may have been around for a long time but not in common usage but now does appear to be in London as they seem to let cyclists go contraflow down a lot of roads, and Calshot Street has become one of them. It has long been one-way for motor vehicles in a north-bound direction from Pentonville Road towards Caledonian Road. It appears that OP did a U-turn which would have contravened the one-way direction (not following direction on a sign) but then passed the "flying motorcycle" no motor vehicles sign and that is the contravention they have chosen to enforce. I can't actually see a get-out, it appears to be reasonably well signposted and may be worth paying the discount if available. Thanks for the response - I am the OP. First point - thanks for the background - we are aware of the "flying motorcyle" signs (wish I was at the time !) and are looking at whether the restriction has been legally put in place not whether it was well signposted (I have had a recent sight test as well !). Second point - I did not do an immediate U-turn (is that your assumption?) and reverse direction - I parked just beyond the junction (turning around past the junction) - past the crossroads with Collier Street - for about 2 hours (arrived in the light and left when dark) - facing in the direction of Pentonville Road. I then drove back the way I came - obviously without noticing the "flying motorcycle" sign. Obviously that is the contravention they are looking to enforce - I am NOT debating that - just whether it can legally be enforced. Obviously on a return visit I would observe the restrictions. This post has been edited by MrW: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 11:52 |
|
|
Thu, 3 Jan 2019 - 14:00
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
This is the TMO provided: https://www.scribd.com/document/396736035/1970-369
So in the absence of any other order, the signs cannot be enforced. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 13:55
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 74 Joined: 18 Jul 2008 From: England Member No.: 21,186 |
This is the TMO provided: https://www.scribd.com/document/396736035/1970-369 So in the absence of any other order, the signs cannot be enforced. @cp8759 : Thanks for the TMO - it seems to prohibit traffic in all directions other than South to North - implying that South to North - as alleged is prohibited. Part 2 of The Traffic Signs General Directions 2002 Section 7 indicates that diagram 619 should be used to indicate where a statutory provision (assumes this could include TMO 1970/369) restricts the use of the road. If TMO 1970/369 restricts the use of the road to South to North then surely it then follows that a vehicle travelling North to South, as alleged, would be in contravention of the order - what am I missing ? Is this the correct legislation ? On another note - I have 28 days to provide my response plus 2 days assumed service. From notice date of 12/12/2018 I make the last date as 11/1/19 (including 2 days for service). Anyone disagree ? |
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 16:55
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The 2002 regs have been replaced by the 2016 version. Diagram 619 means "Motor vehicles prohibited", and as PASTMYBEST says there is no prohibition on motor vehicles, there's only a prohibition in driving them in one particular direction. I suppose the council could argue that the sign is being used to enforce the one-way street so the TMO supports it. Whether an adjudicator would agree I'm not entirely sure.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 17:03
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
This is the TMO provided: https://www.scribd.com/document/396736035/1970-369 So in the absence of any other order, the signs cannot be enforced. @cp8759 : Thanks for the TMO - it seems to prohibit traffic in all directions other than South to North - implying that South to North - as alleged is prohibited. Part 2 of The Traffic Signs General Directions 2002 Section 7 indicates that diagram 619 should be used to indicate where a statutory provision (assumes this could include TMO 1970/369) restricts the use of the road. If TMO 1970/369 restricts the use of the road to South to North then surely it then follows that a vehicle travelling North to South, as alleged, would be in contravention of the order - what am I missing ? I think you may be missing that references to “any vehicle” must include references to cycles in the absence of any other order, and thus the enforcement of the signage may be in question. -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 17:05
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I'll ask if there's a subsequent order exempting cycles from the restrictions.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 18:42
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Last date for representations is the 10th seemed served on the 14th of December.
The flying motorbike sign (619) is not a s36 sign therefore you do not contravene the sign but the order. The sign must convey the restriction. and that is proceeding in a direction other than that allowed by the order. The correct sign must be no entry. 619 means motor vehicles prohibited period I look at this case paras 14 and 32 to 42 in particular https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2017/430.html -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 20:52
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
The sign must convey the restriction. and that is proceeding in a direction other than that allowed by the order. The correct sign must be no entry. I was of the same opinion as you (post #6). The thing is though, on digging deeper I see nothing in TSRGD 2016 that prevents placing signs to diagram 619 at the start of an advisory contra-flow cycle lane without a traffic island such as Calshot St jct with Collier St (see Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, 17.27 on pages 152/3). Although, as per post #13 I do believe the TMO must reflect the signs, and 1970/369 does not. -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Fri, 4 Jan 2019 - 22:28
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The sign must convey the restriction. and that is proceeding in a direction other than that allowed by the order. The correct sign must be no entry. I was of the same opinion as you (post #6). The thing is though, on digging deeper I see nothing in TSRGD 2016 that prevents placing signs to diagram 619 at the start of an advisory contra-flow cycle lane without a traffic island such as Calshot St jct with Collier St (see Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, 17.27 on pages 152/3). Although, as per post #13 I do believe the TMO must reflect the signs, and 1970/369 does not. The sign must reflect the TMO all over the country a one way street has no entry at one end and a white one way arrow at the other The sign does convey a restriction but IMO not the one laid down by the TMO. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 01:41
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
The sign must reflect the TMO all over the country a one way street has no entry at one end and a white one way arrow at the other The sign does convey a restriction but IMO not the one laid down by the TMO. I was initially inclined to agree but I then remembered I know a few one way roads that are signed in this way. My fear is an adjudicator could use substantial compliance to explain away the fact that the sign doesn't faithfully reflect the TMO. I think it could go either way and is 50/50 at best. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 12:03
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
The sign must reflect the TMO all over the country a one way street has no entry at one end and a white one way arrow at the other The sign does convey a restriction but IMO not the one laid down by the TMO. I was initially inclined to agree but I then remembered I know a few one way roads that are signed in this way. My fear is an adjudicator could use substantial compliance to explain away the fact that the sign doesn't faithfully reflect the TMO. I think it could go either way and is 50/50 at best. You are probably right 50/50. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 12:27
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
Pending surely that the TMO reads no person shall cause 'any motor vehicle' to proceed from north to south in Calshot St between Pentonville Rd and Collier Street which would correspond with the signs in place, and not “any vehicle” as per TMO 1970/369, which does not.
This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sat, 5 Jan 2019 - 12:42 -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:46 |