TFL PCN 46:Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway) St Johns Wood Road, NW8 Options

[hotgrips]

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

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

I'm curious that in the notice of rejection from TFL, they say "The Traffic Signs manual is for guidance only and there will be situations where a traffic sign can not face oncoming drivers. EG it will be obscured by foliage or trees. In such circumstances it is perfectly feasible to have the sign face parallel to the kerb as long as it remains visible".

In Nov 2016 the foliage did not significantly differ to that seen in my photos, and the sign was significantly more visible to oncoming traffic as seen in the streetview photo).

Is it worth developing this argument?

Maybe a little bit but bear in mind TFL's response will be cobbled together with a bunch of generic templated paragraphs, so they might only vaguely relate to your case. If you have a look on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...t#gid=238292000 you might even be able to find the template they used under the link for "TFL_Enforcement_paragraphs".

So, it might be worth developing this argument a little bit, but don't go OTT.

[hotgrips]

Maybe a little bit but bear in mind TFL's response will be cobbled together with a bunch of generic templated paragraphs, so they might only vaguely relate to your case.

So, it might be worth developing this argument a little bit, but don't go OTT.

I understand.

I didn't convey my idea very clearly. It's not so much the specific language about the foliage that I am commenting on, but the fact that the signage was in a certain position in 2016 and in a different position in 2019, even though the area itself doesn't appear to have changed significantly.

The argument is that this inconsistency does not support TFL's counter argument in the rejection letter. Do you think that would have any weight?

If you have a look on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...t#gid=238292000 you might even be able to find the template they used under the link for "TFL_Enforcement_paragraphs".

I had a look and found a relevant generic response:

The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) recommends that a red route sign should face the direction of oncoming traffic so that drivers can read the sign without stopping, however it must be clarified that the TSM has the status of guidance only. TfL is satisfied that the signs in place at the above location give motorists adequate information regarding the restrictions in place.

So according to this the positioning of the signs is a subjective matter? Will the decision amount to the adjudicator's subjective opinion as to whether the signs are sufficiently visible?

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 - 19:20

[DastardlyDick]

Maybe a little bit but bear in mind TFL's response will be cobbled together with a bunch of generic templated paragraphs, so they might only vaguely relate to your case.

So, it might be worth developing this argument a little bit, but don't go OTT.

I understand.

I didn't convey my idea very clearly. It's not so much the specific language about the foliage that I am commenting on, but the fact that the signage was in a certain position in 2016 and in a different position in 2019, even though the area itself doesn't appear to have changed significantly.

The argument is that this inconsistency does not support TFL's counter argument in the rejection letter. Do you think that would have any weight?

If you have a look on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVr...t#gid=238292000 you might even be able to find the template they used under the link for "TFL_Enforcement_paragraphs".

I had a look and found a relevant generic response:

The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) recommends that a red route sign should face the direction of oncoming traffic so that drivers can read the sign without stopping, however it must be clarified that the TSM has the status of guidance only. TfL is satisfied that the signs in place at the above location give motorists adequate information regarding the restrictions in place.

So according to this the positioning of the signs is a subjective matter? Will the decision amount to the adjudicator's subjective opinion as to whether the signs are sufficiently visible?

There is a risk that an Adjudicator could find the signs to be "substantially compliant" i.e. they were present.

[cp8759]

The adjudicator's task is to decide whether the signs provided adequate guidance such that a notional diligent motorist would have been aware of the restrictions. This in principle is an objective test (as every adjudicator in theory refers to the same notional diligent motorist), but of course that does not mean that every adjudicator would reach the same conclusion.

Your main problem here is that the notional diligent motorist stops in a bay and then looks for the signs, but the video shows you did not such thing. It's arguable that if you had made an effort to locate the signs, you would have probably seen them. To be sure I'm not sure you have an answer to this if either TFL or the adjudicator bring it up.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 - 16:03

[hotgrips]

The adjudicator's task is to decide whether the signs provided adequate guidance such that a notional diligent motorist would have been aware of the restrictions. This in principle is an objective test (as every adjudicator in theory refers to the same notional diligent motorist), but of course that does not mean that every adjudicator would reach the same conclusion.

Your main problem here is that the notional diligent motorist stops in a bay and then looks for the signs, but the video shows you did not such thing. It's arguable that if you had made an effort to locate the signs, you would have probably seen them. To be sure I'm not sure you have an answer to this if either TFL or the adjudicator bring it up.

My answer would be that from my knowledge of the highway code, my default assumption was that a bay with white markings on a red route is not restricted for momentary stopping.



That is to say, having never been in this situation before, there is no reasonable way for a motorist referring to the highway code as a reference to be aware that vehicle stopping restrictions could apply to a white bay on a red route.

Not sure that they would be sympathetic to that, however.

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 - 19:18

[cp8759]

The Highway Code is only guidance, it is not the law. Where there is any ambiguity, discrepancy or conflict between the Highway Code and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, the latter prevails without exception. Of course, a normal motorist will probably never have heard of the TSRGD, but our notional diligent motorist (which is the legal standard the tribunal will refer to) knows it inside out and back to front and abides by all its rules. I'm not saying your argument can't succeed, I'm just pointing out the obstacles you may face.

[hotgrips]

The Highway Code is only guidance, it is not the law. Where there is any ambiguity, discrepancy or conflict between the Highway Code and the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, the latter prevails without exception. Of course, a normal motorist will probably never have heard of the TSRGD, but our notional diligent motorist (which is the legal standard the tribunal will refer to) knows it inside out and back to front and abides by all its rules. I'm not saying your argument can't succeed, I'm just pointing out the obstacles you may face.

Understood

From your experience, how often do the adjudicators exercise discretion rather than strictly following the TSRGD word for word?
50/50 odds?

[PASTMYBEST]

The sign is fine and conveys the restriction, perhaps it should be at the front of the bay, but its not a long bay so likely wont help. You knoew or are assumed to know that in a bay there is a restriction so you should have looked at/for the sign Did you? An adjudicator cannot use discretion, they may find the signage inadequate but I would not hold my breath. De minimis my be

[hotgrips]

By discretion I mean, do they ever consider the guidance in TSM and other documents in the decision or is it always settled by the TSRGD (ie. presence of signs being enough)?

This post has been edited by hotgrips: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 - 21:07

[PASTMYBEST]

The signs are as per the TSM the problem you have is that the bay you parked/stopped in was busses only so you were stopped where prohibited on a RR

[stamfordman]

My feeling about this one is that it is misleading as well as being a short stop. This is a white marked bay with a car already parked in it with a sign not facing oncoming traffic. A reasonable driver might think, knowing the rules about red routes, they could take sanctuary there for a minute to adjust equipment as the OP did. If the OP had parked the bike and walked away then sure - but this is a misuse of the no stopping rules in my view.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 27 Jun 2019 - 22:31

[hotgrips]

Ended up paying it in the end.

I really appreciate the help on this one. Thank you