PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The Bridge PCN - prohibited No Right Turn
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #1


Group: Members
Posts: 100
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491

There are a few of those around, some input would be much appreciated before my tribunal appeal.

Most of the information is already included at the start of this case:

I am contesting the case on inadequate signage, if not to say a con.

The PCN was issued in March, the contravention took place in February. I received an NtO for my reps on inadequate signage and now taking the case to the tribunal in June. The appeal will be submitted before the deadline once I add all my points.

Harrow issued an evidence pack in just 2 days after submitting to PATAS, sounds like big business,

The evidence pack:

  • PCN and NtO -- upload to follow
  • TMO -- will need to scrutinise, e.g Schedule2 refers to location as "The Bridge, south-eastbound" not as in the PCN "The Bridge jct to A409"
  • CD with footage - the footage shows car from the point of moving forward on the signal for a few seconds - it does not show how the car arrived at the signal i.e how the contravention came about
  • 5 photos - 4x of a stationary vehicle and 1x reg no.
  • witness statement
  • 2 library photos and several google maps dated from last year

The council argument is pretty standard, everything is in compliance with TSRGD 2002, there is a direction sign on the wall before the junction and later on a camera sign. Adding at the end that there are circular prohibited right turn signs under the signals.

There is no CCTV certificate in the evidence pack. I have already requested this in a FOI.

Due to a printing error(?) their submission is missing a full line at the start of my formal reps:
"The signage at the location is inadequate to alert a driver that turning ahead is prohibited whilst approaching the traffic lights at the The Bridge/A409 junction"

Also, in all the photos they submitted the prohibited turn sign and exemption are clearly not illuminated.
I have read about cases upheld because internal illumination of these signs is considered a requirement.

I will post up docs and pics soon.

The basis of my appeal:

Inadequate signage, this is not a case where the driver has any option but to move forward by the time they arrive at the restriction. A direction sign is not the same as a restriction sign. I have never seen a directional sign or any traffic sign affixed on a building wall away from the curb like a shop sign. I cannot imagine how this is compliant but I can certainly assume adjudicators will find it "substantially compliant". The next thing is that a camera sign does not necessarily suggest a restriction let alone a prohibited turn. The sign is also a few meters before. All these points from the council appear weak to my end.

The layout of the road is further confusing, especially as you can easily miss the direction sign on the wall and follow the only illuminated blue directional arrow on the island box on the right. It is further not uncommon to observe no-right turn signs under signals at junctions to prevent drivers from turning on the wrong lane, to collide with oncoming traffic. Plus traffic can be seen moving to both directions of A409.

The only way a driver is aware of the restriction is by reaching the signals and reading the non-illuminated signs. They have no option but to either reverse and cause a potential accident or turn left in multiple maneuvers due to the layout of the road.In my view this is a ridiculous contravention.

The council feels more inclined in spending money for a CCTV penalty system than place a no-right turn sign before the junction. Speaks for itself.

I have one question about submitting my own video evidence. I recorded dashcam footage (not from the incident unfortunately) that shows how tricky it is to observe those signs from the driver point of view. I am in a quandary because it can become a boomerang. In a past case the adjudicator found my photos "substantially compliant" on utterly faded markings. So perhaps it is best to argue the case on the council evidence...
I can post a link for feedback on this.


This post has been edited by tburn: Thu, 17 May 2018 - 14:00
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 1)
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #

Advertise here!

Go to the top of the page
Quote Post
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:21
Post #2


Group: Members
Posts: 12,334
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048

Not seen one here for a while, but check out the tribunal register there are a lot of wins on signage.

These two to start

2170263507 2170162394

Also check this one re consideration of reps and the reliance on TSRGD 2002

Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

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



Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 28th May 2018 - 07:42
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.