PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Lambeth 34J - Dreaded Clapham Park Road
gravitas
post Wed, 27 May 2020 - 22:31
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 May 2020
Member No.: 108,762



I was recently caught on the infamous Clapham Park Road bus lane (didn't realise it was so popular until searching this forum!)

I understand almost all appeals are rejected, however in this case I am hoping I have something to stand on. At the time of the offence there were roadworks that obstructed most of the bus lane. I have already filed an appeal which was rejected and am wondering if I have enough evidence to be successful at a tribunal.

Few things I was thinking:
- The words BUS LANE are obstructed by the roadworks which nulls the statement in the PCN response
- There is a short distance between the end of the roadworks and traffic lights
- The solid line for the bus lane has a crack running down it which could be mistaken for a broken line

Thanks for any help!

This post has been edited by gravitas: Sun, 31 May 2020 - 17:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 28)
Advertisement
post Wed, 27 May 2020 - 22:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
gravitas
post Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 16:12
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 May 2020
Member No.: 108,762



Evidence here: updated below

This post has been edited by gravitas: Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 19:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravitas
post Fri, 10 Jul 2020 - 19:37
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 May 2020
Member No.: 108,762



Apologies, correct link here https://imgur.com/a/C34bKH2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 11 Jul 2020 - 09:47
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,465
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



So it's down to whether the street works add sufficient confusion to mean that the signage fails the LATOR 18 test. As you have an enforcement notice you might as well send something as a representation, but I'm not sure I'd risk the discount on this one.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 11 Jul 2020 - 09:55
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,749
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I always think not enough is made of the left turn arrow on the carriageway it surely causes confusion for those who do not know the area


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 11 Jul 2020 - 10:17
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,606
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---give me a few days to do a bit of research (Chapter 6 of the Traffic Signs Manual has recently been amended/updated) and I'll draft an appeal for you.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravitas
post Mon, 13 Jul 2020 - 13:28
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 May 2020
Member No.: 108,762



Thanks all for your help, appreciate the efforts!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Yesterday, 04:47
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,606
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP-----Here's a draft appeal. You will have to include your details (address and PCN number) and photos of the diversion.

I have asked the Council for any TMO amendments to the 2004 Order.

I would keep the hectoring tone, a little bit of leverage won't go amiss.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...FPOsoLP-aVJbGjJ

Bus Lane Appeal: Clapham Park Road

This appeal relates to PCN number????? Dated????

Since this is a serious appeal I would request that it be considered by a senior member of staff taking advice from a highways engineer cognizant with the requirements of DMRB.

The appeal is in two parts, but each part is predicated on the lines and signs at this pinch point being inadequate under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR).

To follow the gist of the appeal it is necessary for me to highlight discrepancies in the layout of the restriction as follows:-
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur.

As can be seen from the attached photographs there were road works on the day in question which I now understand were undertaken by Thames Water. The key indication was the diversion sign which had an impact on the overall lines and signs for the bus lane. The effect of the diversion sign meant the bus lane became discontinuous thereby normal lines and signs were rendered inoperative and not substantially compliant.

Directly beyond this diversion is a road marking (an arrow) indicating that motorists to turn left, which I did.

The Council has a duty under LATOR 1996 not to mislead or confuse a motorist and I would argue that there has been such failure because of the juxtaposition of conflicting signage. I would therefore request that the Council use its discretion in these circumstances and cancel the PCN.

2. The Contravention Did Not Occur

If the Council contend that the contravention occurred when my vehicle crossed the broad white line to diagram 1049 then I would claim the exemption stipulated in the Lambeth Bus Priority Clapham Park Road Traffic Order 2004:-

“4(2) The controls specified in Article 3(1) do not apply in respect of a vehicle crossing a bus lane to get to or from any road adjacent to the bus lane or any vehicular access to premises adjacent to the bus lane;”

This exemption is predicated on the pinch point in the left hand lane being neither a bus lane nor a bus gate but an unrestricted street. To demonstrate this is the case:-

1. The TMO stipulates that the bus lane ends at the southern tip of the traffic island --Schedule 1 (1);

2. Therefore the bus lane ends sign beyond the pedestrian crossing is incorrectly located;

3. For the same reason the Diagram 953 sign incorporated into the traffic lights is incorrect;

4.. The pedestrian crossing (Pedex type) requires 8 zig zag road markings (Schedule 1 and Schedule 14 part 1 to the 2016 Regulations). This equates to 16m of zig zags to the south of the pedestrian crossing.

5. A bus lane or bus gate cannot co-exist with zig zag markings (ETA 2170474513).

6. Diagram 953 signs within a zig zag area are an anomaly.

The adjudicator in that Lambeth case concluded that crossing markings created a separate traffic regulatory regime within its limits which ousted the effect of the bus lane regardless of what the TMO stated.

I would therefore contend that the exemption applies and I had the right to cross the white line to access the left hand unrestricted lane.

The left hand lane beyond the tip of the traffic island is incorrectly signed as a bus gate/bus lane and the Council has failed in its duty under LATOR 1996 to provide adequate lines and signs.

Should I receive a template rejection I will take advice on whether to contact the Council’s auditors with a request that they do not sign off the accounts until the LATOR 1996 issues are resolved. The number of contraventions at this pinch point exceed 20,000 per annum which gives rise to a significant contingent liability should penalty charges need repayment.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Yesterday, 19:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gravitas
post Yesterday, 13:14
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 27 May 2020
Member No.: 108,762



Thank you, is it worth waiting for confirmation of any TMO amendments to the 2004 Order? Other than including my details (PCN, address, date) and photos, I don't plan on deviating from the draft wording.

Also, I appreciate the hectoring tone is for effect, however point (2) reads as if it could genuinely have major ramifications on prior cases at this location if it were to hold up? Out of curiosity I looked at the register of appeals to see if anyone had tried this approach previously but couldn't find anything.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Yesterday, 13:43
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,606
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP-----they have indicated a 20 day response time for the FOI response which might take it beyond the time you have to send in the appeal. I'd delay as much as you can without missing the deadline.

If they have amended the Order most of the second part of the appeal could fall leaving you at the mercy of their discretion. However I have had a quick glance at the London Gazette and cannot find any Notice which suggests the 2004 Order has been amended.

Fingers crossed.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Wednesday, 15th July 2020 - 02:30
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.