PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Contravention 32T
!nsomniak
post Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 10:46
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Hi,

Just had a PCN from Transport Of London, for an contravention 32T - Failed to drive in direction show by the arrow on a blue sign (turning in the wrong direction)

What I actually done was a U-Turn from the right hand turn lane, I have done this many times before as there are no signs saying that U-Turns are prohibited.

I have edited this Google maps photo to show where I was and the manoeuvre taken. (I know the google photo is from Nov 2012, but I am certain there are no "no u-turn" turns there still now.



The junction is where the A12(Westbound Eastern Avenue) meets Barley Lane and Hainault Road. I was in the lane to turn right into Hainault Rd, but made the U-turn to go east bound on the A12.

Is there any other reason why this move should not have been permitted?

Can I just appeal saying I made a U-Turn but there are no signs saying you cannot do them?

The rest of the ticket looks ok, time & date seem accurate. The 2 photos shown on the PCN are only of the car sitting in the right turn lane waiting at the lights. But I imagine they will have the full video available should I wish to view it.

Any help will be much appreciated.

This post has been edited by !nsomniak: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 10:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 10:46
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Lenof london
post Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 11:13
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 27
Joined: 1 Aug 2012
Member No.: 56,346



32T - Failed to drive in direction show by the arrow on a blue sign

It looks like there is a round blue sign with a white arrow pointing right under the traffic signal for the right turn lane. This means you must turn right. This prohibits going in any other direction such as left, straight ahead or u-turn.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/gr...t/dg_070644.pdf

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/gr...t/dg_191955.pdf

This post has been edited by Lenof london: Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 11:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 4 Oct 2013 - 11:19
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,843
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The probability that a driver who does not know that a sign indicating that you may proceed ahead only does not prohibit a u-turn, or any turn, will be sufficiently aware of what constitutes a valid PCN is low.

In short, pl post the PCN!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 09:23
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



I have no intention of trying to get out of the PCN on a technicality with wording/details, but this user posted theirs and mine is the same bar the unique details: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=83671 my PCN is at the same junction for doing the same thing.

My main issue with this ticket is the fact that "IF" the signage along that stretch of road is correct, then it is also confusing and contradictory.

These photos are of the approact to the junction the PCN was received at. The first is approx 500 yrds from the junction as the sign indicates.









There is no "No U-Turn" signs anywhere along that part of the road approaching the junction or at the traffic lights.


Now compare those to this junction that is located along the same stretch of road within a mile of that one. (A12 / Mawney Road Junction) This junction also has its own right hand turn lane.

230 yrds from junction:






The same junction going in the opposite direction:





My question is, why go through all the effort with placing "No U-Turn" signs along certain parts of the road and having "No U-Turn" signs placed on traffic lights, when just a simple "blue sign/white arrow" on the lights would be sufficient?

It causes confusion as at some junctions they are saying NO U-TURN and others there is just an arrow, but apparently the U-Turn is still not allowed...

This post has been edited by !nsomniak: Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 09:26
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SchoolRunMum
post Mon, 7 Oct 2013 - 13:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,425
Joined: 20 Sep 2009
Member No.: 32,130



So you were in the separate right turn lane where the arrow points to say you can turn (and you are right, it does not preclude a full U turn).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Mon, 14 Oct 2013 - 20:06
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



So can no one tell me the difference between the 2 junctions as the photos show?

Why does 1 get the No U-Turn sign and the other does not?

TFL should have consistent signage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Mon, 14 Oct 2013 - 20:27
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,477
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (!nsomniak @ Mon, 14 Oct 2013 - 21:06) *
So can no one tell me the difference between the 2 junctions as the photos show?

Why does 1 get the No U-Turn sign and the other does not?

TFL should have consistent signage.


What, and not have a nice little earning opportunity ? You could, of course appeal on confusing signage on this road as some have "no U-turn" signs and some don't which mislead you.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 - 20:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 18:25
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Appeal rejected:

My appeal as I sent it online:

I believe this contravention did not occur. For the following reasons.
The junction in question where this PNC was received DOES NOT have a “No U-Turn” sign in place.
The junction has its own right hand turn lane with its own set of traffic lights, there is NO sign in place along the approach to the junction saying that U-Turns are not permitted, neither is there correct signage in place anywhere at the traffic lights that effectively prohibits a U-Turn.
I would now like to explain the attached photographic evidence of a similar junction along the same road (A12 – Westbound Eastern Avenue) at the junction with Mawney Road.
I note that on the approach to this junction there IS a “No U-Turn” sign and then at the traffic lights there is again a “No U-Turn” sign. This junction clearly indicates that U-Turns are prohibited. This junction also has its own right hand turn lane. This is also the case for traffic travelling eastbound along the A12 at the same junction with No U-Turns in place.
Therefore IF the junction the contravention was incurred at prohibits such U-Turns why is there not similar signage to the Mawney Road junction.
I have attached photos of both junctions, therefore if you feel the need to reject this appeal I will require a written explanation as to why TFL’s signage is INCONSISTENT and thereby CONFUSING to motorists.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qafqa
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 19:12
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,032
Joined: 5 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,816



A clear and entirely logical representation, can you upload
a copy of their response please.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 19:14
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,915
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



A disappointing result, looked clear cut to me--no signage.

If you are taking this further you may wish to look at the PATAS Annual Report for 2011-2012 where the adjudicators discuss what a U-turn means. Apparently there is no legal definition of a U-turn. The two cases they consider are:-

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Azadegan (2011) PATAS 2110041915 and London Borough of Haringey v Orphanides (2011) PATAS 2110032583.

I know your case is based on signage or lack of same but I think you need to consider what the Panel of Adjudicators discussed too.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 20:17
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,843
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



We've still not seen the PCN.

I assume OP means representations when they refer to the term "appeal"?

I still remain of the view that the OP is trying to manipulate the objective facts to their own agenda. The sign is clear: you must turn right. By implication, although none is needed, you may not turn left/go straight ahead/ execute a "U" turn: you must do what the sign directs and, although we haven't seen the PCN and therefore cannot verify its contravention, you tell us that this was 32T - Failed to drive in direction show by the arrow on a blue sign (turning in the wrong direction), and by your admission you did fail to comply.

The sign is specified in Schedule 3 of the Act, so where's the OP's defence if we cannot look at "technicalities"?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 21:05
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (MAD MICK V @ Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 19:14) *
A disappointing result, looked clear cut to me--no signage.

If you are taking this further you may wish to look at the PATAS Annual Report for 2011-2012 where the adjudicators discuss what a U-turn means. Apparently there is no legal definition of a U-turn. The two cases they consider are:-

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham v Azadegan (2011) PATAS 2110041915 and London Borough of Haringey v Orphanides (2011) PATAS 2110032583.

I know your case is based on signage or lack of same but I think you need to consider what the Panel of Adjudicators discussed too.

Mick


Not really much point in dicussing what is or is not a U turn since the PCN was not for doing a U turn it was for failing to drive in the direction shown on the sign which was ignored.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 21:13
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,915
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Thanks for that c_k.

I won't quibble but the suffix "t" relates to turning in the wrong direction.


Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Sun, 3 Nov 2013 - 22:37
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



OP: Show the PCN - all of it less details! It will be non-compliant.

QUOTE (!nsomniak @ Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 09:23) *
I have no intention of trying to get out of the PCN on a technicality with wording/details,


So, why use this forum? Why? Because I am an expert in this field - as are others on this forum! If you want to limit your chances of winning, then just play into their hands. This is what you are doing by making such a statement.

I have recently issued a letter to TfL re their PCNs which resulted in a successful outcome for a friend. So, tis up to you.

I do not suppose you are interested in reading it?

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 00:18


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 10:32
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Here is the original PCN:







And the TFL rejection letter:







This post has been edited by !nsomniak: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 10:33
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 10:46
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



This has the usual wording issue re conflating the two periods in which to pay and in which to make representations: see any of my threads re Yellow Box Junctions and inconsistencies . More in a minute. Suggested letter sent by PM. Take out the last but one paragraph.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 11:04


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Tue, 5 Nov 2013 - 11:05
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Many thanks Hippocrates, will get this sent off today.
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:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Tuesday, 18th December 2018 - 16:10
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.