PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Salter's Hill PCN (Failing to give way...)
goose312
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 12:31
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,760



Hi there,

I received a letter (attached) from Lambeth Parking the other day for a PCN - 37j Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles.

I have to say, I was very shocked to receive this for several reasons... I have driven down this route for many years now and being aware of the give way, I never knew it was a (chargeable) offence for failing to comply nor did I know there was a camera even in place. Having looked at the road view on Google Maps, I can see a small sign showing a camera enforcement, also that the 'Give Way' sign only comes into view literally at the point of giving way.

I would be grateful for any advice on whether I have grounds for an appeal. The photo on the letter is a bit pixelated and makes it look far worse than I thought (before viewing the video). From my perspective, I moved off before the oncoming vehicle was even on the road (at which point does give way come into play?) and there was more than enough space to not disrupt the cyclist (I'm not too sure what the priority is when applied to them).

Any help would be most appreciated, thanks.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/101Je20p0Y-...ew?usp=drivesdk (video)

This post has been edited by goose312: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 12:33
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Report_004754.pdf ( 495.19K ) Number of downloads: 54
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 12:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Fredd
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:22
Post #21


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,669
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



Flame Pit, people...


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 15:28
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,429
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Lets look at the video. Forget the bike, there was a win here recently when a motorbike went through towards an oncoming van and the adjudicator ruled that as there was room for both then it was not failing to give way.

The oncoming car here did have to slow, so technically there way was obstructed and I can be said that you failed to give way. But you must look to the events When you set off past the give way line and as such into the narrowed area the oncoming car was not in view, even when it comes round the corner does that mean it automatically has right of way? I would say no this right of way derives from the sign on the opposite side of the bridge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4267731,-...6384!8i8192


You cannot be expected to give way to a vehicle not in view, and once you have started then you are not expected to reverse, even if you could



--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 23:12
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:28) *
Lets look at the video. Forget the bike, there was a win here recently when a motorbike went through towards an oncoming van and the adjudicator ruled that as there was room for both then it was not failing to give way.

The oncoming car here did have to slow, so technically there way was obstructed and I can be said that you failed to give way. But you must look to the events When you set off past the give way line and as such into the narrowed area the oncoming car was not in view, even when it comes round the corner does that mean it automatically has right of way? I would say no this right of way derives from the sign on the opposite side of the bridge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4267731,-...6384!8i8192

You cannot be expected to give way to a vehicle not in view, and once you have started then you are not expected to reverse, even if you could

Your linked view foreshortens the area between the speed cushion and the priority-over sign! You should work for Lambeth council biggrin.gif

Seriously though, the relevant legislation refers to proceeding past the give way lines, so it is correct that you must look to the events when setting off past them. You also say that the oncoming car was not in view when the driver set off past the give way lines and you cannot give way to a vehicle not yet in view, which is indisputable.

The correct question is not, does it have right of way when it comes into view (and I agree not until the priority-over sign), but did the driver proceed past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…; clearly, in those events, the answer is no!

The problem with that is, although give way lines do not mean ‘stop’, the driver accelerated and reached the lines just as the other car became detectable, but crucially not yet it’s significant speed. Therefore, applying the correct test, I do not think the driver proceeded past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…, but demonstrated diligence because the alternative of bringing a car to a sudden halt would invite a shunt. As I said, if the Council requires motorists to come to a stop, then they should fit a Stop sign.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 14:29
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,797
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



It's a 20 mph zone, so you wouldn't expect people to be going significantly faster than that.


--------------------
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 Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 15:07
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,429
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 00:12) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 16:28) *
Lets look at the video. Forget the bike, there was a win here recently when a motorbike went through towards an oncoming van and the adjudicator ruled that as there was room for both then it was not failing to give way.

The oncoming car here did have to slow, so technically there way was obstructed and I can be said that you failed to give way. But you must look to the events When you set off past the give way line and as such into the narrowed area the oncoming car was not in view, even when it comes round the corner does that mean it automatically has right of way? I would say no this right of way derives from the sign on the opposite side of the bridge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4267731,-...6384!8i8192

You cannot be expected to give way to a vehicle not in view, and once you have started then you are not expected to reverse, even if you could

Your linked view foreshortens the area between the speed cushion and the priority-over sign! You should work for Lambeth council biggrin.gif

Seriously though, the relevant legislation refers to proceeding past the give way lines, so it is correct that you must look to the events when setting off past them. You also say that the oncoming car was not in view when the driver set off past the give way lines and you cannot give way to a vehicle not yet in view, which is indisputable.

The correct question is not, does it have right of way when it comes into view (and I agree not until the priority-over sign), but did the driver proceed past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…; clearly, in those events, the answer is no!

The problem with that is, although give way lines do not mean ‘stop’, the driver accelerated and reached the lines just as the other car became detectable, but crucially not yet it’s significant speed. Therefore, applying the correct test, I do not think the driver proceeded past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…, but demonstrated diligence because the alternative of bringing a car to a sudden halt would invite a shunt. As I said, if the Council requires motorists to come to a stop, then they should fit a Stop sign.


Don't know about foreshortening.

distances

Give way to start of narrowed area 11.3 metres 1 second at 20mph

Priority to start of narrowed area 17.1 metres 2 seconds at 20mph

speed hump to narrowed area 29.04 metres 3 seconds at 20 mph

start of street to restriction 55.6 metres 6 seconds at 20mph

The OP had crossed the line (so a one second journey, bit more from a standing start) just as the oncoming car comes into view 6 seconds away . IMO a good case to argue that no contravention occurs






--------------------
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
goose312
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 09:42
Post #26


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,760



Hi again,

I finally managed to hear back from the council about my appeal (letter attached), unfortunately I was not successful. I have been given the option to pay the fine or appeal further to E&TA. I greatly appreciate all the advice and help given previously in making my appeal, many thanks for that. Is it worth appealing further or should I just pay the fine? It wasn't clear in the letter if I appeal and am still not successful, whether I have to pay the full or reduced price fine. Once again, any help is most appreciated, thanks!
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Report_004901__copy__2_.pdf ( 949.63K ) Number of downloads: 22
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:24
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,797
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You've missed out the last page?

In any case there's a will / may flaw on the Notice of Rejection, this can win on its own.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 25 Oct 2019 - 17:26


--------------------
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
goose312
post Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 10:55
Post #28


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,760



The last page is just a signature from the correspondence manager. I left it out because the document would’ve been too large to upload otherwise.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 11:19
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,745
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



That rejection letter is typical blather and mis-states both the law and the highway code.
There is absolutely no requirement to stop at a give way line unless by crossing it you would force another vehicle to change speed or direction to avoid an accident.
If you cannot see the other vehicle, you have no need to do more then proceed with care.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 14:23
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,797
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (goose312 @ Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 11:55) *
The last page is just a signature from the correspondence manager. I left it out because the document would’ve been too large to upload otherwise.

Is it Peter Thomas by any chance? I would appeal this to the tribunal. As I've said, the will / may flaw can win on its own, and there's plenty of other stuff to go on.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 14:24


--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 15:15
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



My view is that you could say that your representation has been dismissed with a decision founded on errors of law.

You would not need to restate what you have said because the Council have confirmed that they have read and noted your comments, which an adjudicator would see, but as regards demonstrating that this is a pro forma letter without consideration of your points, you have not yet shown the forum what you sent.

When relating the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows to the applicable law, i.e. (in a nutshell) no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to endanger or impede persons in a vehicle coming in the opposite direction to the first-mentioned vehicle, it is immediately apparent that this regulation, S9-7-7©-TSRGD, does not prescribe a beginning of a “right of way” for a vehicle so oncoming.

As per S11-2-1 TSRGD, a priority-over sign (811) just before the bridge in fact marks the point where the right of way begins. It is absolutely unconvincing that from the entrance of Salter’s Hill to sign 811 just mentioned, there is a lawful unsigned section of road where a vehicle has right of way over a vehicle from the opposite direction. Accordingly, the Council are obliged to prove their claim (or cancel the PCN) since they have made this claim as if it is law, and have based their decision on it.

On a practical point if not already made, give way lines do not mean ‘stop’ as stated above. You accelerated and reached the lines just as the other car became detectable, but crucially not yet it’s significant speed. Therefore, applying the correct test, I do not think you proceeded past the give way lines in a manner or at a time “likely” to…, but demonstrated diligence because the alternative of bringing a car to a sudden halt would invite a shunt. As I said elsewhere, if the Council requires motorists to come to a stop, then they should fit a Stop sign to meet their needs. Will/may too


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goose312
post Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 19:13
Post #32


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 16 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,760



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 15:23) *
QUOTE (goose312 @ Sat, 26 Oct 2019 - 11:55) *
The last page is just a signature from the correspondence manager. I left it out because the document would’ve been too large to upload otherwise.

Is it Peter Thomas by any chance? I would appeal this to the tribunal. As I've said, the will / may flaw can win on its own, and there's plenty of other stuff to go on.



Yes it was Peter Thomas. I have attached my original appeal. Admittedly it was poorly worded and contained a few spelling/grammatical errors. I used the points previously made from other users and screen captures from the original video to make my case. A lot of the terminology in regards to the laws and provisions of the road went over my head a bit. I would be extremely grateful with any help towards wording my appeal for a stronger representation as both you and Mr Meldrew have pointed out errors of the law in the response. Thanks again!

Attached File(s)
Attached File  challengeandrep_LJ12288354__reduced_size_.pdf ( 177.08K ) Number of downloads: 8
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 12:54
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



OP, with respect your challenge was no challenge at all, and the Range Rover did briefly pause for you which are two problems to overcome should you wish to continue at risk of the full penalty amount.

In your favour is:

- The wording of the relevant legislation
- Where the Range Rover was when your car crossed the give way line (“the crucial moment”)
- Its considerable speed of approach
- This was not evident at the crucial moment because you would have only glimpsed it coming into view
- You had set off before it came in to view
- A priority sign 811 just before the bridge marks the point where the right of way begins
- Nothing marks where Peter Thomas believes the right of way begins
- Mr Thomas appears to not know his authorised 811 from his elbow

An unfavourable prospect it seems is adjudicator Jack Walsh or possibly some others considering your appeal.

This could be won in my view, but you must decide on the risk (CP or others might add to the draft with the will/may flaw):

Case number:
Penalty Charge Notice number:
Contravention: Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles

Dear Sir or Madam,

You will know that the relevant legislation refers to proceeding past the give way lines, so it is correct to look to the video evidence for the events when setting off past them.

I had set off before the Range Rover could be seen, and just as it started to come into view my car was already in motion about to cross the give way lines, but please note that at this crucial moment I was not yet able to appreciate the Range Rover’s significant speed.

I am confident that I had continued with diligence because the alternative on first perceiving the approach of the Range Rover was to bring my car to an unexpected halt that I considered to be an unwise action, and I consider was not what the draughtsperson of this restriction had in mind when a vehicle 246 feet distant simply comes into view. I aver that it was the Range Rover’s significant approach speed that instigated the trivial pause seen. If the Council requires motorists to stop in the circumstances, then they should install a Stop sign.

For those reasons I do not accept that I had proceeded past the give way line in a manner or at a time likely to hinder the driver of the Range Rover, and no contravention occurred.

In any event, the basis for the Council’s decision making in this instance was materially flawed. When relating the relevant law to the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows, it is obvious that the regulation does not prescribe a beginning of a “right of way” for a vehicle oncoming.

A priority sign to diagram 811 just before the narrowing through the railway bridge indicates the beginning of section of road where traffic has right of way over vehicles from the opposite direction as per TSRGD 2016. The Council’s claim that traffic coming in the opposite direction has right of way as soon as they enter Salter’s Hill, where there is a T-junction and the road is quite wide enough for two vehicles to easily pass one another, is absolutely unpersuasive as there is no priority sign at that point, and how would traffic know.

The Council should prove their claim (or cancel the PCN) since they have made their claim which amounts to two beginnings of priority section, one unsigned, as if it is law, and have based their decision on it.

Thank you for considering this appeal.

goose312


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 14:41
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,797
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Mr Meldrew I took your draft as a starting point but I got a bit carried away, hope you don't mind biggrin.gif

Here's a new draft: http://bit.ly/2MTNuC5

goose312 you will need to download this, add in your name and the tribunal case number (see bits in red), save as a PDF and then upload to the tribunal website. Make sure you proof read it and are happy with the contents before submitting it.

You will also need to upload these cases to the tribunal:

London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2V1utPz
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 15:00
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,006
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



@cp8759


I would still state that both signs are inadequate either by position or omission under Reg 18 LATOR 1996 because they cannot convey the Council's intention to drivers.


Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 15:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 16:06
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 15:41) *
Mr Meldrew I took your draft as a starting point but I got a bit carried away, hope you don't mind biggrin.gif

Here's a new draft: http://bit.ly/2MTNuC5

goose312 you will need to download this, add in your name and the tribunal case number (see bits in red), save as a PDF and then upload to the tribunal website. Make sure you proof read it and are happy with the contents before submitting it.

You will also need to upload these cases to the tribunal:

London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin): http://bit.ly/2V1utPz
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018): http://bit.ly/2DmNq7N

I don’t mind at all and am happy to have enthused you. I believe this is how this forum works best when members feel confident to add to another member’s post and are comfortable offering further input.

You may want to clarify which image shows diagram 811 sign. Also, you will recall that ‘811A’ refers to the sign with the supplementary plate ‘Priority over oncoming vehicles for xx yards (811B being ‘End’). So in this case just plain ‘811’.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 16:14


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 17:57
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,797
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 15:00) *
@cp8759

I would still state that both signs are inadequate either by position or omission under Reg 18 LATOR 1996 because they cannot convey the Council's intention to drivers.

I think the sings are clear, as is the council's intention. I think the problem is that Peter Thomas doesn't know what the council's intention is.

QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 16:06) *
You may want to clarify which image shows diagram 811 sign. Also, you will recall that ‘811A’ refers to the sign with the supplementary plate ‘Priority over oncoming vehicles for xx yards (811B being ‘End’). So in this case just plain ‘811’.

There is no diagram 811 in the 2016 regs, it's 811A but a permitted variant is to omit the distance.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 17:58


--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 21:28
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 11:20
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,797
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 21:28) *
Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?

I couldn't find that exact reference within the regulations but then maybe I didn't look hard enough. Where exactly would I find it?


--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 13:15
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 515
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 28 Oct 2019 - 12:20) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 27 Oct 2019 - 21:28) *
Having had time to read your new draft fully, why have you omitted all references to requirement 7© conveyed to traffic by the give way lines located in advance of where the carriageway narrows (that no vehicle may proceed past those lines in a manner or at a time likely to etc)?

I couldn't find that exact reference within the regulations but then maybe I didn't look hard enough. Where exactly would I find it?

CP, in every London Tribunals case re Salters/'s Hill where the adjudicator has referred to the underlying law (quite often—I have read them all!) he or she has referred to this: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/36...aragraph/7/made


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
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, 20th November 2019 - 03:45
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.