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 (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 12:31
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 12:41
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,163
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I think the cyclist scuppers you I'm afraid - the oncoming car was barely in the road when you moved past the give way line but you should have given way to the cyclist.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 12:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
goose312
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 13:01
Post #3


New Member


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



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 13:41) *
I think the cyclist scuppers you I'm afraid - the oncoming car was barely in the road when you moved past the give way line but you should have given way to the cyclist.


That was my initial thought but given the way the letter is addressed and the frame they've chosen to show my failure to give way, does it not indicate that they're applying that to the oncoming vehicle?

This post has been edited by goose312: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 14:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 13:04
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,163
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



They may well have issued the PCN owing to the car - we've seen successful appeals here where it's reasonable to move off with car barely making the turn at the top. But I wouldn't like to sit and view that video with an adjudicator.

See what others say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 13:39
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,009
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I still contend that the Council has no case when a vehicle turns the corner given that the speed limit is 20 MPH and the corner is a good way from the underpass. Whilst the Council still argues that the give way relates to any oncoming vehicles a fair approximation of the proper give way distance is IMO when an oncoming vehicle hits the speed bump.

The video indicates the OP's vehicle moves into the underpass when the approaching vehicle hits the speed bump and has to slow or stop to allow the OP's vehicle space to pass. To me that is pretty damning.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 14:00
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,846
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I don't think the cyclist comes into it, there's no indication he was impeded, swerved or would have done anything differently had there been no other traffic on the road. There's clearly enough space for a car and a cyclist to pass each other so IMO there's no requirement to stop for a cyclist.


--------------------
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 Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 14:22
Post #7


New Member


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



What would be the best way for me to address my appeal and who should I make my claim against (given the points raised above), the cyclist or oncoming car? As previously commented, I had no impact on the cyclist, and looking at the video frame by frame, I have moved off towards the underpass before the oncoming car actually enters the road. Once again, very grateful for the advice given. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 16:03
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,880
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



The biggest problem here is convincing an adjudicator, because the council bat-off all reps because they make so much money. The main emphasis has to be on the video lens truncating distances.

This location has been discussed quite a few times on here, and it is important, if you get to London Tribunals, to present a scale drawing and link the position of the vehicles to this to prove you did not fail to give way. As far as the cyclist goes, I am of the view that there is room for both you and the cyclist as the video shows. Lambeth make so much money here that they will never give it up and install traffic lights as the "nice little earner" would disappear. You can bet the income from penalties is part of any business case to install traffic lights, but they would be extremely reluctant to put this in the public domain. The other issue is that whilst the statute says one must give way, there is nothing in it to say at what point an oncoming vehicle has the right-of-way. Lambeth have said it is when a vehicle turns into the road, even though the sign announcing the right-of-way cannot even be read at that distance !

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 16:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 16:09
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,163
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I still dissent on the cyclist - it's not relevant that there is room, as the contravention is about not giving way. If it wasn't for the cyclist I would have appealed this all they way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 16:43
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,846
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 17:09) *
I still dissent on the cyclist - it's not relevant that there is room, as the contravention is about not giving way. If it wasn't for the cyclist I would have appealed this all they way.

By this logic, even if there were no narrowing of the road whatsoever, you'd still have to stop at the give way line even if the road were wide enough for two way traffic.


--------------------
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, 16 Sep 2019 - 16:49
Post #11


Member


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



The relevant law is contained in TSRGD 2016. Paragraph 7 © of part 7 to Schedule 9 provides:

Where the transverse lines are placed in advance of a point in the road where the width of the carriageway narrows significantly, that no vehicle may proceed past such one of those lines as is nearer to the point of narrowing in a manner or at a time likely to endanger the driver of, or any passenger in, a vehicle that is proceeding in the opposite direction to the first-mentioned vehicle, or cause the driver of such a vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident…

As can be seen, where a vehicle can pass freely and safely in one direction while a cycle proceeds in the opposite direction neither the manor or time of proceeding past the transverse lines appears to be in contravention of the rule.

The moment of crossing the give way line next to the traffic priority sign is crucial, as plainly it is the position of the vehicle that is proceeding in the opposite direction to the first-mentioned vehicle that concerns the relevant law. In this instance, when your car crossed the give way line, the vehicle coming from the opposite direction was only just coming around the corner so there was no requirement to give way or stop at that point. If the Council requires motorists to stop at the traffic priority sign, then they should have a Stop sign and line at that point, as the current signage is clearly not adequate to meet the Council’s requirement.

There is a significant stretch of road after the sign before the road narrows to prevent the flow of traffic both ways at the same time. The vehicle coming from the opposite direction in this instance was rather sprightly but paused extremely briefly to allow passage of your car, however this was well after you had left the priority sign, and accordingly no contravention had occurred.

You do have grounds to challenge just not strong in my view, still you never know.


--------------------
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 Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 08:59
Post #12


New Member


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



Many thanks for the replies and advice/views given, much appreciated. If I understand correctly, if I appeal and my grounds for representations is rejected then I have to pay the full amount?

This post has been edited by goose312: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 08:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 09:07
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,163
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



No they normally reoffer the discount provided you make reps within the discount period.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:38
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,009
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I like Incandescent's idea of traffic lights but it'll never happen at this honeypot.

I wonder if the Council employee who spotted this little wheeze got an honorarium.

This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


The Tribunal isn't really independent of Councils IMO and has no power whatsoever to protect drivers from exploitative Councils.

Mick


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 10:52
Post #15


Member


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



In my view, when you judged that it was safe to proceed forward because the cyclist would not be inconvenienced (you were correct) there was nothing for you to give way to. Drivers should not stop again suddenly merely because another vehicle had begun to come into view 75 metres distant (see below for overhead view) as this may lead to obvious danger. At that point in time there was no perception of the other vehicle’s significant pace and so you did not proceed in a manner “likely to” contravene the relevant law, and no contravention had occurred.

Not strong was only meant to reflect the way I perceive that a lot of (but by no means all) adjudicators regrettably look at this allegation.

Attached Image


This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:05


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:12
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,880
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
I like Incandescent's idea of traffic lights but it'll never happen at this honeypot.

I wonder if the Council employee who spotted this little wheeze got an honorarium.

This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


The Tribunal isn't really independent of Councils IMO and has no power whatsoever to protect drivers from exploitative Councils.

Mick

++++1

!!!!!!!!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:18
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,163
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:12) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *

The Tribunal isn't really independent of Councils IMO and has no power whatsoever to protect drivers from exploitative Councils.

Mick

++++1

!!!!!!!!!!


This belongs in the flame pit but my recent experience of the tribunal supports this - at no point did I feel the adjudicator was not siding withe council.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spaceman
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:45
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


Not their job, not their remit. rolleyes.gif

Would you expect a judge from the Central Criminal Court to trudge around Westminster to find out why there's so much violent crime there?

Course not!

This post has been edited by spaceman: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 12:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:05
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,163
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (spaceman @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:45) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


Not their job, not their remit. rolleyes.gif

Would you expect a judge from the Central Criminal Court to trudge around Westminster to find out why there's so much violent crime there?

Course not!



Adjudicators do sometimes make site visits.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spaceman
post Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:08
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 666
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:05) *
QUOTE (spaceman @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 13:45) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 11:38) *
This one, just like Lambeth's Clapham Park Road trap, needs a visit from a senior adjudicator to determine why so many people are caught out and what signage is needed to make the restriction crystal clear. But that would rock the boat!


Not their job, not their remit. rolleyes.gif

Would you expect a judge from the Central Criminal Court to trudge around Westminster to find out why there's so much violent crime there?

Course not!



Adjudicators do sometimes make site visits.


Indeed they do.

But only when they feel it would assist them in making a decision in a particular case, not with the intention of enquiring into why so many PCNs might be being issued in any location.

This post has been edited by spaceman: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 - 14:09
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: Friday, 22nd November 2019 - 04:36
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.