PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN for 37j offence Salters Hills on a motorcycle, What is the definition of "Giving Way"?
whodunnit
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 17:20
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 3 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,279



I have been issued with a PCN for a moving traffic offense 37J by Lambeth with their infamous camera at the Priority sign under the bridge. I have seen it featured in various articles here. I wonder how much they make just from that camera?

I have been fined £130 (reduced to £65 for early payment) for driving through on a motorcycle. I am appealing this because the van coming the other way did not have to slow down at all, there is plenty of room for a motorcycle and a van to pass under this bridge.

Obviously the council will reject my appeal and I will end up going to PATAS. Any opinion on my chances? I know they will massively increase the fine but I object to this council racketeering and their lies that they don't do it for the money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 38)
Advertisement
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 17:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:04
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Wow - I'm very surprised but well done. You got the right adjudicator. Please post the full decision when available.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
whodunnit
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:04
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 3 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,279



Here is the video link again if you want to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_HnhnWVh74
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:22
Post #23


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



As I said earlier:-

"OP---pay it at the discount-- there is not a hope in hell of you getting this overturned at adjudication". huh.gif

Well done OP for seeing it through.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:27
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Congratulations.

In a mirror case from 2007 (2070411174), the adjudicator refused the appeal because whilst he accepted it was not mandatory to stop in these circumstances when approaching a give way sign, “the fact remains that the appellant failed to accord precedence to the give way sign and oncoming traffic”. The circumstances were that the appellant rode past stationary vehicles on his left in order to get to the front of the queue and drove ahead whilst a vehicle coming in the opposite direction was able to pass without danger.

The difference I think is that in the earlier decision the adjudicator considered it was necessary to stop in order to accord precedence even though the vehicle coming in the opposite direction was able to pass without danger, and for what it’s worth, I think your adjudicator has got it right.


--------------------
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
whodunnit
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 15:04
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 3 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,279



Case number for interested parties: 2190017285
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 17:28
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Ridiculous decision.

If the test is likely to endanger, then whether the vehicle slowed is not the issue, IMO. This almost smacks of 'prejudice' as in not actually having to be caused in PI cases.

The OP was lucky that the driver wasn't spooked, swerved and collided.

Doesn't make our job any easier when such decisions are made.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 17:32
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The Appellant attended for a personal hearing. The Enforcement Authority did not attend.

The Appellant’s case was that he had not impeded oncoming traffic and therefore the contravention did not occur. The Appellant submitted that as he was riding a motorcycle the vehicle travelling in the opposite direction had ample room and did not have to slow down at all.

The Enforcement Authority resisted the appeal. They submitted that the Appellant did hinder oncoming traffic and the Appellant ought to have obeyed the signage and waited behind the give way markings.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for failing to give way to oncoming vehicles. There are give way markings on the road surface which are described in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions as meaning: ‘Vehicular traffic must give way in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 7 of Part 7’

Paragraph 7 © of Part 7 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..’

Paragraph 3 of part 7 provides:

‘Give way sign….no vehicle is to cross the transverse line provided for at item 3 of the sign table in Part 6 of this Schedule nearer to the major road at the side of which that line is placed, or if that line is not clearly visible, enter that major road, so as to be likely to endanger any person, or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident.’

This location is a narrow road and there is signage accompanying the road markings which indicates that oncoming traffic has priority (denoted by arrows on the signage) and the signage states ‘Give way to oncoming vehicles.’

It is clear that the purpose of the restriction is to permit oncoming vehicles to pass safely and unimpeded.

The CCTV depicts the Appellant’s motorcycle drive past a vehicle that was waiting at the give way markings and thereafter the appellant's motorcycle slowed and moved to the left of the road before proceeding past the oncoming vehicle.

The oncoming vehicle did not change speed or direction at all. I am satisfied on the balance of probability that the maneuver was not likely to endanger the driver or any passengers in the oncoming vehicle.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied the contravention occurred and this appeal is allowed.

This was very much a borderline case confined to its own facts. The Appellant would be well advised to proceed more cautiously in future.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 18:32
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 17:28) *
Ridiculous decision.

If the test is likely to endanger, then whether the vehicle slowed is not the issue, IMO. This almost smacks of 'prejudice' as in not actually having to be caused in PI cases.

The OP was lucky that the driver wasn't spooked, swerved and collided.

Doesn't make our job any easier when such decisions are made.

It was the right decision IMO, but I suppose you could contact Lambeth and offer to help them with an application for a review.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Earl Purple
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 10:29
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



Of course it's the right decision, any normal motorcyclist would proceed in that situation.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 10:39
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Earl Purple @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 10:29) *
any normal motorcyclist


An therein lies the problem...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 13:28
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



It makes no difference to the OP they put their case and won, well done But I do think the decision was wrong..

The road is not wide enough for two cars and priority must be ceded by the vehicles traveling towards Gypsy rd. A car stopped but the OP on his motorbike pulled out to the right of him heading straight at the car that has priority traveling in the opposite direction. Playing chicken with that cars driver.

I.ve ben driving 40+ years some of it professionally so would likely have reacted in the same way as the driver in the video. My wife who has only been driving a few years and is extremely nervous would have panicked possible swerving into the kerb or worse into the bike

I would find it hard to say that it was a manoeuvre that did not effect the cars approach to the restriction so IMO way was not ceded



This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 13:30


--------------------
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
Earl Purple
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 15:35
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 13:28) *
It makes no difference to the OP they put their case and won, well done But I do think the decision was wrong..

The road is not wide enough for two cars and priority must be ceded by the vehicles traveling towards Gypsy rd. A car stopped but the OP on his motorbike pulled out to the right of him heading straight at the car that has priority traveling in the opposite direction. Playing chicken with that cars driver.

I.ve ben driving 40+ years some of it professionally so would likely have reacted in the same way as the driver in the video. My wife who has only been driving a few years and is extremely nervous would have panicked possible swerving into the kerb or worse into the bike

I would find it hard to say that it was a manoeuvre that did not effect the cars approach to the restriction so IMO way was not ceded


As you say it is not wide enough for two cars.

It is wide enough for an average-sized van and a motorcycle.

Had it been a bus or lorry coming the other way the motorcyclist would have had to wait as there would not have been room.

There is a bollard where you have to pass to the left, and the oncoming van had to pass to the left too.
Play the video in slow motion. Look where the motorcycle is at 5 seconds, and at 6 seconds.

At 5 seconds it is inside the markings of the end of the bollard where the oncoming van must pass to the left. Therefore not in the van's future path.
At 6 seconds it has moved totally to the left of the road as it passes the van.



This post has been edited by Earl Purple: Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 15:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 15:54
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



We are not going to agree, The car that had priority was entitled to take up all of the single track carriageway and that option was taken from them In truth the biker could have faced DD charges


--------------------
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 Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 16:09
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



May I propose that the reasoning behind the controversial decision was, in the circumstances, there was a lack of evidence of denied priority through the restriction, no changed speed or direction, or “likely” endangerment as apposed to conceivable, which is not the same thing.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 16:45
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Mon, 4 Mar 2019 - 16:09) *
May I propose that the reasoning behind the controversial decision was, in the circumstances, there was a lack of evidence of denied priority through the restriction, no changed speed or direction, or “likely” endangerment as apposed to conceivable, which is not the same thing.


That was the adjudicators finding, and they are entitled to make it. My driving experience, which by any measure is extensive causes me to disagree. That's once in my time here that I have disagreed with I finding that is to the benefit of the appellant. I wish the same could be said the other way round


--------------------
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
Earl Purple
post Tue, 5 Mar 2019 - 10:05
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Member No.: 39,245



We should take this to flame pit.

He won, rightly. Should never had come to this. If I were in Lambeth council I would create a special path for cycles and motorcycles to pass through cordoned off so they wouldn't have to give way there at all.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 13:53
Post #37


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Perhaps Michael Burke needs to be reminded of this motorcycle case:-

2190070313

Decision Date 21 Mar 2019
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused

The allegation in this case is failing to comply with a give way to oncoming vehicles sign. Mr. Sutton disputes this, stating that at no time was he ‘in the way of an oncoming vehicle’.

The enforcement camera footage shows a clear example of the contravention. It is true that the oncoming vehicles did not appear to have to brake or hesitate but this is purely because as it turned out there was sufficient space that Mr. Sutton’s motorcycle was able to pass them. This does not assist him as. Regardless of whether cars actually pass freely in one direction while a motorcycle proceeds in the opposite direction, any vehicle proceeding in the direction he was proceeding in is required to give way to oncoming vehicles. Mr. Sutton did not do so.

Mr. Sutton has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
--------------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:36
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



As a driver, if i see a sign giving me priority in a narrow carriageway, i should be able to travel that carriageway without having to avoid oncoming traffic that has obviously disregarded the signage giving me priority.

I bet the motorcyclist would be the first to moan if he got hit by a car that had right of way...

Why do motorcyclists seem to pick and choose which road signs apply to them and which don't?

This post has been edited by peterguk: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:37


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zwekk
post Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:46
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,869



QUOTE
...

The Enforcement Authority resisted the appeal. They submitted that the Appellant did hinder oncoming traffic.

...

[After watching the video 10 times] The oncoming vehicle did not change speed or direction at all.


It seems obvious to me that the EA's case was sunk after the adjudicator watched the video a lot and decided that the vehicle had not, in face, been hindered.

QUOTE
This was very much a borderline case confined to its own facts. The Appellant would be well advised to proceed more cautiously in future.

It seems that if the van had slowed down, even if there was space, the appeal would have been lost. Best not to take the gamble.


QUOTE
Why do motorcyclists seem to pick and choose which road signs apply to them and which don't?

When I used to cycle, it tended to be the cars who would always go through the narrow section and require cyclists to slow down and move right by the kerb.

This post has been edited by zwekk: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 - 14:47
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:31
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here