PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Mandeville Road Northolt bus lane, Appeal successful!
Timothea
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 16:45
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,738



I was recently caught by a bus lane camera in a short section of bus lane on Mandeville Road (north-eastward) just after Northolt Underground station in the London Borough of Ealing, due to inadequate signage. All my representations to Ealing Council were rejected, so I appealed to London Tribunals and I was successful! The Adjudicator's Reasons were as follows:

"I have reviewed the still images and CCTV footage submitted by the Council. These show that appellant's car travelled for about 3 car-lengths in a terminal section of the bus lane after the zig-zag crossing at Northolt Station. The bus lane is signed with restricted hours of 7am to 10pm and 4pm to 7pm Mondays to Fridays.

"The appellant says that hey saw the bus lane signs for the start of the bus lane. Hey appeals because hey says that there is no signage at the start of the terminal section after the zig-zag crossing. Hey says that hey was turning left at the junction and moved into the left-hand carriageway, unaware that it was a continuation of the bus lane.

"The Council says in the case summary that there is no statutory requirement for a sign to be placed where the bus lane resumes after the zig-zags. That is a correct statement of the law. However, there is a requirement for all sections of the bus lane to be clearly signed. The appellant refers to the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual which recommends a sign or repeater sign at the start of each section of bus lane where there is a divider.

"I accept the appellant's evidence that hey moved into the left-hand carriageway unaware that it was a continuation of the bus lane. I am satisfied that this resulted from the absence of a repeater sign after the divide and I find for this reason that the signage was not adequate. I have also noted the Council's own observation that the white demarcation line after the dividing section had become faded."

Sean Stanton-Dunne
Adjudicator
25th April 2019

NB: I have replaced my name with "the appellant" and gender-specific pronouns with "hey" (which is the singular version of "they")
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 16:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 17:10
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,409
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Timothea @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 17:45) *
"hey" (which is the singular version of "they")



Well done on the appeal - was a it case you posted here?


Less well done on vocabulary - hey is not a singular version of they... In fact they is often used these days as a singular to avoid she/he.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothea
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 17:29
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,738



I didn't post this case or use any content on here because I had problems trying to register, but I managed it today. Hopefully, it will be useful to others, although I found a couple of posters who had a similar situation at the same location, but they went quiet and probably paid the fine.

"They" is the plural non-gender-specific pronoun. "Hey" is a singular non-gender-specific pronoun. It is perfectly rational to describe "hey" as the singular version of "they" in case anyone is confused by my terminology.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 17:42
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,309
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Timothea @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 17:45) *
NB: I have replaced my name with "the appellant" and gender-specific pronouns with "hey" (which is the singular version of "they")

You do realise it's a public register and anybody can look up the case? It only took me 30 seconds to find it because only one appeal against Ealing was decided on 25 April.

QUOTE (Timothea @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 18:29) *
"They" is the plural non-gender-specific pronoun. "Hey" is a singular non-gender-specific pronoun. It is perfectly rational to describe "hey" as the singular version of "they" in case anyone is confused by my terminology.

Not according to the dictionary:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hey
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hey
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hey


--------------------
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
makara
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 18:01
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,881
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Member No.: 38,904



Very well done! I sometimes travel there (although not often) - and I HATE that bus-lane

- even though I have never been caught out by it...I almost have for the reasons stated.

It's diabolical - easy for many who aren't familiar with the area to get caught out. Nice money for the council.

I also feel incredibly sorry for those wanting to turn right from the side roads along it, on to Mandeville - it's near-impossible, I sit there on the main road watching the poor buggers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothea
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 20:39
Post #6


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,738



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 18:42) *
You do realise it's a public register and anybody can look up the case? It only took me 30 seconds to find it because only one appeal against Ealing was decided on 25 April.

Yes, I do realise. biggrin.gif There are only five successful appeals at this location going back eight years and only mine for the lack of adequate signage. It's very easy to find even without the date. If someone wants to know my name and the car's VRN, that's fine. I just didn't want it to be automatically searchable.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 18:42) *

As I explained, it is my terminology but not (yet) in any dictionary. I am trying to promote its use. rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothea
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 20:55
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,738



QUOTE (makara @ Tue, 7 May 2019 - 19:01) *
It's diabolical - easy for many who aren't familiar with the area to get caught out. Nice money for the council.

Absolutely. Perhaps I should ask Ealing Council why there is no bus lane signage or BUS LANE road markings at a location just over a humpback bridge with a bus lane enforcement camera, when the correct signage and road markings are present everywhere else along Mandeville Road. Definite entrapment.

I can provide my detailed reasoning and legal arguments that persuaded the Adjudicator to allow my appeal, if anyone needs them. They only apply to this location.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothea
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 19:39
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,738



[In my informal representation, I first described in detail what happened leading up to the alleged bus lane contravention, including why I was unfamiliar with this bus lane section, why I moved into the left-hand lane after Northolt station and why I did not see any bus lane road markings or signs before entering the bus lane.]

[I then used the following Highway Code argument:]

Regarding bus lanes, the Highway Code says this (my emphasis):

Rule 141
Bus lanes.
These are shown by road markings and signs that indicate which (if any) other vehicles are permitted to use the bus lane. Unless otherwise indicated, you should not drive in a bus lane during its period of operation. You may enter a bus lane to stop, to load or unload where this is not prohibited.

In fact, bus lane road markings and signs were absent or not visible for this short bus lane section. There were neither the words BUS LANE nor any bus lane signs on this stretch of road. The Highway Code is clear that bus lanes are shown by road markings and signs; they cannot be implied in some vague way.

This is also supported by the video evidence, which clearly shows the absence of bus lane road markings and signs. By failing to provide and maintain adequate bus lane road markings and signs at this location, I inadvertently strayed into a hidden and unsigned bus lane, despite driving with due care and attention.

[As I intended to turn left at the junction ahead, I also used the following Highway Code argument:]

Regarding turning left, the Highway Code says this (my emphasis):

Rule 182
Use your mirrors and give a left-turn signal well before you turn left. Do not overtake just before you turn left and watch out for traffic coming up on your left before you make the turn, especially if driving a large vehicle. Cyclists, motorcyclists and other road users in particular may be hidden from your view.

I was clearly following this advice by using my mirrors, giving a left-turn signal and then changing lanes well before the junction.

[This representation was rejected without dealing with the issues I raised.]
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
makara
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 19:42
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,881
Joined: 11 Jul 2010
Member No.: 38,904



Nice - their own video evidence worked against them - I love it!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Timothea
post Tue, 28 May 2019 - 19:59
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 7 May 2019
Member No.: 103,738



[In my formal representation, I contested the PCN on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order or regulations (reason 2). I then repeated the details from my informal representation, with extra commentary, adding the following additional arguments:]

I have studied the Traffic Signs Manuals, particularly Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs) and Chapter 5 (Road Markings). Chapter 3 includes the following instructions:

15.10 The sign to diagram 959 is a regulatory sign and should be placed at the start of the [bus] lane, i.e. where the continuous line to diagram 1049 begins.

What this means in practice is that the sign to diagram 959 (also known as a bus lane repeater sign) should be present at the start of each bus lane section, i.e. wherever the continuous line to diagram 1049 (also known as a bus lane boundary line) resumes after a break. This is especially important at this location because drivers cannot see the roadway ahead of the humpback bridge but would see a sign. The required sign to diagram 959 is not present at the location of the alleged contravention, as can be seen in the video.

Figure 15-1 in Chapter 3 and Figure 17-1 in Chapter 5 indicate the required signs and road markings that should have been used. These make clear that, as well as a repeater sign, each section of bus lane should have the prescribed BUS LANE road markings at the start of that section.

Paragraph 17.17 in Chapter 5 explains that the controlled area of a pedestrian crossing, indicated by zig-zag road markings, takes precedence over a bus lane (such as the one on the humpback bridge by Northolt station, just before the final bus lane section). It is therefore wrong to suggest that a bus lane continues through a pedestrian crossing: a bus lane boundary line alone defines the start and end of each bus lane section.

The bus lane signs and road markings at the location of the alleged contravention do not satisfy the relevant guidance in the Traffic Signs Manuals and do not adequately inform motorists of the presence of a short, hidden bus lane section after the controlled area of the pedestrian crossing.

There is a very similar location nearby, where a bus lane is interrupted by a pedestrian crossing on a humpback bridge next to a station. This is at Hatch End station in the London Borough of Harrow. In this case, the required bus lane signs and road markings are present and correct, as can be seen in the attached photos.

[I took photos myself, but you could use Google Street View to capture views of this location.]

Approach: This shows the end of the bus lane just before the controlled area, with a bus lane sign visible after the pedestrian crossing. This makes it easy for drivers to see that a new bus lane starts on the other side of the humpback bridge.

Crossing: This shows the bus lane sign clearly, as vehicles reach the top of the humpback bridge. This sign is visible for a significant distance because it has been placed near the apex of the bridge.

Descent: This shows where a new bus lane starts after the controlled area of the pedestrian crossing. The BUS LANE road markings are also clearly visible.

Harrow Council has clearly taken a sensible and pragmatic approach to ensure that drivers are adequately informed that there is a bus lane after the controlled area of the pedestrian crossing. After all, the whole point of having bus lanes is to allow buses to progress without undue delay, rather than to fine motorists.

In contrast, Ealing Council has failed to take account of the specific circumstances (not covered in the guidance) around Northolt station, thereby failing to inform motorists adequately that a short bus lane section exists after the humpback bridge. To make matters worse, Ealing Council has not even provided the basic signs and road markings required by the guidance.

All the requirements for bus lane signs and road markings on Mandeville Road (north-eastward) appear to have been met by Ealing Council, apart from the short, hidden bus lane section immediately after Northolt station. As this is also where a bus lane enforcement camera is located, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that this amounts to entrapment, whether deliberate or not.

[This representation was also rejected without dealing with the key issue I raised: inadequate signage.]


[In my appeal to the London Traffic Adjudicators, I appealed on the same grounds with some new evidence, such as the FOI response, and the following statements:]

I will rely on my previous representations to Ealing Council, which have already been provided to the tribunal. If required, I shall also provide a witness statement, along with reasons why I believe this PCN should be cancelled, verbally. To support my verbal statements and arguments, I am submitting further evidence below.

On the day in question, as I passed the Northolt station bus stop, I noticed that the bus lane boundary line ahead was no longer present. I stopped at that point and waited for the traffic to move again. While waiting, I looked around for any bus lane signs or road markings, but I could see none. I therefore concluded that the bus lane had ended. I needed to turn left at the next junction, but I was unsure how far away the junction was, so my main concern became how to change lanes safely and in time.

As I drove forward, the only relevant sign or road marking (a faded bus lane boundary line) became visible to me only after I had entered the hidden bus lane. The regulations provide numerous ways in which motorists can be adequately informed about the presence of a bus lane, but Ealing Council chose only to use one at this location, and that was clearly inadequate.

In its response to my appeal, Ealing Council acknowledges that the purpose of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) is to convey to the motorist adequate information of the relevant restriction. Ealing Council then goes on to claim that all the signs and road markings meet the specifications of the TSRGD, which they may do, but this fails to address how the signage at the relevant location adequately informs the motorist.

This is where the Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual provides useful guidance and several examples of best practice. The guidance and examples given for bus lane road markings and signs are helpful but do not cover every situation. The Traffic Signs Manual frequently advises traffic authorities to request further guidance from the Department for Transport for any unusual circumstances.

I have read the relevant sections of the Traffic Signs Manual (both the current and previous versions) and all the examples given consistently recommend two things:
1. A bus lane sign or repeater sign be placed at the start of each section of bus lane boundary line
2. BUS LANE road markings be placed at the start of each section of bus lane boundary line
Ealing Council did neither of these things for the relevant bus lane section, nor did it ask the Department for Transport for further guidance. (Please see the attached FOI response from Ealing Council.)

[This FOI response can be found on WhatDoTheyKnow.com by searching for "Ealing bus lane".]

The Traffic Signs Manual does not have statutory authority. However, it does support the statutory requirement that the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead. Ealing Council’s failure to consider fully the unusual layout around Northolt Underground station, or to request further guidance from the Department for Transport, could be considered negligent.

In contrast to Ealing Council’s approach, Harrow Council devised a much clearer solution. Uxbridge Road, by Hatch End Station, has a similar with-flow bus lane over a humpback railway bridge, with a pedestrian crossing at the apex. Harrow Council decided to create two separate, short bus lanes and moved the second bus lane sign close to the top of the bridge so that motorists could see in advance that there was a bus lane after the bridge. Had Ealing Council implemented a similar solution, or just put a bus lane repeater sign near the top of the bridge, then I would have noticed this in time to avoid entering the hidden bus lane section.

Ealing Council’s response to my appeal contains several assertions that are of no relevance to the alleged contravention but are portrayed as supporting its refusal to cancel the PCN. For example, the assertion that the absence of vehicles using the left-hand lane should have alerted me that a bus lane was present does not meet the statutory requirement to provide adequate signage. In any case, the assertion is untrue because, when I visited the scene outside the restriction period, I observed that almost all vehicles stayed in the right-hand lane anyway, unless they were turning left at the junction.

Another example is the assertion that the End of Bus Lane sign is relevant. This sign indicates the absence, not the presence, of a bus lane. In any case, this sign is inconspicuous and too small to be read before entering the hidden bus lane section, and therefore cannot be considered adequate signage.

[Finally, you should provide details of my successful appeal by quoting the Case Reference and the Reasons why the appeal was allowed. Case Reference: 219010918A; Enforcement Authority: The London Borough of Ealing; Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne; Decision Date: 25/04/2019; Decision: Appeal Allowed.]

[Reasons: This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Mandeville Road at 5.46pm on 18 October 2018. I have reviewed the still images and CCTV footage submitted by the Council. These show that the appellant’s car travelled for about 3 car lengths in a terminal section of the bus lane after the zig-zag crossing at Northolt Station. The bus lane is signed with restricted hours of 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm from Mondays to Fridays. The appellant says that he saw the bus lane signs for the start of the bus lane. He appeals because he says that there is no signage at the start of the terminal section after the zig-zag crossing. He says that he was turning left at the junction and moved into the left hand carriageway, unaware that it was a continuation of the bus lane. The Council says in the case summary that there is no statutory requirement for a sign to be placed where the bus lane resumes after the zig-zags. That is a correct statement of the law. However, there is a requirement for all sections of the bus lane to be clearly signed. The appellant refers to the guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual which recommends a sign or repeater sign at the start of each section of bus lane where there is a divider. I accept the appellant’s evidence that he moved into the left hand carriageway unaware that it was a continuation of the bus lane. I am satisfied that this resulted from the absence of a repeater sign after the divide and I find for this reason that the signage was not adequate. I have also noted the Council’s own observation that the white demarcation line after the dividing section has become faded.]

This post has been edited by Timothea: Tue, 28 May 2019 - 19:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jimmbo
post Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 20:29
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 6 May 2016
Member No.: 84,169



I would like to thank Timothea for creating this post and providing info to all of us that fell into the London Borough of Ealing's trap.
I have just passed by Northolt station and I'm happy to report that the bus lane in question on Mandeville Road no longer exist.
The line now is scrubbed and replaced by a single broken line.

Thanks again and keep up the fight ! wink.gif

This post has been edited by jimmbo: Mon, 9 Dec 2019 - 20:39
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: Wednesday, 11th December 2019 - 09:29
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.