Salters Hill Give Way Strikes again (Lambeth), 37j- Failing to give way |
Salters Hill Give Way Strikes again (Lambeth), 37j- Failing to give way |
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:12
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 3 Feb 2011 Member No.: 43,964 |
Dear all.
I would be grateful if you could view the evidence and let me know your thoughts on whether this is worth defending at the ajudicators or If I should just pay the discounted rate. My appeal was rejected and was based on a similar appeal formulated from similar cases on this site at the same location. To view video click below and use reference/reg below link. https://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php PCN LJ12184767 Reg LF16AKO Kind regards This post has been edited by Fork: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 22:26 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:12
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:28
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Download the video and put it on youtube or such like.
Post the appeal and rejection. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 19:29 |
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 20:44
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Also show us the PCN, your representation and their rejection.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 20:45
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Yours is now the 3rd active thread on this location, so clearly the council see it as a "nice little earner" !
Well, having viewed the video, I think you are bang-to-rights as the van coming towards you was straddling the speed bump when you started to move forward. You didn't hesitate at the give-way line when the car in front of you moved forward. It is best never to just follow the vehicle in front at this location. |
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 21:30
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 3 Feb 2011 Member No.: 43,964 |
Download the video and put it on youtube or such like. Post the appeal and rejection. Hi there. Please let me know if you're able to view it on here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/11bZz8rkEZZ...ew?usp=drivesdk I will upload the pcn as well as my appeal and the rejection https://drive.google.com/file/d/11dj0Yn6wRN...ew?usp=drivesdk Yours is now the 3rd active thread on this location, so clearly the council see it as a "nice little earner" ! Well, having viewed the video, I think you are bang-to-rights as the van coming towards you was straddling the speed bump when you started to move forward. You didn't hesitate at the give-way line when the car in front of you moved forward. It is best never to just follow the vehicle in front at this location. Thank you for your thoughts. To be fair I've been driving down that stretch of road for over 13 years and felt that I could safely make that manoeuvre considering the amount of distance the Van was from the bridge. It does appear to look worse on the video but I do appreciate your opinion. This post has been edited by Fork: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 21:32 |
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 21:32
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Yours is now the 3rd active thread on this location, so clearly the council see it as a "nice little earner" ! Well, having viewed the video, I think you are bang-to-rights as the van coming towards you was straddling the speed bump when you started to move forward. You didn't hesitate at the give-way line when the car in front of you moved forward. It is best never to just follow the vehicle in front at this location. Are we seeing the same video? I see a Range Rover just making the turn when the OP moves off, but it speeds down the road and over the hump making it look much worse. This can't be a contravention unless you can't more unless there is no movement at the top right. |
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 21:52
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 3 Feb 2011 Member No.: 43,964 |
My appeal:
PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE LJ12184767 REGISTRATION NUMBER LF16AKO DATE OF CONTRAVENTION Sat , 03 Aug 2019 14:24 CURRENT AMOUNT OUTSTANDING £65.00 Dear Sir or Madam, On-line challenge for LJ12184767 On the grounds of: I wish to make representations about this PCN for other reasons Reason: I wish to challenge my PCN for another reason Further explanation : PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE: LJ12184767 VEHICLE REGISTRATION No: LF16 AKO Representations against the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) GROUND ONE: The alleged contravention did not occur GROUND TWO: The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case FACTS 1. The CCTV camera footage begins with my car stationary behind a silver car behind the give way lines having given way to two red vehicles travelling through the arch of the bridge. My car is seen to move only when the two vehicles have safely passed and the road is clear of other traffic that is no where near the prioroty sign facing the opposite direction. No vehicle is seen to stop or take aversive action, or is denied priority by my car to cross the road narrowing arising from the bridge. The footage confirms that my car easily passes a silver van travelling towards the camera where the road beyond the bridge is much wider before the silver van reaches the priority over oncoming vehicles sign facing in the opposite direction on the other side of the road, where the priority area as denoted by the sign begins. TSRGD 2. The sign facing the camera is to diagram 615 in the Part 2 sign table in Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016). In column 2, the description is priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction. In Part 4, the applicable provision is Section 36 of the 1988 Act applies to the sign. 3. Paragraph 7c of Part 7, in Schedule 9 to TSRGD 2016 states that where (as at locus) there are transverse lines placed in advance of the point in the road where the width of the carriageway narrows significantly, 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. 4. The sign facing in the opposite direction on the other side of the road is to diagram 811 in the Part 2 sign table in Schedule 11 to TSRGD 2016. In column 2, the description is beginning of section of road where traffic has priority over vehicles from the opposite direction. TMO 5. There would be a Traffic Management Order (TMO) and plainly the Council are relying on it as the alleged contravention is “failing to give way to oncoming vehicles” with no mention on the PCN of failing to comply with a sign. 6. The Council believes that the CCTV footage shows the contravention alleged. However, the TMO has not been supplied and in its absence I cannot be satisfied that the footage did show the contravention because I am unable to see the evidence of the extent of the prohibition created by the Order. Please also see under ‘S.36 sign’ below. DISCLOSURE 7. The Council are requested to please supply me with a copy of the relevant TMO and details of the placement of the sign to diagram 811 at locus. DETAILS 8. Regardless of the present lack of evidence of the extent of the prohibition created by the Order, I submit three reasons under the first ground as to why there was no contravention. Priority section 9. I aver that at the time when my car proceeded forward of the give way markings, there were no vehicles “oncoming”, and by that I mean oncoming to the extent of having right of way or ‘priority’ over vehicles behind the give way markings. Common sense dictates that there can be no valid order that would effectively make any vehicle entering the mouth of Salters Hill around 70m (229ft) distant from the give way markings “oncoming” in the sense just described. The most basic reason for this is that the relevant TSRGD 2016 provisions (see under ‘TSRGD’ above) make no mention of ‘motorised’ vehicles, and plainly any such order would be absurd when considering that bicycles are vehicles. 10. For the place where traffic legally has priority over vehicles from the opposite direction, please refer to 4. above, or item 1 in the Part 2 sign table in Schedule 11 to TSRGD 2016; to be of assistance it is the narrow length of road through the arch of the bridge in Salter’s Hill. This is entirely consistent with information in Department for Transport publications including (but not limited to) Know Your Traffic Signs and the current Traffic Signs Manual, the official guide on the “correct use” of signs and road markings intended for traffic authorities and their agents, which is very clear in Chapter 3 that “The sign to diagram 615 indicates that drivers must give priority to vehicles from the opposite direction on a narrow length of road”. 11. I am not in agreement at all that when my car reached the relevant signs on my side of the road a distant car on the other side of the road had legal priority over my vehicle at that relatively wide point in the road to the extent that I was obliged to give way to it. In this respect, I reference, in particular the following London Tribunals cases WORRELL AND LB LAMBETH 2180307391, CONWAY AND LB LAMBETH 2180301464, ATORI AND LB LAMBETH 2170334285 and HAGGIS AND LB LAMBETH 216014882A. De minimis 12. The second reason is that although a silver van was coming into view at the mouth of Salters Hill at the time my vehicle proceeded forward of the give way markings, it is not at all clear upon giving proper weight to the distorted depth of field of the CCTV camera as it zooms, that my car failed to give way, that is to say accord it precedence in a situation where only one of the two vehicles could continue safely to proceed. The footage does not show that the silver van had to alter course or slow, or if it slowed at all, it was in the most inconsequential sense, which was not the mischief of likely endangerment to persons or property to which the particular provision under paragraph 7c of Part 7, in Schedule 9 to TSRGD 2016 is directed. Please also refer to the photo attached which more realistically demonstrates the position of the silver van (the bottom of the photo at the beginning if the speed bump) in relation to when my vehicle was already half way through the narrow length of road. Due diligence 13. It is further reasoned that the manner in which my car was driven falls within s.24(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act), which states: “In proceedings for an offence under this Act it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.” 14. The CCTV footage begins with my car stationary behind the give way lines and that crucially, I then begin to move off behind the silver van when I could clearly see that there were no other vehicles on Salters Hill. The footage confirms that the silver van appears within only a matter of seconds because there is no line of sight to see a vehicle on Gipsy Road approaching the corner to turn into Salters Hill, and I am virtually upon the give way lines at that moment, my car having picked up momentum. I find it difficult to imagine what more any cautious and diligent driver could have done in those same circumstances but to continue watchfully forward since it is not a wise or safe decision to brake abruptly for a vehicle merely appearing from around the corner at a distance of some 70m (229ft). For those reasons, I believe that I had taken all reasonable precautions and had exercised all due diligence when negotiating the restriction. S.36 sign 15. Under the second ground, the alleged contravention is described on the PCN as “Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles”. One might reasonably conclude therefore that proceedings were initiated because it was believed that I had acted in contravention of a TMO since the PCN makes no mention of failing to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. The Council’s video evidence however, ends with CCTV footage zooming in on a s.36 sign (to diagram 615 TSRGD), thus one might reasonably therefore conclude that a payment would be demanded upon being proven in contravention of a s.36 sign. 16. However, as per subsection (6) under section 4 of the 2003 Act, which sets out when a penalty charge is payable, no penalty charge shall be payable if it were proven that I had acted in contravention of a valid prescribed Order and were proven to have also failed to comply with an indication given by a s.36 traffic sign. 17. Plainly, a penalty charge may be demanded on one basis only and if, as in this case, proceedings are initiated for contravention of a TMO then a penalty charge is not payable for infringement of an s.36 sign. The Council must prove that I acted in contravention of a valid TMO. 18. Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides in subsection (5) that, subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle: (a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or (b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. Subsection (6) provides that no penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where (a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or (b) the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Yours faithfully Rejection https://drive.google.com/file/d/11jitLH34JF...ew?usp=drivesdk Rejection rest of pages https://drive.google.com/file/d/11kvxjvTdwR...ew?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/120Kdk5mXca...ew?usp=drivesdk tps://drive.google.com/file/d/12-dEnHO8TbqCdfvh7BcQUJc8E5gUIIcL/view?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/128ZdHN3zOr...ew?usp=drivesdk https://drive.google.com/file/d/12CBZAITZ64...ew?usp=drivesdk Yours is now the 3rd active thread on this location, so clearly the council see it as a "nice little earner" ! Well, having viewed the video, I think you are bang-to-rights as the van coming towards you was straddling the speed bump when you started to move forward. You didn't hesitate at the give-way line when the car in front of you moved forward. It is best never to just follow the vehicle in front at this location. Are we seeing the same video? I see a Range Rover just making the turn when the OP moves off, but it speeds down the road and over the hump making it look much worse. This can't be a contravention unless you can't more unless there is no movement at the top right. Apologies, I accidentally uploaded another video on the link. It has been amended to the correct one. There should be a silver van approaching from.the other end and not a range rover. This post has been edited by Fork: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 21:47 |
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 22:36
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
We need permission to access the google drive.
I have only glanced at the representations. Oh dear, act in haste repent at leisure. That is meaningless IMO having seen the video if the discount has been reoffered take it -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 - 23:02
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 3 Feb 2011 Member No.: 43,964 |
We need permission to access the google drive. I have only glanced at the representations. Oh dear, act in haste repent at leisure. That is meaningless IMO having seen the video if the discount has been reoffered take it Thanks for taking the time to view the video. |
|
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 06:24
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
I too think the OP is bang to rights.
However a lot of time and effort has gone into the appeal and it would be interesting to see the Council's response. Most of the videos I have seen demonstrate that oncoming vehicles are ignoring the 20mph limit. Mick |
|
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 07:38
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 546 Joined: 31 Aug 2015 From: 19 Riverbank Member No.: 79,151 |
I too think the OP is bang to rights. However a lot of time and effort has gone into the appeal and it would be interesting to see the Council's response. Most of the videos I have seen demonstrate that oncoming vehicles are ignoring the 20mph limit. Mick https://imgur.com/a/yBg9r7W -------------------- I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
|
|
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 12:01
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
IMO having seen the video if the discount has been reoffered take it I agree with that. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Thu, 19 Sep 2019 - 12:33
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 3 Feb 2011 Member No.: 43,964 |
Thanks for your quick response guys.
Because several of you felt I was bang to rights, I took the opportunity it to pay the discounted rate as it was the last day. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 08:40
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,570 Joined: 13 May 2010 Member No.: 37,524 |
One of the things I thought about (but was unable to get to a computer in time) was that there are no give way lines on the road.
I thought this was mandatory at any give way sign. |
|
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 08:42
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
One of the things I thought about (but was unable to get to a computer in time) was that there are no give way lines on the road. I thought this was mandatory at any give way sign. Seem to be there: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4261929,-0....6384!8i8192 By the way, here's a view from the other end - we can see it's a fair way to the bridge: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.42689,-0.08...6384!8i8192 This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 08:43 |
|
|
Fri, 20 Sep 2019 - 09:09
Post
#16
|
||||
Webmaster Group: Root Admin Posts: 8,205 Joined: 30 Mar 2003 From: Wokingham, UK Member No.: 2 |
By the way, here's a view from the other end - we can see it's a fair way to the bridge: It's a lot easier to use Google Maps 2D view rather than Streetview for this kind of assessment; it's 53m from the Gipsy Road junction markings to the bridge, 75m to the give way line the other side of the brifge. -------------------- Regards,
Fredd __________________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
||||
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 17:26 |