Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 32T: Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (turning in the wrong direction)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
mrsburnett
Hi I wonder if anyone can advise. I have recently appeal and had turned down a PCN for allegedly failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow. I argue that I did, video evidence shows this and photos are truly selective to say the least. Wondering whether it's worth risking losing the right to a discounted fine but truly believe no contravention took place. I argued that I can clearly be seen turning left, then crossing Blagdon Road to gain access to the rear of the shops. Decided not to park and exited some 60 odd seconds later. There is no signage to say no right turn after bearing left and road markings as can be seen in pics are broken, not solid and do not support a no access to read of shops. Also found on local social meadia a number of people have had their PCNs overturned and the council have been advised to change their signage. Can anybody advise. Thanks in advance smile.gif
Jo Carn
From what I have seen, I can understand why you do not want to pay.
Ultimately it is your money so your decision. Personally, I would not pay.

There are a whole host of issues but I will stick with a couple.
1. you did turn left. The blue arrow is there to prevent people from turning right where the tree is in your photo A.
When you then turned right, you were at 90 degrees from your position as you approached the curve - ergo you had turned.

2. After you had followed the blue arrow and turned left, there is a no right turn plate but this is high up and only on one side of the road. Given that you intended to turn right and that any traffic coming the other way would also be on your right, the natural inclination of a driver is to look right (and so not see the no right turn). There is a responsibility for the local authority to make any signs very clear. The point of putting up road signs is to inform and direct drivers and so it is incumbent on them to make it clear. You can quote the Dept for Transport's Traffic Sign Manual, 4.18 A prohibited turn sign...us always sited immediately before the junction on the left hand side. Where there are two or more approach lanes and a "no right turn" sign is likely to be obscured ..., the sign should be duplicated either on the right hand side of the road or on any central refuge.
It also begs the question why there aren't any "no entry" signs as there are in your photo E - that would negate any ambiguity.

Check out the adjudication re Chamberlayne Road/Bolton Garden where the adjudicator (I think only last month) allowed the appeal. On of the grounds was "A single "no right turn" may in many situations be sufficient but at this location confusion can clearly arise. Although it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists".

My guess is that you will get quite strong opinion from other people that this is more than a mess and the local authority should know better. Unfortunately they are behaving more and more like cowboys and less and less like a public service.

You stated that they have cancelled other tickets. Under the Freedom of Information, it might be worth asking them how many in the last 6 months.

If you do appeal, do not be surprised if they reject your appeal. It may well have to go to an Adjudicator. If so, I have generally found them to be reasonable and look for the reasonable - which this is not.
MrChips
Looking on GSV, I think the no right turn is not to prevent people turning right into the back of the shops, but to stop people turning back on themselves onto Blagdon Road.

If so, you haven't committed a contravention in my view and the council have made a mistake.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4003096,-...3312!8i6656
PASTMYBEST
There is another thread re this from not to long ago, is it yours?
MrChips
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=104911
silverfox60017
Pastmybest asked in the other thread.
If you had entered the car park, left the car for shopping for 10 mins returned to car and then left car park turning left,it that still a contravention?
albert2008
mandatory left turn, ?

looks like a no right turn,
PASTMYBEST
There are 3 pages all the same, page 1 of notice of rejection. We need to see the rest of this and your representations
Jo Carn
Giving it some thought, it dawned on me that point 2 above is irrelevant. The only question to answer is did you turn left.
When you approached the curve in the road did you:
reverse - no
go straight and hit the wall - no
turn right - and follow the road where the tree is - no
so you must have turned left.
what you did after you turned left is irrelevant.
Neil B
QUOTE (mrsburnett @ Thu, 12 May 2016 - 14:58) *
Decided not to park

Oh please! Kid yourself, no one else. That won't go down well with an adjudicator.
Your 60 seconds is "give or take" 20! That's about how long 'deciding not to park'?

You didn't complete the left turn, 'proceed left'.
You drove diagonally across, as in several failed adjudications.
MrChips
I share your point of view Jo.

Just to play devil's advocate slightly, is there a (general) rule where if a u-turn is prohibited, you also cannot do a three point turn as well? I think I recall reading this somewhere. In which case, it could be argued that this manoeuvre is similar. I'd argue strongly against this however.

Crucially, if you are allowed to turn in and park to use the shops, at what point does it become not allowed to come back out and turn left?
PASTMYBEST
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_032

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2002/31...20023113_en_032

The offence is failing to turn in the direction indicated by the arrow. Forget about entering the car park, did you commit this offence.

Some may argue that the layout of the road forces you to do just that,( If the discount is gone I would be one of them) and that the move diagonally across is made after a turn to the left,
but it is what an adjudicator believes that will matter.

Niel implies that there are rulings on this so your choice
Earl Purple
A banned manoeuvre is not stating a consequence, i.e. it is not banned to end up in the location forbidden by the manoeuvre,, just forbidden to perform the manouevre itself.

Thus if there is a no-right-turn and I turn left, do a u-turn in that road then cross the junction going straight ahead I have not done a right turn, even though I ended up in the road I was originally forbidden to directly turn into.

Incidentally I regularly disobey a "left ahead only" sign at a dual carriageway where the is also a parallel two-way residential-access road and I turn right into it all the time. Obviously I wouldn't turn right into the dual carriageway itself,, and I consider the "left ahead only" sign to refer to the dual carriageway itself, and not an instruction that I must go up to that point and turn left.
Grant Urismo
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 13 May 2016 - 10:14) *
QUOTE (mrsburnett @ Thu, 12 May 2016 - 14:58) *
Decided not to park

Oh please! Kid yourself, no one else. That won't go down well with an adjudicator.


Didn't we establish in the thread about 2 no right turn arrows in Havering that these sort of signs apply until you leave the carriageway?

I think instead of "decided not to park", "I left the carriageway" might go down better with an adjudicator. To me the question is, does the sign prohibit turning right at that junction, or does it prohibit turning right at that junction and into the car park? If it does (and I think it doesn't) then does the signage clearly convey the restriction to the motorist? I think not - and I also think the Council knows it's confusing and instead of making it clearer, they cynically decided to cash in on the confusion by installing CCTV, in the knowlege that almost nobody would fight back.

Also, to me, the length of time spent in the car park is irrelevant. Would the council have a case if the OP had parked for an hour? If not, then wheres the cut-off point, and more importantly, were is the law that specifies it?
MrChips
Precisely. If they genuinely wanted to make the junction clearer, they could get "ahead only" written on the tarmac and another "no right turn" sign immediately opposite the car park.

If you take an aerial view (see link below) you can see that the turn into the car park is directly opposite the point where the turn has straightened out (if one is driving on the left as you enter the car park which one is supposed to do) so I don't think you can argue that turning into the car park is before the left turn is complete.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4003495,-...#33;3m1!1e3

Finally the no right turn sign must apply to not being able to turn directly right onto Blagdon Road. It can't apply to the car park turning as that is perpendicular to the Blagdon Road turning and I can't see how to perpendicular turns could be governed by the same no right turn sign.
PASTMYBEST
Looking at the video on the new thread recently posted, the road layout forces you to go left thus complying with the sign any contravention must be against signs governing the exit from the car park
Jo Carn
The no right turn is a red herring. Parking is a red herring. the three point turn is a red herring. The accusation is that you did not turn left and follow the instructions of the sign. If you didn't turn left you would have hit the wall in front of you!
Neil B
It's all very well that you all find this appalling but the fact remains, contrary to what the OP posted earlier in the previous thread,
the majority of these are losing on these points at adjudication: From the 30+ I sampled anyway.
I found only one that agreed with OP from the way presented.

Many or most of the wins were on unrelated technicalities.

Let's not beat about the bush; the OP and many before her have proceeded as they did to avoid a road layout they found
inconvenient to them. Adjudicators are human; no one likes what might be construed as selfish behaviour.

BUT most, perhaps all, of the points made by members here are valid.

(I was wrong earlier when I used the term 'proceed': the 't' suffix only requires a turn)

I've referred to road layout being inconvenient rather than there being a restriction because the only
restriction possible of being contravened is the NRT which, as said, seems somewhat defunct.

What I find most interesting, from both videos, is the point at which the Council believe
a contravention occurs - exit from the car park.
That can't be so in relation to the turn left sign which they allege contravened.

They should be put to task, in any reps, to explain where they believe the contravention occurs and,
if they respond honestly, they lose.
Or
Where at tribunal stage already this must be raised, pointing out the timing of the flashing word
on the vid.

There might, arguably, be a contravention of the NRT, as in u-turn cases, but that isn't alleged.
So alongside 'no contravention' you could claim 'wrong contravention'?
azaman
In response to Neil B:

"Let's not beat about the bush; the OP and many before her have proceeded as they did to avoid a road layout they found
inconvenient to them. Adjudicators are human; no one likes what might be construed as selfish behaviour"

it isn't that the road layout is inconvenient - the signs are not clear. which makes people assume that it's ok.
the signs for a no right turn are on cocks crescent. When you turn into the car park you are on blagdon road. There should be another sign.

If a turn into the car park is a contravention it should be clearly labelled.
Neil B
QUOTE (azaman @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 10:04) *
In response to Neil B:

"Let's not beat about the bush; the OP and many before her have proceeded as they did to avoid a road layout they found
inconvenient to them. Adjudicators are human; no one likes what might be construed as selfish behaviour"

it isn't that the road layout is inconvenient - the signs are not clear. which makes people assume that it's ok.
the signs for a no right turn are on cocks crescent. When you turn into the car park you are on blagdon road. There should be another sign.

If a turn into the car park is a contravention it should be clearly labelled.

I fail to understand how anything you're saying has any relevance to my comment about 'selfish behaviour'?
Are you suggesting that people are not making these manoeuvres to bypass what IS, for them, an
inconvenient layout: Perhaps it's that they are all just sightseeing, with local small car parks being their particular
interest?
big_mac
I think there is also an issue of signage.
The 'turn left' sign is applicable 24/7 - but the 'no right turn' sign has a time plate.
This implies that a right turn is allowed outside those times, which contradicts the 'left turn only' signage.

It's hard to read the times on the photos, but I think it's 19:01 - which would be at a time when a right turn is allowed.
At the very least, this is confusing.
baroudeur
QUOTE (big_mac @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 17:05) *
I think there is also an issue of signage.
The 'turn left' sign is applicable 24/7 - but the 'no right turn' sign has a time plate.
This implies that a right turn is allowed outside those times, which contradicts the 'left turn only' signage.

It's hard to read the times on the photos, but I think it's 19:01 - which would be at a time when a right turn is allowed.
At the very least, this is confusing.


A time plate for a turn restriction would be black on white whereas the plate to which you refer is black on yellow.

In fact, it's a 'no waiting plate' viewable on GSV.
big_mac
oops! That should have been obvious, thanks.
azaman
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 10:52) *
QUOTE (azaman @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 10:04) *
In response to Neil B:

"Let's not beat about the bush; the OP and many before her have proceeded as they did to avoid a road layout they found
inconvenient to them. Adjudicators are human; no one likes what might be construed as selfish behaviour"

it isn't that the road layout is inconvenient - the signs are not clear. which makes people assume that it's ok.
the signs for a no right turn are on cocks crescent. When you turn into the car park you are on blagdon road. There should be another sign.

If a turn into the car park is a contravention it should be clearly labelled.

I fail to understand how anything you're saying has any relevance to my comment about 'selfish behaviour'?
Are you suggesting that people are not making these manoeuvres to bypass what IS, for them, an
inconvenient layout: Perhaps it's that they are all just sightseeing, with local small car parks being their particular
interest?


you're looking for a fight that isnt there - my point is about whats allowed and what isn't. Inconvenience is irrelevant.
If one person makes that mistake it's inconvenient.
if 100 people make the same mistake is something else wrong?

a bit like speed camera's ...whats their purpose? to make money for the authorities or slow people down?
PASTMYBEST
Your having this little tiff in someone else's thread. Neil is right in that like us an adjudicator would say don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining. Azaman.
you are right in that in essence it does not matter to whether a contravention occurs or not The advice for the OP should centre on has a contravention occurred or not.

Forget the no right turn sign, it is irrelevant to the contravention cited, which is "Failing to drive in the direction of the arrow shown on the blue (instruction) sign"
Looking at the road layout, you are compelled to drive to the left, complying with the sign. IMO then making a second manoeuvre after complying cannot
be a contravention
DancingDad
No point arguing on whether the no right turn is sensible or not.

The sole argument on the actual contravention is whether or not turning right into the car park is in contravention of the prohibition sign.
What happens after that is irrelevant once the vehicle has left the carriageway.

This key case applies
http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...ses/Kennedy.doc
Grant Urismo
I think the time plate on the no right turn helps the OPs case. If the council's position is that the OP must go left and continue to the left because the blue arrow says so, how can a right turn be allowed at certain times? Either the combination of signs does not clearly indicate the restriction, and therefore the OP wins, or after completing the left turn the OP is free to go wherever they like, and therefore the OP wins.
Neil B
QUOTE (azaman @ Mon, 30 May 2016 - 12:21) *
you're looking for a fight that isnt there - my point is about whats allowed and what isn't. Inconvenience is irrelevant.

I bow to your clearly greater experience of tribunal hearings, adjudicator attitudes and how to approach matters with them,
how they might see things in this case and yours and how they have, in several cases, seen things and ruled to date.
big_mac
QUOTE (Grant Urismo @ Mon, 30 May 2016 - 13:53) *
I think the time plate on the no right turn helps the OPs case. If the council's position is that the OP must go left and continue to the left because the blue arrow says so, how can a right turn be allowed at certain times? Either the combination of signs does not clearly indicate the restriction, and therefore the OP wins, or after completing the left turn the OP is free to go wherever they like, and therefore the OP wins.

See post 22 - the timeplate is completely irrelevant.
Mad Mick V
This is the critical GSV:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4002414,-...3312!8i6656

We have a mandatory left turn AND a mandatory "one way" (east to west only)--the latter is specified in a 1987 Traffic Order. Perhaps this is not made sufficiently clear to motorists with the blue sign. Perhaps the blue sign which specifies that vehicles must proceed in the direction indicated is enough.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j...FiQ&cad=rja

Anyway, exiting from Cocks Crescent the manouvre to get to the rear of Villagio is straight across the road which cannot comply with either of the restrictions given above.

Against that, if were talking about a turn into the health centre car park (where is this?) there was an accepted adjudication on Saturday:-

2160184528

Cocks Crescent: Junction with Blagdon Road (E7)

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction). The location was in Cocks Crescent at the junction with Blagdon Road and the alleged contravention occurred at 1.39pm on 15 March 2016.

I have reviewed the CCTV footage. I am allowing the appeal because I am satisfied that the alleged contravention did not occur. The footage shows that Mr Petrovic's car complied with the direction on the sign to turn left before crossing over into the health centre car park. Although the vehicle was turned around in the car park before exiting to make a left turn, this does not alter the fact that the initial left turn direction was complied with before the subsequent manoeuvre.



Mick
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.