Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bus Lane PCN - Ealing council
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
sallers
I've received a penalty for being in a bus lane on Mandeville Road, Northolt for the second time in 2 weeks (and most likely will get another one as I did the drive 3 times in 3 weeks). I just accepted the first one and paid it but getting a second one I realised the bus lane must be unclear. The bus lane is just opposite Northolt Leisure centre (just passed Northolt station) and is about 3 meters long. There are sections of bus lane leading up to it but stop and then it suddenly starts again. This is where I've been caught twice but it appears to suddenly appear and have no words saying BUS LANE on it. Is this worth appealing and if so what should i say?? https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5482389,-...3312!8i6656

that is the link to the bus lane.

Thanks for the help
PASTMYBEST
Post the pcn and photos, get and post the video
sallers
I've uploaded the pic and requested the video
stamfordman
This is one of those lanes broken by a crossing - council will say it's a continuous lane.
sallers
So is there any likelihood an appeal will work?
stamfordman
We've seen this a few times at various bus lanes. Not sure we have a definitive answer - are you allowed to move to the left lane during the crossing part?
sallers
There's nothing saying you can't and the bus lane does not exist at that point. If i Appeal i can still pay the reduced price so I may as well. Any idea what to say?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (sallers @ Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 13:01) *
There's nothing saying you can't and the bus lane does not exist at that point. If i Appeal i can still pay the reduced price so I may as well. Any idea what to say?


This all depends on what the video shows As t othe bus lane continuing through the zig zags it is a matter of interpretation. This adjudicator explains why it does not in their opinion

2170474513

Mr. Stanley appeals against a penalty charge notice issued in respect of an allegation of a contravention of the prohibition on being in a bus lane.
There is no dispute about the evidence. On Lambeth Road, south-west bound there is a sign properly indicating the entrance to the bus lane just after the junction with Pratt Walk and, thereafter, the bus lane is properly demarcated with a solid white line in accordance with item 1049A, which is item 11 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (“the 2016 Regulations”). The solid line then stops and is replaced, on each side of the south-west bound carriageway at a point before the junction with Lambeth High Street, with the zig-zag road markings that are required to demarcate the limits of a zebra crossing. The solid white line then appears to resume at a point after that junction where there is a further ‘bus lane’ sign. The CCTV footage shows Mr. Stanley’s motorbike remaining on the correct, off-side of the solid white line. As soon as that line stops, he steered his motorbike over the zig-zag lines into the nearside line that, on the EA’s case, is the bus lane. He did not cross over the solid white line.
Mr. Stanley’s argument is to the effect that the effect of the zig-zag lines indicating the entry into a zebra crossing bring the effect of the bus lane to an end. In the alternative, he submits that those zig zag lines give the appearance to the motorist that the bus lane has come to an end and that it is no longer enforceable, because the requisite signage is no longer compliant and adequate. He points to the resumed thick white line and bus lane sign as an indication of the resumption of the bus lane after the junction with Lambeth High Street. That, he says, is inconsistent with the bus lane having remained constant throughout.
I would have been assisted by more detailed submissions from the EA on the effect of the zig-zag lines and the limits of the zebra crossing. Indeed, I was not even provided with the TMO, merely with the temporary TMO that changes the times of it. However, given I am familiar with this TMO I am aware of its terms. In particular, the bus lane extends, according to the original TMO, on Lambeth Road between the two junctions referred to above. If the EA is correct that the bus lane is effective and enforceable throughout that length, then at the point at which Mr. Stanley crossed into it he was in the bus lane in contravention of the TMO.
Part 5 of Schedule 9 to the 2016 Regulations states that:
The information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3.
A bus lane is a description in column 2 and the solid white line is in column 3 of Part 6. There are certain exceptions to the requirement for the solid white line, but none apply here. Accordingly, once the solid white line stops, the road marking is no longer compliant with the 2016 Regulations. A motorist would be entitled to think that the bus lane had come to an end. For the reasons I give below, the bus lane has, for the purposes of the zebra crossing, come to an end but, in any event, the mandatory road marking is not present, so the signage is, I find, not compliant with the 2016 Regulations, or adequate to convey adequate information about the prohibition to the motorist, in accordance with Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. I allow the appeal on this basis because the contravention did not occur.
Moreover, I further find that the signage correctly represents the position that, whatever the TMO states, the effect of the zebra crossing is to create a separate traffic regulatory regime within its limits which ousts the effect of the bus lane. The zig-zag markings indicate a zebra crossing subject to regulations made under s.25 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Those regulations include Part 5 of Schedule 14 to the 2016 Regulations. This part contains requirements and prohibitions applicable to zebra crossings, the limits of which are demarcated by the zig-zag lines. One of these requirements is that a driver of a vehicle must not cause it to overtake a vehicle that is stopped or proceeding more slowly in the same direction. That, for example, is inconsistent with the very purpose of a bus lane in which buses have a free-standing lane in which they can pass vehicles in the other lanes, including by undertaking them. That illustrates that the two regimes are not compatible. The effect of the zebra crossing, which concerns public safety, takes precedence over the effect of the TMO. Accordingly, I find that the bus lane ceases to have effect within the limits of a zebra crossing. I would therefore have allowed the appeal on this basis also.
Neil B
QUOTE (sallers @ Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 13:01) *
the bus lane does not exist at that point.

It does and is clearly signposted.
Same as any bus lane running through a crossing.
stamfordman
Nice ruling PMB although that's for a zebra crossing. This is a pelican, and the overtaking rule I don't think applies?
Neil B
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 11 Dec 2017 - 13:54) *
Nice ruling PMB

and I stand corrected if the adjudicator is correct but I'm not sure.
Seems TSRGD 2016 may have changed things?

But if I'm reading right, OP continued in the remaining 15-20m as well. (3m ??)
sallers
Thanks for that PMB really helpful. Video is ready now https://viewmypcn.co.uk/view.aspx Reg is HY12 KRV and PCNN is EA53540230

Just to clarify I had not been in the bus lane that is a few meters earlier but had turned into that lane in the zig zag section
stamfordman
Here's video - click on pic to play in Flickr.

Doesn't look good especially with the bus coming behind. I'm thinking that you could ask for discretion on the subsequent ones having paid one.

But maybe there's defence for that stretch.

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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.