Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 51J Failing to comply with a no entry restriction
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
PW9866
Evening all,

I was wondering if anyone knows at what point passing a no-entry sign become an offence? Is it when the first part of a car passes the point of no-entry, or when the whole car has passed it?

I have uploaded the video footage to vimeo:

link

As you will see I was driving along Canbury Park Road, looking for a parking space. At the junction with Elm Crescent I edged forwards to see if there were any spaces in that road. There weren't, and so I reversed back down Canbury Park Road to park there.

As I only edged round the corner of the junction, part of my car was always behind the no-entry sign that was nearest to the vehicle, and so I had never fully left the restricted area. I was therefore not 'entering' it when reversing. Therefore I do not think that this is a valid contravention of the restriction.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks for your time

Patrick
PASTMYBEST
You reversed far to far to be able to argue that you only made a minor incursion the contravention is made out
Mad Mick V
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4131521,-0....3312!8i6656

Isn't there an accepted appeal somewhere relating to reversing past a 616 sign?

Mick
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 07:57) *
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4131521,-0....3312!8i6656

Isn't there an accepted appeal somewhere relating to reversing past a 616 sign?

Mick


yes a couple of car lengths into a parking space
PW9866
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 08:57) *
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 07:57) *
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4131521,-0....3312!8i6656

Isn't there an accepted appeal somewhere relating to reversing past a 616 sign?

Mick


yes a couple of car lengths into a parking space


Thanks for the input. I think the question is whether the whole car has to pass the 616 sign (going forwards or backwards) for an offence to occur. Only part of the car my car went past the sign. Any views on this? Thanks again
PASTMYBEST
You went past the signs backwards and travelled at least 5 car lengths your bang to rights pay the discount
big_mac
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:35) *
You went past the signs backwards and travelled at least 5 car lengths your bang to rights pay the discount

The distance going backwards is irrelevant - his question is that he didn't go 'past' the sign backwards, because he was never (fully) in front of the sign in the first place. It is possible that the signs would never have been visible in his mirrors, for example.
Although I wouldn't gamble on it being accepted.


PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (big_mac @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:06) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:35) *
You went past the signs backwards and travelled at least 5 car lengths your bang to rights pay the discount

The distance going backwards is irrelevant - his question is that he didn't go 'past' the sign backwards, because he was never (fully) in front of the sign in the first place. It is possible that the signs would never have been visible in his mirrors, for example.
Although I wouldn't gamble on it being accepted.


looking at the start of the video i don't think the OP would win, but anything is possible but it is an argument that you cannot contravene a sign if you can't see it
PW9866
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:32) *
QUOTE (big_mac @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 13:06) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 21 Sep 2020 - 12:35) *
You went past the signs backwards and travelled at least 5 car lengths your bang to rights pay the discount

The distance going backwards is irrelevant - his question is that he didn't go 'past' the sign backwards, because he was never (fully) in front of the sign in the first place. It is possible that the signs would never have been visible in his mirrors, for example.
Although I wouldn't gamble on it being accepted.


looking at the start of the video i don't think the OP would win, but anything is possible but it is an argument that you cannot contravene a sign if you can't see it


Thanks for the further comments. I have been unable to find any government statement on when the offence occurs in this case (unlike for other contraventions e.g. yellow-box ones) which would clarify. I have asked a motoring offences lawyer but they said that they could only help with police matters... I think I'm going to pay the reduced fine as the deadline is tomorrow. So annoying as the action that the no-entry sign is designed to stop (cars avoiding the kingston one-way system) is not what I was doing.
cp8759
Really the PCN should have been issued for 29 - Failing to comply with a one-way restriction. Did you get to that position by driving forwards out of the no-entry signs and then reversing back?
PW9866
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 22 Sep 2020 - 16:16) *
Really the PCN should have been issued for 29 - Failing to comply with a one-way restriction. Did you get to that position by driving forwards out of the no-entry signs and then reversing back?


Yes, that is how i got there. However the road that i was reversing into isn't one way.
cp8759
If the road was not one way then it makes the argument stronger, as you wouldn't necessarily expect a no entry sign to be where . This was your approach https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4130866,-0....3312!8i6656 and you could certainly go to the tribunal and argue you couldn't have seen the sign. You would however need to be willing to risk the extra £65 as the council will never accept this.

Also show us the PCN, there might be errors we can exploit.
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.