Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No entry, only one sign
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
No to Fines!!
Hi there folks

The girlfriend went down this no entry road, but as you can see the sign on the right hand side isn't present.

She received a FPN from police that were actually parked up there (they would have crossed the no entry road too to be parked the way they did...) and told it would be £100 fine and 0 points(?)


Is it a clear cut case that there should be 2 signs when there is only 1?

Thanks


morrisman
I would guess the other one is there but turned through 90 degrees??
Not sure what that means though
Jlc
TSRGD says: (Part II, Section 8)

QUOTE
(3) Subject to paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) and to direction 9, a sign to which this direction applies shall be placed on the relevant road at or as near as practicable to the point referred to in paragraph (2)—
(a) where the relevant road has only one carriageway, on each side of that carriageway; or
(b) where the relevant road has more than one carriageway, on each side of each carriageway in relation to which the restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit begins.

(4) Where the relevant road has one carriageway, then signs to which this direction applies need only be placed on one side of the relevant road to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement, prohibition (but not a speed limit) begins in the following cases—
(a) where the restriction, requirement or prohibition applies only to traffic on one side of the relevant road; or
(b) at a junction where—
(i) traffic proceeding on another road on which it is permitted to proceed only in one direction turns into the relevant road; or
(ii) the carriageway of the relevant road is less than 5 metres wide and the sign is so placed that its centre is within 2 metres of the edge of the carriageway.


It looks like (4)(a) applies?

As ever, to challenge the FPN it will require a court visit - for a non-endorsable offence it's probably easier to pay the penalty.
baggins1234
Its endorseable though......
Juliet1981
If you zoom right in on the pic it appears that there is a "no entry" sign on the pole but it is twisted round, a pic from the other side of the road may show that there is in fact two signs fitted, but I don't know how the twisted sign would effect the argument about whether the signage is adequate especially as it's twisted towards the road where the driver is coming from.

Also when you talk about where the police vehicle was parked, you'll find this being a dead end. All they need to say is that they came in from the other end legally & then turned around. Or alternatively they may say that they did come in the way your girlfriend did but that at the time they were attending a high priority incident & deemed it safe & necessary in the circumstances, which although still breaking the law would mean that prosecution of them may not be deemed appropriate.
sgtdixie
As always taking a photo from a position which is irrelevant to what the driver could actually see misleads everyone. Give us a Google Street View link and tell us exactly where she came from.
Jlc
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 19 Jan 2014 - 20:50) *
Its endorseable though......

Good point. Yes, it should be.
southpaw82
QUOTE (Juliet1981 @ Sun, 19 Jan 2014 - 21:22) *
Also when you talk about where the police vehicle was parked, you'll find this being a dead end. All they need to say is that they came in from the other end legally & then turned around. Or alternatively they may say that they did come in the way your girlfriend did but that at the time they were attending a high priority incident & deemed it safe & necessary in the circumstances, which although still breaking the law would mean that prosecution of them may not be deemed appropriate.


Not that it really matters.
Logician
As remarked above it actually looks as though the sign on the RHS is present but has been twisted round the post, and your picture is taken from the pavement at an angle that maximises the effect of the twisting. From the road itself, it is likely that the sign, if it is present but twisted, would be much more visible. If the sign is present but has been twisted on the post but still readable on approach in the normal direction, I think there is little chance of an acquittal on the basis of incorrect signage, Looking at Jlc's post #3, it seems possible that the road might be narrow enough to bring in 4(b)(ii) but it is difficult to judge the width.
big_mac
QUOTE (sgtdixie @ Sun, 19 Jan 2014 - 21:35) *
As always taking a photo from a position which is irrelevant to what the driver could actually see misleads everyone. Give us a Google Street View link and tell us exactly where she came from.

It doesn't help much, there was obvious work going on then, but I think the road is slightly over 5 metres wide at that point.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ll...cbp=12,250,,0,0
No to Fines!!
Wow, you nailed the road spot on there Big Mac! Have you seen this one before...?!

Anyhow, this is the nearest I can get to her position/viewpoint, of her exiting the car park (half demolished building on street view)
http://goo.gl/maps/3o6bn

The exit is exactly opposite the lamp post, so her view is from the same angle as in photo above.

I have more pictures I can post if needed.

Thanks. biggrin.gif
sgtdixie
can you post a recent pic showing this view?
No to Fines!!
Sure, most recent view from leaving the car park:



If you look left:



If you look right:


And this is the RHS sign showing it is fully twisted 90 degrees, also note there is light missing but the one light in place would have lit the no entry sign if it was the correct way.


Also not sure if it makes a difference but it was dark, approx 17:30 at the time of the offence.
Chris1207
Were they illuminated?

They (the right hand one anyway) are definitely defective. Whether they are defective enough to make them unenforceable is THE question. You could try for a not guilty with them being defective, as your defence. Personally, I'd be inclined to plead guilty, using the 'defective' arguemnt as reasons not to endorse. That said, not sure of the legal position of doing that if they are indeed deemed to be defective.
No to Fines!!
LHS was definitely lit. The girlfriend did take pics at the time which will confirm how the RHS looked. I'll get her to send them on to me.

Thanks
dawmdt
QUOTE (Chris1207 @ Mon, 20 Jan 2014 - 09:20) *
Were they illuminated?

They (the right hand one anyway) are definitely defective. Whether they are defective enough to make them unenforceable is THE question. You could try for a not guilty with them being defective, as your defence. Personally, I'd be inclined to plead guilty, using the 'defective' arguemnt as reasons not to endorse. That said, not sure of the legal position of doing that if they are indeed deemed to be defective.


The court is not supposed to accept a Special Reason that would amount to a defence.
No to Fines!!
Here's the pics of it in the dark (sorry about lo-res)



No to Fines!!
Hi all

Received COFP today, DriveSafe course offered at £79.50.

Offence date, 15/01/14
Verbal NIP: 15/01/14
COFP received: 19/02/14 (dated 17/02/14)

Does anyone have any further advice please?

Thanks.






The Rookie
While you have a possible defence, the course would look like the sensible option to me.
billysally
QUOTE (No to Fines!! @ Wed, 19 Feb 2014 - 11:36) *
Hi all

Received COFP today, DriveSafe course offered at £79.50.

Offence date, 15/01/14
Verbal NIP: 15/01/14
COFP received: 19/02/14 (dated 17/02/14)

Does anyone have any further advice please?

Thanks.






Yes - take the course. If you were to go to court the officer will - or should - include in his statement the condition of the signs and that they were properly erected,functioning, illuminated, etc at the time of the offence and you can guess what he will be saying.
Logician
Yep, I think she would be best to take the course, a defence on the basis of poor signage might work but the odds are against it and failure would be very much more expensive and leave her with 3 points.
No to Fines!!
sad.gif
Thanks anyway.
£80 down the pisser!

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.