DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2462--------------------------------------------------
Waltham Forest Council
DIR By: Hashim
Date: August 2, 2023, 4:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear members
I received this today.
I thought that the whole idea is not to stop traffic. When I
entered the box the way was clear and then a white van from the
opposite direction took the place I qas going to take leaving me
on the edge of the box. Also from the video footage I am seen
slowly moving maybe stopped for literally a few seconds right at
the edge.
I feel that this is really unfair. Should I appeal?.
Thanks
Hashim
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 2488--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest Council
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 2, 2023, 6:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Video:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp7M-yx6Cmw
I'll draft something for you tomorrow.
#Post#: 2546--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest Council
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 3, 2023, 7:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Draft reps:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,
The video starts at frame number 4690587 and even from the naked
eye it is clear the car is moving at least until frame 4690782
when the camera operator starts to zoom in.
When we get to video frame 4690796 it is clear the vehicle is
still moving, as playing the video frame by frame clearly shows:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPQdFpp5YUg
Indeed by playing the video one frame at a time, movement can be
detected up to frame 4691000 or 16.600 seconds into the video.
This can be confirmed by playing frames 4690980 to 4691010, or
from 15.800 seconds to 17 seconds and observing the movement of
the offside mirror:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQiot359Sbw
Hence the car is stationary when the camera operator zooms out
and reveals the following scenario:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/lMtwSWJ.png
It must be remembered at this point that it is only a
contravention to stop if a vehicle is forced to stop owing to
the presence of stationary vehicles. When my vehicle became
stationary, the rear wheels and bumper where within the box
markings but it can be seen that the car did not protrude into
the box, with some approximation, more than the end of the first
set of diamond shapes where the red line is drawn below:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/qVB5FLD.png
This distance can be shown to be approximately 3 feet 4 inches:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/eBFTH74.png
Even making a generous 25% allowance for the angle of the
camera, my car would still only be protruding into the box by
approximately 4 feet 2 inches or 4.16 feet:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/XLmE9hA.png
The width between the dark coloured car on my nearside and the
van on my offside is plainly wide enough for my car. If for
argument's sake those two vehicles had broken down, there would
have been more than ample space for me to drive through the gap
between those two vehicles.
Therefore the only issue is whether my progress was impeded by
the white car ahead, and I contend that it was not. This is
because the white car ahead was stationary on the far-side of
the northwesternmost diagram 1055.3 marking, which are situated
no less than 13.28 feet northwest of the yellow box:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/UcMv5MW.png
It follows that given the size of the gap, there was more than
ample space for me to pull forward. Hence I did not stop in the
box junction because my path was impeded by stationary vehicles,
rather I stopped because I chose not to obstruct the pedestrian
crossing. It is a common myth perpetuated by councils that
stopping in a box junction for any reason is a contravention,
but this is not the case: it is only a contravention if the
vehicle stops because it cannot proceed owing to the presence of
stationary vehicles. Where a vehicle stops for some other
reason, whatever that reason might be, the contravention alleged
cannot occur.
It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
You'll have to put this all in a PDF file in order to preserve
formatting, indentation and so on. Also, don't use the youtube
links I've put on this thread, I'll send you some special links
(that you must not click on) that we can use to check if the
authority actually watches the videos we're supplying. If they
don't, we'll have them on the hook for failure to consider.
#Post#: 2553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest Council
DIR By: guest179
Date: August 4, 2023, 3:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's hope cp's work works because so far the OP's account on
its own wouldn't.
The 'white van' had nearly left the box having completed its
manoeuvre before the OP entered, contrary to what's been posted;
The OP overtook the left-turn lane and turned left from a lane
when they shouldn't.
OP, stick with cp's detail and forget your version because when
there's a video which gives the lie to your account your
credibility cannot recover.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1