DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 45785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: disheartened59
Date: November 15, 2024, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Updated link for the PCN letter
HTML https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r
HTML https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r
#Post#: 45790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 15, 2024, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: disheartened59 link ---
>
> Updated link for the PCN letter
>
HTML https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r
HTML https://imgur.com/a/dXXqZ2r
>
--- End Quote ---
There is no need to post anymore as I am taking care of this.
;D
#Post#: 50323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 18, 2024, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
;D 2240515018
#Post#: 65684--------------------------------------------------
Harrow Camrose Bus Gate 33E - - - Tribunal - - -
DIR By: Peugeot107UGT
Date: April 4, 2025, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
4th April 2025
I have a tribunal coming up because of a "contravention" (i
think the contravention was building the gate in the first
place!) Anyway.... There are two things I am trying to find out
before 22nd April 2025 when I am having a video link tribunal
regarding the bus gate:.....
One:
What is the bus gate for? Is it a) a traffic calming device? Is
it b) a way of letting the bus stop and let all the traffic
pass for a few minutes? Is it c) a way to stop busses colliding
with cars at that point ? Does anyone know ? Is it d) And I
honestly don't mean to make a joke here) Is it a way for Harrow
Council to make plenty of money?
d) I have found out that the bus "gate" attracts so many PCN
fines that they council are making 100s of 1000's of pounds each
year. The figures are out there so we don't need to discuss that
now.....
Two:
How many accidents (even just small dents and scratches etc have
there been at this point in the road? The width limit signs are
just that.. they don't indicate a bus lane imminent.
Does anyone know of data requests from the Motor Insurers Bureau
(
HTML https://www.mib.org.uk/
) ?
I would like to know if there have been accidents reported at
the precise sopt. The bit where you have clocked the "BUS LANE"
sign in the road and you have only got time to yank at the
steering when while checking the mirror at the same time to
avoid going through the bus lane. I personally will be argueing
at the tribunal that the whole idea of having to make a last
sub-second desicion while navigating the road for the first time
is a DANGER to other road users. It requires either the safe
option of driving through the gaate or an very counter intuitive
sudden swap to the outer lane to the right.
In my case I was clearly at a safe distance from the bus ahead
of me but all oncoming traffic was obscured buy the bus. The
middle lane which I was supposed to have driven into could have
had traffic coming in MY direction for all I could tell.
My level of forward observation is, I think, quite good. But
nothing warned me of the impending bus lane only section. And to
avoid it is asking the general population of good drivers to
make a dangerous decision I think.
So I would like to say now I think we all ought to organise a
petition (gather 50,000 signatures) for a legal submission to
the house of commons (or where ever they go) to have the Council
members who have enjoyed raking it in with traffic fine SACKED !
And the the road device to be removed and all drivers fined from
the gate reimbursed.
I know this will not happen and that my tribunal will not
succeed because of all the secret hand shakes that the council
do with law enforcement. They desperately want the money from us
car drivers to put into the Harrow coffers.
All people interested in a petition (there should be a way of
finding out who all of the previous PCN victims were and
contacting them for signatures) please use the message system to
send me your emails. I'll try to organise something.
Kevin Peters.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 65694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 4, 2025, 5:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, it's certainly a "nice little earner" for the council !!
#Post#: 65700--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 4, 2025, 6:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OP: please PM me and I will offer to represent you. And start
your own thread.
#Post#: 66021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 7, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The chief points to note are:
1. As with all highway authorities, Harrow have a duty under
s.122 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122
to
--- Quote ---
> secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
vehicular and other traffic... on ... the highway
--- End Quote ---
That means that they need to provide signage which does what it
says, so ... no surprises when signs are suddenly revealed and
you have to decide whether to slam on the brakes and yank the
steering wheel or carry on.
2. what Harrow call "directional arrows" and which they claim
show which way you're meant to go are actually unlawfully placed
on the carriageway. They are known technically as "deflection
arrows" (diagram 1014 TSRGD 2016 Schedule 11 Part 4
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made<br
/>Item 14). If you trawl through the uses specified, you'll find
that (apart from obstructions on the carriageway) they are used
as warnings of other road markings and not as road markings in
their own right. So they have no right to be there and Harrow's
claim that you didn't follow their guidance is poppycock. It's
their directional arrows which are poppycock, not your driving.
Sadly, Harrow have been at this for many years. The scheme was
created in 1974 (yes, more than 50 years ago) and was designed
for rising barriers (think of the red-and-white-striped poles at
old-fashioned toll booths or car parks) across what are now
referred to as "bus gates". These would have been readily
visible and self-policing. The "gates" were never used and the
scheme was ineffective for 30 years as a means of stopping large
vehicles from using Camrose Avenue.
For some reason I haven't been able to establish, Harrow never
did the obvious thing and imposed a lorry restriction (that's
what they were in those days) or, later, an HGV restriction on
Camrose Avenue. As the restriction is a width restriction, it
isn't shown on trucker's atlases (they show height restrictions)
and as there isn't an HGV ban, it's not really surprising that
HGVs set off down the road and, when they reach the width
restriction, go the only way they can.
In 2005 TfL paid Harrow to "upgrade" the restrictions and
install CCTV as a means of making the scheme more effective "in
preventing large vehicles abusing the bus gates". At least they
put in advance notices of the width restrictions, so fewer HGVs
reached the restrictions. There had never any problem associated
with cars: the whole scheme was about stopping large vehicles.
But once it had started spinning money, predominantly of course
from car drivers, Harrow has never looked back. It's their
highest-yielding site.
Unfortunately, this is all rather complicated and way beyond the
effort most people are prepared to put into fending off Harrow's
claims. It's so much easier to pay the £65 and move on. Anyway,
I've got a hearing on Thursday and will post again then.
#Post#: 66075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 8, 2025, 6:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders
(Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18<br
/>(LATOR) places a duty on local authorities when they make a
Traffic Order to place
--- Quote ---
> such traffic signs in such positions as the order making
authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate
information as to the effect of the order is made available to
persons using the road
--- End Quote ---
Harrow have made separate orders on Camrose Avenue applying bus
restrictions and width restrictions. The combined effect of
those restrictions is that the following vehicles can pass
through the restrictions:
- on the right: those less than 2.0m wide
- on the left: buses, pedal cycles and taxis
The advance notice signs which Harrow have placed only indicate
the presence of the width restrictions. They do not indicate
that the width restrictions can be bypassed by buses (and also
taxis and cycles, but they can pass through the width
restriction). The definition of buses is
--- Quote ---
> a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry more than 8
passengers (exclusive of the driver); or a local bus
--- End Quote ---
Buses therefore include minibuses, such as those used by
voluntary groups, many of which are more than 2m wide and can be
driven on an ordinary driver's licence.
Harrow's advance notice signs fail to convey the restrictions at
Camrose Avenue, which Regulation 18 of LATOR requires. They
therefore misdirect drivers of minibuses as to what the
restrictions are. Advance notice of the bus restrictions as well
as the width restrictions would also prepare other drivers for
what they are about to encounter.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents/made<br
/>(TSRGD 2016) offer greater flexibility than previous versions
in
providing advance notice of restrictions. In particular, they
allow advance notice signs which show two restrictions
side-by-side, such as on the left in the attached image. This
sign is based on one which was used at the northern end of
Hammersmith Bridge Road, where there is an almost identical
configuration of a bus lane on the left of a traffic island and
a width restriction to its right.
Although this advance notice sign is unusual (but so is the
configuration of lanes on Camrose Avenue) and so may not be
understood, it puts motorists on their guard. It prepares them
for the next sign, shown on the right in the attached image.
This sign is a "lane gain" sign which shows that a lane is being
added on the right and that, after a junction on the left (Dale
Avenue), the left-hand lane is restricted to buses, cycles and
taxis. It is the sign which you didn't see when following the
bus and which would have indicated to you that you should move
out.
Instead, Harrow will say that
--- Quote ---
> There is signage at the location, situated on both sides of
the road, and in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.
>
> The signs clearly advise motorists of the approaching width
restrictions in advance... There is no legislation for there to
be advanced warning signs for the buses, taxis and cycles only
lane. In addition there are directional white arrows on the road
to give motorists guidance as to the lane they should be
travelling in
--- End Quote ---
The "directional white arrows" are technically known as
deflection arrows and are specified as Item 14 in TSRGD 2016
Schedule 11 Part 4
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/11/part/4/made.<br
/>Harrow's use of them is not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016 (see
the
attachment AnnexD.pdf and note the quote at the end).
The width-restriction signs are 450mm in diameter. Those signs
are Item 26 in TSRGD 2016 Schedule 3 Part 2
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/part/2/made.<br
/>The possible sizes (see column 4) are 750, 900 and 1200mm
diameters. It follows that the width-restriction signs are not
as prescribed in TSRGD 2016.
The placing of the "BUS GATE" road marking (Item 15 of TSRGD
2016 Schedule 9 Part 6
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/part/6/made)<br
/>is also not in accordance with TSRGD 2016. This is more
subtle:
the marking is regulatory and is required to be placed inside
the section of road to which the Traffic Order applies. It has
been placed in advance of it.
Harrow's assertion that "the signage is in accordance with TSRGD
2016" is triply false. By acting outside TSRGD 2016, Harrow have
acted ultra vires and cannot derive benefit from their unlawful
actions. The adjudicator should not draw any inferences against
you from any failure on your part to respond to those three
elements of the signage.
Another thing Harrow will say in their evidence is
--- Quote ---
> Additionally, restricted routes are identified by thick white
demarcation line, the words "BUS GATE" are painted on the
carriageway itself and - although not necessary to meet the
regulations - the roadway is paved with red asphalt
--- End Quote ---
The "thick white demarcation line" (which did not comply with
TSRGD) disappeared when the road was resurfaced in 2021/22, as
did the red surface-dressing. As already noted, the words "BUS
GATE" should have been painted within the bus restriction, not
in advance of it.
What Harrow have done on Camrose Avenue has been in effect to
create a very short nearside with-flow bus lane. They couldn't
create this as a proper bus lane because those require what is
known as a "lead-in taper". This is a dashed thick white line on
a 1:10 diagonal leading up to the start of the lane. This really
does guide motorists away from the bus lane as it starts. There
are rules about such tapers, one of which is that you can't have
a junction within it. Another concerns visibility and the
placing of advance signage. When the scheme was created, highway
authorities needed permission from the Department to create bus
lanes. Harrow knew that they couldn't meet the requirements, so
they went ahead and did what they wanted, creating something
which acted like a short bus lane but wasn't. The scheme was
created without adequate signage and has never had proper
signage.
Harrow are correct when they say that the blue roundels are
where they are required to be. But that doesn't mean that those
blue roundels on their own provide sufficient notice. For a
normal bus lane you have all that other signage, including the
lead-in taper, which means that by the time you reach the start
of the bus lane you don't actually notice the equivalent of the
blue roundel which marks the start of the bus lane.
Section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/27/section/122
imposes
the duty on all highway authorities to
--- Quote ---
> secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of
vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) ... on ...
the highway
--- End Quote ---
By not providing the signage to indicate to motorists who may be
following a bus that they need to move out, Harrow is failing to
meet its statutory obligations. It is those statutory
obligations which make irrelevant Harrow's assertion that there
is no legislation requiring advance notice of bus restrictions.
It is the combination of signage which must be adequate to
enable motorists expeditiously, conveniently and safely to use
Harrow's roads. Suitable signs exist. Harrow does not use them.
P.S. For those wishing to deploy this argument eastbound on
Camrose Avenue, I have uploaded BusSign6.png, which gives the
signs which I consider appropriate eastbound (the service road
is less significant than Dale Avenue, so I haven't shown it).
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 66835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 13, 2025, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I said that I would report what happened at the hearing on
Thursday in which I was involved.
The Adjudicator appeared to be surprised by the challenges being
made. When I said that the road markings were unlawful, he asked
whether I meant that they were not as set out in the Traffic
Signs Manual. I said no, they were not in accordance with TSRGD
2016. It was unlawful to place those road markings where Harrow
had placed them. The time ran out and the hearing was adjourned
to 29 April. The reason was:
--- Quote ---
> The Adjudicator directs the Enforcement Authority to respond
in detail the written submissions made by the Appellant and also
address the particular point raised by the Appellant that the
location images produced are incorrect in that they do not show
the current position
--- End Quote ---
As the road markings westbound are very similar to those
eastbound, you may wish to ask for a postponement of your
hearing until Harrow have responded in detail to the written
submissions in Appeal 2250053451 and the Adjudicator has
delivered his Adjudication.
#Post#: 67286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: April 15, 2025, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Harrow have now submitted their response to the Adjudicator.
Among much boilerplate which they have scraped from the bottom
of the barrel (some of which relates to road markings which they
removed in 2008) there is a notable absence: they are silent on
whether the curved arrows have been placed in accordance with
TSRGD 2016. As these arrows form a substantial plank in their
argument that they have provided adequate advance signage of the
bus restriction and guidance to motorists where to go, the
removal of this plank severely weakens their argument.
They have also not addressed my argument that the BUS GATE road
markings have also not been placed in accordance with TSRGD
2016. That road marking is required to be placed within the
restriction, not in advance of it.
As the "thick white demarcation line" and the "red asphalt
paving" do not exist, they are left with no advance signage of
the bus restriction and only the diagram 953's at the
restriction itself. That compares with the advance signage for a
nearside with-flow bus lane of the lead-in taper and the diagram
958 30m in advance of the start of the taper.
If Harrow have not withdrawn their argument about the "BUS GATE"
road marking and the "white directional arrows" in your case, I
suggest challenging them about false witness. Their failure to
respond to these points when directed to by the Adjudicator in
my case provides a strong indication that they are unable to
sustain that argument and should not be deploying it in other
cases.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page