DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 166--------------------------------------------------
RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: June 18, 2023, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's really not my day at present. Or I am just getting lax.
I was on my motorbike and was in Launceston Place Kensington
finding myself with no way out other than retracing my steps so
I nipped through a bicycle only lane and got caught by the
massive bank of cameras that I now see on GSV - too late!
Here is the PCN. If anyone wants to see the video PM me and I
will supply VRN but it's pretty bang to rights.
HTML https://imgur.com/a/9p7AlyN
Here is GSV of the area. The bicycle only lane is right in front
of the grey BMW in the image. You can see that all exits are No
Entry. It's basically a trap.
HTML https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4990428,-...i8192?entry=ttu
Any ideas on this one? I would note that the PCN is dated 1 June
but arrived today 6 June so I very much doubt posted when
issued.
One idea strikes me - I do not in the video actually go through
a No entry sign (which is the 51j offence) because that relates
to the road itself. What I use is a bicycle only route but that
is not covered by the No Entry sign. So have I been nicked for
the wrong offence? Arguably should be 36j? The images on the PCN
are very blurred but the video and stills on the site are clear
enough.
Here is a draft of my representations. Any comments please
before I send it off later today.
QUOTE
Representations against KE94067537
I am making representations against this PCN on the grounds that
there was no contravention of an order or failure to comply with
an indication on a sign.
The PCN alleges “Failing to comply with a no entry sign – camera
enforcement”. There is a No Entry sign on the carriageway where
Launceston Place enters Victoria Grove in a north-west
direction. I was on my motorbike but did not use this
carriageway. The CCTV footage that is on the RBKC website shows
my motorbike entering Victoria Grove via the cycle lane. There
is no restrictive plate on the 616 No Entry sign to indicate
that it applies to the cycle lane. Therefore I did not
contravene the No Entry restriction. Arguably if the PCN had
been issued for a breach of code 33y you might have been correct
but this is not the code on the PCN. As the “offence” you allege
clearly did not occur I ask that you cancel the PCN forthwith.
I would further note that the date the PCN bears is 1 June 2023.
It arrived through my letterbox on 6 June. If it had been posted
first class on 1 June then it should have arrived by 3 June at
the latest. This is seemingly a breach of [regulation?] and I
allege procedural impropriety.
Please note that I am making this representation within 14 days
of the date on the PCN. Should you not accept it, please
reinstate the discount period for a further 14 days. If you do
so reject and I take the matter to the London Tribunal I shall
require the attendance of Camera Operator BDUBA.
Can anyone help me with the rule/reg that says a PCN should be
posted on its date of issue?
#Post#: 179--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 18, 2023, 10:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please provide the VRM, also the google street view link doesn't
work, can you amend it please?
#Post#: 249--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: June 20, 2023, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I have had a speedy reply from RBKC - a NOR of course!
Here's the link
HTML https://imgur.com/kFEtYBr
HTML https://imgur.com/Telnn25
HTML https://imgur.com/uM8pEH4
HTML https://imgur.com/rajm0ig
The VRM is clear on the last page. Here is another stab at GSV
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.498995,-0.1850644,3a,75y,316.58h,90.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sm372930-8MhJ7GEEsYkUYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4991166,-0.1850098,3a,75y,316.58h,90.36t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sg3vujElJIAuAP3tVMDi9pQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
My thoughts on the NoR:
- They are saying much the same as in the original PCN viz " The
no entry sign present restricts access to all motorised
vehicles" Agreed, it restricts such access on the carriageway.
- "You entered via the cycle lane, however this is limited to
pedal bicycles". Yes but only by dint of what is painted on the
road surface, there is no traffic sign e.g. a blue "cycles only"
sign or a restrictive "low flying motorbikes sign"
- "As you were not cycling the cycle lane exemption does not
apply" Exemption from what? "The No Entry sign was applicable
and contravened" But you have just said that the No Entry
restricts access to motorised vehicles and hence it is not
designed to apply to the bicycle lane.
- I repeat - if the PCN code had been 33y - essentially using a
bike lane when you are not permitted to do so - it would have
been a different matter but the code used is not correct for the
circs.
Also they just airily wave away the posting issue "we posted it
on 1 June [1st class] and the fact you didn't get it till 6 June
is down to the Post Office not us" which is an easy thing to say
when there is no postmark on the envelope.
Thoughts welcome! What are chances of this argument holding good
at LT?
#Post#: 310--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 21, 2023, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is somewhat of a novel set of circumstances, so guessing
the odds at the tribunal is a bit tricky. However I agree with
the fundamental point that the no entry sign cannot apply to the
route you took, otherwise it would need an exception plate that
says "except cycles". It doesn't have one, because it does not
apply to the route that you took, and the route that you took
only has advisory marking 1057, which does not on its own create
any legal obligation.
It's not an argument I've run before but I'm happy to give it a
go at the tribunal if you want, but obviously the full penalty
will be at stake.
#Post#: 338--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: June 22, 2023, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So advisory marking 1057 is presumably the painted image of a
bicycle on the road surface? If that does not have legal effect
then I have not broken any laws by using the bicycle lane. But
the PCN is not alleging that anyway. If you are certain that the
No Entry sign would have to have a plate saying "except
bicycles" in order for it to cover the bike lane too, then it
seems to me that it is worth appealing. If the appeal were to be
rejected it would have the effect that a No Entry sign covering
one carriageway could be taken to apply to a neighbouring one
too even if that had no sign. Just how far would it stretch?
#Post#: 379--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 23, 2023, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> So advisory marking 1057 is presumably the painted image of a
bicycle on the road surface?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes.
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> If that does not have legal effect then I have not broken any
laws by using the bicycle lane.
>
--- End Quote ---
Correct.
--- Quote from: Chaseman link ---
>
> But the PCN is not alleging that anyway. If you are certain
that the No Entry sign would have to have a plate saying "except
bicycles" in order for it to cover the bike lane too, then it
seems to me that it is worth appealing.
>
--- End Quote ---
The argument is slightly different: the no entry doesn't apply
to the cycle lane at all, with or without any exception plates,
because vehicles entering the cycle lane do not pass that sign.
It cannot apply to the cycle lane because if it did, then cycles
could not enter the cycle lane either, which wouldn't make any
sense at all. If it had a plate that said "except cycles", then
cycles could enter the carriageway where the no-entry sign is
placed, which would be dangerous. In the circumstances, I do not
see how the no entry sign could possibly apply.
If you can email me the usual stuff (unredacted NoR, letter of
authority) I'll get the ball rolling with the appeal.
#Post#: 889--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: guest17
Date: July 5, 2023, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The other argument is that Chaseman never passed through the No
Entry signage. This one should be relevant:-
2180203283
Contravention Failing to comply with a no entry sign
The Appellant performed a U-turn at the junction of Grove Hill
Road and Peterborough Road. He said that he had not entered
Grove Hill Road. I disagree. The vehicle had clearly passed the
give way lines separating the two roads. However, I am not
satisfied that Appellant passed either of the two no entry
signs.
The allegation is that the Appellant failed to comply with a no
entry restriction. The key issue in this case is where the no
entry restriction commences. The Authority's case seems to be
that entry into Grove Hill Road is a contravention. I do not
agree.
A pair of no entry signs create a virtual line or gate. The
restriction prevents vehicles from passing this line or gate.
This is particularly the case where there is no Traffic
Management Order so that the position of the signs defines the
point at which the restriction begins. Paragraph 1 (2) in Part
5, Schedule 3 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016 provides that: "When the sign is placed to
indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or
prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as
practicable to that point."
It is therefore reasonable for motorists to understand that a no
entry contravention only occurs if a vehicle passes the no entry
signs. The no entry signs in this case are not placed close to
the junction. On of the signs is about two car lengths from the
give way line. The other over four car lengths from the give way
lines. It is therefore not unreasonable for the Appellant to
believe that he could turn before the no entry signs.
The Authority stated in the Notice of Rejection that the
Appellant passed the no entry sign. It then stated in the case
summary that the Appellant's vehicle drove over the no entry
road markings and made no reference to the upright signs. It
seems to me that the Authority has by then recognised the
problem with its case but I do not think that its submissions
work.
First, the road markings do not indicate when the restriction
begins nor are they enforceable signs. Secondly, the Authority's
photographs of the road markings are not dated. The markings do
not seem to be present in the CCTV recording, and they are not
present in Google images in July 2017.
I find that the signage restricts or at least give the
impression that its restricts, vehicular movement after the no
entry signs. It does not indicates that one cannot enter Grove
Hill Road. I allow the appeal.
Mike
#Post#: 891--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: July 5, 2023, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Mike. In this case there is only one No Entry sign at
Victoria Grove and hence no "gate" to go through. My contention
however is that the No Entry sign clearly relates to the
carriageway of Victoria Grove and not to the cycle lane. Do you
believe that the case quoted still supports my case?
#Post#: 895--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: guest17
Date: July 5, 2023, 10:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, you have to pass through the signage to be in
contravention.The adjudicator makes it clear in the case I
posted "A pair of no entry signs create a virtual line or gate.
The restriction prevents vehicles from passing this line or
gate"
Did you? No!
On your bike and wearing a helmet, I doubt the 616 sign was even
visible to you
Mike
#Post#: 2157--------------------------------------------------
Re: RBKC 51j No Entry on motorbike
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 29, 2023, 8:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Cunsm_SfMsxPsgG_QrQUpKTe-_ylIuDg/view?usp=sharing.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1