DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 49175--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: December 10, 2024, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Cambridge is not the only local authority to advertise its bus
gates and provide clear signage. Brighton & Hove has this web
page devoted to bus gates
HTML https://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/travel-and-road-safety/roads-and-highways/bus-gates<br
/>and uses the same signs as Cambridge. They also use CCTV signs
to warn motorists.
At Camrose Avenue, one might ask why there are not lane makings
from the inside kerb to the tip of the hatching in front of the
traffic island between the bus-only lane and that through the
width restriction. That the section of road which is bus-only is
a distinct lane is apparent from the "Give Way" markings at its
end.
#Post#: 50719--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: December 21, 2024, 6:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] post the tribunal outcome when
you get it, I'm sure we will all learn something from it.
If we never hear from you again, we'll infer it did not go well.
#Post#: 55420--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: January 27, 2025, 2:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Harrow rejected the representations. Their response was mainly
boilerplate, accompanied by non sequiturs and a failure to
engage with the arguments made. Onward to the Adjudicator!
I should welcome comments on the current draft of the appeal. It
will be supported by a more detailed exposition of the arguments
and citations of the supporting evidence.
-----------------------
I am appealing on the following grounds:
1. No offence was committed because the TMO identifies the
bus-only lane as that to the north of the northern traffic
island immediately west of the junction with Dale Avenue. The
entire westbound traffic island lies to the north of the
eastbound traffic island, so I was not in the section of Camrose
Avenue to which the TMO applies. Nor was I in the other area
which the TMO identifies as bus-only, i.e. that to the south of
the southern traffic island.
[Image: Camrose Excerpt of 2016 Bus-priority TMO]
2. I draw attention to the Statutory Guidance on Civil
Enforcement issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The
Introduction states:
Section 87 of the TMA stipulates that local authorities must
have regard to this statutory guidance when developing,
implementing and reviewing their bus lane or moving traffic
regimes; and in exercising their functions in connection with
the associated enforcement activity, local authorities are
expected to follow the guidance unless there is a compelling
reason for not doing so.
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not
to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may
consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow
an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This
guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on
certification of approved devices, and the Home Office
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
The section on Policy objectives includes this (my italics):
Local authorities should aim to increase compliance with bus
lane and moving traffic regulations through clear, well
designed, legal, and enforced controls including clear traffic
signing which can readily be understood from a moving vehicle.
It was dark when the alleged contravention occurred, so the
assessment must be of whether the traffic signing was clear and
could readily be understood from a moving vehicle at night.
I consider that Harrow Borough Council has made many mistakes in
its layout of the road and its signage. These mean that the
signage is not clear and cannot readily be understood from a
moving vehicle at night:
a) The scheme dates from 1976 and had the aim of stopping large
vehicles from using Camrose Avenue. As buses use the road, it
was designed on the model of a toll plaza with two lanes. One,
for the buses, had a rising barrier (typically a
red-and-white-striped pole) while the other had a width
restriction of 6'6". Little in the way of signage was needed as
the barrier was readily visible and physically barred the way to
large vehicles.
[Image: Google Street View of Itchen Bridge Toll Barrier
Eastbound 2024]
London Transport objected to the rising barriers, so the bus
lanes were left open. The scheme was ineffective for 30 years.
In 2006, in response to complaints from residents and the
introduction of civil enforcement, Harrow installed CCTV and
changed the signage. The drawings indicate an attempt to guide
motorists towards the width-restricted lane by using red
surface-dressing accompanied by two deflection arrows. The
Traffic Signs Manual uses such deflection arrows only as an
adjunct to longitudinal markings such as continuous or dashed
white lines; this ensures that the arrows' meaning is not lost
at night when red surface dressing does not shine back to
motorists' headlights in the way that white lines do.
[Image: Google Street View of Camrose Avenue Eastbound from the
service road 2018]
The signage became materially worse in 2021/22 when Harrow
resurfaced the road and the second deflection arrow was
repainted much closer to the kerb, pointing to the middle of the
bus lane.
[Image: Google Street View of Camrose Avenue Eastbound from the
service road 2024]
The legal meaning of the deflection arrow (TSRGD 2016 Schedule
11 Part 4 Item 14) is
      (a) Direction in which
vehicular traffic should pass a road marking
In this case, the road marking is the area of white hatching in
front of the eastbound traffic island. So the legal meaning of
the second deflection arrow is that traffic should pass the
white hatching through the bus lane. Harrow is entrapping
motorists by directing them where it can then subject them to
PCNs. To issue a PCN is not only a procedural impropriety but,
were this a criminal matter, a Class 2 abuse of process.
b) Another feature of the road markings is that between Dale
Avenue and Shaldon Road there are long-dashed white lines as
separators between the eastbound and westbound lanes. This
permits the parking of vehicles at the side of the road
westbound (there are double yellow lines eastbound). When I was
approaching the "toll plaza", a black car was parked outside
227, Camrose Avenue. An oncoming vehicle emerging from the
westbound restriction had to pull out to pass this vehicle. In
doing so, it was pointing straight at me as I reached the first
deflection arrow.
[Image: Still from CCTV of PCN showing vehicle pulling out to
overtake parked car]
My attention was therefore on this vehicle and I did not notice
the deflection arrow. That put me in a position on the road
where the only deflection arrow which I saw was the one pointing
to the centre of the bus lane. I consider Harrow's failure to
ensure that motorists are not distracted by vehicles coming
straight at them on their side of the road constitutes a
procedural impropriety.
c) in its rejection of my representations, Harrow asserts that
its CCTV footage, from which the image above is a still,
demonstrates that
it was not fully dark and all signs were clearly displayed.
The CCTV footage demonstrates only that modern image sensors
work well in low light. The images show only the backs of the
signs and nothing about how they appeared to motorists. Here is
an image taken on the evening of 9 January 2025 from the other
side:
[Night image of Camrose Avenue Eastbound from the service road
2025]
That day had been clear and bright, unlike 17th November, the
afternoon of which had been murky. Note how the luminaires above
the signs are spilling light towards motorists rather than
shining their light only onto the signs, from which the light
would be reflected. Instead, the width-restriction signs appear
as a bright wash of light. The signs would be much more legible
if the LED street light had been sited where the camera has
been for this image rather than where it is sited (on both sides
of the road): beyond the road signs, presumably to provide ideal
illumination for the CCTV camera.
The Statutory Guidance on Civil Enforcement says that it should
be read in conjunction with the Home Office Surveillance Camera
Code of Practice. This includes:
Guiding Principle 3 – There must be as much transparency in the
use of a surveillance camera system as possible, including a
published contact point for access to information and complaints
As part of the 2006 update, Harrow placed a Traffic Enforcement
Camera sign just to the east of the railway bridge, about 300m
to the west of the restrictions. When I drove along Camrose
Avenue, I did not see it. Nor was it visible on walking along
Camrose Avenue at night, for the simple reason that it is turned
to face the railway (and has been since July 2021, on the
evidence of Google Street View).
[Image: Google Street View of Camrose Avenue bridge over railway
with sign turned 2024]
Most highway authorities place a Bus Lane Camera sign next to
the restriction, both to alert motorists (thereby encouraging
compliance) and to ensure that they do not expose their PCNs to
appeals on the grounds of failure to comply with the
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice. Harrow does not even
ensure that its sign 300 metres away, can be read by motorists.
In view of these failings to follow the Statutory Guidance, I
ask you to allow my appeal. In view of the seriousness of the
misplaced deflection arrow, I ask that you draw this matter to
the attention of Harrow Borough Council to make redress to
eastbound motorists to whom it has issued PCNs since the
resurfacing.
I also ask you to allow my appeal because of Harrow's procedural
impropriety in disregarding or failing to engage with the
substance of my representations.
I am preparing my full evidence submission and am awaiting
responses from Harrow Borough Council to Freedom of Information
requests. I should be grateful for advice as to how many days
before the hearing I should submit my full evidence
electronically if I'm still waiting for responses.
#Post#: 55428--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 27, 2025, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] unless you show us your
representations and the notice of rejection, we don't really
have anything to work with.
#Post#: 55434--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 27, 2025, 3:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=3617]Bustagate[/member] We advise waiting for the
council to reveal their hand first. I rely upon my formal
representations and will file full submissions upon receipt of
the council's evidence pack.
You have done much research but most of your points are
irrelevant. As cp8759 says, we need all the details. If you are
really prepared to listen to me and trust my experience, I am
prepared to represent you. We have 100% success rate in the last
year or so with this location. 3 out of 3.
#Post#: 55483--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: roythebus
Date: January 28, 2025, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a pity my partner was too worried by the process when she
got nicked for going along Camrose Avenue late one night. It's
too late to appeal now as it was about 6 years ago.
The various Harrow bus gates are designed to keep wide vehicles
out of residential roads. My partner drivers Landrover
Discovery van, which with side steps is a "tight fit" through
6'6" width restrictions. The bus gates are also misleading for
people like me who only drive buses in the area on rare
occasions. For years I'd obeyed the width restriction signs and
faced lengthy detours when I later found there was a wide bit
for buses some distance along a road. These things are a PITA.
Good luck to th OP on his appeal! But a bit of advice from me,
please listen to what other very experienced people on here are
saying. The simpler the appeal the better your chanes of
winning. too many words and you'll get tripped up.
#Post#: 55900--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: January 30, 2025, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks. I attach
i) representations
ii) Harrow's rejection of them
iii) draft appeal synopsis.
There is a full appeal document which I was planning to hold
back until Harrow had submitted their evidence. I see the appeal
synopsis as a skeleton argument which puts Harrow on notice as
to the points which I am raising. Once they're on notice, they
need to provide sufficient explanation for their failures to
follow the Statutory Guidance or else the Adjudicator can allow
the appeal for a procedural impropriety. Not providing the
skeleton argument gives the Adjudicator the opportunity to say
that a new argument is being made, to which Harrow has not had
an opportunity to respond. I am concerned that the Adjudicator
may then supply his own response on Harrow's behalf.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 55936--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 30, 2025, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Thanks. I attach
> i) representations
> ii) Harrow's rejection of them
> iii) draft appeal synopsis.
>
> There is a full appeal document which I was planning to hold
back until Harrow had submitted their evidence. I see the appeal
synopsis as a skeleton argument which puts Harrow on notice as
to the points which I am raising. Once they're on notice, they
need to provide sufficient explanation for their failures to
follow the Statutory Guidance or else the Adjudicator can allow
the appeal for a procedural impropriety. Not providing the
skeleton argument gives the Adjudicator the opportunity to say
that a new argument is being made, to which Harrow has not had
an opportunity to respond. I am concerned that the Adjudicator
may then supply his own response on Harrow's behalf.
>
--- End Quote ---
Why reveal your hand now?
"Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you
move, fall like a thunderbolt." In other words, toss the coin
and let them bat first. Our general advice.
#Post#: 55971--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: January 31, 2025, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I see your point but I still wish to observe legal
protocol. As the full evidence is based on the points made in
the representations, I don't think it's revealing much to set
out those points again, but in more precise form, and add the
procedural impropriety of Harrow's failure to accept the
representations:
--- Quote ---
> I am preparing a full submission for my appeal, which is
founded on the representations which I made to Harrow on 4th
December 2024. I consider that Harrow failed to engage with the
issues which I raised and that its response had the appearance
of standard sentences selected from a template. To my existing
grounds of appeal:
>
>
>
- the TMO does not identify the lane between the kerb and the
eastbound traffic island as being the subject of a bus-only
restriction;
>
- the signage is inadequate and misleading and cannot readily be
understood from a moving vehicle at night;
>
- the positions of the vehicles meant that by the time that I
could see the bus-only signage I could not move out safely to
avoid the restriction,
>
>
> I therefore add
>
>
>
- procedural impropriety in failing to accept that the grounds
raised against the PCN had been established.
>
>
> I am awaiting responses from Harrow Borough Council to Freedom
of Information requests. I should be grateful for advice as to
how many days before the hearing I should submit my full
evidence electronically if I'm still waiting for responses.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 55975--------------------------------------------------
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus
Gate 33E
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 31, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no ground of procedural impropriety. And a failure to
accept is not a ground either. If they had failed to consider,
that would be a different issue. Sorry, but as this now in The
Flame Pit, I am reminded of Frank Sinatra's famous song "My
Way". Have you actually read the three decisions won? And the
reasons why? If you did, you would tweak your submissions
accordingly.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page