Thanks for the PM and setting up here.
Sending appeal in for controversial bus lane.
Successful appeal for the same reasons. Very ambiguous signage.
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2023/08/09/woman-wins-appeal-against-brighton-bus-lane-fine/My appeal will include:
1. Ambiguous signage, see image of road layout on successful case.
2. Lack of fair clear evidence, the image on the evidence could have been snapped anywhere, it's pitch black.
3. Notorious spot well known by locals and well documented.
4. No change of signage since successful case argued in Sept 2023 - i.e. it's in their benefit to take no action and continue trapping motorists.
---- Defence ---
Statement of Defendant
Contents
Exhibit 01 Unclear evidence.
Exhibit 02 03 Signage not observed
Exhibit 04 Signage visibility
Exhibit 05 Highway code signs.
Exhibit 06 Typical Warning Signs Bristol.
Exhibit 07 Typical warning signs Guildford
Exbibit 08 Faded Road markings.
Statement of mitigation
Brighton City Council Ltd
V
NAME
CLAIM NUMBER/ Penalty Notice number...xxx
Witness Statement of Defendant
1. I am NAME, and I am the defendant against whom this claim is made. The facts below are true to the best of my belief and my account has been prepared based upon my own knowledge.
2. In my statement I shall refer to (Exhibits 1-8) within the evidence supplied with this statement, referring to page and reference numbers where appropriate. My defence is as follows:
Facts and Sequence of events.
1. It is admitted that on the material dates, I was the registered driver of the vehicle either registration mark xxx. I was the driver not the registered keeper. The car was on loan to me as a Motoring Journalist for a period of one week.
2. As a previous Brighton resident between 1990 and 1995 I have been living outside of Brighton since that time.
3. At approximately xx time I followed flowing traffic into the alleged area of contravene after visiting a friend for shopping in The Laines.
Defence and Mitigation.
4. Unclear or Insufficient evidence.
See Exbibit 1.
The Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera has presented the defendant with a vehicle registration number, purportedly captured as evidence of an alleged contravention. This evidence necessitates the defendant's reliance solely upon the claimant's assertions. Notably, the image depicted on the fixed penalty notice is rendered almost indecipherable. Moreover, no supplementary evidence has been tendered to substantiate the aforementioned claim, compounded by the illegibility of the vehicle's index on the Penalty Charge Notice.
5. Signage not observed.
Insufficient signage was observed by the defendant at the time. The defendant asked a local to take images of the approach and surrounding areas to ascertain any signage.
See fig 2. And fig 3.
6. Signage visibility.
The defendant contends that the sole eligible sign proximate to the location is inadequate for effective communication. Positioned atop an apex of a bend, the sign suffers from two significant deficiencies. Firstly, its diminutive size renders it illegible, particularly for Sport Utility Vehicles (SUVs) or Mini SUVs, among others. Secondly, the sign's placement necessitates drivers to divert their attention away from the direction of travel to decipher its content, thus posing a safety hazard. Additionally, the sign's elevation predisposes it to potential obstruction within drivers' blind spots, potentially concealed by the vehicle's roof or sun visor. Moreover, the compact dimensions of the sign contribute to further obscurity, as the font size, if discernible, may be deemed insufficiently clear to convey its message effectively
See fig 4.
7. Signage eligibility
Attachment Exhibit 5 represents a PDF detailing road warning or contravention signs, which drivers are expected to comprehend in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Highway Code. Any signage diverging from these specifications may be construed merely as 'advisory' or extraneous. Furthermore, even if discernible to drivers, the inadequacy of design in alignment with the Highway Code renders such signage susceptible to misinterpretation. Consequently, its reliability as a basis for legal enforcement is undermined."
8. Lack of Warning signs for ANPR operation.
One could contend that numerous councils employ warning signs featuring cameras to notify drivers of potential contraventions and the likelihood of ANPR capture. Notably, no such camera warning signs are evident at the site in question. A pertinent analogy can be drawn to the presence of ANPR warning signs at Gatwick Airport, explicitly cautioning drivers against halting at the Hilton Hotel for passenger drop-offs. In this instance, clarity is unequivocal, leaving no room for misinterpretation. Fig 6 showcases a conspicuously placed sign by Bristol City Council, while Fig 7 depicts a similar instance in Guildford. It is reasonable to surmise that Brighton City Council has opted against installing warning signs, a departure from the practice observed in other jurisdictions.
9. Sign Content.
The ambiguous sign in question fig 4. bears the phrases "other traffic" and "local access," both of which are inherently imprecise and fail to provide adequate guidance to motor vehicle operators. The term "local access" is particularly susceptible to misinterpretation, as it could conceivably imply access solely to local roads
10. Faded road markings.
Fig 8. Depicts faded road markings, serving as additional evidence that the claimant has failed to undertake adequate measures to inform drivers. These markings not only pose readability challenges during night-time conditions but also risk obstruction by preceding traffic, or assumption that they no longer apply. Moreover, their placement appears belated, affording insufficient time or opportunity for drivers who do discern the warning to adjust their route. The defendant seeks clarification regarding the precise locations of the ANPR cameras and the permissible margin of error afforded to drivers in rectifying potential errors under these circumstances.
11. Time of contravention.
Enforcing a transgression at 2049, a period characterised by reduced traffic congestion and lower environmental emissions concerns, may be perceived as unreasonable. Typically, contraventions are enforced during peak traffic periods precisely due to heightened traffic flow and emission risks. The defendant queries the council's rationale behind adhering strictly to enforcement measures during a time when traffic volume is minimal or non-existent.
12. Inducement.
Councillor McNair's assertion in 2021 highlights the inherent complexity and susceptibility to inadvertent violations within systems such as the one under consideration. Conversely, Trevor Muten's statement emphasizes the overarching objective of maintaining traffic flow and mitigating congestion, potentially resulting in fines being imposed. However, the relevance and reasonableness of such assertions come into question, particularly on a quiet cold Thursday evening characterised by sparse patronage in bars and restaurants and exceptionally low traffic.
13. Unfair contract.
It is arguable that drivers find themselves entering into an unfair contractual arrangement wherein terms are not sufficiently explicit. Moreover, they encounter limited options or opportunities for corrective action, especially when vehicles are trailing closely behind. In line with principles of safety and prudent urban planning, it is incumbent upon the council to provide ample and conspicuous warnings to drivers well in advance, a standard that appears to be inadequately met in this instance.
14. Changing and confusing road layout.
As a non-resident of Brighton, the defendant asserts limited awareness regarding the frequent alterations to the road network. During several visits over the past three years, various exits to the A23 have been utilized. A local source confirms the notorious reputation of this specific road layout, particularly noting its propensity to befuddle drivers unfamiliar with the area.
15. Frequency of fines.
I present to the council that if the road layout and signage were clearer, fewer drivers would fall afoul of regulations. It is estimated that over 80,000 motorists annually incur fines, averaging 6,600 fines per month or 222 fines per day. With such frequency, the defendant contends that either these drivers are consistently misled or deliberately misled, or they are incapable of comprehending signage and, therefore, perhaps unfit to operate vehicles on the road.
16. Revenue generation
It has been extensively reported by the media that councils are grappling with funding challenges. It appears rather convenient, therefore, that substantial sums of money are being generated due to inadequate signage. This could be construed as advantageous for the claimant, reminiscent of the widely publicised predatory practices often associated with private parking firms.
Statement of mitigation
As a motoring journalist my profession necessitates extensive travel, surpassing that of the average motorist. Diligently managing my driving license, I adhere strictly to speed limits and road conditions to safeguard my livelihood, which revolves around driving and reporting on road safety matters. The convoluted road layout and signage pose challenges even for local residents, let alone non-residents like myself. Unlike residents, I lack the advantage of local knowledge, community insights, and readily available information from local press sources.
During my visit, I already incurred substantial expenses, including £18 for parking over a period slightly exceeding three hours, coupled with expenditures exceeding £400 at local establishments. I firmly contest the fairness of the penalty charge notice (PCN) imposed under these circumstances.
I respectfully urge the council to thoroughly consider the validity, relevance, and fairness of my challenge and rescind the PCN. I emphasize that now being enlightened, I am unlikely to repeat this oversight. Nevertheless, I implore the council to view this incident as a catalyst for implementing clearer measures to assist drivers navigating the area effectively.
Statement of truth:
I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Defendants signature:
Date: 17th March 2024
Exhibit 01 Unclear/ insufficient evidence.
Exhibit 02-03 Signage not observed.
Exhibit 04 Signage visibility
Exhibit 5 Highway code signage
Exhibit 6 Warning Sign Bristol
Exhibit 7 Warning Sign Guildford.
Exhibit 8 Faded road markings
