Author Topic: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E  (Read 1978 times)

0 Members and 241 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #30 on: »
This is incredibly in depth - amazing work - best of luck!

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #31 on: »
It is; but, far in excess of the prescribed length (by the Chief Adjudicator) of a skeleton argument.  8)
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #32 on: »
Here are two further documents for the reconvened hearing:
  • Annex E: Excerpts from TSRGD setting out prescribed uses of the curved arrows, width restriction sign and the BUS GATE road marking
  • Revised Synopsis collating material from Harrow's Case Summary with that in the Synopsis of the Appeal, Harrow's Response and the Counter Response

Annex E seeks to demonstrate that Harrow's assertion
Quote
signage at the location [is] in accordance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016
is false.

The Revised Synopsis sets out the arguments which Harrow deploy, together with my responses seeking to pick them apart. It remains to be seen how these fare before the Adjudicator.

---------------------

One general point which I would make is that highway authorities do not have a completely free hand in deciding what traffic signs to place.

First, unless they obtain special permission from DfT, they must use only those signs defined in TSRGD 2016 and only in the ways that it prescribes.

Secondly, when they make a Traffic Regulation Order (which is necessary to impose bus or width restrictions), Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Order (Procedures) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (LATOR) imposes on the authority the duty to secure
Quote
(a) … the placing on or near the road of 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.

Thirdly, section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 place on highway authorities the duty
Quote
to secure the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of vehicular ... traffic ... on the highway

The Department for Transport (DfT) publishes the Traffic Signs Manual, which offers advice to highway authorities and others on the use of traffic signs on the highway network. Chapter 1 of the Traffic Signs Manual sets out the principles for signage:
Quote
1.3.1. Traffic signs are placed by the traffic authority, through the powers provided by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to provide warnings, information and details of restrictions to road users...

1.3.2. In order to achieve safe and efficient operation of a highway network, it is essential that all signing provided is necessary, clear and unambiguous, and gives its message to road users at the appropriate time. The message must be quickly and easily understood at the point it is needed; neither too soon that the information might be forgotten, nor too late for the safe performance of any necessary manoeuvre.

The Traffic Signs Manual has a similar status to The Highway Code: it isn't the law, but it sets out what you should do and courts look to it as setting a benchmark of how people and organisations should behave. Schemes such as Camrose Avenue tend not to fit well into the framework set out in the various chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual. That's why they catch out so many motorists. 

One key legal case concerned with the adequacy of traffic signs is R (Oxfordshire County Council) v. The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). This was a judicial review of an adjudication and so sets precedent for adjudicators. The case turned on two issues: whether the area of road was a bus lane; and the adequacy of the advance signage. In paragraph 65 Mr Justice Beatson (as he then was) found:
Quote
If the signs do not in fact provide adequate information no offence is committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676. Such information is a requirement ...

So the main line of attack against these PCNs is that the signs did not provide adequate information, so no contravention occurred. On Camrose Avenue some of the signs are not as prescribed in TSRGD 2016, so are legally void. That helps establish that the signage is inadequate. The other main plank is to argue by analogy with the closest match in the Traffic Signs Manual to whatever is on the road at the site in question. If it's a bus restriction, that's section 9 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #33 on: »
Well, it's certainly a "nice little earner" for the council !!

Case refused:  2250084160

The appeal was heard via a video link. The Appellant attended the hearing. The Authority was not represented.

The issue was about signage. The Appellant said that as he was following a bus, he could not see the restriction signs until a point at which he decided that stopping abruptly or changing lane would have been dangerous.

It is common ground that there was no advance warning sign. There was a width restriction warning sign but the Appellant would not have been influenced by it. The Appellant thought initially that there was no sign at all but accepted upon reviewing the Authority’s evidence that the signage was present.

I do not accept the Appellant’s suggestion that it was reasonable for him to think that the lane outside the bus gate was for traffic in the opposite direction. There was no central line separating the two lanes and there was an arrow in the outside lane in the direction of the Appellant’s direction of travel. There were keep right and left signs on bollards either side of that lane. These signs were facing the Appellant. This would not be the case if the lane was for traffic coming the other way. There were no vehicles to the outside of the Appellant’s as he approached the bus gate.

It follows that the question for me was whether the Appellant had the opportunity to see the signage ahead.

I accept that there was a bus ahead. The Appellant was not tailgating. I find that the Appellant could have seen at least one of the upright bus gate signs and the bus gate road marking in time to change lane safely.

I am satisfied that the contravention occurred. I refuse the appeal.


Another DIY appeal I am afraid.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2025, 10:25:56 am by Hippocrates »
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #34 on: »
I'm intrigued by the sentences:
Quote
There was no central line separating the two lanes and there was an arrow in the outside lane in the direction of the Appellant’s direction of travel. There were keep right and left signs on bollards either side of that lane.

Lane markings (which include the white hatching in front of the traffic islands) delineate lanes. Without lane markings, there is a single lane. That is precisely one of the issues on Camrose Avenue. Harrow removed the lane markings in 2008. Otherwise one could point to the absence of a sign to diagram 877, which shows that the inside lane is about to be dedicated to buses and other permitted vehicles.

As for "keep right and left signs on bollards either side of that lane", what is he talking about? Elsewhere (e.g. Headstone Lane) Harrow place Keep Left signs which they expect buses and permitted vehicles to pass on the right. Doing so is the contravention for which Harrow issues vast numbers of PCNs on Charlton Road. The correct approach (see Traffic Advisory Leaflet 3/13) is to leave the bollard blank as vehicles are permitted to pass the bollard on both sides. So far as I am aware, Harrow don't make this mistake on Camrose Avenue.

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #35 on: »
An update on today's reconvened hearing. It was noisier than I had expected: Harrow's representatives intervened frequently with raised voices, often repeating what they had just said. That suggests to me that they considered that they were on the back foot.

Harrow's argument was, in essence, that they had complied with the requirement to place the regulatory signs (blue roundels) which indicate the presence of the bus restriction and that, in law, that sufficed. They appeared not to understand that a decision in 2010 in the High Court about a road in Oxford could be more significant in guiding Adjudicators than any number of adjudications about Camrose Avenue. I was surprised that the Adjudicator didn't appear to be familiar with the case.

I found it difficult to read what the Adjudicator was thinking. One thing which did seem to go down well was when I showed the signage at the northern end of Hammersmith Bridge Road where (until the closure of Hammersmith Bridge) there was a width restriction in the outer southbound lane next to a nearside bus lane. The sign showed the blue roundel on the inside, then a black dashed vertical line and then the width restriction. I suggested that this was what Harrow should have placed as advance signage instead of only width restriction signs.

I shan't be surprised if it takes the Adjudicator a few days to produce his decision.



Love Love x 1 View List

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #36 on: »
As I said, you have rattled a few cages.
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #37 on: »
The appeal was allowed ... but the Adjudicator picked the reason which does least damage to Harrow (and to the future workload for Adjudicators):
Quote
because of a parked car on the offside, oncoming vehicles and the darkness of the night, he had to keep to the nearside to avoid hitting one of the oncoming vehicles and/or his own vehicle being hit from behind by the closely following vehicle.

a motorist may on occasion have to take action so as to avoid an accident, which may involve an unintentional contravention of a restriction

I find on balance that, at the material time, the Appellant was taking action within the meaning of the exemption provided by Article 5(1)(a) of the Harrow (Bus Priority) Traffic Order 2026, as amended by the Harrow (Bus Priority) (Amendment No. 2) Traffic Order 2018

I did fear that putting up so many grounds for appeal provided an opportunity for the Adjudicator to select the least damaging one. That leaves the material which I prepared as a source which others can mine for their own appeals.

One issue which I had not considered was the very human one that the other participants in the case each had a reasonably comfortable life which they wished to preserve. While I was motivated by a sense of injustice, it turned out that the justice system was more concerned with self-preservation. "Keep calm and carry on" appears to be the motto, or perhaps it's "Don't rock the boat".

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #38 on: »
Very interesting - pleased for your win @Bustagate even though they dodged the main principle behind the appeal.

Like you say

Quote
That leaves the material which I prepared as a source which others can mine for their own appeals.

And that might just be me. :)

I've got a few days before I need to submit my initial representation. I have differring circumstances to you in that it was during the day, and although there was an oncoming vehicle, I don't think a claim of evasive manoeuvre would cut the mustard.

When you've had a moment to take a breath be great to get your thoughts on my PCN here

Thanks
« Last Edit: April 30, 2025, 10:07:10 am by brazilianx »

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #39 on: »
The sign, as shown in the site evidence produced by the Enforcement Authority, is that prescribed by Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, being a permitted variant thereof, as indicating ‘route for use by buses, pedal cycles and taxis’.

What were the dates of this photographic evidence please?
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #40 on: »
I'm posting Harrow's Adjournment Evidence, which includes the image which I think is the one referred to. It bears the date 1 September 2024, but this isn't .exif data.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]