Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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.

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?

Well I have had a speedy reply from RBKC - a NOR of course! Here's the link


https://imgur.com/kFEtYBr
https://imgur.com/Telnn25
https://imgur.com/uM8pEH4
https://imgur.com/rajm0ig

The VRM is clear on the last page. Here is another stab at GSV

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
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? [/list]

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?

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

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