3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - John_S

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Hammersmith & Fulham - 52M accessed a restricted street - Harwood Terrace SWbnd
« on: February 10, 2026, 11:11:24 am »
It's a long shot, but the plate beneath the NMV sign here is non-compliant IMO because the 'permit identifier' needs special authorisation. Same all over H&F including the infamous Rivercourt Road.

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: MERON NEW LTN - ABBEY ROAD JW HIGH PATH
« on: October 18, 2025, 12:35:06 pm »
4 enforcement camera posts in the vicinity of High Path were cut down on 14/15 October including the one used in this case. This shows the strength of feeling against Merton Council’s (lax) approach to traffic management.

3
The Flame Pit / Re: Yellow box on T junction
« on: October 14, 2025, 11:34:48 am »
When turning right out of a side road you should aim to do it in one movement. If you do pull-out half way, then as a general rule there should be no vehicles in view to your right. Basically, “approaching” refers to a vehicle that you can see coming towards you. If traffic is flowing freely, wait for a gap in both traffic flows.

If there is slow-moving/queuing traffic on the main road, then you may need to pull-out half way because your view is limited. Sometimes if traffic is queuing or slow-moving across a junction right-to-left, another driver may create a gap for you to pull-out half-way. If this happens the vehicle would not be deemed to be “approaching”.

It’s all about proportionality and common sense. If there’s no advantage gained by pulling-out half way, then wait for a gap in both traffic flows. Hope this makes sense.

4
The Flame Pit / Re: Yellow box on T junction
« on: October 12, 2025, 10:22:12 am »
Yes, you can enter and stop in a box junction if turning right out of a side street. But you should only do it if:

(1) there are no vehicles approaching from your right,

(2) your view to your left is obscured, ie you cannot clearly see traffic approaching from your left (eg Greek Street j/o Shaftesbury Avenue, London), and

(3) traffic is flowing to your right (ie your exit is clear when you enter the yellow box).

This has been tested at adjudication but I don’t have any case numbers to hand.

Bear in mind also, if you pull out and force a vehicle to stop that’s approaching from your right, then you’ve probably committed a separate offence of ‘driving without reasonable consideration’ for other road users (Road Traffic Act 1988, s3).

5
The Flame Pit / Re: Hypothetical (possibly) YBJ question
« on: October 12, 2025, 09:50:32 am »
In short, there would be no contravention in the scenario you describe.

The enforcement authority needs to prove that your exit was blocked at the time you entered the yellow box. Still images are never enough to achieve this at adjudication. In addition, you may have dashcam footage that would prove your case.

In this scenario the Green car should wait in the middle of the junction and not move until his exit becomes clear, regardless of what the automatic traffic signals are showing at that time. (In real life the Green car should be slightly further forward).

6
The Flame Pit / Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs to Diagram 618.3C
« on: September 23, 2025, 11:15:40 am »
Quote
I wonder whether this is observed?

I doubt it, but I do remember seeing several warning notices in 2022, notably Greenwich and Hammersmith.

I've seen the explanatory memos for the 2022 regs, but not the above document... thanks.

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: MERON NEW LTN - ABBEY ROAD JW HIGH PATH
« on: September 22, 2025, 11:34:40 am »
Neither the main ‘no motor vehicles’ signs nor the blue background information signs in your video comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). That’s assuming LB Merton haven’t obtained special authorisation for them in the last 7 days or so. The legend “Except authorised vehicles” is not a permitted variant. TSRGD Schedule 3, Part 2, Item 12 refers.

This should squash the PCN if you get the right adjudicator at appeal stage, but LB Merton will almost certainly reject representations on this point. Hope this helps.

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London Borough of Bexley, stopped in a restricted area outside of school, Victoria road (contravention code 48J)
« on: September 21, 2025, 03:00:13 pm »
Quote
use HCA's draft for my representation to the council, correct?

Yes, correct...

9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London Borough of Bexley, stopped in a restricted area outside of school, Victoria road (contravention code 48J)
« on: September 21, 2025, 12:22:47 pm »
I’m guessing this PCN was issued via an enforcement car not a fixed CCTV camera, given the cardboard temporary ‘enforcement camera’ sign beneath the ‘no stopping on entrance markings’ sign.

To simplify this I’ve posted an image of what the relevant sign should look like. The sign actually in place doesn’t fully comply with the regulations because the “Mon - Fri” is too big, but IMO this is only a minor error. It probably won’t matter at appeal stage.

In other words, take it that the signs and markings are substantially complaint and forget this part of your argument. Hope this makes sense.


10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London Borough of Bexley, stopped in a restricted area outside of school, Victoria road (contravention code 48J)
« on: September 20, 2025, 09:22:22 am »
Quote
thanks and apologies but still not sure what is the minor design error here? e.g. what does '50mm' and '40mm' mean?

Not wishing to overthink this because it may turn out to be irrelevant. But before I answer this question, please confirm the photo of the sign you posted was from Google Street View (GSV). If so, it would be better to take your own photos of the sign, one for context and one close-up, then post them here. Sometimes GSV is out of date.

The upright sign in this case is critical for the contravention to be made out. The road markings alone are not enough. Once I’m sure what sign(s) were in place, I’ll give a more detailed answer. In the meantime I suggest you follow HCA’s advice/text.

11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London Borough of Bexley, stopped in a restricted area outside of school, Victoria road (contravention code 48J)
« on: September 19, 2025, 10:12:10 am »
Hi,

I've just posted another reply to your Facebook posts, copied here...

This is an interesting case and a very difficult one to call. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (as amended), Schedule 7, Part 6, para 3 states, “...a person driving a vehicle must not cause it to stop on that marking...”. Technically you weren’t stopped on the marking, but how would an adjudicator interpret this?

As a side issue, there’s a minor design error in the upright sign on the photo you posted. The x-height of “No stopping” should be 50mm and “Mon - Fri” should be 40mm. It looks wrong to me, but probably not substantial enough for the PCN to be cancelled on this alone.

12
The Flame Pit / Re: Merton's PCNs for Contravening Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs to Diagram 618.3C
« on: September 14, 2025, 10:54:26 pm »
Makes you wonder whether anyone is advising Merton. So many errors in their reply.

13
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Penalty charge notice for U turn
« on: September 05, 2025, 09:09:37 am »
Just a few quick observations adding to the full reply given by @H_C_Andersen :

- It’s well worth taking and submitting photos of a driver’s view in York Road on the approach to Cranbrook Road, to prove there are no advance warning signs.

- It’s worth referencing the specific part of the TSRGD that precludes the No U-Turn sign from being placed within a puffin controlled area, otherwise an adjudicator may dismiss the point.

- It may also be worth mentioning the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 (4.11) that states the sign should be on the driver’s LEFT (and can then be duplicated on the right). But remember this is not the law.

- Check the sign at the start of the restriction further south in Cranbrook Rd. It should have a distance plate mounted beneath it. And, there should be a sign 40m north of Wellesley Road with an “End” plate beneath it. If not, this will add weight to your case.

14
The Flame Pit / Re: Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith - main NMV sign
« on: August 27, 2025, 09:51:37 am »
@Bustagate further to #8 above.



Another new sign has been placed on the A4 Great West Road (e/b, about 10m east j/o Weltje Road). I noticed this on Tuesday 14 August, but only managed to photograph it yesterday.

The x-height appears to be the same as the other temporary advance direction sign mentioned in #8 (although I haven’t confirmed this). In addition to the points already raised, it’s worth noting:

(1) The sign is positioned behind a lamp post making it almost invisible to approaching traffic. The TSM Chapter 3 (para 1.8) specifies a minimum clear visibility distance of 60m for 40mph roads.

(2) The sign has a disproportionately large NMV roundel for the stroke-width used.

(3) The sign has disproportionately small lettering on the supplementary plate compared to the roundel and stroke width sizes used. The supplementary plate’s x-height should = 3.2 x stroke width.

In short, this sign is littered with design errors!


15
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone, Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
« on: August 26, 2025, 01:32:16 pm »
You may be able to challenge this PCN on signage grounds.

See this thread

(@Bustagate for info)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4