Free Traffic Legal Advice

Game on shortly.

Dear Peeps

For reasons I address below; I cannot accept liability for the Penalty Charge Notice because:

The contravention did not occur.

It is accepted that I have entered a restricted area of carriageway on Adys Road~junction Amott Road, after turning South from Nutbrook Street.

Upon revisiting the location and viewing camera footage, it is clear that the signs conveying the restriction are not readily visible to any motorists traveling South on Adys Road, at any reasonable distance, and with clarity of meaning.
The left sign is obscured by trees foliage and a telegraph pole approaching the restriction and would only become clear & legible once arriving shortly in advance of such sign. My camera footage demonstrates the signs do not allow a clear vision of sight from inside a car, or to be seen at all in a conveniently timely manner. In my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and react safely to the restriction before passing the sign, by which time it is too late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed in the first instance.

The absence of any advance warning signs on approaching this time restricted road ensures the motorist will be unaware that they are entering, when in operation, a dead-end road with no easy means of escape.
The restriction is operational during the school term (08:30-09:15 & 03:45-04:15), the dates of which are determined by the staff of the school. As the motorist is unaware of these dates it may be assumed that the sign conveys a full time restriction, which is disingenuous and factually incorrect.
 
The Southwark CCTV footage is helpful inasmuch that it shows my vehicle on the approach on Adys Road and clearly demonstrates the impossibility faced by the motorist when confronted with the restriction.
There exists an inadequate amount of carriageway available in which the motorist could attempt to turn their vehicle to facilitate abeyance.

Without any advanced warning, or indeed an escape route available to the motorist once beyond the junction of Adys Road & Nutbrook Street, I struggle to understand what options were conceived accessible to; or appropriate of, the motorist once confronted by the sign(s).

*) Resident parking permit bays extend the entire length, from the junction of Nutbrook Street, without interruption along both kerb sides of Adys Road, to the dropped kerb followed by entry to the restricted area. CPZ Permit area (PW) operates Mon-Fri, 9am-11am.

*) Any motor-vehicle deemed of a size that could wait on the carriageway other than in a permit bay; yet before the sign, would also be liable to further contravention due to the presence of both ‘dropped kerb(s)’, and Double Yellow Lines.

*) Retracing the drivers direction of travel to negate any contravention would therefore necessitate reversing North along Adys Road to beyond the junction of Nutbrook Street; A distance of approx 65m, in such a manner not to cause obstruction to other road uses: mindful to the width of road, which can only accommodate the passage of vehicles, in one direction, at one time.



I do not accept the assertion whereby an enforcement authority would willfully place any motorist in possible infringement of The Road Vehicle (con & use) Regulations 1986, as the default behaviour -

[106. No person shall drive, or cause or permit to be driven, a motor vehicle backwards on a road further than may be requisite for the safety or reasonable convenience of the occupants of the vehicle or other traffic, unless it is a road roller or is engaged in the construction, maintenance or repair of the road. ]

Although I do accept that the following is not mandatory, I point out that based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs are recommended to be visible from 60 meters and should face the direction of traffic. By placing the sign behind obstruction, the sign would inevitably fail to be visible from 60 meters.
The photo and video evidence clearly demonstrate this in terms of anticipated visibility being foreshortened.

Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult sign(s) and comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the sign(s) implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the signs to the environment where it is going to be in force, and I do not believe that has been demonstrated here.

The aim of the School Streets Programme is a worthy concept: yet poorly enacted, dilutes the intended concept of road safety and air quality zones: As demonstrated when motorists consequently become entrapped within Ady’s Road due to the absence of any prior warnings adequately highlighting the restriction.
 
The enforcement authority seem to be mindful of the need to forewarn motorists by way of the **** of “blue rectangular signs with the legend ‘School street [option]’” on all approaches. The signs do not conform to any proscribed within the signs manual and convey no meaningful information: Indeed the sigh erected in advance of Nutbrook Street junction with Adys road shows the arrow pointing North, whereas the School is located to the South!

In conclusion you should cancel the PCN before I put on my angry pants!

online status page states amount will increase to £130 on 5/11/24 - pay £65 now

You had room as PMB has stated.

Dear Transport for London,

I challenge liability for PCN GX17671732 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.

This is because whilst my vehicle was indeed observed stopping within the hatched markings it was not due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Both TFL’s and my own dash-cam video show that upon entering the Yellow Box Junction whilst traversing a right hand manoeuvre there were no stationary vehicles impeding my intended route through the hatched markings and that there is ample space ahead of my vehicle outside of the box.

My video footage may be viewed here: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ln_5TxyNDQup3utoyEcus3GgASOluTli/view?usp=sharing]

Consulting the supporting documentation received from TFL guides me to:
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-of-red-routes/yellow-box-junctions

* How to use a yellow box junction
You can stop in a yellow box junction when turning right if you are prevented from turning by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.

Given the above; I remain extremely perplexed as of the alleged contravention I have been deemed to have transgressed.

I hereby request in recognition of the above statement of events that the PCN should be cancelled.

Yours respectfully,

Dear Transport for London,

In absence of the video recording requested from TFL on the 19th August, whilst also being mindful of the time period imposed for representation; my submission is therefore constrained solely on the still images TFL captured from their video recording in conjunction with my own vehicles on-board footage.

The TFL documentation I received guides me to consult:
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-of-red-routes/yellow-box-junctions

* How to use a yellow box junction
You can stop in a yellow box junction when turning right if you are prevented from turning by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.


I challenge liability for PCN GX17671732 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
This is because whilst my vehicle did stop within the yellow box markings that the stop was not due to the presence of stationary vehicles (?impeding my exit?).
The still images that TFL have published clearly show that there is ample space ahead of my vehicle outside of the box.

It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,