Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes I understand. Is there a reasonable chance of winning at a tribunal? Are they impartial? Do they listen to sound, logical arguments?

BTW I work in human factors information design. As an expert in that field I can say a multi line text instruction at a junction will never, ever pass an objective adequacy test. i.e. out of 100 human motorists with clean licenses, how many would notice, read, comprehend and make the correct decision whilst driving down that road for the first time under the same conditions. No doubt some would, but I would not expect this to be the norm.

That is why I quoted the human factors study above. It says signs should be visual and 2-3 lines maximum of text at 30 mph. Otherwise not only are they unreadable, but become a hazard for any motorist trying to comply.

We'll...I did not see any of the signs

But yes, we want to assess them fully for what they are.

Best I can do is send image of the map provided by Ealing council in their rejection notice. This is the only evidence I have that the warning sign exists. Note the final entry sign is a bit different on their map to the one it situ (it's 9 lines whereas the actual one has 10 lines and 2 additional words).

Here you go:

Ealing council has now responded to my appeal. 53 working days after I sent my representation by email.

They have rejected both appeals: 2 tickets for the same violation 13 mins apart.

The grounds for rejection are:
- They believe the signs are compliant 2016 Traffic Signs Regulations. They have not addressed that there was a massive van blocking the sign and encroaching into my lane where I had to go into the opposite lane to get around it, right at the point where I should have been passing the sign behind the van. This is clearly shown in their video, but they did not even acknowledge it in their response.
- They sympathise with my situation, but have to enforce all contraventions in a far and consistent manner and cancellation would set a precedent to other motorists. i.e. No matter what I say happened in the appeal, they will ignore it anyway so they can continue to fine everybody. To me this undermines the principle of 'appeals that are considered based on their specific circumstance.'
- The above includes the double penalty on the same stretch of road for the same thing. Cancelling one would set a precedent. It should indeed set a precedent. They should not be double fining anyone for the same thing within a reasonable window. This opens up the possibility of putting up 100 signs every 1 km and unlimited fines.

The sign in question has 10 lines of information. Chat GPT tells me all road signs should be easily readable within 2 seconds. I don't know how I would read that sign safely whilst keeping my eyes on the road or within 2 seconds.
Chat GPT also found this research on road signs:

Human Factors Research (Important Point)
Studies used in traffic engineering show:
Drivers process symbols faster than words
Each additional line increases processing time
Multi-clause instructions significantly reduce comprehension at speed
Older drivers require longer reading times
So while 2–3 short lines may be fine, paragraph-style text is not considered appropriate for drivers in motion.

The penalties are £160 each so £320 in total for driving down a normal public road, very safely and responsible (apart from missing the wordy signs of course). This reduces by 50% if I pay in the next week or so. Obviously I feel I haven't done anything deliberate, wrong, dangerous or irresponsible. I've just been inadvertently caught out, and the double penalty feels especially harsh.

I need some advice at this point: Is this worth taking further or should I just pay? Is there any chance I would win if I appeal to London Tribunals? Even if I overturn one of the penalties I have to pay the full £160 on the other one, so it would just be a more time consuming way to get to the same end result.

@Hippocrates I clicked your profile but not sure which link you are referring to.

I received 2 PCNs for the same contravention within 13 mins of each other on the same day, travelling through an area I have never driven through. Total amount is £320 for driving down a regular road on a Monday morning (the only time I could make the journey due to working full time).
Both PCNs state the name of the road and are for entering a restricted pedestrian zone. Neither states an exact location, just the name of a long road. Both have a tiny, dark thumbnail showing my car travelling along a normal road for cars.

PCN 1 (Greenford):


PCN 2 (Southall):


I have never even heard of the 'restriction on entering a pedestrian zone' contravention before this and am still not 100% clear on what it is or how to identify it in future.
I understand certain roads near schools become 'pedestrian zones' at certain times, but the roads remain open and look exactly like a road. There may be a sign somewhere with small text, but no actual road traffic sign in a red circle to show you cannot enter.

I cannot find the signs on the 2 roads in Google maps. I have tried to view the evidence online on the official Ealing council PCN portal, but I get an error and clicking on the link they emailed me only opens a blank webpage. So I cannot see where it was, what I did or what kind of sign was there.

I had no idea there was a school in that area, or that there were restrictions or what days or times they would apply.

I think the sign may be in the corner of the dark thumbnails on the PCN, but I can't read it (too small), and it strikes me that would not be readable from a moving vehicle in traffic, especially if turning left into the road. It was also a dark morning, raining and I had my windscreen wipers on. In one photo there is a van on my inside between my car and the sign, so not sure I would have even seen it.

Do I have any case for appealing and not paying?

This feels like pure robbery.