One for the civil connoisseurs at one of our favourite locations, Salter's Hill, Lambeth.
Was this case at the tribunal allowed or refused?
Regardless of the never-ending debate around exactly at what point are you considered "committed" into the restriction (by the time the car driver would have seen the van, reacted and braked to a halt, they'd probably have been in the restriction), the van driver was an aggressive ****. They delayed themselves far more by asserting their perceived "priority", forcing the confrontation and faffing around that ensued, than they would if they'd just allowed the car to complete its traversal of the restriction.
Yes, I have to agree with S T above. Maybe the car driver could have taken it a bit slower just in case this happened.But there's so many aggressive drivers around these days, why cause more problems?
imo the car was in the zone before the van had even fully completed his turn and was going to fast. I wouldn't have reversed.
The appeal was allowed. Yes the van driver went too fast but of course the poor driver with the PCN did gave way by reversing!
2250212089
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. The footage shows that the driver of Mr Nicholson's vehicle approached the give way line with due caution and crossed the line as a van came round the corner from the other direction, travelling at some speed and driven in such a manner as to block the exit of Mr Nicholson's vehicle. The driver of Mr Nicholson's vehicle then reversed to give way to the van.
There is no signage to stop at the give way line. I am satisfied that the driver approached the give way line with caution and was caught unawares by the manner of travel of the van coming from the opposite direction. As Mr Nicholson's vehicle was then reversed to give way, it must follow that the alleged contravention did not occur.
I wonder what the van driver would have done if it were a large vehicle and not a small car? or maybe if it had been me who would not have reversed
