PCN Bus Lane - Camden

[propertyboy]

Hi All

I received the attached PCN for driving in a bus lane last week.

The signage wasn't initially clear, and as soon as I realised I was in a bus lane (after about 10 meters) I exited (as evidenced by the photographs).

Is there any realistic way one can find a way of getting off?

Thanks very much

property_boy

PCN Camden.pdf

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

In what way was the signage unclear?

[propertyboy]

There was no sign when you immediately entered the bus lane, it was placed approximately 5-8 meters later.

 

Thanks

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

OK that gives some hope.

 

Take a look at thi thread:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/139627-bus-lane-pcn.html

I went into signage matters in some lengths on this appeal (which was won for different reasons) but the links or references may take you to the bit where the signage requirements are set out.

 

I would go back (if you can) with a camera and take photos of the approach to show no sign in advance of the bus lane.

[sailor sam]

Ive just had a look on Google and there is a sign before the start of the bus lane on the corner of Montegue Place. The bus lane appears to start in Bedford Square and continues into Bloomsbury Street. See below.

 

bloomsbury street london - Google Maps

[propertyboy]

Yes there is a bus lane after Bedford Square.

I was caught just after Great Russell Street, which is where the bus lane suddenly switches over to the other side of the road!

I will check today to see if it is sign-posted properly.

It probably is, but anyone who has driven in this area on a Saturday night, will know how manic it is, and how slow the traffic moves. Its literally bumper-to-bumper with every vehicle imaginable, which makes it even more difficult. It was a genuine mistake!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Yes there is a bus lane after Bedford Square.

I was caught just after Great Russell Street, which is where the bus lane suddenly switches over to the other side of the road!

I will check today to see if it is sign-posted properly.

It probably is, but anyone who has driven in this area on a Saturday night, will know how manic it is, and how slow the traffic moves. Its literally bumper-to-bumper with every vehicle imaginable, which makes it even more difficult. It was a genuine mistake!

 

And that's the bit that google doesn't go down!

But the picture does show a sign and it also seems to show an absence of deflection arrows on the road, particularly important here. The other point is that the bus itself appears to have ignored the bus lane! It's not obliged to be in the bus lane but it all adds to an inadequate signage defence.

[propertyboy]

And that's the bit that google doesn't go down!

But the picture does show a sign and it also seems to show an absence of deflection arrows on the road, particularly important here. The other point is that the bus itself appears to have ignored the bus lane! It's not obliged to be in the bus lane but it all adds to an inadequate signage defence.

 

Exactly!! The bus being in the other lane confused me, especially as the bus lane had been on the other side of the road the whole way down Bloomsbury Street.

 

What exactly do you mean by 'deflection arrows'? I have had a look on TfLs website, but have been unable to find a clear example...

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Exactly!! The bus being in the other lane confused me, especially as the bus lane had been on the other side of the road the whole way down Bloomsbury Street.

 

What exactly do you mean by 'deflection arrows'? I have had a look on TfLs website, but have been unable to find a clear example...

 

Don't expect the TFL website to give anything to help.

 

Look at the thread that I linked to and look at this paragraph.

 

Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual states in paragraph 17.7

“Deflection arrows to diagram 1014 should be placed 15 m and 30 m upstream of the start of the taper. The arrows should be 4.5 m long for speed limits up to 40 mph, 6 m for 50 or 60 mph, and 9 m for 70 mph.”

 

Then look at this:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads/tss/tsmanual/trafficsignsmanualchapter5.pdf

 

It's not law but this is all about making an argument and a case. It can also be about influencing that this is just one not worth fighting.

 

Also, remember that although a sign may or may not be present in google, that is not evidence as to what was there when the contravention was alleged to have occurred so take your own photos.

 

I would also suggest that you consider adding a "vague locus" challenge which is referred to later on in my linked thread.

[propertyboy]

Bernie - thanks for your help.

 

I will send off a letter today (recorded delivery of course), with all asssociated evidence.

 

I will let you know how I get on.

[sailor sam]

Yes there is a bus lane after Bedford Square.

 

I was caught just after Great Russell Street, which is where the bus lane suddenly switches over to the other side of the road!

 

I will check today to see if it is sign-posted properly.

 

It probably is, but anyone who has driven in this area on a Saturday night, will know how manic it is, and how slow the traffic moves. Its literally bumper-to-bumper with every vehicle imaginable, which makes it even more difficult. It was a genuine mistake!

 

Your comments suggests you know the area and thus should be aware of the bus lane so how can it be 'a genuine mistake'?

 

However, I am a stickler for correct markings/signage so if your 'mistake' is down to inadequate signage then of course you should appeal. If you are sucsessful then the council will no doubt put things right..... eventually.

[propertyboy]

Your comments suggests you know the area and thus should be aware of the bus lane so how can it be 'a genuine mistake'?

 

However, I am a stickler for correct markings/signage so if your 'mistake' is down to inadequate signage then of course you should appeal. If you are sucsessful then the council will no doubt put things right..... eventually.

 

I do not know the area, however using a map it wasnt difficult to work out!

[sailor sam]

I do not know the area, however using a map it wasnt difficult to work out!

 

What map shows its 'manic' on a Saturday night?

 

My freind, if this was to end up in court, I hope you don't try that one under cross examination!

[propertyboy]

What map shows its 'manic' on a Saturday night?

 

My freind, if this was to end up in court, I hope you don't try that one under cross examination!

 

Knowing Central London, and knowing this particular street are 2 very different things.

 

In addition, even if one said they "know the area well", does that mean you should be able to identify where every bus lane is???

[sailor sam]

Knowing Central London, and knowing this particular street are 2 very different things.

 

In addition, even if one said they "know the area well", does that mean you should be able to identify where every bus lane is???

 

I don't know. And it's not me you need to convince. My point is a court (if it gets that far) my argue aginst your claim that the signage is inadequate if they consider you were aware of the bus lane. I agree that the signage and markings should be correct BUT you would certainly 'shoot yourself in the foot' if you say one minute it was a 'genuine mistake' and then be able to demonstrate you use this road regular enough to know what its like on a Saturday night and thus you would be aware of the bus lane! I wouldn't put this info in your appeal if I was you!

 

Catch my drift?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

What map shows its 'manic' on a Saturday night?

 

My freind, if this was to end up in court, I hope you don't try that one under cross examination!

 

I think I agree with the sentiment that OP appears to show some level of familarity with the area which could undermine the credibility of the "it was just a mistake" argument.

 

However, (and this is just a gentle poke for fun ) the same could be said of your quoted post in relation to your credibility as this does not go to court. Although PATAS operate a judicial process it is not a court hearing and there are no powers of cross examination.

 

Should the decision then be reviewed that is still not a court hearing and in the highly unlikely case that the LA took it to judicial review (which would be in a court) it would be a matter between the LA and the Adjudicator and highly unlikely to involve the motorist being called and cross examined as a witness.

[sailor sam]

I think I agree with the sentiment that OP appears to show some level of familarity with the area which could undermine the credibility of the "it was just a mistake" argument.

 

However, (and this is just a gentle poke for fun ) the same could be said of your quoted post in relation to your credibility as this does not go to court. Although PATAS operate a judicial process it is not a court hearing and there are no powers of cross examination.

 

Should the decision then be reviewed that is still not a court hearing and in the highly unlikely case that the LA took it to judicial review (which would be in a court) it would be a matter between the LA and the Adjudicator and highly unlikely to involve the motorist being called and cross examined as a witness.

 

Bernie, I know this won't go to court! I was using the example to get the point across to the OP! He clearly knows the area well enough to know what its like on a Saturday night so obviously he should know about the bus lane! I'm sure this will prejudice his case in some way if the adjudicator becomes aware of this which is why I was advising him this way.

 

Personally, I dont know why I'm wasting my time advising people who clearly flout the rules and then when they get caught come on this forum to get help from the likes of us to get away with their 'genuine mistakes' as they call them!

 

Don't see why to have to question my credibility, i'm not the one trying to pull a fast one here!

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Bernie, I know this won't go to court! I was using the example to get the point across to the OP! He clearly knows the area well enough to know what its like on a Saturday night so obviously he should know about the bus lane! I'm sure this will prejudice his case in some way if the adjudicator becomes aware of this which is why I was advising him this way.

 

Personally, I dont know why I'm wasting my time advising people who clearly flout the rules and then when they get caught come on this forum to get help from the likes of us to get away with their 'genuine mistakes' as they call them!

 

Don't see why to have to question my credibility, i'm not the one trying to pull a fast one here!

 

If you feel that people, by their conduct have lost the moral authority to challenge the imposition of the penalty you are absolutely entitled to do so and IMHO the best course of action is not to get involved in the debate.

 

OTOH I have a view that LAs take a gamble when they are slack in their enforcement processes (including the signage of restrictions). They do so because they are balancing the cost of being absolutely watertight with the fact that for (probably quite a lot) less they can collect most of the money as most people will just pay up.

 

My personal view tends to be to challenge everything. If everyone else did so the system would collapse. If I were to do a cost benefit analysis to myself of challenging I doubt that it would be financially worthwhile - I'd have been better off just paying the discounted rate. But I take pleasure in beating petty oficialdom!

 

As for the credibility point, if a post contains a blatant inaccuracy it raises the possibility that the rest may also be doubtful. You made a great point about not showing local knowledge and claiming a mistake which while IMHO not a fatal issue is a wise pitfall to avoid but then IMV undermined yourself with talk of courts and cross examination.

[propertyboy]

If you feel that people, by their conduct have lost the moral authority to challenge the imposition of the penalty you are absolutely entitled to do so and IMHO the best course of action is not to get involved in the debate.

 

OTOH I have a view that LAs take a gamble when they are slack in their enforcement processes (including the signage of restrictions). They do so because they are balancing the cost of being absolutely watertight with the fact that for (probably quite a lot) less they can collect most of the money as most people will just pay up.

 

My personal view tends to be to challenge everything. If everyone else did so the system would collapse. If I were to do a cost benefit analysis to myself of challenging I doubt that it would be financially worthwhile - I'd have been better off just paying the discounted rate. But I take pleasure in beating petty oficialdom!

 

As for the credibility point, if a post contains a blatant inaccuracy it raises the possibility that the rest may also be doubtful. You made a great point about not showing local knowledge and claiming a mistake which while IMHO not a fatal issue is a wise pitfall to avoid but then IMV undermined yourself with talk of courts and cross examination.

 

Thank you both for your responses. I fully appreciate the point regarding "knowing the area well", and will ensure that this isnt put into the appeal letter.

 

I will keep you updated with the LAs response...

 

Thanks

[lamma]

ticketfighter has a lot of good information on bus lanes

[sailor sam]

As for the credibility point, if a post contains a blatant inaccuracy it raises the possibility that the rest may also be doubtful. You made a great point about not showing local knowledge and claiming a mistake which while IMHO not a fatal issue is a wise pitfall to avoid but then IMV undermined yourself with talk of courts and cross examination.

 

My post(s) did not contain any 'blatant inaccuracies'. I purposely used a court cross examination example to demonstrate that the argument the OP was making was totally flawed and contradictory and as such he would of been 'torn to pieces' in such circumstances. I don't think I had stated that the case would ACTUALLY end up in cout as I said in my earlier post.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

My post(s) did not contain any 'blatant inaccuracies'. I purposely used a court cross examination example to demonstrate that the argument the OP was making was totally flawed and contradictory and as such he would of been 'torn to pieces' in such circumstances. I don't think I had stated that the case would ACTUALLY end up in cout as I said in my earlier post.

 

What you said was:

 

My freind, if this was to end up in court, I hope you don't try that one under cross examination!

 

And perhaps leads one down the path of thinking that you are saying that it could end up in court.

[sailor sam]

Perhaps it does, but as you have high-lighted, I used the term IF it was to end up in court. I was merely demonstrating how the OP's argument could be challenged and I thought using the term 'cross examination' was the best way of getting the point accross to him. If he says 'it was a genuine mistake' that he ended up in a bus lane (which suggests he is unfamiliar with the road) and then discribes the road as being 'Manic' on a Saturday night, would an adjudicator see through his 'mistake' and perhaps have a little less sympothy? Have you got it now?

[green_and_mean]

The adjudicator cannot allow mitigation so anything such as I got lost, it was dark, lots of traffic on road is irrelevant anyway. The OP clearly drove down the bus lane past both a sign in the bus lane and the road markings stating 'bus lane' so unless the signage before the lane is missing or the paperwork is messed up he will end up paying.