Kingston Eden Street Bus Lanes

[green_and_mean]

From PATAS decisions and the one last week! If the adjudicator does not have evidence of the vehicle actually passing the warning sign (camera from rear, in this case), s/he is not going to be convinced a contravention occurred. PATAS require evidence that the signage in place is contemporary to the date and time of the alleged contravention. In the last one, I do know that the camera from the river end did not provide such information.

 

There is a need to show signage is in place but the contravention is being in a bus lane not passing the signs so there needs to be no evidence that the vehicle passed the signs and the contravention can take place without passing any signs.

[HYMN AND MI]

http://www.buslanes.com/

[HYMN AND MI]

There is need to show signage is in place if you look at the decisions. Fact.

[green_and_mean]

There is need to show signage is in place if you look at the decisions. Fact.

 

I know thats why I said it, lol

[green_and_mean]

http://www.buslanes.com/

 

Just because someone has nothing better to do than write a website doesn't mean its fact there are far too many mistakes on that site to even bother listing them.

[HYMN AND MI]

Don't tell me. Tell him then!

[HYMN AND MI]

Just because someone has nothing better to do than write a website doesn't mean its fact there are far too many mistakes on that site to even bother listing them.

IS THAT SO, REALLY?

Sat 19 Sep 09: Contravention DateEden Street: Location

Being in a bus lane during the hours of operation: Contravention

 

 

Adjudicator's Decision

 

The Adjudicator, having considered the evidence from the Appellant and the Authority, has allowed the appeal on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order or regulation.

 

 

The reasons for the Adjudicator's decision are attached.

 

 

The Adjudicator directs the Authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

 

 

 

 

Adjudicator's Reasons

 

***********raises numerous issues in relation to this appeal. One of these is that he states that adequate and proper signage was not in place at the time of this alleged contravention.

 

 

Following the adjournment I have now seen the CCTV footage. This shows*******'s car in the bus lane driving towards the camera. The footage does not show any of the bus lane signs or any of the signs that ************would have driven past before entering the bus lane. The local authority relies on a map of Eden Street that has been annotated to show the location of cameras and the bus lane and other traffic signs. However, I have not seen any evidence that the signage was in place on 3rd October 2009. Therefore I allow this appeal.

 

 

Teresa Brennan

 

(I have edited this so as to preserve anonymity of the driver)

[green_and_mean]

IS THAT SO, REALLY?

Sat 19 Sep 09: Contravention DateEden Street: Location

Being in a bus lane during the hours of operation: Contravention

 

 

Adjudicator's Decision

 

The Adjudicator, having considered the evidence from the Appellant and the Authority, has allowed the appeal on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order or regulation.

 

 

The reasons for the Adjudicator's decision are attached.

 

 

The Adjudicator directs the Authority to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

 

 

 

 

Adjudicator's Reasons

 

***********raises numerous issues in relation to this appeal. One of these is that he states that adequate and proper signage was not in place at the time of this alleged contravention.

 

 

Following the adjournment I have now seen the CCTV footage. This shows*******'s car in the bus lane driving towards the camera. The footage does not show any of the bus lane signs or any of the signs that ************would have driven past before entering the bus lane. The local authority relies on a map of Eden Street that has been annotated to show the location of cameras and the bus lane and other traffic signs. However, I have not seen any evidence that the signage was in place on 3rd October 2009. Therefore I allow this appeal.

 

 

Teresa Brennan

 

(I have edited this so as to preserve anonymity of the driver)

 

This is getting very tiresome!! The footage meeds to show signage is in place on the day as I have already stated, it does NOT have to show the vehicle driving past it. The verdict you have wasted your time posting states there was no footage of the signs he WOULD have passed it does NOT state there is no footage of him driving past the sign. Feel free to carry on trying to prove me wrong though I'm sure a few weeks trawling websites gives you far more knowledge than being a qualified city and guilds CCTV trainer/assesor!

[HYMN AND MI]

This is getting very tiresome!! The footage meeds to show signage is in place on the day as I have already stated, it does NOT have to show the vehicle driving past it. The verdict you have wasted your time posting states there was no footage of the signs he WOULD have passed it does NOT state there is no footage of him driving past the sign. Feel free to carry on trying to prove me wrong though I'm sure a few weeks trawling websites gives you far more knowledge than being a qualified city and guilds CCTV trainer/assesor!

 

The decision was posted to encourage others who have just received a PCN. As for your interpretation of my motives, that, as usual, is your ptroblem.

[green_and_mean]

The decision was posted to encourage others who have just received a PCN. As for your interpretation of my motives, that, as usual, is your ptroblem.

 

yeah right!

[RBKsuck]

Many points here. The main one being the fact that RBK submitted to the Adjudicator only a diagram/map showing signage and markings, and no other evidence as apparently the video evidence did not show the status.

 

It appears the entry camera is not capable, on any day or week, of showing the sign status. It could be in Night Club mode, defaced or removed, therefore a diagram is not evidence that ANY signage or markings were in place at the time.

[HYMN AND MI]

Bus priority: the way ahead:

 

Contra-flow bus lanes

Contra-flow bus lanes allow buses to travel against the main direction of traffic flow.

Cyclists may be allowed to use contra-flow bus lanes. If cyclists are allowed to use a particular contra-flow bus lane, then the cycle symbol must be shown on both the appropriate signs and the lane markings.

[HYMN AND MI]

yeah right!

 

Yes, right. As the exemptions have not been repealed, does this invalidate the TMO? Also, if someone were to drive down this lane next week to drop a passenger off/pick up, would that be a valid ground if it went to PATAS? I am sorely tempted. This is a serious question for your professional expertise. They cannot remove the exemptions by next week, can they?

[HYMN AND MI]

As you cannot post, under PAYMENT SLIP, what does it state re Amount Outstanding, please? (Addressed to two new users.)

[green_and_mean]

Yes, right. As the exemptions have not been repealed, does this invalidate the TMO? Also, if someone were to drive down this lane next week to drop a passenger off/pick up, would that be a valid ground if it went to PATAS? I am sorely tempted. This is a serious question for your professional expertise. They cannot remove the exemptions by next week, can they?

 

Exemptions cannot be removed without the correct consultation and notification in the press as with all traffic orders. The exemptions are ridiculous and an oversight normally they allow you to pull into a bus lane for approx 20m to drop off but as this is a contra flow lane you would have to drive down the lane so as I mentioned some weeks ago its another point for PATAS.

[green_and_mean]

As you cannot post, under PAYMENT SLIP, what does it state re Amount Outstanding, please? (Addressed to two new users.)

 

Payment slip arguments have already been dismissed by PATAS as they are not part of the PCN.

[HYMN AND MI]

Has been mentioned! Do they invalidate the TMO, therefore nullifying the PCN and enforcement process?

[HYMN AND MI]

Payment slip arguments have already been dismissed by PATAS as they are not part of the PCN.

 

I accept they are not part of the PCN; however, they state £60 is the outstanding amount without further qualification. IMO, this is quite possible to create prejudice, particularly if recipient pays after the 14 day discount period which is not stated on the slip. There are examples of better worded slips, with the caveat re 14 day reduction period. RBK's do not contain such information. Amount should be stated as £120, etc as per PCN main body, surely. It must state the same?

Edited February 5, 2011 by HYMN AND MI

[green_and_mean]

I accept they are not part of the PCN; however, they state £60 is the outstanding amount without further qualification. IMO, this is quite possible to create prejudice, particularly if recipient pays after the 14 day discount period which is not stated on the slip. There are examples of better worded slips, with the caveat re 14 day reduction period. RBK's do not contain such information. Amount should be stated as £120, etc as per PCN main body, surely. It must state the same?

 

When the document is served it is lower penalty that is due, the PCN explains the payment process so whilst its not exactly perfect it has been shown to comply with the law.

[HYMN AND MI]

OK, Some more thoughts.................

 

This is only true for the discount period and there are many reasons why people may not pay until after the discount period has elapsed. It has been decided in previous PATAS appeals that the payment slip isn't part of the PCN and it is true that the PCN gives the full information of full amount and discount but as the payment slip is detachable, it must be expected to be detached.

It is also a piece of paperwork that flows from the PCN and as such cannot provide incorrect or misleading information. It can be expected to be read and acted on in isolation to the PCN and it is unsafe for the recipient of the PCN to do so.

Someone may decide to pay, detach the slip, even write a cheque early in the process but for whatever reason not post it. When they remember, they check the slip and see amount outstanding £60, rely on that statement and post the slip and payment, secure that they have now settled the charge. In reality they haven't and the next piece of paperwork may now be a lawfully issued Enforcement Notice despite them having paid exactly what is advised on the payment slip, the Amount Outstanding. As such the amount due simply showing the discounted value with no information regarding time period or that it is the discount value if paid in the required period, is unsafe, prejudicial and must invalidate the PCN.

 

Thoughts?

 

Edited February 6, 2011 by HYMN AND MI

[TheBogsDollocks]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to appeal my pcn ref. KT#### on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order.

The Kingston Council has issued the PCN using the London local authorities act 1996 to enfoce the contravention 'being in a bus lane'. The LLA 1996 describes a Bus lane as follows:

“bus lane” has the meaning given in regulation 23 of the [Part I of S.I. 1994/1519.] Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation.

The contra flow bus lane in Eden street is not correctly signed as a Bus Lane using the TSRGD 1994 or 2003 regulations which states.

 

23. - (1) In the signs shown in the permitted variants of diagrams 877 and 878 in which the expression "bus lane" appears and in diagrams 962, 962.2, 963, 963.2, 964, 1048 and 1048.1, "bus lane" has the meaning given in paragraph (2).

 

(2) "Bus lane" in the signs referred to in paragraph (1) means a traffic lane reserved for -

 

 

• (a) motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);
   
  (b) local buses not so constructed or adapted; and
   
  © pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.
  

The Bus lane in Eden street uses the TSRGD diag. 953 sign to indicate a route provided for Buses and cycles and varied to include taxis. This sign is not included in the legal definition of a bus lane for the puroses of the LLA 1996 and should be enforced using the LLA&tfl act 2003 as a moving traffic contravention. Kingston council has no legal authority to enforce a bus and cycle route using LLA 1996 legislation.

 

This thread has been ongoing for a while but only now have I got round to giving it consideration. I see where you are coming from G&M and fully understand its merit. However, if I can play devil’s advocate this is how I would counter in regard to the issue of LLA 1996 v LLA&TfL 2003 if I were Kingston. I’m not saying this counter argument is definitive but such an exercise may help you to sharpen your argument. It’s always good to cover all angles.

 

The LLA Act 1996 considers a “bus lane” to be that as defined by regulation 23 TSRGD 2002. Regulation 23 does not insist that a bus lane is identified by one or more of the signs referenced. All it is saying is that where the expression (i.e. the words) “bus lane” appears on a sign referenced then it is to denote;

 

a traffic lane reserved for—

(a)motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

(b)local buses not so constructed or adapted; and

©pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.

 

It is the council’s opinion that it is the above definition that is being alluded to by the LLA Act 1996 and not an insistence that a bus lane is only lawfully a bus lane if it is accompanied by one or more of the referenced signs given in regulation 23. As the sign to diagram 953 does not contain the expression “bus lane” there was no need for it to be included in regulation 23. This omission does not however mean that the council is not lawfully permitted to use the sign to diagram 953 to indicate a bus lane and enforce it under the 1996 Act.

 

Paragraph 4(2) of the LLA Act 1996 is clear when a penalty charge can be issued under the Act;

 

(2) For the purposes of this Part of this Act, a penalty charge is payable to a borough council with respect to a vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person in charge of the vehicle acts in contravention of or fails to comply with an order under section 6 or 9 or regulations under section 12 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in so far as provision is made thereby for the reservation of all or part of a carriageway of a road as a bus lane.

 

The council has made an order under s.6 of the RTRA 1984 that reserves a traffic lane for buses. Having made a lawful order the council has a statutory duty to place traffic signs that convey the effect of the order and the council believes that diagram 953 does adequately convey the effect that the traffic lane adjacent to the sign is reserved for bus use.

 

The council can find no statutory provision that prohibits the use of a section 36 traffic sign (such as diagram 953) to enforce bus lane contraventions under the 1996 Act in addition to its ability to enforce moving traffic contraventions under the 2003 Act.

 

 

Like I said this is just an exercise to see how your argument can be sharpened to counter should such a reply come from Kingston.

Edited March 19, 2011 by TheBogsDollocks

[HYMN AND MI]

Does anyone know what the official time period is for PATAS to take to decide an appeal? We are now 7 weeks and 4 days and still no decision on one case.

[HYMN AND MI]

Apparently, there isn't one; however, here is a recent case................

 

Case Reference: 2100638489

Appellant: Mr *********

Authority: Kingston Upon Thames

VRM: **********

PCN: KT55279652

Contravention Date: 25 May 2010

Contravention Time: 17:25

Contravention Location: Eden Street

Penalty Amount: £120.00 Contravention: Being in a bus lane

Decision Date: 19 Mar 2011

Adjudicator: Kevin Moore

Appeal Decision: Allowed

Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.

Reasons: The issue is whether the vehicle YA53DDN was in a bus lane in Eden Street.

The appellant has made a number of submissions in relation to this matter. I so no merit in dealing with every single submission bearing in mind my findings in relation to what I consider to be the primary issues that require resolution. Is fair to point out that in my view the Authority has properly dealt with a number of what I shall term the more technical and less significant issues raised by the appellant. The Authority properly explains that the mention of Diagram 953 in the 2003 Act has a wider application than the use to which it is put in indicating a contra-flow bus lane. The Authority also properly explain that the fact that Diagram 953 not using the words "bus lane" demonstrates why it is not referred to in the Regulation, despite the clear prescription of its use in the Traffic Signs Manual indicating a contra-flow bus lane.

I have considered all the evidence in the round, including the CCTV evidence. There is no reliable evidence before me showing this appellant driving his vehicle in a bus lane. It is only from the frank and honest evidence given by the appellant that he has conceded that he entered a bus lane [the CCTV evidence does not show this], but he did so because there was no fore-warning of the bus lane. The Authority in its Case Summary has submitted that signage was clearly visible to the appellant before approaching the bus lane. However, there is no reliable evidence before me to support the Authority submission. The appellant claimed that he did not see any signage until he got to the bus lane, and I am satisfied that there is nothing in the evidence before me to demonstrate that there was adequate signage before the appellant reached the bus lane. The CCTV evidence whilst providing visual images of roads leading onto the bus lane, does not appear to include the road and the direction hat the appellant was driving down as he approached the bus lane, and I therefore cannot be satisfied that the signage was adequate and visible.

In these particular circumstances I am not satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued.

I accordingly allow the appeal.

Edited March 31, 2011 by HYMN AND MI

[HYMN AND MI]

There are also these cases: 2110100606; 211009910A; 2110098322; 2110128172.

[smkhairat]

Hi,

 

Yesterday i received a Penalty charge notice (£120) from Royal Borough of Kingston for an alleged Code 34J (Being in a Bus Lane), the date of this notice is 29/03/2011.

 

It says:

"the alleged contravention was noted by camera operator number KT074 who was observing real-time footage from the CCTV camera taken at the time stated. The alleged contravention is supported by videotaped evidence"

 

I have only been driving 7 months and ofcourse I know that it is illegal to drive in a bus lane, however I didn't even realise I entered a bus lane until i received this shocking letter. I also realise that ignorance will not get me out scott free but I am an honest and law abiding citizen and wouldnt even dream of driving in a bus lane.

 

Anyway i decided to carry out some research and came to notice that there are many other people who have had PCNs issued for bus lane contravention in Eden Street and everyone complaning how the signs are not clear and the whole system is very confusing.

 

My question is: should i just pay up and avoid the hassle of being taken to court or should I can for video evidence and then appeal it on the grounds of improper signs and road markings?

 

Someone on this forum mentioned a template letter to send to RBK stating that the bus lane is not enforceable due to LLA1196 or something aliong those lines.

 

 

Please any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.