Jump to content


Kingston Eden Street Bus Lanes


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2148 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

A bailiff isnt always what you see on the BBC1 show and I'm pretty sure they will give you time to pay it. As Hymn and Mi says I also assume that you want it reset so you can appeal it properly?

 

Yes that's right, reset it, as long as they agree to do so - thank you all for your reassurance

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 394
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

This should be one of them:

 

953 and 953.2 are correct for start of contraflow. The positioning is wrong to the wrong legend. RBK originally proposed 1048.4.....DfT did not approve and did not suggest which one in lieu.........RBK then use 1048 (apparently on "verbal" authorisation)..............which is then corroborated in writing yonks later! This is an objective statement of the facts!

 

However, 1048.1, which is similar to 1048.4 (to correct a previous message!) should be the one in place and which, evidently, the DfT would not allow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read the regs - 953 is for a bus only lane (which i guess by loose definition a bus lane could be) but the 1048 version which should be used should state ONLY (1048.3/1048.4) - however on the approach from the opposite end the 960 sign is specifically for a contraflow bus lane - and then 1048 or 1048.1 should have been used - so the upright signage conflicts with itself under the legislation - regardless of what the DfT have approved!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If its legal to use the 953 for 'being in a bus lane' the Council are onto a goldmine since they can issue a PCN for contravening the sign under the LLA 2003 then a few seconds later issue another for being 'in a bus lane' under the LLA 1996. Why would the DofT and HM govt draft legislation to make contravening the 953 sign subject to penalty in London if it was alreay covered under the already in place 1996 LLA??

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it not the presence of the 'only' sign that stops it being applicable? Since this make is a bus only route rather than a lane so the road markings should be buses only rather than bus lane? Not 100% just trying to get the arguments together to throw at RBK?

 

I am learning more and more that even if you are governed by legislation and you are employed in a department which relies on it this does not mean that you know how to interpret it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it not the presence of the 'only' sign that stops it being applicable? Since this make is a bus only route rather than a lane so the road markings should be buses only rather than bus lane? Not 100% just trying to get the arguments together to throw at RBK?

 

I am learning more and more that even if you are governed by legislation and you are employed in a department which relies on it this does not mean that you know how to interpret it!

 

From what I have read, use of the sign 'BUSES ONLY' is incorrect also, ticketfighter make a big point of it on their website and Chapter 3 states that the road should read 'BUS ONLY' (maybe because being a longer word, 'BUSES' is more difficult to read at a glance?) This was going to be my original point of attack as Google Earth shows this Bus Lane (or whatever it is) as having 'BUSES ONLY' written on it. After a trip there the other night however, of course the council have changed all the signage including that on the road. I have tried to find out when the 'BUSES ONLY' was tarmaced over with red and replaced with 'BUS LANE', but have so far had no luck. It doesn't look as though it has been done for very long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I have read, use of the sign 'BUSES ONLY' is incorrect also, ticketfighter make a big point of it on their website and Chapter 3 states that the road should read 'BUS ONLY' (maybe because being a longer word, 'BUSES' is more difficult to read at a glance?) This was going to be my original point of attack as Google Earth shows this Bus Lane (or whatever it is) as having 'BUSES ONLY' written on it. After a trip there the other night however, of course the council have changed all the signage including that on the road. I have tried to find out when the 'BUSES ONLY' was tarmaced over with red and replaced with 'BUS LANE', but have so far had no luck. It doesn't look as though it has been done for very long.

 

It said 'BUS LANE' at the time of your alleged contravention - but the TURN RIGHT and arrow was NO LEFT TURN AHEAD!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kingstons argument is that originally both this and Brook St were not enforceable by the Council as it was a Police matter as they were and essentially still are marked as Bus Only routes and could only be enforced by RBK if they used LLA 2003 powers. The Council is reluctant to enforce using LLA 2003 since it would mean they would take responsibility for ALL moving traffic offences (covered by LLA 2003) away from the Met which they for reasons unknown probably costs do not wish to do. Since they cannot selectively use the 2003 regs they are stuck with the 1996 regs. Their supposedly cunning solution was to change Eden st from a 2 way street with cars prohibited from one side to a one way street with buses permitted to drive the wrong way up a one way street. This to me is pure bullsh#t as the signage is still the same, the traffic flow is still the same, just calling it a 'bus lane' in a trafic order does not in my view make it a bus lane. If its that simple why don't they do the same with Brook st which is still Policed by the Met?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you 100% on that (that it said Bus Lane back in May)? I did think as much. I think what I actually did, was rather than carrying on into the bus lane (or whatever it is) instead of turning right, I turned left into it from Union Street after leaving the multi storey. The signs weren't clear and I didn't realise what I had done.

 

I read on another thread that as it stands now, this section of road just simply isn't a Bus Lane, therefore how can a penalty be issued for contravening it? I can't help but think that this is probably the best line of defence, rather than trying to say that the bike symbol is bigger than the taxi (or whatever the reasons are for the signage being wrong), I think that could be clutching at straws.

 

Other than that I am just going to pay it and forget about the sorry state of affairs - it is giving me a headache

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you 100% on that (that it said Bus Lane back in May)? I did think as much. I think what I actually did, was rather than carrying on into the bus lane (or whatever it is) instead of turning right, I turned left into it from Union Street after leaving the multi storey. The signs weren't clear and I didn't realise what I had done.

 

I read on another thread that as it stands now, this section of road just simply isn't a Bus Lane, therefore how can a penalty be issued for contravening it? I can't help but think that this is probably the best line of defence, rather than trying to say that the bike symbol is bigger than the taxi (or whatever the reasons are for the signage being wrong), I think that could be clutching at straws.

 

Other than that I am just going to pay it and forget about the sorry state of affairs - it is giving me a headache

 

The thread you refer to was my defence and in my opinion the best defence (although others continue to disagree) the trouble with signage issues is that adjudicators have often been shown to allow signage that is not 100% compliant but sufficiently conveys the restriction. The argument that is not a bus lane has not resulting in anyone paying a PCN as yet and it has been used on several occasions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The thread you refer to was my defence and in my opinion the best defence (although others continue to disagree) the trouble with signage issues is that adjudicators have often been shown to allow signage that is not 100% compliant but sufficiently conveys the restriction. The argument that is not a bus lane has not resulting in anyone paying a PCN as yet and it has been used on several occasions.

 

Are you Philip then? So basically the best point to raise is; the contravention of a Bus Lane cannot occur when a Bus Lane is not in existence, the area in question is in fact a Bus Gate, and therefore Code 34J is under which the PCN was issued is invalid?

 

It is worth mentioning that the remainder of this stretch and 'Bus Lane' is black tarmac, not red (as Bus Lanes are defined) The red paint only stretches the width of a narrow zebra crossing - because it isn't a Bus Lane and so on

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, fsd is, and I am and I have fotos. If you pay, you will be joining the 99% who do so; if you don't, you will be joining the 1%, of which at least 60% win. This is winnable, particularly if they send you an enforcement notice as flawed as fsd's. I won and so have others, though the reasons may be a little murky at present as to why!

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is from the mini soliloquy that they did wrote!: "......the possibility of enforcing restrictions marked with 953 under moving traffic powers does not preclude enforcement under other legislation."

 

I guess the govt must have been bored the day they drafted the LLA 2003 and thought they'd just write a new bit of law just for the fun of it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...