Unjust bus lane violation?

[sceppy]

Caught on camera in a bus lane yards from turning into my street.

Comprehensive appeal shortlist specifically states (by omission) that if I swerve to avoid killing a family by entering a bus lane, I am liable to the fine. In fact ANY safety reason is excluded from appeal. I am not interested in looking for loopholes to avoid a fine or court, A serious safety reason made me enter the bus lane when I did, during an exceptional queue due to road works at the time. Recent meeting with LA reps and police highlighted the safety issue I speak of and as an advanced driver & rider with a full, clean license, I believe the police would support my view.

Can anyone tell me if an appeal would/could be considered/successful in such a case? I can share more/other details if required, but in summary:

Safety issues highlighted by the LA/police was the reason to fall short, by just a few metres, on entering a bus lane into my road, which is on a bend, causing a blind spot.

Why would an LA fine you for being safe or avoiding an accident? I'd pay a few tenners rather than cause injury or more. I'm confused as to why they won't even consider it.

 

Any feedback, advice, experience, especially speedily (as I just have a few days left before court and haven’t yet requested all evidence/video), would be appreciated. Maybe I should wait for court if I can’t appeal to the LA under their strict terms and put my case to a judge?

Cheers,

Steve

Edited September 17, 2013 by honeybee13

[antone]

Cute title, but nah. Let's not.

[sceppy]

Readers, please ignore the last 3 words of the first line/sentence. It related to the thread title which has been moderated/changed, renderinmg the words senseless.

 

Alternatively, if the moderation/site team could remove these 3 words, that's fine.

 

New thread title fine, happy to be moderated.

Edited September 17, 2013 by honeybee13

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Previously edited words have been removed from your post #13. Please don't post them again.

 

HB

[Kiki1]

Why would an LA fine you for being safe or avoiding an accident? I'd pay a few tenners rather than cause injury or more. I'm confused as to why they won't even consider it.

 

Because the contravention that relates to the PCN issue does not take into account any underlying, or mitigating circumstances.

 

You might have have mown somebody down by mounting a pavement to avoid crashing into a bus which was on your side of the road, but the LA have the right to persue you for 'stopping on, or over a footpath, or any part of a road other than a carriageway' whilst you gather your senses, reverse back to free the pedestrian from your bumper, check all other occupants of your vehicle are OK, then go administer first aid to the bus driver with the suspected heart attack.

 

And since you are willing and able to 'pay a few tenners'.....'rather than cause injury', they will take you at your word by fleecing you..

[sceppy]

Hi Honeybee. I do not understand your last sentence. Sounds like I'm being told off for something or being asked not to post something I should not have posted. Is there a misunderstanding?

 

Cheers, Steve

[sceppy]

Hi Kiki1.

 

Thanks for reply.

Is it your view then, that I will be due the fine, whatever? Is this just a general nobody's view (no disrespect) or do you speak with some experience, expertise or authority? Does the area matter (Lewisham in my case). Would a court look at such mitigation which the PCN doesn't? What should/can I do if other than just pay up?

Thanks,

 

Steve

[antone]

Hi Honeybee. I do not understand your last sentence. Sounds like I'm being told off for something or being asked not to post something I should not have posted. Is there a misunderstanding?

 

Cheers, Steve

 

Honeybee removed the words you asked to be removed from your post, and is asking you not to post in this manner again. It's no big deal, these things happen etc. It's just that it's better if thread titles accurately reflect the content of the post.

[sceppy]

The comment was ambiguous (what it referred to) and unwarranted. Any relation to the original moderated title was well and respectively covered previously, in my initial reply. My original title was in no way offensive, merely a ploy to attract more viewers, which I graciously accepted, along with your choice of new thread title, and as you can see, I'm just posting/replying in a normal way. I'm no ciber terrorist you need to be watching and have given you no reason to suspect this.

Thanks,

 

Steve

[antone]

The comment was ambiguous (what it referred to) and unwarranted. Any relation to the original moderated title was well and respectively covered previously, in my initial reply. My original title was in no way offensive, merely a ploy to attract more viewers, which I graciously accepted, along with your choice of new thread title, and as you can see, I'm just posting/replying in a normal way. I'm no ciber terrorist you need to be watching and have given you no reason to suspect this.

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

I know why you chose that thread title. As I said, cute. We can't allow it, but no big deal. I wish I could have let it stand - it was pretty funny.

 

We do not suspect you of being some kind of cyber terrorist, and I struggle to see how Honeybee's comment could be read as suggesting such a thing. Nor are you being watched any more closely than any other poster.

 

Seriously, chill. There's no real problem here. We've all got better things to do with our time than squabble about this.

[Kiki1]

Is it your view then, that I will be due the fine, whatever? Is this just a general nobody's view (no disrespect) or do you speak with some experience, expertise or authority? Does the area matter (Lewisham in my case). Would a court look at such mitigation which the PCN doesn't? What should/can I do if other than just pay up?

Thanks,

 

I doubt it would get anywhere near court (the final stage of one of these is the High Court), and anyway, you have to instigate this following the next round of negotiations which is PATAS. That in itself is a gamble since the adjuducators are apparently just like us, impartial and able to instantly figure out fact from fiction.

 

Edit.

 

Apologies, for some reason I was momentarily transported into a parallel universe.

[sceppy]

Just trolling through other forums. Apparently many LAs have TROs which have exemptions which cover safety issues. How could I access these for Lewisham?

[Michael Browne]

http://davidmarq.com/uploaderv6_1/files/7/Lewisham%20%28Local%20Road%29%20%28Bus%20Priority%29%20Traffic%20Order%202008.pdf

[sceppy]

Yes, just found it myself. Thanks. Points 5.2 a, b, c are all relevant.

Assuming this site is being watched by those who issue PCN notices, in more general terms, would someone raise multiple points, layer them, focus on one (perhaps including other things)?

Is an apology customary (e.g. for needing a video to be taken)? Is there a ballpark length, format? How do I include photos, video if need be (or should I just say that such are available if required? Can I use email or does it need to be posted? If I run over, should I send a summary, saying more to follow very shortly? Do they use common sense to draw conclusions or is it more than their jobsworth and attitude (of defendant/mood of LA) influences decisions more than supporting evidence or safety etc.

[sceppy]

Links to bsuccesful or model appeals would be fine, though an appeal which is very obvious, might be rubbish, yet still get revoked, so keen to see/be advised on a good literary appeal method. If anyone is willing to view my PCN and response very soon, I'd be grateful, but for reasons alluded tgo above, I don't want this being a public thing, yet at least.

 

Thanks again.

[Jamberson]

If you really did enter the bus lane to avoid mowing people down, no-one in their right mind would enforce the fine. If the strength of your defence is the nature of this safety issue you mention, why don't you tell us what happened?

[sceppy]

Because of what I mentioned above. If I don't know how the system works, who is watching and what their motivation is, I'd rather plead the 5th right now. Given/pending that, I'm very willing to share or speak to someone.

[Jamberson]

OK. I just googled "plead the 5th" and found out that it means, "you refuse to answer the question on the ground that your answer might incriminate you".

 

You are anonymous on this forum. I don't see how telling us the circumstances which caused you to enter the bus lane is going to incriminate you, but the bottom line is, if you don't tell, then no-one can tell you whether your case is worth fighting. Up to you, but if you want advice, you have to explain what happened.

[antone]

Because of what I mentioned above. If I don't know how the system works, who is watching and what their motivation is, I'd rather plead the 5th right now. Given/pending that, I'm very willing to share or speak to someone.

 

This forum (and all others on CAG) is monitored by site staff for the purposes of ensuring compliance with forum rules and also because many of us have ended up here through asking for advice with our own consumer issues, and as such can offer advice. We are not friends of debt collectors, local authorities, the DWP or anyone else who might be trying to hassle you.

 

So post what you like, but bear in mind that a) this is a public forum, and we can't control who views your posts and b) if you don't provide useful information, no-one can give you a useful answer.

[sceppy]

In a nutshell, my road is on a bend off the road in question. The bus lane has broken lines at my road, allowing vehicles to cross into my road. Whilst it is not ideal, due to the bend, providing there is no vehicle within close range, using the mirrors and looking over the shoulder would be OK for a good rider/driver.

Points of contention:

Most traffic and violators using the bus lane do so due to ignorance, opportunism, laziness, inattentiveness and nearly always to gain advantage and get further down the road more quickly.

I was turning into the side road and about 3m after the still photo was taken, it was my road.

So why didn’t I just wait those extra few metres?

· There were road works further ahead, causing extended tailbacks past my road entrance.

· To wait in the queue, up to the turning point, with traffic behind (cars, vans, lorries or whatever was there and whatever might come up behind as I waited) would not allow me to see the traffic in the bus lane either over my shoulder or in my offside mirror, when I wanted to turn. The only option would be to move at an angle, further lessening any mirror view and just hope there was no bus, taxi, motorcycle, emergency vehicle or pushbike. It is hardly a game a Russian roulette that should decide this. So, when I saw the queue was up to and beyond my exit, I entered the bus lane at a time and place that there was little bend and a clear view and no traffic. This was not very far from my exit either. The bus lane was clear behind and in front (i.e. my exit to my road was clear and safe).

· So, did I avoid an accident? If crossing a road blindfolded and getting away with it is not causing an accident, then no. Did I avoid a possible accident to the extent that no-one should take such a risk, then yes.

· The LA, neighbor-hood group and SNT police, in a meeti ng at which I was present (minutes available), raised the issue of youths travelling down the very straight I am talking about on in line skates and causing a serious hazard and danger. The police informed us that there was no law that dealt with whether the youths should be on the road or pathway but the youth club organizer said he would monitor them, as some were known to him. Youths have been hanging onto buses going down the very street I speak.

· The bus lane, in the direction of travel I was going, is on a steep downhill slope, attracting greater speeds for skaters, cyclists, joggers on the path which I cross and for normal traffic.

· As well as having a license for most vehicles, LGV, PCV, motorcycle, car etc. (i.e. I understand most road users).I am an advanced rider/driver in 3 categories of vehicle (passed all first time) and have a full, clean license and a logical interest in safety and am trained by the police, so when I say I believe that I did what I did in the interests of safety, I hope that I say so with some credibility. I would be happy to get police advice on whether they view my actions the same as I do, having been taught by the same institution and likely a similar view on road safety.

· I also have a simultaneous video of the incident of my own, proving that I entered the road I claim and was not going further down the road or trying to jump the queue, as I live there.

I’m sure you guys can write this much more clearly and shorter than this. Forgive the length. Any thoughts? The TRO has 3 references in the exceptions clause about safety/avoiding accidents which seem very interesting and relevent.

[Jamberson]

So in a nutshell, you used the bus lane because you would otherwise have been unable to turn in safely, after sitting in the queue.

 

It's a defence, but I'm not sure how it would work out. They might say that if you were unable to turn, then you ought to have driven on, found a safe place to turn around and gone back the other way.

 

There again, I wonder if the de minimus rule might come into play, if it was a minor breach in the interests of common sense. I'm really not sure how it will pan out.

[sceppy]

I think your nutshell is, 'one' way of putting it. 'Hitler wasn't that generally good' is true. Ali was, 'a' boxer, is true. Boxing is noble vs Boxing is 2 people barbarically trying to injure each other and has resulted in death. I guess it's how the adjudicating people see it. I just don't know how they decide on how to view it. If they expect someone to go to extreme and unrealistic (by anyone's standards) lengths to be perfect, then I can't compete as there is always something I could have done instead, e.g. go to a hotel just in case there's a queue/don't use the car etc.

 

A police car, council van, judge, I'm sure would all have done the same and most have (I have CCTV) gone a few metres early, safely to avoid an accident and to avoid a 20 minute wait before you can turn round. Would anyone likewise travel 2 miles or more round a different way to save 10 minutes of waiting in the queue to turn round or would people just do the quick, safe thing and go a few metres early. There is the real world and the theoretical world of obtaining funds, I guess. Do the adjudicators put themselves in the position of those they judge or do different rules apply to mere mortals?

 

P.S. even by going to the next turning point - a roundabout, and coming back on myself, I could not cross into my road safely as the traffic went past my road and I could not see the bus lane traffic. Even if a gap were left for me, I could not see the bus lane, either buses or bikes or skaters and they don't tend to bother noting such a gap or its implications. When the roadworks are not happening, the queue does not tend to go past my road and there are no other roads, so the problem does not exist and as I said, I wasn't motivated by queue jumping - I have footage of me entering the road. In other areas, they have exemption rules on no entry roads (e.g. due to roadworks) for habitants to drive in. I'm sure that if the situation on my road were seen and dealt with, there would have been a rule for residents on my street, (like a temporary sign 20m before my street saying access only for street X habitants, but most policies don't go to such lengths. Maybe they just think it’s better to just to deal with any one off incident as they happen I suppose.

 

N.B. There is another part of the same road where entering the bus lane is crucial to avoid an accident. Should I raise this anywhere? Parked cars legitimately park on the other side, causing cars from the other direction to drive on the wrong (my) side of the road for a while – whether they wait for me or not. If I stop, cars behind will hit me as they are not expecting it. It may well not be my fault, but such a cold, theoretical response will put me in hospital if I listen. Such incidents should be addressed. All traffic users understand that you clearly enter the bus lane, including the police. If the LA saw it, (and I’m sure they drive down the road themselves regularly), they would in practice, amend or excuse it, but in reality/theory, they won’t, unless an accident happens or it is raised officially.

 

Don't understand, 'de minimus'? Do you suggest I just raise every issue I can and hope something sticks, stick to a/the key point? Raise any relevant TROs, plead common sense to revoke it or what? How detailed in evidence should I go at the next point, as it will take a lot of work to get everything ready?

I think I should ask immediately and without prejudice, for any/all their evidence (i.e. the video). Yes?

Thanks again.

 

Steve

[antone]

I don't know about traffic law, but "de minimus" basically means "the law does not concern itself with trivialities".

 

In other words, a minor technical breach of the law done for common sense reasons that most people would accept as sensible should not carry a penalty. I cannot speak to whether this approach would be useful in your case, I'm just explaining the term.

[sceppy]

Thanks. Interesting.

I do appreciate that several people have responded and quickly.

Just want feedback on the following:

How would you appeal? Brief with option to detail more. Attach anything straight away or wait to be asked.

Anything else I should know/be advised on appealing.

Thanks

Steve

[sceppy]

My name is spelt wrong btw. Is this significant?

The TRO's have clear grounds for exclusion, unlike the 5 grounds for appeal on the enforcement notice, which does not refer to any TRO. Is this fair?