Appealing a PCN
Discussion
Got back last night to find a PCN on the mat, for driving on the right of a keep left sign. So wondering if I have any grounds for appeal.
The circumstances are that I was driving along an urban street which has a number of traffic calming measures. As I was approaching the traffic island in question, I spotted an unlit cyclist. There wasn't enough time for me to brake before I would be alongside him, and rather than try and manoeuvre round them in the confined space by the traffic island, I went right. And as luck would have it, there was a camera.
My description makes it sound like this was calm and planned, but actually, it was a real brown trouser moment, and at the time I thought I was lucky to avoid hitting the cyclist. Thinking it through, I can't see what I could have done differently. I was driving within the speed limit (20 zone) and I genuinely did not see them until too late.
I've attached the image from the CCTV. I've highlighted the cyclist because he is pretty hard to spot otherwise.
Have I got grounds to appeal, or is it my fault for not expecting the unexpected?
The circumstances are that I was driving along an urban street which has a number of traffic calming measures. As I was approaching the traffic island in question, I spotted an unlit cyclist. There wasn't enough time for me to brake before I would be alongside him, and rather than try and manoeuvre round them in the confined space by the traffic island, I went right. And as luck would have it, there was a camera.
My description makes it sound like this was calm and planned, but actually, it was a real brown trouser moment, and at the time I thought I was lucky to avoid hitting the cyclist. Thinking it through, I can't see what I could have done differently. I was driving within the speed limit (20 zone) and I genuinely did not see them until too late.
I've attached the image from the CCTV. I've highlighted the cyclist because he is pretty hard to spot otherwise.
Have I got grounds to appeal, or is it my fault for not expecting the unexpected?
Assuming that is what happened then it has to be worth an appeal letter.
My old man got a PCN for running a red light a few years back; he wrote a letter back explaining the circumstances (another car right up his arse, braking would have definitely caused an accident). They must have reviewed the photograph as it was obvious there was another car tight behind him (also jumped the light, but camera couldn't catch his plate due to how close he was to my dad's car).
They let him off in the end. Could have been luck, but worth trying anyway.
My old man got a PCN for running a red light a few years back; he wrote a letter back explaining the circumstances (another car right up his arse, braking would have definitely caused an accident). They must have reviewed the photograph as it was obvious there was another car tight behind him (also jumped the light, but camera couldn't catch his plate due to how close he was to my dad's car).
They let him off in the end. Could have been luck, but worth trying anyway.
Good luck with that appeal.
Unlit cyclist or not, in a 20mph limit I think you might be more deserving of a DWDC conversation than getting off the PCN you've had.
Closing speed of say 10mph at most (20mph for you, 10mph for the cyclist - more likely they were doing 15mph) - and you decided to swerve and overtake rather than swerve and stop? Seems risky.
Bloke on the bike is a knobber for being unlit BTW, I'm not defending him.
Unlit cyclist or not, in a 20mph limit I think you might be more deserving of a DWDC conversation than getting off the PCN you've had.
Closing speed of say 10mph at most (20mph for you, 10mph for the cyclist - more likely they were doing 15mph) - and you decided to swerve and overtake rather than swerve and stop? Seems risky.
Bloke on the bike is a knobber for being unlit BTW, I'm not defending him.
20mph zone, well lit & no apparent visibility issues such as falling heavy snow or thick fog & you failed to spot a cyclist in front of you which was travelling in the same direction so your closing speed is more likely to be 5 to 10 mph until you were so close you had to swerve to avoid him? Assuming you weren't speeding of course.
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my old age, but this sounds awfully like a cool story to try & get out of something
when the reality was 'fk it, I can't be arsed to sit behind this idiot on a bicycle so I'll just nip past on the wrong side of the island' & you hadn't realised you were on candid camera. You've only got a still though and the actual action recording up to that might or might not back up your account.
Might be worth a try though, you never know!
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my old age, but this sounds awfully like a cool story to try & get out of something
when the reality was 'fk it, I can't be arsed to sit behind this idiot on a bicycle so I'll just nip past on the wrong side of the island' & you hadn't realised you were on candid camera. You've only got a still though and the actual action recording up to that might or might not back up your account.
Might be worth a try though, you never know!
Edited by paintman on Friday 13th January 13:18
tigger1 said:
Good luck with that appeal.
Unlit cyclist or not, in a 20mph limit I think you might be more deserving of a DWDC conversation than getting off the PCN you've had.
Bloke on the bike is a knobber for being unlit BTW, I'm not defending him.
This. Where were you looking when driving?Unlit cyclist or not, in a 20mph limit I think you might be more deserving of a DWDC conversation than getting off the PCN you've had.
Bloke on the bike is a knobber for being unlit BTW, I'm not defending him.
KevinCamaroSS said:
This. Where were you looking when driving?
I was looking at a car in front of me, which didn't pull out to overtake the cyclist, so it's possible the cyclist pulled in to the gap between the parked cars while being overtook, or had just set off from that gap, but that is speculation on my part.That was probably why I was caught off guard, because the vehicle in front didn't have to move over to get past the bike.
tigger1 said:
Good luck with that appeal.
Closing speed of say 10mph at most (20mph for you, 10mph for the cyclist - more likely they were doing 15mph) - and you decided to swerve and overtake rather than swerve and stop? Seems risky.
My instinctive reaction was to swerve, and at that point I was committed to going right. If I had stopped, I would have been on the wrong side of the island, so would have had to reverse into following traffic, whereas the road ahead was clear.Closing speed of say 10mph at most (20mph for you, 10mph for the cyclist - more likely they were doing 15mph) - and you decided to swerve and overtake rather than swerve and stop? Seems risky.
mdglen said:
tigger1 said:
Good luck with that appeal.
Closing speed of say 10mph at most (20mph for you, 10mph for the cyclist - more likely they were doing 15mph) - and you decided to swerve and overtake rather than swerve and stop? Seems risky.
My instinctive reaction was to swerve, and at that point I was committed to going right. If I had stopped, I would have been on the wrong side of the island, so would have had to reverse into following traffic, whereas the road ahead was clear.Closing speed of say 10mph at most (20mph for you, 10mph for the cyclist - more likely they were doing 15mph) - and you decided to swerve and overtake rather than swerve and stop? Seems risky.
Looking only at the picture, with a 10mph speed difference between you and the bike, at the point you pulled out there was loads of time to stop before the island.
Sounds like the idiot on the bike had a lucky escape.
What car in front of you, none in picture, and none behind close enough to worry about. Looks to me like you simply decided not to wait behind the bike until past the island. At 20 mph it should only take less than 6 metres to stop plus 6 metres thinking distance. If you were unaware of a cyclist within that distance you need to think about what you are doing when driving.
paintman said:
20mph zone, well lit & no apparent visibility issues such as falling heavy snow or thick fog & you failed to spot a cyclist in front of you which was travelling in the same direction so your closing speed is more likely to be 5 to 10 mph until you were so close you had to swerve to avoid him? Assuming you weren't speeding of course.
Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my old age, but this sounds awfully like a cool story to try & get out of something
when the reality was 'fk it, I can't be arsed to sit behind this idiot on a bicycle so I'll just nip past on the wrong side of the island' & you hadn't realised you were on candid camera. You've only got a still though and the actual action recording up to that might or might not back up your account.
Might be worth a try though, you never know!
My Gran was run over and killed on a well lit road whilst wearing a light coloured pale blue coat. The driver swore blind that she didn't see my Gran.Perhaps I'm getting more cynical in my old age, but this sounds awfully like a cool story to try & get out of something
when the reality was 'fk it, I can't be arsed to sit behind this idiot on a bicycle so I'll just nip past on the wrong side of the island' & you hadn't realised you were on candid camera. You've only got a still though and the actual action recording up to that might or might not back up your account.
Might be worth a try though, you never know!
Edited by paintman on Friday 13th January 13:18
When the police re-created the incident, we were all surprised to see that even though the road was well lit a person wearing that coat crossing in the dark at 6pm in January was virtually invisible.
It was concluded that the driver was not able to see my gran until it was too late. Speed limit was 30 mph and there were sodium streetlamps on both sides of the road relatively close together.
I think its plausible that the Op saw the cyclist late and had to make a quick decision. If the road was wet and greasy, to my mind his decision was better than the alternative of an emergency stop.
blueg33 said:
I think its plausible that the Op saw the cyclist late and had to make a quick decision. If the road was wet and greasy, to my mind his decision was better than the alternative of an emergency stop.
Sorry to hear about your gran.I think there'll be differences between spotting a person standing still, and spotting a bike (possibly with at least a rear reflector - as it's very unsual for even the laziest BSO user to remove those). The shadow of the bike user is clearly visible in the picture, which suggests there was a reasonable chance of seeing them.
Stopping distance at 20mph is approx 40 feet, or about 2.5 car lengths - and the car is trying to stop before it hits a bicycle moving at 10-15mph (presumed). Stopping would (IMHO) have been less dangerous than swerving the wrong side of an island, potentially in conflicting of pedestrians who wouldn't be expecting the car coming that way.
tigger1 said:
Sorry to hear about your gran.
I think there'll be differences between spotting a person standing still, and spotting a bike (possibly with at least a rear reflector - as it's very unsual for even the laziest BSO user to remove those). The shadow of the bike user is clearly visible in the picture, which suggests there was a reasonable chance of seeing them.
Stopping distance at 20mph is approx 40 feet, or about 2.5 car lengths - and the car is trying to stop before it hits a bicycle moving at 10-15mph (presumed). Stopping would (IMHO) have been less dangerous than swerving the wrong side of an island, potentially in conflicting of pedestrians who wouldn't be expecting the car coming that way.
I regularly come across cyclists with no lights or reflectors wearing dark and even on the odd occasion camouflage outfits so I could easily believe that the OP didn't spot the cyclist until it was too late.I think there'll be differences between spotting a person standing still, and spotting a bike (possibly with at least a rear reflector - as it's very unsual for even the laziest BSO user to remove those). The shadow of the bike user is clearly visible in the picture, which suggests there was a reasonable chance of seeing them.
Stopping distance at 20mph is approx 40 feet, or about 2.5 car lengths - and the car is trying to stop before it hits a bicycle moving at 10-15mph (presumed). Stopping would (IMHO) have been less dangerous than swerving the wrong side of an island, potentially in conflicting of pedestrians who wouldn't be expecting the car coming that way.
andyf1140 said:
I regularly come across cyclists with no lights or reflectors wearing dark and even on the odd occasion camouflage outfits so I could easily believe that the OP didn't spot the cyclist until it was too late.
[url]Here you go, and example from tonight
|http://thumbsnap.com/WwtgMtTc[/url]
At a claimed 20mph I think you have little chance of a successful appeal. 20mph, a well lit street, no blind bends, you appear to have xenon headlights. I would say that you were either too tired to drive, need to get you eyes tested - myopia? or perhaps you were doing something else - on the phone perhaps.
In hindsight an emergency stop utilizing DSC/PSC/traction control to steer around the obstacle and then intending Left back into your lane.
You need to drive in London and 'not see' the amount of Toyota Prius that have no back lights on.
Pip
In hindsight an emergency stop utilizing DSC/PSC/traction control to steer around the obstacle and then intending Left back into your lane.
You need to drive in London and 'not see' the amount of Toyota Prius that have no back lights on.
Pip
tigger1 said:
blueg33 said:
I think its plausible that the Op saw the cyclist late and had to make a quick decision. If the road was wet and greasy, to my mind his decision was better than the alternative of an emergency stop.
Sorry to hear about your gran.I think there'll be differences between spotting a person standing still, and spotting a bike (possibly with at least a rear reflector - as it's very unsual for even the laziest BSO user to remove those). The shadow of the bike user is clearly visible in the picture, which suggests there was a reasonable chance of seeing them.
Stopping distance at 20mph is approx 40 feet, or about 2.5 car lengths - and the car is trying to stop before it hits a bicycle moving at 10-15mph (presumed). Stopping would (IMHO) have been less dangerous than swerving the wrong side of an island, potentially in conflicting of pedestrians who wouldn't be expecting the car coming that way.
I still think it's possible that the driver didn't see the cyclist until too late. The camera is in a different position from the driver so may have fewer shadows etc also the camera may be better at seeing in the dark.
I regularly drive to the station early in the morning. I see the same unlit cyclist often. No reflector and dark clothing makes him very hard to see until you are on top of him even at low speeds
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff