Caught by Camera - Alleged moving traffic violation
Discussion
I'm aghast and utterly disgusted that the decriminalisation of some minor motoring offences is being abused in such a way by a local council. If this were monitoring a stop sign, then I could understand it, but a give way sign at a traffic-calming "pinch"? Unbelieveable.
Have you not just considered pleading not guilty and going to court? The obligation at a give way marking is just that - that you give way to oncoming traffic. To be acquitted of the offence, you only have to introduce an element of reasonable doubt, and stating in court that the other driver waved you on, together with the evidence of manipulation in your other photographs would certainly introduce such an element of doubt. The council could, of course, ask the other driver to attend as a witness, but all they would have to say would be "I can't remember", and the element of doubt is still there.
Unless, of course, there isn't an option to go to court? (I've no idea how some councils run their enforcement schemes these days).
BTW, in one of your photographs, the council's enforcement car looks suspiciously like it's parked well within 10 metres of that junction on the right.
Have you not just considered pleading not guilty and going to court? The obligation at a give way marking is just that - that you give way to oncoming traffic. To be acquitted of the offence, you only have to introduce an element of reasonable doubt, and stating in court that the other driver waved you on, together with the evidence of manipulation in your other photographs would certainly introduce such an element of doubt. The council could, of course, ask the other driver to attend as a witness, but all they would have to say would be "I can't remember", and the element of doubt is still there.
Unless, of course, there isn't an option to go to court? (I've no idea how some councils run their enforcement schemes these days).
BTW, in one of your photographs, the council's enforcement car looks suspiciously like it's parked well within 10 metres of that junction on the right.
That's gotta be the council just trying it on.
Quick question for the legal bods...what if the 'victim' here just ignores the extorting letter and waits to be taken to court. Just as with a scamera van, the video is the true evidence and they'll have to disclose the video to the defence.
They'll never do it as it'll show them up, so the case will collapse.
Of course, given Peter Ward's travails, it could take up a lot of time and money...
Quick question for the legal bods...what if the 'victim' here just ignores the extorting letter and waits to be taken to court. Just as with a scamera van, the video is the true evidence and they'll have to disclose the video to the defence.
They'll never do it as it'll show them up, so the case will collapse.
Of course, given Peter Ward's travails, it could take up a lot of time and money...
This is a chap from mini2.com and has been running a while on there now. It also made the 3 editions of the BBC news this week...!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no...
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Gerry Breen said:
Hello forum. My brother's just received a penalty notice (code 37) for not giving way to oncoming traffic. He was initially a bit confused about this but then remembered when it happened and that the person he allegedly didn't give way to had actually waved him on. Not sure if he has a defence as I dont have photo of his "offence" but its a bit off especially when you look at the attached website which is where he got done. Anyone else had a similar experience here or elsewhere?
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/
the conspiracy theorists might postulate that someone from the council could be employed to be the oncoming vehicle (at £50 a time) but I couldnt possibly subscribe to that.
Never heard of anyone getting done for that. From the pic can he get details of the other driver ? They would surely back up his version of events. Got to be honest i'm shocked that they are dealing with this. Is it the police or council?http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/
the conspiracy theorists might postulate that someone from the council could be employed to be the oncoming vehicle (at £50 a time) but I couldnt possibly subscribe to that.
Zeek said:
This is a chap from mini2.com and has been running a while on there now. It also made the 3 editions of the BBC news this week...!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no...
Yes, my brother told me where he got caught and I did a quick search on Google and up came the website. Has caused a bit of a local row as you can see. Last time he was in his local 3 people had similar tickets and they are all OK drivers. Thanks for the intial feedback.http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no...
TBH that junction really needs the camera there.
A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
Bri957 said:
TBH that junction really needs the camera there.
A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
According to the website in the original post the pinch point has only recently been built. Surely it would make more sense to remove it than to have cameras there because it's dangerous?A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
The whole issue is ridiculous. I hope the OP's brother fights it all the way, the world has gone mad.
Bri957 said:
TBH that junction really needs the camera there.
A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
Fair enough, but pissing about with the zoom on the camera to make cars look like they are much closer than they are, to create an "offence" when one isn't actually there is what they are complaining about.A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
There is an infant school directly after the pinch point. The approach to the rail bridge/pinch point is a long hill, where it was easy to get up to quite a speed. They had an indicator sign that warned if you were over 30mph but it had no effect.
I agree that messing with the images is not right, but the fact is that the vast majority of people caught on camera there are likely to be in the wrong.
Cheers Bri
I agree that messing with the images is not right, but the fact is that the vast majority of people caught on camera there are likely to be in the wrong.
Cheers Bri
Amazing that someone decided that a pinch-point that forces you into the path of oncoming traffic was the most effective method they could come up with, of slowing people down.
Funnily enough, the news item showed a van forcing his way in and obstructing the opposite traffic, but as has been said, the issue is the dodgy manipulation of images/video. What will be next? Scamerati vans reversing at 10 mph while they take your mugshot to tip you over the limit?!
Funnily enough, the news item showed a van forcing his way in and obstructing the opposite traffic, but as has been said, the issue is the dodgy manipulation of images/video. What will be next? Scamerati vans reversing at 10 mph while they take your mugshot to tip you over the limit?!
Zeek said:
Bri957 said:
TBH that junction really needs the camera there.
A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
Fair enough, but pissing about with the zoom on the camera to make cars look like they are much closer than they are, to create an "offence" when one isn't actually there is what they are complaining about.A large number of people try and take their chances and nip through the gap, and on numerous occasions I have had to brake sharply to avoid them.
Personally I'm all against cameras being used to enforce speed limits in places where no danger is faced, but in this instance it really is needed.
Your brother should ask to see the evidence against him, and take things from there. However I imagine he will end up paying the fine and being more careful there in future.
Cheers Bri
Would the friend have proceeded after being waved out from a red light?
The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
Dwight VanDriver said:
Would the friend have proceeded after being waved out from a red light?
The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
All that is of course true, but what we do not know is the possibility that the oncoming driver could not proceed because his side of the road was congested, therefore he may have signalled/waved the other driver through on these grounds......The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
Probably not, I know, but we do not know, this is subtly different to a red light situation.
maybe out of my depth here.. but when i have seen pinch points used elsewhere. and the signs the DVD mentions regarding the priorty of trafic. there is always road markings to inforce this..
A double dashed give way marking with the flow of trafic which should "give way"
and a single dashed white line on the opposite carrage way indicating a stopping position for cars who have the priority but can not progress..
on the video and still pictures there does not appear to be any markings for cars that would have priority.. (oncomming)
should there be?
also in the video's and stills it appears that the oncoming trafic continue to progress through this pinch point even when veihcles are progressing towards them.. so if a vechicle starts to transgress the 'pinch point' what may have been ok when the started the manover.. may appear not to be at the end..
if that makes sence..
A double dashed give way marking with the flow of trafic which should "give way"
and a single dashed white line on the opposite carrage way indicating a stopping position for cars who have the priority but can not progress..
on the video and still pictures there does not appear to be any markings for cars that would have priority.. (oncomming)
should there be?
also in the video's and stills it appears that the oncoming trafic continue to progress through this pinch point even when veihcles are progressing towards them.. so if a vechicle starts to transgress the 'pinch point' what may have been ok when the started the manover.. may appear not to be at the end..
if that makes sence..
Actually Raggie that's a good point.
But having had a quick flick through TSGD I could only come across the fact that the sign 615 has only to be accompanied by sign 615.1 "END" sign. It makes no specific reference to dotted white lines across (Sign 1003).
Sign 1003 does state that IT can be used where a pinch applies but that in itself can be an offence if to cross caused another vehicle to reduce speed or deviate.
I suppose the arguement for the 615 offence is not that it didn't stop at a line, but proceeded through and failed to give precedence.
dvd
But having had a quick flick through TSGD I could only come across the fact that the sign 615 has only to be accompanied by sign 615.1 "END" sign. It makes no specific reference to dotted white lines across (Sign 1003).
Sign 1003 does state that IT can be used where a pinch applies but that in itself can be an offence if to cross caused another vehicle to reduce speed or deviate.
I suppose the arguement for the 615 offence is not that it didn't stop at a line, but proceeded through and failed to give precedence.
dvd
Bri957 said:
Signs can be seen here.
It is not a bad piece of road now, just means people have to give way....which can be an issue in S.London.
No!?
Think of the children...
Dwight VanDriver said:
Would the friend have proceeded after being waved out from a red light?
The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
Hi DVD. I sort of agree with the red light point but what if the other driver broke down/ran out of petrol etc, do we wait until he gets going again. I said to go and check the signage, as I cant see from the photo but I would be surprised if Lambeth haven't covered all the bases.The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff