Caught by Camera - Alleged moving traffic violation
Discussion
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.
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.
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...
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
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.......
oldsoak said:
In my view..Give Way today means 'Nip out quick before the other guy' Much the same as 'give Priority to oncoming vehicles' means 'Get through before the other guy does'
Very few want to slow down for ANYTHING never mind a little tin sign and a chicane.
agreed, the chicane is seen as a driving challenge and we all become Lewis Hamilton for a few seconds (not me you understand Very few want to slow down for ANYTHING never mind a little tin sign and a chicane.
)Dwight VanDriver said:
Technically a traffic sign that has to be obeyed remains so until such time as it is unlawful.
If a light is at red then one should wait or put a bag over the light - no longer lawful.
There is an Irish civil case of some years standing that if it appears defective then OK to proceed WITH CAUTION.
So if bloke at t'other end had broken down and was in the same predicament he could have turned the sign around or friend action as above re red light. But to me there is no suggested that t'other had broken down.
dvd
o
~*~
Yes I dont think there was any suggestion of a breakdown but my brother may contend that he was proceeding with caution.If a light is at red then one should wait or put a bag over the light - no longer lawful.
There is an Irish civil case of some years standing that if it appears defective then OK to proceed WITH CAUTION.
So if bloke at t'other end had broken down and was in the same predicament he could have turned the sign around or friend action as above re red light. But to me there is no suggested that t'other had broken down.
dvd
o
~*~
By the way you're not suggesting that the public can put bags over lights that are not working are you?
i'm sure I know some broken speed cameras somewhere.streaky said:
I have passed this info on to my brother. See if he gets the same result.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff