PCN bus lane dispute worth it?
Discussion
Hi All,
Just wanted to know if anyone has been successful in a PCN dispute.
I was caught driving in a bus lane, in fact I was turning left with no other cars or buses on the road and accidently went into the last 15m of a bus lane (that I didn't even realise was a bus lane for less than 2 seconds.
I was a little annoyed at the £65 fine so disputed it and sent the following letter:
I would like to appeal this on a number of points
Looking at the documentation you sent through, you can see I am indicating to turn left and am only moving across in the last few meters of the bus lane. The time I am traversing the bus lane is less than 2 seconds. I am not travelling down the bus lane to gain any advantage, over other traffic, there are practically no other vehicles on the road. I am also not impeding any buses.
This seems a very steep fine for such a minor infringement. The de minimis principle must be taken into account i.e. the offence is too trivial to merit a fine
I received a long response today basically telling me the fine would stand and an offence was committed.
If I don't pay in 14 dadysthey put the fine up to £130.
Is it worth fighting this or should I just suck it up an pay the £65.
Cheers
Michael
Just wanted to know if anyone has been successful in a PCN dispute.
I was caught driving in a bus lane, in fact I was turning left with no other cars or buses on the road and accidently went into the last 15m of a bus lane (that I didn't even realise was a bus lane for less than 2 seconds.
I was a little annoyed at the £65 fine so disputed it and sent the following letter:
I would like to appeal this on a number of points
Looking at the documentation you sent through, you can see I am indicating to turn left and am only moving across in the last few meters of the bus lane. The time I am traversing the bus lane is less than 2 seconds. I am not travelling down the bus lane to gain any advantage, over other traffic, there are practically no other vehicles on the road. I am also not impeding any buses.
This seems a very steep fine for such a minor infringement. The de minimis principle must be taken into account i.e. the offence is too trivial to merit a fine
I received a long response today basically telling me the fine would stand and an offence was committed.
If I don't pay in 14 dadysthey put the fine up to £130.
Is it worth fighting this or should I just suck it up an pay the £65.
Cheers
Michael
If you crossed a solid white lane then you will probably lose the appeal. If it was a dotted/dashed line then maybe worth considering appealing if you are the type of character that enjoys that type of challenge..
As a cyclist I have nearly been taken out by impatient cars suddenly diving across a solid white line into a clear bus lane...although I have managed to avoid collisions, because that is the kind of thing you learn to anticipate as a cyclist...
Not at all saying that you made a dangerous manoeuvre as you were proceeding in a natural way and indicating to turn left, not darting out into the bus lane from congested traffic without checking thoroughly.
I was done in Leicester at 11pm with no traffic, and buses no longer running. It was a dashed lane which forked off to the left. "Buses, Taxis and Cycles Only" printed in big white lettering on the tarmac as the lane forked, but no other signage. The white lettering comes up a treat from the ANPR camera angle, but isn't so obvious in the dark when you are trying to find the way back to the hotel after a decent curry... anyway, it was £30, I live in East Kent, so I coughed up.
It can really get to you, the injustice of these things...the under classes that speed through built up areas for a thrill, with no insurance...they know how to play the game...but the generally safe and conscientious road users get stung for the slightest faults. The point is that some councils hate cars in built up areas, and you can see why...so the best thing, unless you are the character who enjoys the preparations for a day in court and all it involves, is to cough up and move on.
As a cyclist I have nearly been taken out by impatient cars suddenly diving across a solid white line into a clear bus lane...although I have managed to avoid collisions, because that is the kind of thing you learn to anticipate as a cyclist...
Not at all saying that you made a dangerous manoeuvre as you were proceeding in a natural way and indicating to turn left, not darting out into the bus lane from congested traffic without checking thoroughly.
I was done in Leicester at 11pm with no traffic, and buses no longer running. It was a dashed lane which forked off to the left. "Buses, Taxis and Cycles Only" printed in big white lettering on the tarmac as the lane forked, but no other signage. The white lettering comes up a treat from the ANPR camera angle, but isn't so obvious in the dark when you are trying to find the way back to the hotel after a decent curry... anyway, it was £30, I live in East Kent, so I coughed up.
It can really get to you, the injustice of these things...the under classes that speed through built up areas for a thrill, with no insurance...they know how to play the game...but the generally safe and conscientious road users get stung for the slightest faults. The point is that some councils hate cars in built up areas, and you can see why...so the best thing, unless you are the character who enjoys the preparations for a day in court and all it involves, is to cough up and move on.
Put this up in the pepipoo.com forum Council etc
There could be a good chance that the legal paperwork that they must adhere to may be flawed.If it is ...You win but you have to take it to tribunal
The guys on there will give you good advice if it has legs to go the whole way. Then it is up to you
There could be a good chance that the legal paperwork that they must adhere to may be flawed.If it is ...You win but you have to take it to tribunal
The guys on there will give you good advice if it has legs to go the whole way. Then it is up to you
charltjr said:
Where do they draw the line?
If 2 seconds in the bus lane is ok, what about 3? 5 seconds?
I can see why it feels unfair, but that’s why there’s no leeway.
I think they could just say it is a crime to impede buses in the bus lane? If 2 seconds in the bus lane is ok, what about 3? 5 seconds?
I can see why it feels unfair, but that’s why there’s no leeway.
They could do away with all the bus lane camera's and just use dash cam footage from the buses. If you get in the way, even a little bit you get done. If there is no bus in sight, then you definitely don't get done.
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Sunday 27th January 10:29
Shuvi McTupya said:
They could do away with all the bus lane camera's and just use dash cam footage from the buses. If you get in the way, even a little bit you get done. If there is no bus in sight, then you definitely don't get done.
Common sense, so it's never going to happen. Then there's the revenue from minor infractions that impede no-one.Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Sunday 27th January 10:29
Sure - there are significant infrastructure hurdles to overcome of course, but it would arguably be a better system.
Careful what you wish for though. The logical conclusion to that is every bus, everywhere, reporting all of the infringements rather than fixed camera enforcement in specific signposted areas.
I doubt it would stop disputed penalties along the same lines as this one too - "I'd got into my car and was moving away as the bus came up behind me, I didn't delay it for more than a second or two".
Careful what you wish for though. The logical conclusion to that is every bus, everywhere, reporting all of the infringements rather than fixed camera enforcement in specific signposted areas.
I doubt it would stop disputed penalties along the same lines as this one too - "I'd got into my car and was moving away as the bus came up behind me, I didn't delay it for more than a second or two".
Shuvi McTupya said:
charltjr said:
Where do they draw the line?
If 2 seconds in the bus lane is ok, what about 3? 5 seconds?
I can see why it feels unfair, but that’s why there’s no leeway.
I think they could just say it is a crime to impede buses in the bus lane? If 2 seconds in the bus lane is ok, what about 3? 5 seconds?
I can see why it feels unfair, but that’s why there’s no leeway.
They could do away with all the bus lane camera's and just use dash cam footage from the buses. If you get in the way, even a little bit you get done. If there is no bus in sight, then you definitely don't get done.
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Sunday 27th January 10:29
oyster said:
How do you prove if you did or didn’t impede a bus?
Well, I guess they could just set some kind of distance. It would be very easy to have a mark on the dash cam that showed how far away a vehicle was.So if a bus gets within say 25 yards of the back of your car it might have to do slow down or stop, the offence has been committed.
For example, in America it is (weirdly) an offence to be too close behind a fire truck, I would guess they don't bother enforcing it unless you somehow get in the way.
michael_JCWS said:
I received a long response today basically telling me the fine would stand and an offence was committed.
These cameras are a great revenue collector.
Now how about putting cameras on every traffic light in the county also, at least that'd be one people would agree to.
I've been horrified of late just how many people carry on going through a red light.
Shuvi McTupya said:
charltjr said:
Where do they draw the line?
If 2 seconds in the bus lane is ok, what about 3? 5 seconds?
I can see why it feels unfair, but that’s why there’s no leeway.
I think they could just say it is a crime to impede buses in the bus lane? If 2 seconds in the bus lane is ok, what about 3? 5 seconds?
I can see why it feels unfair, but that’s why there’s no leeway.
They could do away with all the bus lane camera's and just use dash cam footage from the buses. If you get in the way, even a little bit you get done. If there is no bus in sight, then you definitely don't get done.
Edited by Shuvi McTupya on Sunday 27th January 10:29
Based on your theory, when traffic is nose to tail on a non-smart motorway, why shouldn't you be able to just drive down the hard shoulder if the junction you need is the next one, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
If there's a one way road that could shorten your journey, why shouldn't you be allowed to drive the wrong way along it, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
If you're stopped at a red traffic light and there's no other traffic around, why should you not be able to just drive through the red light, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
The reason is, because it would all create grey areas, and complications if and when things went wrong. There would be issues as to what defines impeding other traffic, and whether or not other traffic really was impeded.
To avoid any issues, the Law breaks it down to the simplest form, that everyone can understand, and can raise no confusion - It is an offence to do any of them, at any time. It's not open to any individual interpretation, it is an absolute rule.
4rephill said:
The Law is absolute and simple to understand, with no grey areas - You should not use the bus lane at any time, regardless of whether there is a bus using it or not, so why complicate things by adding in a question of whether a driver was impeding a bus or not?
Based on your theory, when traffic is nose to tail on a non-smart motorway, why shouldn't you be able to just drive down the hard shoulder if the junction you need is the next one, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
If there's a one way road that could shorten your journey, why shouldn't you be allowed to drive the wrong way along it, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
If you're stopped at a red traffic light and there's no other traffic around, why should you not be able to just drive through the red light, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
The reason is, because it would all create grey areas, and complications if and when things went wrong. There would be issues as to what defines impeding other traffic, and whether or not other traffic really was impeded.
To avoid any issues, the Law breaks it down to the simplest form, that everyone can understand, and can raise no confusion - It is an offence to do any of them, at any time. It's not open to any individual interpretation, it is an absolute rule.
I will ignore all the other 'examples' you are throwing around as we are not discussing the thousands of potential other rules that might be used to blur the discussion!Based on your theory, when traffic is nose to tail on a non-smart motorway, why shouldn't you be able to just drive down the hard shoulder if the junction you need is the next one, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
If there's a one way road that could shorten your journey, why shouldn't you be allowed to drive the wrong way along it, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
If you're stopped at a red traffic light and there's no other traffic around, why should you not be able to just drive through the red light, providing you do not impede any other traffic?
The reason is, because it would all create grey areas, and complications if and when things went wrong. There would be issues as to what defines impeding other traffic, and whether or not other traffic really was impeded.
To avoid any issues, the Law breaks it down to the simplest form, that everyone can understand, and can raise no confusion - It is an offence to do any of them, at any time. It's not open to any individual interpretation, it is an absolute rule.
The bus lane rule is not as simple as you suggest though is it?
The current rule is not "don't use a bus lane at any time" which would be quite straight forward.
You currently may or may not be able to use the bus lane depending on what restrictions have been put on that specific bus lane.
If people can be expected to be able to get their heads around that, surely they can get their heads around ; You can use the bus lane at any time of day or night but don't get in the way of a bus or you will get a ticket.
It would cut down on congestion and therefore pollution, what's not to like?
Oh, it would cut down on revenue, but its not about revenue, is it?
OP, it's a judgement call on whether you want to take it to adjudication. Which tribunal depends on where you were caught.
In London it's - https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat
Anywhere else in England and Wales it's - https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/how-to-a...
If you have made a formal challenge and received a Notice of Rejection the LA is under an obligation to include with the NoR details of how you can appeal to an adjudicator.
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge...
In the meantime you might find this of interest - https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge...
Adjudicator's decison - http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Kornbluth%20v%20Salf...
You will need to compare your circumstances with that case.
Note that one adjudicator's decision does not bind another. Also any appeal you make may be to the other tribunal.
Nevertheless, a previous decision can be persuasive, particularly if the facts are very similar.
The overarching principle of consistency is important.
It would be perverse for one tribunal to reach radically different conclusions from the other on the same or similar facts.
In London it's - https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat
Anywhere else in England and Wales it's - https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/how-to-a...
If you have made a formal challenge and received a Notice of Rejection the LA is under an obligation to include with the NoR details of how you can appeal to an adjudicator.
https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge...
In the meantime you might find this of interest - https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge...
Adjudicator's decison - http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/Kornbluth%20v%20Salf...
You will need to compare your circumstances with that case.
Note that one adjudicator's decision does not bind another. Also any appeal you make may be to the other tribunal.
Nevertheless, a previous decision can be persuasive, particularly if the facts are very similar.
The overarching principle of consistency is important.
It would be perverse for one tribunal to reach radically different conclusions from the other on the same or similar facts.
I tried in London - put one wheel in the last metre or so of a bus lane - exactly where the camera was trained, where it becomes a regular lane again. 100% set up to catch the careless.
I disputed it, and even sent a letter to Ken Livingstone (Major at the time). Made it clear the camera, and subsequent fine was not in the spirit of a "deterrent" to use bus lanes, but to catch the unlucky. I was basically told to do one.
I've dispured loads of parking tickets and won, but the bus lane - I just hit a brick wall.
Consequently, if I am blocking traffic flow by not moving into one, or, have emergency services behind me, I won't enter a bus lane, at all. In London.
I disputed it, and even sent a letter to Ken Livingstone (Major at the time). Made it clear the camera, and subsequent fine was not in the spirit of a "deterrent" to use bus lanes, but to catch the unlucky. I was basically told to do one.
I've dispured loads of parking tickets and won, but the bus lane - I just hit a brick wall.
Consequently, if I am blocking traffic flow by not moving into one, or, have emergency services behind me, I won't enter a bus lane, at all. In London.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff