38jl failure to pass to specified side of sign - Islington P
Discussion
SmoothCriminal said:
I'm not talking about the centre lines that are faded which to be honest may even be from when it was an island.
I'm talking about the white lines and hatched markings that take you to the correct side of the width restriction they're clear as day on the photo.
I can see this as fairly incontrovertible, so will chalk up. Thanks all. I'm talking about the white lines and hatched markings that take you to the correct side of the width restriction they're clear as day on the photo.
Interestingly, the previous arrangement would have been much clearer, Islington appear to have changed the layout out sometime between May and October 2016. My guess would be waste or emergency services.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5439684,-0.0851289...
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5439684,-0.0851289...
They probably had funding for a camera, and removed the kerb. It is there for emergency vehicles, bin lorries. I turned down a road in Hoxton that looked like a short cut, had to stop because there was a access for residents permit holders only. Never seen a road with one of these, had to reverse and take a side street bet there were cameras and it catches loads of people.
This was it https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5332492,-0.1184921... nearly got me! I like driving in London, but junction boxes and these sort of restrictions can land you with a fine in seconds without concentration.
This was it https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5332492,-0.1184921... nearly got me! I like driving in London, but junction boxes and these sort of restrictions can land you with a fine in seconds without concentration.
Edited by lost in espace on Friday 21st February 12:14
IJWS15 said:
Looks like the residents have complained about rat running and have had measures put in to slow traffic, OP doesn't like them.
No doubt when the counsel have some cash to spare they will put the island in.
Have a look at the history. The island was there.No doubt when the counsel have some cash to spare they will put the island in.
They removed the island, and added an enforcement camera. I bet that was cheap.
Islington can f
k right offHungry Pigeon said:
DanL said:
SamR380 said:
What are you contesting? The blue arrow is quite clear even if the road markings aren't.
It’s pretty clear you can’t get a car through the gap to the left of that sign... Is this road even open to cars?!Graveworm said:
tdm34 said:
Is it me or is there a traffic cone on each payment at the narrowest part of the obstruction? certainly looks like it to me.
also it maybe something to do with lens distortion but those gaps look impossibly narrow.
Typical car hating London council...
They look like those stumpy posts that prevent bumping up the kerbs. Surely in this case (Islington are not car lovers) it's not a problem for cars but larger vehicles?also it maybe something to do with lens distortion but those gaps look impossibly narrow.
Typical car hating London council...
It's a scheme to prevent residents having to deal with huge lorries driving down their streets, which is eminently sensible.
OP gambled (as I might too have) and got pinged. Nothing more to say really.
London is absolutely fine if you engage your brain. I've managed 6-7 years driving here and only suffered the occasional parking ticket (some successfully contested, others bang to rights).
A1VDY said:
As above, avoid driving in Londonistan at all costs.
A bubbling hotpot of every crime imaginable plus the very real possibility of being stabbed or shot while out shopping.
Plus..obviously being a complete st hole.
We remain happy to continue to subsidise the rest of the UK. You're welcome. A bubbling hotpot of every crime imaginable plus the very real possibility of being stabbed or shot while out shopping.
Plus..obviously being a complete s
t hole. What an absolute pleasure you pair are. Throwing racial slurs around on a thread about a traffic offence is the height of sophistication, I'm sure.
And the idea that Norfolk or Malaga are in some way superior to London is quite truly laughable.
And the idea that Norfolk or Malaga are in some way superior to London is quite truly laughable.
Edited by C70R on Friday 21st February 18:44
1Rb said:
I've received a penalty notice for the above code relating to a Ockendon Rd in Islington:
From a Google search I note that the central area was previously a raised island and that this has now been removed and instead there are really feint/worn road markings, as per the image.
Is this worth contesting?
I got done in that same location 3 years ago.From a Google search I note that the central area was previously a raised island and that this has now been removed and instead there are really feint/worn road markings, as per the image.
Is this worth contesting?
Here's a copy of the representations that I submitted at the time, which may be of help to you:
Dear Sirs
I write in connection with the PCN, no. xxxxxxxxx, relating to an alleged contravention at the width restriction on Ockendon Road, London N1.
This representation is made on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and I offer the following reasons:
1. The signage at the entry to Ockendon Road from Southgate Road indicates that there is a prohibition on goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight of 7.5t, and also that there is a width restriction, designed to prevent vehicles passing through, which exceed the width of 7 ft 2 in.
2. The vehicle captured on the PCN is a passenger car, whose weight neither exceeds the maximum permitted 7.5t, and whose width does not exceed the maximum permitted 7 ft 2 in. Consequently, the width restriction was not designed or intended to prohibit the passage of this car.
3. The open central zone between the bollards is clear and open to traffic, and there is no specific signage to indicate that vehicles may not pass through between the bollards.
4. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 sets out the design and use of official traffic signage. Under TSRGD 2016, various different signs could have been utilised to prohibit traffic passing through between the bollards, including:
a) No entry to vehicular traffic (diagram 616)
b) All vehicles prohibited (diagram 617)
c) Motor vehicles prohibited (diagram 619)
5. If it is the council’s contention that traffic should not pass through between the bollards, then the appropriate signage should have been utilised, in accordance with TSRGD 2016. In the absence of the appropriate signage, the restrictions on the use of the central zone is unclear and misleading.
6. Under TSRGD 2016, the correct signage to prohibit vehicles exceeding the permitted width should be shown in both metric and imperial units (diagram 629A). The signage in place at Ockendon Road in only shown in imperial units, contrary to TSRGD 2016.
7. If it is the council’s contention that the current imperial only signage is satisfactory due to the transitional provisions of TSRGD 2016, I would point out that the width restriction at Ockendon Road was re-designed and altered at some time during or after May 2016. The previous width restriction arrangement can clearly be seen on the attached Google street view screen shot, where the image was captured in May 2016.
8. TSRGD 2016 came into force on 22 April 2016, thus pre-dating the alterations made to the previous width restriction. The re-design and alteration would have therefore required the signage to be updated, in accordance with TSRGD 2016.
9. The previous width restriction arrangement comprised a perimeter kerb and concrete deterrent paving blocks to physically prevent vehicles from passing between the bollards. By removing the physical obstructions and opening up the road between the bollards, and due to the absence of appropriate signage to the contrary, the apparent restriction on the use of the central zone is unclear and misleading.
10. By driving through between the bollards, the car did not attempt to circumvent the intention or purpose of the weight & width restrictions, as it was neither over weight or over size.
11. By driving through between the bollards, the car did no delay or gain an unfair advantage over other road users.
12. By driving through between the bollards, the car did not compromise safety, and no one was put at risk.
13. The alleged contravention for failing to comply with the blue arrow sign is de minimis in the context of the car not being a prohibited weight or size, or the intention of the width & weight restrictions not being contravened, and due to the unclear & misleading signage, not prohibiting passage through between the bollards.
14. If this initial representation is not upheld, a formal appeal will be submitted on the basis of the of the above.
C70R said:
And the idea that Norfolk or Malaga are in some way superior to London is quite truly laughable.
I guess it depends on what you want out of quality of life. My sister lives in "upper Dulwich Village" and you really couldn't pay me enough to live there - Norfolk on the other hand I'm actually looking at as a future homeIJWS15 said:
Looks like the residents have complained about rat running and have had measures put in to slow traffic, OP doesn't like them.
No doubt when the counsel have some cash to spare they will put the island in.
I've yet to meet counsel that doesn't have an abundance of spare cash.No doubt when the counsel have some cash to spare they will put the island in.
Graveworm said:
A1VDY said:
As above, avoid driving in Londonistan at all costs.
A bubbling hotpot of every crime imaginable plus the very real possibility of being stabbed or shot while out shopping.
Plus..obviously being a complete st hole.
We remain happy to continue to subsidise the rest of the UK. You're welcome. A bubbling hotpot of every crime imaginable plus the very real possibility of being stabbed or shot while out shopping.
Plus..obviously being a complete s
t hole. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff