Sorry but in that respect you are definitely incorrect. If approaching the junction from the side road, they will remain at red until such time as both sets of lights controlling the flow on the main road are at red. They will then show a proceed aspect. If your theory was correct and that the lights on the side road were simply a pedestrian crossing, those lights would be predominantly showing a green aspect and there would be a give way sign/lines at the junction. Note the absence of ANY lines where the two roads meet. Yes, I can see what you mean, the stop lines seem a long way from the junction though. I also believe that you are incorrect in the assertion that you can travel in any direction if only one arrow is displayed. This thread arose because of a prosecution in Camden referred to in the thread in my OP where the traffic is only permitted to travel in one direction despite a very logical left turn being available. I believe that you are misreading the meaning of the "not withstanding the indication given by other signals". That would normally mean that traffic with a green arrow displayed for the direction they wish to proceed in can pass a traffic signal otherwise showing red in the main signal aspect. They can, the idea of filter lights is that you may proceed in the direction of the arrow regardless of what is displayed by the other signals - if there are no other signals or signs (as in your first picture) there is no prohibition in giong in any direction. The green arrow is not mandatory, it is usual to find them at junctions where there is a prohibition, but the prohibition is shown by a 'No Left (or Right) Turn, or a blue 'Ahead Only' (or Turn Right or Turn Left Only) The prosecution you refer to would not be for failing to comply with the filter arrow, it would be failing to comply with a 'No Left (or Right) Turn' or a blue 'Arrow' sign. Edit: I've just found the thread you refer to, the matter was failing to comply with a blue 'Ahead Only' sign, nothing to do with the green arrows.

Filter lights are not mandatory, all all they indicate is that you may proceed in the direction of the arrow notwithstanding the indication given by other signals, (if there are no other signals, signs or other prohibition, you could go in any direction) they do not mean that you must proceed only in the direction of the arrow. In the first picture they are correct in that you may go ahead in the outside lane when the filter arrow is showing, regardless of the red signal for the nearside lane If all your pictures are of the same set of signals, the stop lines are too far back from the actual junction to be controlling it, it still looks like a staggered pedestrian crossing across the dual carriageway and a another pedestrian crossing across the one way street.

In so far as the direction is concerned, it does say "may proceed...only in the direction shown by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction. 'Notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals', and as there is no other indication given by the signals, as far as they are concerned, you could go in any direction. I agree it is confusing and if there is not a restriction on turning, they should be green balls, if there is a restriction there should be 'No Left Turn' signs or blue 'Ahead Only' signs. It looks to me that it is just a staggered pedestrian crossing, there looks like another stop line in front of the white van, the red tarmac seems to cross the road and then turn right and then left across the other carriageway, and the traffic light pole for the other direction is too far past the junction.

(f) save as provided in sub-paragraphs (g) and (h), the green arrow signal shall indicate that vehicular traffic may, notwithstanding any other indication given by the signals, proceed beyond the stop line only in the direction indicated by the arrow for the purpose of proceeding in that direction through the junction controlled by those signals; The regulations only say that traffic may proceed, not must proceed, in the direction of the arrow. If it is the council's intention to prohibit left turns, how could it be enforced without the necessary prohibition signs? Or are they just pedestrian traffic lights?

A police officer asks if a person understands because courts have accepted that the wording of the caution is understood by most people, but also accepts that there may be some who need to have the meaning explained in a different way, therefor they are asked 'do you understand'. In the case of the customs officers, they can have the authority to search, but asking is just being polite and it is a lot easier to do things with consent . If the person refuses they can search anyway.

You cannot 'prove' your car is a PLG, it was just a taxation class for excise licence purposes, which was changed in 2001. You need to find what the TRO for the area defines as a 'Goods Vehicle', if it uses the s192 RTA 1988 definition, it won't include a BMW Mini Saloon, if it is a BMW Mini Estate - that is a 'Dual Purpose Vehicle' (a vehicle constructed or adapted for the the use of the carriage of goods and or passengers) If it is a Mini Estate you need to check the TRO because some councils use the RTA definition but add an exclusion for Dual Purpose vehicles. If they use taxation class as the definition, yours is a 'Petrol Car', not 'Goods'

Your car is post 2001, so the taxation class is 'Petrol Car', the duty payable is variable depending on it's emissions. Pre 2001 vehicles have a fixed rate of duty and their taxation class is 'PLG'.

Section 2 Fraud Act 2006 revolves around the word 'dishonest' -: (1) A person is in breach of this section if he- (a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and (b) intends, by making the representation - (i) to make a gain for himself or another, or (ii) to cause a loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss (2) A representation is false if- (a) it is untrue or misleading, and (b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading. To be guilty of fraud, you would have to prove that TfL were dishonest, and they knew that it was, or might be, untrue or misleading, not just that it may be untrue or misleading.

If the DVLA were involved, it can only be in respect of a vehicle excise licence (or lack of) or a SORN problem. They have nothing to do with FPNs or PCNs, parking problems or traffic offences.

It may also depend on the what regulations the definition of a goods vehicle was made in respect of the bay, and if a BMW Mini falls into that definition. For example, section 192 RTA 1988 defines a goods vehicle as 'a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for the use of the carriage of goods, or a trailer so constructed or adapted' The term 'PLG' was discontinued when VED was changed to emission levels, but cars that were 'PLG' before then can still be 'PLG'. If your the BMW Mini is later than 2001, the taxation class will be either 'Petrol Car' or 'Diesel Car' depending on the fuel, not 'PLG'.