Being in a bus lane

[Landcruiser2007]

Re: Driving in to a bus lane

Hi there,

 

I'm new to the forum,.

I just joined up after reading a thread from 2010 re. PCNs for a bus lane in Kingston - Eden Street

 

My pcn LLA Act 1996 (as Amended)

I have received in the post today as an early Christmas present from RBK dated 12/12/2011

 

alleged traffic contravention :-

 

34j: being in a bus lane.

 

I noted a draft letter from G&M in a 2010 post to RBK another victim of the same ridiculous bus lane/one way system Flosie.

( body of text to follow)

I have requested the photos from RBK over the phone this a.m. which they say will be emailed to me by tomorrow.

but my case is the same as others who were caught on camera in Eden St. in the bus lane going down to the round about.

 

In : Eden Street : Eastbound between the junction with Union St/St James RD & the junction with Brook St ( 24 hours)

 

I was wondering if this draft letter would still do the trick.....

 

the tread ended without any confirmation as to whether there was ever any follow up by RBK on collection of the penalty from Flosie - I guess it worked and that's why there was no further post by either her or G&M

 

So G&M if you are still about helping us fight the good fight could you reply with your advise on how best to proceed?

 

Or should I start my own thread on this?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

I would like to appeal my pcn ref. KT********* on the grounds that there was no breach of the bus lane order.

The Kingston Council has issued the PCN using the London local authorities act 1996 to enfoce the contravention 'being in a bus lane'. The LLA 1996 describes a Bus lane as follows:

“bus lane” has the meaning given in regulation 23 of the [Part I of S.I. 1994/1519.] Traffic Signs Regulations 1994 and any regulation amending or revoking and re-enacting that regulation.

The contra flow bus lane in Eden street is not correctly signed as a Bus Lane using the TSRGD 1994 or 2003 regulations which states.

 

23. - (1) In the signs shown in the permitted variants of diagrams 877 and 878 in which the expression "bus lane" appears and in diagrams 962, 962.2, 963, 963.2, 964, 1048 and 1048.1, "bus lane" has the meaning given in paragraph (2).

 

(2) "Bus lane" in the signs referred to in paragraph (1) means a traffic lane reserved for -

 

(a) motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver);

 

(b) local buses not so constructed or adapted; and

 

© pedal cycles and taxis where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 958 or 959 and pedal cycles where indicated on the sign shown in diagram 960, 962.2, 963.2 or 1048.1.

The Bus lane in Eden street uses the TSRGD diag. 953 sign to indicate a route provided for Buses and cycles and varied to include taxis. This sign is not included in the legal definition of a bus lane for the puroses of the LLA 1996 and should be enforced using the LLA&tfl act 2003 as a moving traffic contravention. Kingston council has no legal authority to enforce a bus and cycle route using LLA 1996 legislation.

 

I would also like to add the following:

The Traffic order for this restriction created on 10th July 2009 states that the Bus lane ends at the junction of Brook street and therefore the bus lane ends sign is missing at this point.

 

If the Council maintains that the lane continues down Eden st and does not end at Brook st then the rest of the lane is also non compliant as it does not have a solid white line in the centre of the road nor does it warn drivers that the opposite carriageway is a bus lane as there are no diag. 960 signs. The lack of both the solid white line and the 960 sign is required to prevent drivers heading towards Brook st from McDonalds doing a legal 'u' turn and driving down the bus lane, the lane is therefore un-enforceable.

 

The bus lane road markings commence in the middle of the junction (see photo) which is non compliant as they are prior to the 953 sign.

The diag 953 sign should be placed at the start of the bus lane not several metres inside it. If the sign is in fact the start of the prohibition on vehicles other than buses then the bus lane road markings are painted prior to the bus lane start point making the bus lane non compliant as all bus lanes should be marked in white on the road at the start of the lane.

The section of bus lane prior to the traffic island with the 'no entry' sign on also has no thick solid white line diag 1049 which should be 25-30cms wide.

The Dept of Transport traffic signs manual also states that contra flow bus lanes should not extend over side turnings.

 

I therefore request that the PCN is cancelled forthwith, if a rejection is issued I shall escalate to PATAS and will requests costs.

 

ANY HELP ON THIS WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED - THANK YOU

[sailor sam]

Can I ask (in the absence of any pics), did you knowingly drive through the bus lane? I've tried to look at street view (the signage appears to be obscured by a bus of all things) but from what I can see it is clearly a bus lane.

[Landcruiser2007]

Sailor Sam,

 

No of course I didn't deliberately think, to myself oh what the heck, you know I'm just going to ignore the road traffic rules and drive in a bus lane and risk getting myself a £135.00 fine for the hell of it!!

Nor for that matter did I think , that dispite the fact I have a PSV license, that I was in a bus and therefore entitled to use the lane, having seen it clearly indicated!

Sorry I don't mean to be sarky but....I don't make a habit of traffic violation, I'm the guy that informs peiple att he traffic lights that one of their lights isn't working to help prevent accidents and try and save them getting points......

 

I wasn't even aware I was in a bus lane until I was in it and by then it was too late and the first place to tuen around is the round about and that's where they took the photo of my vehicle turning onto the roundabout..

The whole of that side of the road/the whole lane on that side of Eden st is only buses and taxis and cycles!

 

I approached the intersection where the bus lane starts behind a bus, the sign was obscured just like in google.

It was dark, 5 pm ish I was lost and I was trying to navigate my way around the stupid nightmarish one way system in Kingston with which I am not familiar.

 

In addition when heading east along Eden street you come to the cross roads with Union and St. James and there is a no left turn sign in to Union st.

and there is also a no entry sign on the opposite side of the road which I mistook for no entry into St. James Road.

There were cars coming from the opposite direction, it is possible to drive a car up from the road about but not down to the roundabout apparently!!,

 

I had traffic behind me and I followed the bus assuming that if there were cars coming from the other direction then the road was either for busses and cars or that there must be lanes for busses and lanes for cars.

But you are on top of and into the lane and committed to it before you know what's going on if you don't know the area, and thinking you can't turn left or right and can see cars coming towards you...it doesn't make you think I 'll do a U turn right here in the intersection.

Which would have been more dangerous anyway.

 

It's a totally stupid place to start a bus lane in the middle of an intersection, when the lane could be started from the roundabout where you have the opportunity to take an alternative route away from the bus route...

[sailor sam]

Well when i looked on street view, it wouldn't really take me to the ideal angle to properly see the layout. However, I could clearly see it was a bus lane but obvioulsy i see it in daylight. There are a number of factors which can be appealed. For instance, are the signs adequately illuminated? if its a 'contraflow bus lane (where normal traffic flows only in the opposite direction), I believe it needs a sign on each side of the road. So on your description of your situ, I see no reason why you shouldn't appeal on those grounds.

 

BTW, I also have a PCV licence and have held one for over 30 years.

[esmerobbo]

Well known problems with this one I believe!

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?260892-Kingston-Eden-Street-Bus-Lanes

[green_and_mean]

Can I ask (in the absence of any pics), did you knowingly drive through the bus lane? I've tried to look at street view (the signage appears to be obscured by a bus of all things) but from what I can see it is clearly a bus lane.

 

Its not 'clearly' a bus lane as a bus lane in London is just that a 'lane' set aside for buses alongside a lane for regular traffic, if it is an entire carriageway its a route restricted to a particular type of vehicle and not a bus lane.

[green_and_mean]

You need to view the cctv for a start most of the PCNs have been cancelled because they do not show the sign at the start outside the church. The sign is a variable type and can be 'hidden' by folding a flap because sometimes at night when the night club is busy they close St James st and open the bus lane to cars. Its therefore essential for the cctv to show on the day in question it was on display. The road markings have also changed since the google image and the 'bus lane' legend is on the speed table at the start which due to the curvature of the 'hump' you cannot read the word buses when approaching from the front. I'm off crimbo shopping in Kingston today so I'll have a look see if anything else is wrong since I was last there as they have remarked it all after some gas works.

[sailor sam]

Its not 'clearly' a bus lane as a bus lane in London is just that a 'lane' set aside for buses alongside a lane for regular traffic, if it is an entire carriageway its a route restricted to a particular type of vehicle and not a bus lane.

 

So this is a bus 'gate' then or a road purley restricted to local buses and presumebly cycles and taxis. As such, there should be advance warnings of an alternative route then.

[green_and_mean]

So this is a bus 'gate' then or a road purley restricted to local buses and presumebly cycles and taxis. As such, there should be advance warnings of an alternative route then.

 

And there we have it! That is the reason so many people are getting PCNs.

[Landcruiser2007]

So, Sailor Sam and G&M how do you think I should approach my letter to RBK?

[green_and_mean]

So, Sailor Sam and G&M how do you think I should approach my letter to RBK?

 

Have you viewed the CCTV if not do that first.

[sailor sam]

It appaers then that your ticket has been issued under the wrong act as it isn't a bus lane but a bus gate or a road resricted to buses only. So your ticket should be under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Take a look here; http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/bus.htm#streetegs A bus gate requires advanced warning signs to enable you to take an alternative route. When I looked at Street View, I couldn't see any advanced warning signs but as I mentioned before, I was finding it tricky to view the situation clearly for some reason. So basically there are a few grounds of appeal here I would of thought.

[Landcruiser2007]

I still haven't haven't viewed the cctv - I think I need to go all the way back into kingston to do that...and after my last experience there I'm a little reluctant!

but RBK council have sent me stills from the cctv which show me coming onto the roundabout at Brook St.

so they are shot from the roundabout back up to the intersection where the "bus lane" starts.

So the pics taken are of the front of my vehicle with the camera looking west up eden st.

i.e. they are not from behind with the signs at the union/st. james/eden st. intersection - looking east

But they did send me in the same email photos of those signs - but not included in the photos with my vehicle.

I'm going to send them the letter I originally found that G&M had prepared and buy myself another 14 days until after Christmas and see if I hear back.....

If not them I don't need to worry and if they want to take it further I'll update again.

[green_and_mean]

I am happy to go view it if you cannot get to Kingston

[Landcruiser2007]

G&M that's a very kind offer but I'm not sure I can impose on you at this time of year.

And I'm not sure what would be required to allow you to do this for me.

 

I'm guessing you would need to produce some ID or the PCN (or a copy) to be allowed to view the cctc footage.

I'm not even sure where you would need to go to do this in Kingston?

 

I'm in Windlesham so it's a big old hike over to Kingston.

I'll send RBK a modified version of the letter you drafted for Flossie from the previous thread

and if that doesn't do the trick then maybe I'll be able to get over to kingston to view in the new year

or maybe I'll take you up on your offer in Jan.

What do you think?

[green_and_mean]

G&M that's a very kind offer but I'm not sure I can impose on you at this time of year.

And I'm not sure what would be required to allow you to do this for me.

 

I'm guessing you would need to produce some ID or the PCN (or a copy) to be allowed to view the cctc footage.

I'm not even sure where you would need to go to do this in Kingston?

 

I'm in Windlesham so it's a big old hike over to Kingston.

I'll send RBK a modified version of the letter you drafted for Flossie from the previous thread

and if that doesn't do the trick then maybe I'll be able to get over to kingston to view in the new year

or maybe I'll take you up on your offer in Jan.

What do you think?

 

Do whatever you are happiest with there are several adjudication results on the original thread which you can use as reference the last case RBK lost was due to lack of proof the sign was open rather that folded shut so if they have made the same mistake again you may be able to use that, library photos of the sign are not proof where the photos from your cctv or library ones (ie did they have date on same as ones of your car).

[Landcruiser2007]

I should have updated this sooner.

My apologies.

But just to bring things to a close this is the way it all panned out in January.

 

I wrote to RBK saying that it wasn't a bus lane and they needed to provide me with photo of the sign as it was a bus route etc.

 

They wrote back including a photo of another vehicle - not mine this time,

and a photo of the sign taken a month before.

 

I wrote back saying they had the wrong car not my vehicle and the photo wasn't of the sign on the day or even the month I was in Kingston.

Their reply indicated that they thought they they were in the right but because they stuffed up by sending me a photo of another vehicle the second time

( incidentally, taken a minute or two before mine at the roundabout - as per previous photos they sent by email) - they were not going to pursue it any further.

 

So thanks to those that gave me advise on this site and in these threads but in the end RBK shot themselves in foot!!!

LOL

Justice prevailed eventually, what a complete Shower they are.

Give 'em enough rope and in the end they'll hang themselves!!!

 

All the best Landcruiser2007

[HYMN AND MI]

Well done. Re the arguments concerning this bus lane, I have viewed the most recent correspondence between the DfT and Kingston and it is quite apparent that one person in the DFT wasn't sure it was one or other! As for the legislation argument, the two acts cited are not mutually exclusive of one anoither so a PCN may be issued with the current signage in place. There are still problems with the signage but that argument is now much harder to convince an adjudicator to cancel a PCN as there is a variant of 877 before the lane itself, just by the opticians, in fact. A nice touch!

 

Would you mind posting up a copy of their retreat, less setails. Probably "procedural impropriety", "gesture of goodwill" or "don't do it again"!

 

Congratulations.

[green_and_mean]

Well done. Re the arguments concerning this bus lane, I have viewed the most recent correspondence between the DfT and Kingston and it is quite apparent that one person in the DFT wasn't sure it was one or other! As for the legislation argument, the two acts cited are not mutually exclusive of one anoither so a PCN may be issued with the current signage in place. There are still problems with the signage but that argument is now much harder to convince an adjudicator to cancel a PCN as there is a variant of 877 before the lane itself, just by the opticians, in fact. A nice touch!

 

Would you mind posting up a copy of their retreat, less setails. Probably "procedural impropriety", "gesture of goodwill" or "don't do it again"!

 

Congratulations.

 

The legislation is reliant on the correct signage for a bus lane as stated in the LLA 1996 which is not present, I still maintain its a moving traffic offence but I guess we will never get a definitive answer since no two adjudicators seem to agree and no hearing is binding anyway.

[HYMN AND MI]

IMO, the signage is a lot better than it was for a contraflow, save for the fact that you cannot read "BUS" on road (de minimis in my view) and that the legend (now correct) and 953.2 pole sign are still in the wrong position to each other. To cite part of 2110177167:

 

Although the sign to diagram 953 is a sign the contravention of which is enforceable under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the location in the present case is a bus lane; and Oxfordshire CC v Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) is authority for the proposition that something that is a bus lane can be indicated by signage more usually associated with a moving traffic contravention (in that case signs to diagram 619) and still be enforced as a bus lane. The High Court in that case said "Moreover, as Mr Straker QC's skeleton argument states (paragraph 49), Diagram 953 of the TSRGD 2002) indicates a bus lane but is in the list of signs defined as moving traffic contraventions in the 2004 Act. This strongly suggests that the legislature did not conceive of the two categories being mutually exclusive".

 

Also linked to this case was this one: 210055021A

[green_and_mean]

IMO, the signage is a lot better than it was for a contraflow, save for the fact that you cannot read "BUS" on road (de minimis in my view) and that the legend (now correct) and 953.2 pole sign are still in the wrong position to each other. To cite part of 2110177167:

 

Although the sign to diagram 953 is a sign the contravention of which is enforceable under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 the location in the present case is a bus lane; and Oxfordshire CC v Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) is authority for the proposition that something that is a bus lane can be indicated by signage more usually associated with a moving traffic contravention (in that case signs to diagram 619) and still be enforced as a bus lane. The High Court in that case said "Moreover, as Mr Straker QC's skeleton argument states (paragraph 49), Diagram 953 of the TSRGD 2002) indicates a bus lane but is in the list of signs defined as moving traffic contraventions in the 2004 Act. This strongly suggests that the legislature did not conceive of the two categories being mutually exclusive".

 

Also linked to this case was this one: 210055021A

 

The Oxford high court case is not that relevant as Oxford is not in London and therefore doesn't use the same legislation a 953 does not indicate a bus lane as stated in your quote it indicates a route for buses and pedal cycles, the regs Oxford use allow the enforcement of any road used just for buses and other authorised vehicles to be enforced as a bus lane, the LLA 1996 does not.

[HYMN AND MI]

TSM 3, p 136: 15.21 The start of the contra-flow lane should be

separated from opposing traffic by a refuge in the

centre of the road. The exit side of the road, used by

all traffic, should be protected by “no entry” signs as

for ordinary one-way roads (see paras 4.39 to 4.43).

Where a bollard is provided on the refuge, this may

include a “no entry” sign, but a full-size sign must

also be provided. Historically, a contra-flow bus-only

lane has been signed with a “no entry” sign to

diagram 616 and a supplementary plate to either

diagram 954 (Except buses) or 954.2 (Except local

buses) as shown in figure 15-9. However, in future

the sign to diagram 953 with the “Only” plate to

diagram 953.2 should be used, as shown in figure

15-8. This is the only arrangement that is prescribed

for bus and cycle contra-flow lanes, with diagram

953 varied to include the cycle symbol (see figure

15-10). Direction 21(2) prohibits the use of the

“Except buses and cycles” plate with the “no entry”

sign. Not only is using diagram 953 to indicate a

bus-only lane consistent with the signing of a bus

and cycle lane, it also helps to prevent the meaning

of the “no entry” sign from being diluted. The main

purpose of diagram 616 is to protect the exit from a

one-way road, where drivers travelling in the opposite

direction would put themselves and others at risk (see

also para 4.42). “End of bus lane” signs to diagram

964 are not used with contra-flow lanes, nor are time

plates, as these lanes operate continuously.

[green_and_mean]

TSM 3, p 136: 15.21 The start of the contra-flow lane should be

separated from opposing traffic by a refuge in the

centre of the road. The exit side of the road, used by

all traffic, should be protected by “no entry” signs as

for ordinary one-way roads (see paras 4.39 to 4.43).

Where a bollard is provided on the refuge, this may

include a “no entry” sign, but a full-size sign must

also be provided. Historically, a contra-flow bus-only

lane has been signed with a “no entry” sign to

diagram 616 and a supplementary plate to either

diagram 954 (Except buses) or 954.2 (Except local

buses) as shown in figure 15-9. However, in future

the sign to diagram 953 with the “Only” plate to

diagram 953.2 should be used, as shown in figure

15-8. This is the only arrangement that is prescribed

for bus and cycle contra-flow lanes, with diagram

953 varied to include the cycle symbol (see figure

15-10). Direction 21(2) prohibits the use of the

“Except buses and cycles” plate with the “no entry”

sign. Not only is using diagram 953 to indicate a

bus-only lane consistent with the signing of a bus

and cycle lane, it also helps to prevent the meaning

of the “no entry” sign from being diluted. The main

purpose of diagram 616 is to protect the exit from a

one-way road, where drivers travelling in the opposite

direction would put themselves and others at risk (see

also para 4.42). “End of bus lane” signs to diagram

964 are not used with contra-flow lanes, nor are time

plates, as these lanes operate continuously.

 

What relevance is that supposed to have??

[HYMN AND MI]

This is the only arrangement that is prescribed

for bus and cycle contra-flow lanes, with diagram

953 varied to include the cycle symbol (see figure

15-10). Direction 21(2) prohibits the use of the

“Except buses and cycles” plate with the “no entry”

sign. Not only is using diagram 953 to indicate a

bus-only lane consistent with the signing of a bus

and cycle lane, it also helps to prevent the meaning

of the “no entry” sign from being diluted.

 

Because it defines this signage as applicable to a BUS lANE! Not a Bus Gate!

[Landcruiser2007]

FYI- as requested by H&M

The letter of "retreat" I received from RBK said the following.

25/01/2011

Dear Mr Landcruiser2007,

Thank you for your enquiry re. above PCN.

Due to the error in my colleague's letter dated 09/01/2011 I can confirm that this Notice has now been withdrawn.

However please be advised that the local authority believes the signing, lining and location of this bus lane to be legally compliant.

As such any further PCN's issued under similar circumstances may not be withdrawn.

yours sincerely,

G. C.

Representations Officer

 

So they still think they had a case despite the fact the photo of the sign they sent was from the previous month and looks like a still cut from someone else's cctv footage.

 

Just for clarification & for the sake of other readers.

Originally they emailed me stills from the cctv footage of my vehicle taken at the roundabout at the correct time on the correct day etc.

But didn't inc. any of the signage.

For the record I never went to view the cctv footage - so I don't know if there is any footage of be driving past a sign indicating the start of a "bus lane" - but I suspect not.

Because when I wrote back to say they needed to inc. pics of the signs on the day and time in question.....

well, ladies and gentlemen that was when they replied with the still photos taken at the same roundabout & on same day of another vehicle (taken approx. 2 mins before I was there)

And in addition RBK included the photos of the signage at start of the "bus lane" taken on the 29/11/2011.

It was when I pointed out their errors in my next correspondence that I received the letter of retreat above.

 

Moral of the story is, if you are in the right, then play these muppets at their own game and if you keep at it long enough they will stuff up.

 

So thank you and goodnight - I hope this is of some help to future caggers.