Gliddon Road no U-Turn - Hammersmith & Fulham Council - High Court Action

[lamma]

I disagree. using the crossover has nothing to do with it if it is not a U-turn in the first place. The U-turn is the alleged contravention.

[ericsbrother]

I'm afraid the traffic order makes it perfectly clear, no turning around on the carriageway. That does not prevent occupiers and visitors to the aforementioned flats from entering their gateway as that is not the carriageway. So, avoid a ticket and turn in someone's driveway.

 

I would simply say that this is about clarity of communication.

 

The council have appropriated a sign to mean something it has not previously been understood to mean. This creates ambiguity, which leads to bad choices being made by drivers in split-second decision situations . If you say the sign is clear then why are so many people being caught by it? Yes, thousands of people are caught every day breaking various laws and traffic regulations but not in one specific spot. The measures the council have taken (in the interests of the residents to protect them from this dangerous and annoying practice) have clearly not worked - for over three years. It could be argued that the only people who have benefited from the measures are the council, financially.

 

This is my last post.

 

Thanks for all your thoughts and feedback.

 

M.

[lamma]

"I'm afraid the traffic order makes it perfectly clear, no turning around on the carriageway. " You surely jest. No turning around ? What does that mean exactly ? And are they exact words of the Traffic Order ? How can lawful TSRGD compliant signs convey "no turning around" ?

[ericsbrother]

see green and mean's posting #4 for the exact wording. I was offering a reason why people turning into the flats and later exiting arent in breach of this as they leave the carriageway. Parking adjudicators have a series of set meanings for words and situations that they apply for consistency, even if they are wrong. My only PCN ever upheld was one issued 11 minutes before the time had run out because the CEO's handheld device was running fast and he hadnt checked it against the meter that day. I was told that this running fast was "for the convenience of the public" and that mathematics didnt come into it.

[Conniff]

Do they leave the carriageway? the carriageway extends to the next boundary which is why you can't park on the pavement with impunity.

[lamma]

And as already said - how can lawful TSRGD compliant signs convey that restriction ? Or signs specially authorised by the Secretary of State for that matter.

[Conniff]

They don't have to convey information that any driver should already know. Part of being a driver is that you know the rules/laws. As always, [claimed] ignorance is no defence.

[green_and_mean]

And as already said - how can lawful TSRGD compliant signs convey that restriction ? Or signs specially authorised by the Secretary of State for that matter.

 

Next you will be telling us that its legal to turn left or right since its done in a sweeping arc rather than a 90 degree turn as shown on the sign, or no motor vehicles only applies to cars and bikes as thats all thats shown on the sign, or no pedestrians only applies to men! A 'u' turn is a complete change in direction eg if you are heading north and then turn the vehicle to drive south, it does not have to be done in exactly the same fashion as depicted on the sign. If you are so sure you are correct why don't you bankroll the OP and take it to the high court?

[lamma]

"They don't have to convey information that any driver should already know." Do you have in mind some a form of psychic transfer that happens to drivers on this road so that they 'should know' what the TRO says ? '

[crem]

I really don't see where you're going with this one lamma. Your posts are generally very informative, but on this one you just seem to be on a different planet (well country anyway)