Perrins Lane, NW3 PCN No Right Turn

[AVHOLLY]

I have a PCN for turning right from Perrins Lane, London, NW3. I see previous post from 5 years ago, and can completely agree that from the roadside it is not clear. The council camera makes it look blindingly obvious but it isn't. I see the previous post got a reply from the council saying they think the signage is ok. But some how it needs to be shown that it isnt.

 

Does anyone think that these reasons below together with the Traffic Signs Manual qoute may be worth my while appealing?

 

The reasons the signage are not clear is threefold, 1) Many large trucks and buses go past on the near side and so the sign over the side of the road is hidden. 2) The road sign on the corner left is by a tree which actually takes your eye off the sign, and is very overgrown, and 3) i was behind another car, so the road marking was covered too, untill i had passed it.

 

It is also seems a very easy place to turn in either direction. There's seems no credible reason to not turn right.

 

What do you think??

Edited June 22, 2016 by AVHOLLY

[perrinslane]

I also received a ticket at this location. This junction has been creating large sums of revenue for Camden for years ( google 'Revealed: The security camera raking in £100k a year in fines'). Signs have even been *removed* in recent years that alerted motorists to the presence of CCTV monitoring, the reasoning for this being questionable at least. As others have pointed out, I also strongly believe that the signage is non-compliant and confusing. The fact that so many tickets are issued at this junction is evidence in itself that the signage is not serving its intended purpose. I tried to take my case to the London Tribunals service, but, conveniently for Camden, due to Camden's delays in responding to correspondence, my appeal was deemed to have been submitted outside the permitted time limit and they refused to hear it. I would encourage anyone else who receives a ticket at this junction to appeal it to the Tribunal Service.

The basis of my appeal would have been the following:

The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, Regulatory Signs, 2008, (google the title for a pdf of the document itself ) would appear to clearly indicate the current signange is not compliant with recommendations.

 

I would refer you a number of sections and in particular pages 16, 17 and 18.

 

1. SITING, paragraph 1.15 and Table 1-1 (page 6)

SITING

1.15 It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which

should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by vegetation, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the prevailing traffic speeds, the greater this distance needs to be.

See also Table 1-1 for the actual distances.

This would indicate the need for a minimum clear visibility distance of 45 metres for traffic less than 20 mph. As shown by various photographs, the curvature of Perrins Lane means that no sign is visible until much later than 45 metres from the junction.

 

Photographic evidence from Google Streetview shows that should a delivery truck park on the bays outside the Barclays Bank (as frequently happens) it would completely obscure the 606 sign on the pole facing drivers approaching the junction. (Note: the photograph of the sign that Camden attach to their rejection letter appears to have been taken from the pavement and does not properly represent the drivers eye view of the junction or the approach to it.)

 

LIMITED MOVEMENTS THROUGH JUNCTIONS pages 16,17, 18

Paragraph 4.5 in conjunction with Figure 4-3 (see also Figures 4-1 and 4-2 for comparison)

4.5 At an unsignalled junction where a side road forms a T-junction with a two-way road (see

figure 4-3) and traffic is required to turn in one direction only, the use of a sign to diagram 606, even without a One way plate, could be misleading as drivers might think they are turning into a one-way road. A sign to diagram 612 or 613 should therefore be used at the junction, indicating the prohibited turn.

 

The road marking to diagram 1036.1 (TURN LEFT) or 1037.1 (TURN RIGHT) may be used to supplement the upright sign (see para 13.6 in Chapter 5). If a sign to diagram 609 is used in

advance of the junction, it should be used without a supplementary plate. Where a map-type sign is provided in the sideroad, this should incorporate the no right turn or no left turn sign. Where the side road is one way and the main road is a single carriageway with two-way traffic, a warning sign to diagram 52 2(two-way traffic ) may be provided (see Chapter 4,para 5.4). This should be mounted above the no right turn or no left turn sign.

 

As defined in paragraph 1.5 (page 5), this wording and the accompanying diagrams clearly

indicate that the signage at the junction in question is in error and does not follow practice that is strongly recommended and represents good practice.

 

For these reasons, it is clear that this junction should have a 609 Vehicular traffic must turn

ahead in the direction indicated by the arrow sign (without a supplementary plate) located

approximately 50 metres higher up Perrins Lane and a 612 No right turn sign at the junction

itself. A warning sign to diagram 52 2 (two-way traffic) may be provided.

I hope this information will help and encourage someone else submit an appeal to the Tribunal Service and finally get some clarification on the signage at this junction. If you do, then please do post the result here to help others. I am afraid I can't post my photos or links to documents as this is my first post.

[GordonBenefit]

Other than the road being curved to ''force'' you to trun left, the clear turn left sign painted on the ground, the clear turn left sign at the junction and the clear turn left sign opposite the junction - there seems to be no warning of whether you can turn right or not.

 

Are you kidding ? If you could not see any of that information, you worry me. Will you spot a child walking in front of your car?