 Ahmet Kasap Following numerous appeals based on TfL’s
incorrect signage at the infamous Upper Street bus
lane, their Traffic Enforcement and Street
Management departments seem to have cocked-up yet
again in their ongoing endeavours to gain more and
more revenue from the poor motorist. Dial-a-Cab driver Ahmet Kasap (N45) was driving his taxi at 8.45am on a clear August morning when he became one of the many drivers caught by the TfL video. According to Part II of Schedule 19 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, you should not enter a box junction "…so that the vehicle has to stop within the box due to stationary vehicles, except when entering the box junction for the purpose of turning right." Ahmet was caught – according to the two photos accompanying the PSN – with his cab stuck inside the yellow box junction. It looked straightforward, but it was a long way from that… Ahmet was heading down Upper Street when he entered the box junction outside the Business Design Centre. Soon after, he received the PCN and two images. One showed him inside the junction, while the second showed him outside it 3 seconds later. Going by that, Ahmet thought, as most taxi drivers would, that the images proved nothing as you could take 3 seconds to cross the junction with slow moving traffic, while at no time being stationary. "So I appealed," Ahmet told Call Sign, "and in doing so automatically lost the opportunity to pay the discounted rate. TfL replied and sent me an Appeal date for around 5 weeks later." Ahmet then went on to show Call Sign the complete correspondence that came with the Appeal Notice. It included an extra photo taken 3 seconds before the first of the two already sent. This showed him to be in the box, consequently that image |
UPPER STREET Now It's the Great Box Junctions Cock-up!
|
|
|
together with the first of the other
two, actually proved him to be stationary inside the
box junction. "Had they sent me that one and the first of the other two," said Ahmet, "I certainly wouldn’t have bothered appealing and would have paid the £50. After all, they seem to show that I was stationary and therefore committing an offence." Ahmet also told Call Sign that the positioning of the video camera was unfair to motorists. The single camera is looking towards the front of the offending vehicles and shows what is happening behind the vehicle rather than at the front, which meant that it couldn’t pick up any possible reason why a vehicle may have had to stop suddenly while still in the yellow box. "On this particular occasion," Ahmet continued, "a vehicle had pulled from the nearside lane to try and get into the offside lane and turn right into Essex Road. Consequently, he blocked what had been a reasonably clear through route for those going straight on as he couldn’t find – or wasn’t allowed by motorists to find a gap with those who had queued to turn right into Essex Road." Ahmet ended by reiterating: "No one likes paying traffic fines, but if you are caught bang to rights, then that’s it. But this camera is unfairly catching out motorists due to being incorrectly positioned." But there was good news for Ahmet, the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service agreed with Ahmet about incorrect images being sent, allowed his Appeal and cancelled the PCN. Ahmet conducted his own defence while TfL had two solicitors appearing for them. One of the first pieces of evidence was within the framework of Part II of |
Schedule 19 of the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002, which
also contains the additional words ‘…subject
to certain exceptions’. Ahmet’s evidence
contesting that a vehicle suddenly blocked the road
by pulling out of line and then attempting to push
into another queue thereby blocking the lane he was
attempting to leave would certainly fall into the
‘subject to certain exceptions’ category. The Adjudicator ruled that the three images alone failed to prove that the alleged offence had taken place as by themselves they failed to show either the state of the traffic at the point when the vehicle entered the yellow box, nor did they prove that it was actually stationary at any point as being in ‘roughly the same position’ (TfL’s claim), was not the same as being stationary. The Adjudicator added that he was aware that a video of the "offence" was in the hands of TfL "…but they wisely did not ask for it to be shown at the hearing." It appeared that a previous decision of the Adjudicator had disallowed TfL’s video evidence due to a technicality. He also accepted that Ahmet had been sent the incorrect two images and that the missing one should have been sent. Although Ahmet admitted that he would have pleaded guilty immediately had the correct two images been received, the Adjudicator said that it would be a breach in the duty of fairness had he not allowed the Appeal. The adjudicator then went on the criticise the PCN itself for describing the incident as occurring at Islington Green, where the camera is positioned, as it actually took place by Upper Street / Berners Road (the BDC) and not the Green itself. Ahmet told Call Sign that he was delighted by the decision and that any driver caught should consider seriously whether they should avail themselves of the Appeals procedure… |
|
 |
Powered by NetXPosure |
| Copyright © 1997-2004 Dial-A-Cab Ltd, All rights reserved. |