illegal right turn, can i appeal?

asbokid

why_why_why wrote: »

The front page of the PCN has gone, so here is an alternative link. Same rules apply as previously.

img98.imageshack. us/img98/9059/hckfront.jpg
img81.imageshack. us/img81/9536/hckback2.jpg

i still feel i can claim the pcn is invalid because the time it states on the contravention is different from the time shown on the cctv stills. it can be argued that that at 09:58 another car was there. Any thoughts please.

I'm no lawyer, but at a guess, the time discrepancy is irrelevant.

'They' used ANPR to identify your car from its licence plate number. It doesn't really matter what time the alleged offence took place.

I doubt you could build any defence, arguing over those two minutes, especially if the traffic control had been in place for days or weeks before the alleged offence.

As such, there is no room to introduce an argument that the right turn was legal at the *precise* time and date you allegedly performed it, IYSWIM. This isn't a case of "no right turns before 10am", for example..

The entry of 09.58 on the form, instead of 09.56 (the timestamp on the CCTV footage) will probably be explained as simple human error.

Or else, the camera maintains its own local clock, and perhaps the administrative system that belches out the PCNs has its own clock too. Perhaps that system is accurately time-synchronised against an NTP server or some such. The council could claim that they periodically synchronise the camera clocks; that they are aware of the clock offsets; and that they account for the drift factor (of two minutes in your case) when they issue the PCNs...

I would focus on the technical aspects..

I would be wondering exactly how that traffic violation system works. Is it fully automated, or is there human intervention, and where is the error-checking?

The system has got to record the number plate after a vehicle has turned fully right at the 'T' junction, to prove that it did in fact turn right. That would presumably involve the use of a second camera, operated automatically or with human intervention.

That second camera would need to face in a direction perpendicular to the camera that took those two snaps of your vehicle's rear. So where is the snapshot from that camera? And why hasn't it been shown? Are the council hoping that you will dispute this charge on the basis of that lack of evidence? Will that evidence later be "found", to your greater cost, and to the council's greater profit?

Again, on a technical note, if the system is fully automated, it must have some way of correlating two or more still images. We can see that an image is taken as you approach the 'T' junction, but another image must be taken after you have turned right.

When the system takes that second image, it must be sure that you did turn right, and that you did not come straight across (in the photo that would have been travelling in a left-right direction, as the law allows). The system needs to distinguish between those two manoeuvres.

If there is no human intervention, an algorithm must perform object segmentation on the CCTV frames. According to some notes I have, the systems typically use a frame differencing and thresholding process (such as "Otsu's"). This subtractive process relies on a 'reference frame' of the junction. That reference video frame contains bare road, and no vehicles. Live frames are processed and then 'subtracted' from that reference frame. That exposes a bitmask which is used to identify a moving vehicle.

An automated system like that will be fine-tuned to minimise false positives (false reports of traffic violations). It is better that a few offenders escape (false negatives), than the operators of the system are inundated by innocent and indignant complainants.

So the system will need to perform an important check. In the time period between the first photo which was taken when you approached the junction, and the second photo which was taken after you had turned right, the system must be sure that no other vehicle had entered the 'interest zone' of the junction which might otherwise have confused the system..

So can the council prove that? You probably should ask to see *all* the footage and ascertain that for yourself..

Neil_B

The time difference probably is irrelevant -- although I differ in reason to asbo.

It is probably explained by the matter peter raised. i.e, the whole event is recorded over a period of two minutes (which could, of course, be 1 min 1 second). It looks like by the time he decided to turn right that time had elapsed.

---

the PCN is legally invalid incidentally. Missing mandatory content. Are you prepared to try and get your head around such an angle?
-

why_why_why

asbokid wrote: »

I'm no lawyer, but at a guess, the time discrepancy is irrelevant.

'They' used ANPR to identify your car from its licence plate number. It doesn't really matter what time the alleged offence took place.

I doubt you could build any defence, arguing over those two minutes, especially if the traffic control had been in place for days or weeks before the alleged offence.

As such, there is no room to introduce an argument that the right turn was legal at the *precise* time and date you allegedly performed it, IYSWIM. This isn't a case of "no right turns before 10am", for example..

The entry of 09.58 on the form, instead of 09.56 (the timestamp on the CCTV footage) will probably be explained as simple human error.

Or else, the camera maintains its own local clock, and perhaps the administrative system that belches out the PCNs has its own clock too. Perhaps that system is accurately time-synchronised against an NTP server or some such. The council could claim that they periodically synchronise the camera clocks; that they are aware of the clock offsets; and that they account for the drift factor (of two minutes in your case) when they issue the PCNs...

I would focus on the technical aspects..

I would be wondering exactly how that traffic violation system works. Is it fully automated, or is there human intervention, and where is the error-checking?

The system has got to record the number plate after a vehicle has turned fully right at the 'T' junction, to prove that it did in fact turn right. That would presumably involve the use of a second camera, operated automatically or with human intervention.

That second camera would need to face in a direction perpendicular to the camera that took those two snaps of your vehicle's rear. So where is the snapshot from that camera? And why hasn't it been shown? Are the council hoping that you will dispute this charge on the basis of that lack of evidence? Will that evidence later be "found", to your greater cost, and to the council's greater profit?

Again, on a technical note, if the system is fully automated, it must have some way of correlating two or more still images. We can see that an image is taken as you approach the 'T' junction, but another image must be taken after you have turned right.

When the system takes that second image, it must be sure that you did turn right, and that you did not come straight across (in the photo that would have been travelling in a left-right direction, as the law allows). The system needs to distinguish between those two manoeuvres.

If there is no human intervention, an algorithm must perform object segmentation on the CCTV frames. According to some notes I have, the systems typically use a frame differencing and thresholding process (such as "Otsu's"). This subtractive process relies on a 'reference frame' of the junction. That reference video frame contains bare road, and no vehicles. Live frames are processed and then 'subtracted' from that reference frame. That exposes a bitmask which is used to identify a moving vehicle.

An automated system like that will be fine-tuned to minimise false positives (false reports of traffic violations). It is better that a few offenders escape (false negatives), than the operators of the system are inundated by innocent and indignant complainants.

So the system will need to perform an important check. In the time period between the first photo which was taken when you approached the junction, and the second photo which was taken after you had turned right, the system must be sure that no other vehicle had entered the 'interest zone' of the junction which might otherwise have confused the system..

So can the council prove that? You probably should ask to see *all* the footage and ascertain that for yourself..

man, i don't know what you just said, but thanks:rotfl:

why_why_why

Neil_B wrote: »

The time difference probably is irrelevant -- although I differ in reason to asbo.

It is probably explained by the matter peter raised. i.e, the whole event is recorded over a period of two minutes (which could, of course, be 1 min 1 second). It looks like by the time he decided to turn right that time had elapsed.

---

the PCN is legally invalid incidentally. Missing mandatory content. Are you prepared to try and get your head around such an angle?
-

thanks for having a look Neil B. i am more than happy to follow any advice you have.

DaveF327

It's hard to tell which way that car is turning. The lamp showing looks like a brake light rather than an indicator. The car does look like it's slightly positioned left, but there is no further proof it went right.

flyingscotno1

DaveF327 wrote: »

It's hard to tell which way that car is turning. The lamp showing looks like a brake light rather than an indicator. The car does look like it's slightly positioned left, but there is no further proof it went right.

No, but you will simply be invited to view the footage.

Neil_B

As others have suggested you should view the footage and check the legality of what appears to be a temporary restriction.

My issue is with PCN wording.

LLA & TFL Act 2003 s4 para (8)

(8)
A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)
state—
(i)
the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(ii)
the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii)
that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)
that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v)
that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)
the amount of the increased charge;
(vii)
the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(viii)
that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

Whilst they have said you can make representations they have not complied by referring to Schedule 1

this leads on to the next bit -

Schedule 1 s1 para (3)

(3)
The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.]

You will notice that the period described is different to the one Hackney told you. They only mentioned 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. hence they have told you that there is less time to appeal than there really is.

By not telling you this and by failing to even point you at the information by mandatory reference to Sch 1 they prejudice and mislead you.

A few other London Boroughs do this but one important one is Islington. They have corrected this error. There are both old and new versions of Islington moving traffic PCNs on this site. It kinda proves the point.

Hackney will disagree but not yet seen them hold their nerve to go before the Adjudicator. They usually bottle it for some 'unexplained' reason.

why_why_why

Many thanks for this Neil B. So much appreciated. I wrote to Hackney council asking for more pictures, but i'll shall use this info that you sent me.

I'll keep all posted with what happens.

why_why_why

Just an update, i have just got a reply from hackney council posting a picture of the car doing the right turn. They have taken my request for further evidence as an appeal; which has been rejected. Is there anything else i can do? i remember there being a law about councils having to respond within 28 days, is this still the case? Hackney council responded way outside that time frame.

Neil_B

Did you use what I gave you?

Show us the rejection. They often trip themselves up. You need to understand the game and this forum is not a good place to see other examples of how these matters progress an are succesful.

Your next recourse is to the Adjudicator and Hackney should have clearly explained that to you --- hence I'm puzzled by your question.
-