Council PCN through post. Very strange road layout

flyingscotno1

usignuolo wrote: »

One thing which would be interesting is to know what the regulations are when a council installs some traffic restriction which is contrary to the regulations, probably due to a contractor getting confused or careless.

There is a double yellow line at the end of my road on the corner junction with the next road which is twice as long as any other one I have ever seen. Originally it was shorter, probably too short, so the council set a workman round to extend it and he seems to have extended it twice as long as it needs to be to be on the safe side. But can we get the council to tell us how long it should be legally? No chance. All they will say is that it corresponds to traffic regulations.

There are no real regulations on what happens when something goes wrong. It is down to the mistake, what it is, how it affects things and is 'site specific'. If a mistake is made it could affect both legality and enforcement of things but it depends what the mistake is and how serious it is. If it is paperwork- probably not too serious, if it is dangerous markings it is serious!

Your Double Yellow Line situation is as follows. DYL can be made any length- there is only a requirement on the width of the lines. The council won't go and tell you how long it should be, but you can request the Traffic Regulation Order, TRO which will say what isn't permitted and give a list of streets and distances something line A Road - From the Centreline of B road for a distance of 20m or thereof.

Therefore in this instance the Yellow line should extend 20m from the centreline of the previous junction. If you ask the council for the TRO for the junction you are interested in they may send you a copy or invite you to view it and get distance.

usignuolo wrote: »

Similarly not far away is a road full of huge square road humps, the size of small hillocks, it looks like the contractor had too much tarmac and just used it up laying them. But can we find out what the maximum height should be, to avoid damaging cars, again no chance.

If anyone can point me in the direction of the regulations governing the road markings and obstacles and what size these should be, assuming there are any, I should be very grateful.

Maximum Height is decreed in either the Highways Act or there may be a Road Hump Regulations Act (or something similar!), I cannot remember off the top of my head. The max height is 100mm from carraigeway surface to top of hump. Typically councils use 75mm to avoid problems-gives an allowance for inaccurate measurements.

biscuitdunker

I thought there may be some confusion between the PCN wording and the NtO wording which is why I went on to tell him to check with someone. I didn't know councils were allowed to stipulate different periods of time for payment and appeal, it seems quite confusing to me.

Neil_B

biscuitdunker wrote: »

I thought there may be some confusion between the PCN wording and the NtO wording which is why I went on to tell him to check with someone. I didn't know councils were allowed to stipulate different periods of time for payment and appeal, it seems quite confusing to me.

The 2003 Act is written like that and yes it is poor and somewhat confusing. Previous failure by Councils (and still some others) was to limit the appeal period. Islington did use to but corrected it at the time I submitted a PATAS appeal on behalf of Thomas K.

The new PCN is compliant apart from what I mentioned in the 2.08pm post

DaveF327

jgallcash wrote: »

it was placed very close to a turn off from a major road and really come on me quick.

jgallcash wrote: »

If there had been another car behind me when i turned right i could have caused a bump by braking too hard to understand what to do.

So when you turn from a major road into a minor road, don't you check the way is clear before turning? If there had been a slow elderly pedestrian crossing that road preventing you from proceeding, would you have still "caused a bump" by stopping? I sympathise with the steepness of the fine (police would have issued a £30 fixed penalty) but if you ever find you cannot act or stop in time when driving into a situation, it means you're either going too fast or just not paying enough attention ahead of you.

I haven't come across that exact situation in that combination, but I've encountered similar. There is a 6'6'' width restriction in a town near me and it's barely wider than my car, but it's perfectly possible to negotiate: you just have to see it in time and slow right down.

biscuitdunker

Dave - I think comparing missing a single road sign with missing an elderly person crossing the road is quite unfair to the OP.

DaveF327

biscuitdunker wrote: »

Dave - I think comparing missing a single road sign with missing an elderly person crossing the road is quite unfair to the OP.

Yes, I know they look totally different, but the principle is the same. Lack of anticipation of the "unexpected" led to a large fine (thankfully nothing worse), so if my advice can help anyone reconsider how they drive and plan (even if it's taking a second glance into the road into which they're about to turn) then it may well be worthwhile in the future.

biscuitdunker

DaveF327 wrote: »

Yes, I know they look totally different, but the principle is the same. Lack of anticipation of the "unexpected" led to a large fine (thankfully nothing worse), so if my advice can help anyone reconsider how they drive and plan (even if it's taking a second glance into the road into which they're about to turn) then it may well be worthwhile in the future.

I've seen someone else's successful appeal letter which makes the same point about the lack of distance from the junction with the main road, it probably does contribute to many people failing to see the sign in time.

jgallcash

Thankls for your replies. I'm just going to pay the £60.

FYI Dave i think that you will find my tone throughout has been one of accepting responsibility and have often quoted that i am not looking to shirk my responsibility. However I urge you to see/look up on this particular scenario which has been described by the local counciller as follows: "this junction is at best confusing and at worst a trap for unsuspecting drivers"

Moreover the following information from my original post (taken from a local news article)

A CCTV camera poised over the new width restriction in Riversdale Road, Highbury, issued 10,775 tickets between March 6 and August 31 - worth a total of £1.29million.

That is the equivalent of 60 tickets being issued every day.

Sorry Dave but this is no "calming measure" merely a cashcow for the council

Neil_B

biscuitdunker wrote: »

I've seen someone else's successful appeal letter which makes the same point about the lack of distance from the junction with the main road, it probably does contribute to many people failing to see the sign in time.

That could well be valid but I can't recall if that was the reason for success in a previous case for sure.

I think 'BogsDollocks' would be able to shed more light if he were around.

Neil_B

jgallcash wrote: »

Sorry Dave but this is no "calming measure" merely a cashcow for the council

With numerous appellants mentioning that short distance I would certainly agree it is deliberate.

As above, another member may be able to help more with signage and prior warning requirements.

It seems quite obvious that the restrictions on these 4+ roads labelled as 'rat runs' could be placed further down and warnings signed beforehand. Whether it helps from a legal standpoint, I don't know.