Bus Lane - You should have crashed

Crabman

alanrowell wrote:

So you'd drive closer to the car in front because there's an "escape route" - and what happens if that "escape route" disappears just when you need it?

Then I crash, duh! :rolleyes:

Seriously though, where did I say I'd drive closer to the car in front? I said in my post above that a good distance should be kept so I'm not really sure where you got that from

Escape routes are usually for use where, for example, I'm driving along a country road, a car skids round a bend, loses control and heads into my path. Instead of screaming like a woman and slamming the brakes (sorry ladies ) I drive into a hedge or a fence instead into the oncoming vehicles. Less chance of serious injuries and less carnage in general I'd hope!

waster_2

Astaroth wrote:

Have you seen the photo? Does it actually show the prior incident?

The majority of these types of cameras are simply snap shots and so will not have picked up the incident.

Not true. The majority of the cameras that pick up bus lane violations, especially in London, are CCTV cameras that will be in continuous record mode.

Unfortunately I do not think there is a cat in hells chance of getting away with this offence. Entering a Bus Lane during its posted opertational hours is an absolute offence. There are exceptions that may be accepted but they would not include the one muted by the OP. To suggest it was being used as an escape route only compounds the situation as it suggests that the OP's car was too close and/or travelling too fast compared to the vehicle in front.

If the PCN has been received then you can be sure a photo exists unless you can show it was not your car in that location at the date and time of the incident (i.e have you been cloned?).

The only other way out is to check that all the signage is correct. Is the start and end of the bus lane clearly marked along with a sign showing its operational hours? Are the signs in the correct locations (I know a sign that says End of Bus lane 20 metres before it ends on the actual carriageway markings!) Was the offence committed during the operational hours.

Check all the escspe routes, but it looks like a fair cop to me.

Crabman

Whilst I respect the law, I would direct you to this site.

A police officer would not have given you a ticket had he witnessed the event as you describe it. Because they have common sense, judgement and discretion, "safety camera partnerships" have dollar signs in their heads and that's about it. :rolleyes:

tonys_3

Whatever you were doing just prior to the incident is irrelevant. The reason
you entered the bus lane was because of an emergency.You were not using
the bus lane to get ahead, or avoid waiting in a queue.
I assume that you swung into the lane to avoid an accident, and then pulled back into the traffic at more or less the same spot as you entered?
Thus confirming that you were not using the lane contra to their regulations.
It was an emergency. Full stop.
I do not expect a jobsworth to care two hoots about your reason for entering the bus lane, but I would expect that
your appeal would be successful. However in this money grubbing climate
that exists today, I cannot say with any certainty that your appeal would
come up with the desired result.
Especially as I have found this on a website as the ONLY reasons for appeal
are-

1]I was not the owner of the vehicle at the material time
2]There was no contravention of an order or failure to comply with an order or failure to comply with an indication on a sign
3]The vehicle was being used without my consent
4]We are a hire firm and the person hiring the vehicle had signed a statement accepting liability
5]The Penalty Charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

Interestingly, in the criteria for the establishment of a bus lane, one of the
stopulations is that the camera has

(ii) a wider angle image of the carriageway such as will enable information to be provided about any circumstances which may have caused the vehicle to be in the bus lane or the selected area;

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_localtrans/documents/page/dft_localtrans_503964.hcsp

So if they cannot produce a photo to show why you took emergency
action, then they have lost their case, as the collection of a charge is
dependent on being able to supply these photos.
It must also mean that emergencies are taken into consideration [which they
obviously should be].
Looks as if your appeal would be based on 2] in that you did not contravene the regulations as you were not driving in the lane. You used it to avoid an accident, then pulled back into the correct lane moments later.

hammy_the_hammer

this is very similar to the defence people try and use for jumping lights ....."the car behind would have smashed into me if i hadn't gone through"....without knowing the full circumstances (speed limit of the road etc) it's hard to see the defence. if you have time to make the decision that there's nothing coming up in the bus lane and you can 'safely' swerve into it you'd imagine you should have time to stop in the lane you are in...in effect you are admitting driving without dure care and attention. cars stop (why had the one in front of you stopped ) you should adjust your speed.
i would be interested to know why the car stopped in front of you ...was it to turn right?

tonys_3

I am obliged to a thread on the Consumeraction group to a reference to
another government website where the avoidance of an accident IS grounds
for quashing a ticket-so go for it.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19972402.htm

waster_2

tonys wrote:

I am obliged to a thread on the Consumeraction group to a reference to
another government website where the avoidance of an accident IS grounds
for quashing a ticket-so go for it.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1997/19972402.htm

I agree. But, if the accident was only likely to result as a a consequence of your own “poor driving” then forget it. If, say a child ran out and you swerved to miss it then that may well be accepted as a valid excuse. However, by following too close and/or too fast behind the vehicle in front is not an excuse. In fact it is an admission of driving without due care and attention which is a far more serious crime.

You may recall that a few months or so back a motorist was prosecuted and fined for “jumping” a red traffic light. What he did was pull approx 20 feet or so beyond the stop line to allow an ambulance attending an emergency call to proceed through the junction. He was un,lucky in that the junction had red light cameras on it and he triggered them!! He did not continue right across the junction but did block the traffic coming from his right. He was told that there is no exception to “jumping” a red light. It is the responsibility of the emergency vehicle to navigate its way through the traffic and any junctions including those controlled by traffic lights.

In my view that is blo*dy ridiculous. But, it has set a precedent for me and I will not do anything that prejudoces my position in future even if I do end up blocking an emegency vehicle. So I would suggest that there is no way that an excuse of not hitting the car in front will be accepted in this case.

And regarding the comment on Safety Camera Partnerships. Most (probably all) bus lane cameras are administered by the local authority or highway authority and they keep the revenue. Bus lanes do not add anything to Road Safety and in most cases actually create greater hazards than if they were not present. The rule of the road was always give way to vehicles coming from the right. If you want to turn left across a bus lane you have to give way to vehicles also coming from the left/rear. Often through a blind spot.

tonys_3

I am sorry Waster but the law seems quite clear. It says "entering or stopping in a bus lane to avoid an accident"Changlyn drove into the bus lanr to avoid an accident.End of story.

The act does not add a rider that says always providing the driver was not driving too fast:too close; or not paying attention. To avoid an accident is
sufficient grounds for allowing an appeal.

Crabman

That interesting re: emergency vehicles. I did once go through a red to let an ambulance through as it was wedged between my car and the other on the left lane, but there was no camera (and I did check )

It's a shame the law would rather a patient risks dying due to delay rather than allowing someone to edge over a red light to let an emergency vehicle through. :rolleyes:

hjb123

tonys wrote:

I am sorry Waster but the law seems quite clear. It says "entering or stopping in a bus lane to avoid an accident"Changlyn drove into the bus lanr to avoid an accident.End of story.

The act does not add a rider that says always providing the driver was not driving too fast:too close; or not paying attention. To avoid an accident is
sufficient grounds for allowing an appeal.

Woops, never meant to thank you there!

I meant to quote you - its okay saying that the driver was avoiding an accident - but whos word is there for this - only the driver - so if thats the case then surely every tom !!!!!! and harry could go in the bus lane and say that they were avoiding an accident?!