Ticket for 'failing to comply with school traffic patrol'

sabz3008

A friend of mine received a ticket through the post today form Bedfordshire Police alleging he has failed to comply with a school traffic patrol. They have sent no photographic evidence and is on the say-so of the lollypop man.

He states that the lollypop man had crossed a few people and the road was clear, but the lollypop man was not moving out of the way but waiting for people who were still 20-30 yards away to approach the road. In my own opinion, I feel this to be unreasonable but secondly...What evidence is there of a contravention but the say-so of a lollypop man?!

Any suggestions?

d123

sabz3008 wrote: »

A friend of mine received a ticket through the post today form Hertfordshire Police alleging he has failed to comply with a school traffic patrol. They have sent no photographic evidence and is on the say-so of the lollypop man.

He states that the lollypop man had crossed a few people and the road was clear, but the lollypop man was not moving out of the way but waiting for people who were still 20-30 yards away to approach the road. In my own opinion, I feel this to be unreasonable but secondly...What evidence is there of a contravention but the say-so of a lollypop man?!

Any suggestions?

Pay the fine or wait and go to court. If the man was still in the road indicating cars to stop it is the equivalent of a red light. Your friend is basically admitting the offence by the way you describe it.

DaveF327

I'd say "good". Rules are there to be kept. The lollipop person probably has to put up with impatient drivers blatantly ignoring his sign every day.

The offence is failing to comply with the sign that was being clearly exhibited. It is a legal requirement, just like a red light or a policeman's signal to stop. Excuses that "it shouldn't be there" or "it was shown for too long" won't wash with any police officer or magistrate.

If a traffic light stayed red for a little too long with no traffic coming the other way, is it ok to drive past it?

To clarify:

Road_Traffic_Regulation_Act_1984 wrote:

28 Stopping of vehicles at school crossings.
(1) When a vehicle is approaching a place in a road where a person is crossing or seeking to cross the road, a school crossing patrol wearing a uniform approved by the Secretary of State shall have power, by exhibiting a prescribed sign, to require the person driving or propelling the vehicle to stop it.
(2) When a person has been required under subsection (1) above to stop a vehicle—

(a) he shall cause the vehicle to stop before reaching the place where the person is crossing or seeking to cross and so as not to stop or impede his crossing, and
(b) the vehicle shall not be put in motion again so as to reach the place in question so long as the sign continues to be exhibited.

(3) A person who fails to comply with paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above, or who causes a vehicle to be put in motion in contravention of paragraph (b) of that subsection, shall be guilty of an offence.

Outpost

That annoying man trying to ensure children cross a busy road safely eh? Must have cost literally a minute of your "friend's" oh so precious time.

Pathetic. Deserves everything he gets.

spike7451

Outpost wrote: »

That annoying man trying to ensure children cross a busy road safely eh? Must have cost literally a minute of your "friend's" oh so precious time.

Pathetic. Deserves everything he gets.

A chap I used to know (retired from the NIE Electric Board) was a lollypo man,he got hit by a car one day on the main coastal road in the town,they have since installed traffic lights/crossing near the junction as a safety measure.

HO87

sabz3008 wrote: »

What evidence is there of a contravention but the say-so of a lollypop man?!

Any suggestions?

What's so wrong with the say-so of a lollipop man? Bear in mind that he was waiting for people to cross the road so mightn't they have had something to say about it?

If he's actually being offered a fixed penalty notice he should grab it with both hands. However, I feel a court appearance coming on here......

Outpost

spike7451 wrote: »

A chap I used to know (retired from the NIE Electric Board) was a lollypo man,he got hit by a car one day on the main coastal road in the town,they have since installed traffic lights/crossing near the junction as a safety measure.

I'd imagine that crossing patrols are involved in incidents with cars on a regular basis, perhaps not being hit by them but certainly idiots revving their engines at the perceived injustice of having to stop for school children to safely cross the road.

As I've said it's quite a pathetic individual who attempts to swerve around a crossing patrol or attempt to run them off the road for the sake of a few seconds' wait.

catfish50

sabz3008 wrote: »

What evidence is there of a contravention but the say-so of a lollypop man?!

Courts probably give quite a lot of weight to the word of a lollipop man. Why wouldn't they? It's part of the man's job to report violations.

Any suggestions?

Pay the ticket and apologize?

sabz3008

Ultimately, the point is this - If a road is clear, and pedestrians are 20-30 yards away then what right do Lollypop men have to just stand in the middle of the road? There is a huge comparison between traffic lights and lollypop people to whoever compared the two earlier on.

Have you people considered that this may be a case of an unfair ticket? I don't know if it's a fixed penalty notice or a court appearance, all I was told is what I mentioned in the post...I never drive at school areas to even know what lollypop patrols are like or what they do...But what I'm wondering about is the fact that, fair enough if the police observe and report something (Such as someone using a mobile phone and driving and get an automatic ticket/fine/points for it) but , not to patronise lollypop patrols but they're presumably fairly under-qualified individuals that aren't as trained as the Police or whatever?

Tigsteroonie

The lollipop man's "say-so" probably carries at least as much weight as the offender's "say-so" that the next people were 20-30m away.

catfish50

sabz3008 wrote: »

...not to patronise lollypop patrols but they're presumably fairly under-qualified individuals that aren't as trained as the Police or whatever?

Yeah, not to patronize them at all. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You're just outraged that a lowly under-qualified individual could possibly have their word accepted against the word of a superior individual such as yourself -- oh, sorry, I mean your friend.

:j :j :j