PCN Notice Greenford / otter road yellow box

forgotmyname

forgotmyname wrote: »

How did they smanage to contact the keeper if the reg is not identifiable?

The video looks like a screen capture of teh original so the quality suffers.

I wonder if someone is a FMOTL?

Edwood_Woodwood

forgotmyname wrote: »

How did they smanage to contact the keeper if the reg is not identifiable?

With a separate ANPR camera?

Edwood_Woodwood

forgotmyname wrote: »

The video looks like a screen capture of teh original so the quality suffers.

Not good enough, adjudicators will allow the appeal based on bad images being provided.

wealdroam

The OP does not say the video was the only evidence.
It could easily be that another image is available.

Edwood_Woodwood

wealdroam wrote: »

The OP does not say the video was the only evidence.
It could easily be that another image is available.

Only if it is another video showing the entire alleged contravention clearly showing the car reg.

Still images, such as from an ANPR, would not be good enough.

It is an alleged moving traffic contravention, still images mean jot.

Are you an Ealing council minion?

You appear determined to bend over backwards to condemn the OP.

Why are you even suggesting there may be things available that have not even been mentioned by the OP?

Why not comment on what has been provided?

Edwood_Woodwood

Eg, the video provided does not clearly show the car reg, another image just showing the car and/or the car & reg will not be good enough to prove a contravention.

I suspect the OP received an obviously correctly addressed Notice with his correct car reg but with a copy/a link to the video as shown.

Not good enough I'm afraid.

How disappointing for you.

edit- Ealing authority have past form on this.

They are one of the very few councils who have had costs awarded against them by an adjudicator for constantly bringing flimsy claims of contraventions.

A very very rare instance.

They have also received a reprimand from The Department of Transport yet still continued to do the above.

It appears they are continuing to do so.

They are not even fit for purpose.

Edwood_Woodwood

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

The van ahead of you didn't "suddenly stop". It stopped because the traffic in front of it was stationary. You should have either seen that or anticipated it.

You shouldn't have entered the box junction when you did. You should have waited until there was a clear one car length space for you to drive into.

I see no grounds for appeal.

This was the very first post in reply to the OP, just 8 mins after the OP had created the thread!

8 mins consideration!:eek:

Clearly no budding Rumpole of the Bailey here!:D

almillar

Edwood:

Maybe you should read what I posted before jumping in head first.

I've posted several times, but you seem to prefer typing to reading.

That's what I posted, not what you are banging on about.

OK, so I'm trying to get some clarity for the benefit of everyone in the thread, including you - do you agree with my definition of a dual carriageway that you quoted in your post #136?

Yes, that link I posted earlier is the exact same place as the incident described in the opening post.

Thanks wealdroam - well I think we can all (well, the 'gang') agree, that's not a dual carriageway.

Edwood:

It doesn't matter what you think is good or bad practice, it is the law that matters.

I've already agreed that it's not the law. But it's still not good driving. You shouldn't be driving around thinking you're entitled to do it, you should only do it if you're really stuck, and then very carefully. And pay more attention next time. Any motoring organisation (including the IAM, of which I'm a member) will tell you it's bad driving. You should not be planning to do it every day.

I've no comments to make on the compliance of the yellow box or the identification of the number plate as I don't possess the knowledge ;-)

wealdroam

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Only if it is another video showing the entire alleged contravention clearly showing the car reg.

And we simply don't know whether that exists or not.
The OP was only asking for opinions based on the video he posted.

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Still images, such as from an ANPR, would not be good enough.

It is an alleged moving traffic contravention, still images mean jot.

Please add these to your list of things you are going to confirm when you have time.

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Are you an Ealing council minion?

You appear determined to bend over backwards to condemn the OP.

Why are you even suggesting there may be things available that have not even been mentioned by the OP?

Your continued abuse is not worthy of further comment.

Edwood_Woodwood wrote: »

Why not comment on what has been provided?

I have... many times.

AdrianC

wealdroam wrote: »

And we simply don't know whether that exists or not.

Given that the OP received the penalty, and doesn't dispute it's him in his car, I think it's fairly safe to say that there IS accurate evidence of the registration.