Author Topic: Connell Crescent $chunt - Friday 2nd October  (Read 2932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4447
  • THE lowest common denominator
Connell Crescent $chunt - Friday 2nd October
« on: 05 October, 2015, 03:14:38 PM »
Roll call (in no particular order):

Mr Mustard
Bald Eagle

When we first arrived we were seriously considering whether the fines had had the desired effect and that so many had been caught already, the number of potential victims had significantly decreased. We couldn't have been more wrong.

The first hour was very slow, but then again the A40 was moving relatively quickly. It wasn't until traffic started to build that we started to experience the usual number of suspects, and what started off as a trickle quickly developed into a flood which resulted in a count of 156 potential victims definitely saved, and no actual victims making it past our human cordon.

We have developed new signs specifically for use at ConAll Crescent which, together with Mr Mustard's excellent hand outs help us to get the message across to people without actually speaking to them. This means there were certainly some drivers who were not picked up as definite saves as they had cottoned on to what was happening due to some frantic gesticulating on my part. I will explain.

The new sign we have designed consists of the diagram 619 (flying motorbike) sign mounted above what the sign actually means, i.e. "NO MOTOR VEHICLES". I this sign used in conjunction with the "BEWARE! $CAMERA" sign and by pointing to various parts of the signs and then to the relevant objects they referred to (the $camera, the 619 sign and the meaning of the 619 sign), and then indicating that to take the Connell Crescent route would be the equivalent of getting your head chopped off (a slicing motion of my hand across my neck), I got quite proficient at getting the message across to motorists whilst they queued.

One potential victim in particular looked very sheepish when Coco had given him a lecture about why he shouldn't go down CC and, as he turned towards the A40 I caught his eye and pointed to the NO MOTOR VEHICLES part of my sign and then at him. The implication was of course that even though he was a policeman driving a riot squad van (this was the second one in two weeks we had stopped), he was in fact driving a MOTOR VEHICLE. The driver took it in good spirit though, and he smiled back at me and mouthed "I know."

And just when we thought it couldn't get any better/worse (?), another riot squad van was successfully diverted after yet another policeman failed to see the signs!

So I'm afraid our work here is by no means done, particularly as we see the same chap every week as he walks between Park Royal Tube station (Piccadilly line) and Hanger Lane (Central line), and he tells us that when we aren't there, there is a steady stream of vehicles charging down CC. Clearly the signs are failing to achieve their aim of giving local residents the quiet life they are entitled to.


Offline d.clerkin

  • Civilian
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Re: Connell Crescent $chunt - Friday 2nd October
« Reply #1 on: 05 October, 2015, 08:21:49 PM »
I am another victim of this particular scamera!
not sure if this is the correct place to post as I'm new to the site but here goes!
I got a total of 6 fines on this cut through, and appealed to Ealing council. i went ahead and appealed using points on here i found.
A few days after i met the notomob guys on Connell Crescent and had a chat about appeals etc which was reassuring.

my appeal went as follows

The sign used to inform motorists of the prohibited access is 619. This sign is stated by law to only be used in conjunction with signs 620 or 620.1. These signs states the exception to the prohibition. However Ealing council have used their sign to state the time in when it is active. This is not only confusing to motorists but not within the stated laws the traffic signs and general directions 2002 provide.

The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 states;

"64 General provisions as to traffic signs.E+W+S

(1) In this Act “traffic sign” means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—

(a)specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, [which is how they established TSRGD 2002] or

(b)authorised by the Secretary of State, and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.

(2)Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above [so if they are not they are unlawful and therefore unenforceable] except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character; and for the purposes of this subsection illumination, whether by lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material, or the absence of such illumination, shall be part of the type or character of a sign."

Following on from this point I’ve highlighted another issue.
There wasn’t any special authorisation for the non standard signs by The Secretary of State, I have checked their website and searched for the road and restrictions in question. Therefor making this unlawful.

I have been using this road occasionally for a number of years and did not see any prior warning notices outlining the restrictions which were coming into action.
I refer to The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996
•   1996 No. 2489
•   Regulation 18

Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force; and
(c)in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong positions.
(2) The order making authority shall consult the appropriate Crown authority before carrying out the requirements of sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of paragraph (1) in relation to a Crown road.
(3) This regulation is without prejudice to section 85 of the 1984 Act(1) (traffic signs for indicating speed limits).

There are many points within this prohibition that have contradicted the law, making the PCN’s unenforceable. The signage is not fit for purpose.

the appeal was rejected and reply from ealing was as follows

we have considered your representations, your evidenceand the circumstancesof the case but we dont accept your representations for appeal on the case.this letter is a formal notice of rejection of your representations.
you have stated that the signage at this location is non compliant citing that sign 620 or 620.1 should state what exemption applies to the restriction. however we must advise that sign 619 can be used with 618.1 (a permitted variant of 620) which states the hours the restriction is in force rather than an exemption clause. as such this is a permitted variant and we are satisfied that the signs and road markings at this location comply with legislation outlined by the traffic and signs regulations and general directions 2002.
you stated that you were unaware of the change of restriction at this location however we must advise that as per standard practice, highways erected notices on lamp columns in the vicinity and advertised in the local press to advise that a new restriction was in place.
this was done 6 weeks prior to the enforcement. in addition warning notices were issued from 10th-24th july 2015 informing motorists that had convened that it is ot permitted to drive with a motor vehicle at a specified time. the signs were in position prior to the start of the commencement of the traffic managment order but as required they were covered as not legally enforcable until the TMO came into place.

drivers are not permitted to access Connell Crescent between 3pm-7pm monday -friday. this restriction is in place to maintain the free flow of traffic and ensure the council meets its road safety obligations.we must remind you taht it is the drivers responsibility to to be aware and comply with road signs and restriction at all times. therefore you remain liable for this PCN.

you have 14 days blah blah blah the end.

have i made a good legal grounds for appeal? i have now sent this to the independent adjudicator and just wanted to see what you thought in the mean time.

many thanks guys and keep up the good work!


Offline Mr Mustard

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 40
Re: Connell Crescent $chunt - Friday 2nd October
« Reply #2 on: 10 October, 2015, 08:56:15 AM »
I am in touch with Dan offline but I think he has the sign point wrong.

The regs allow for "Except for access" to be omitted when times are shown. They are.

However, I am (slowly) working up a long list of other points we can use which do focus on signage locations etc.