[Closed] Penalty Charge Notice - Fight or Pay?

Is your car parked on a pavement or bus lane or something' You've driven through a hatched area to get where you are and completely ignored the sign that says pass on the left.
You want to contest what?
*Checks date*

Great driving skills lex.

Forget the fine, get yourself to an opticians quick.

...I'm not proud, it happened, i'm not denying it. It just seems a bit tight to me.

I was moving Don, slowly.

I was moving Don, slowly.

I'm curious about your excuses, what've you got?

If a copper had seen you do it and pulled you over, most likely they would have taken a more leniant view in response to your candour and apologetic tone.

My question would be 'what purpose is served by fining you in this instance?' I can't see any and think like you that it's petty.

What offence code is on the pcn?

Oh no, rolly eyes, I don't like rolly eyes. But DS, you say I have broken the law....really? I see far greater traffic violations each day.

Excuses, that is all they are....I doubt they'll cut the mustard to be honest.

I was beginning to think I was alone, ta Geetee

'what purpose is served by fining you in this instance?'

teaching a lesson for ignoring several different instructions?

What offence code is on the pcn?

38JL - Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign.

Oh no, rolly eyes, I don't like rolly eyes. But DS, you say I have broken the law....really? I see far greater traffic violations each day.

You want to what? Bust me for selling drugs to kids? But there's murderers out there!

You see that big blue sign on the post (and the smaller ones on the bollards)
[img] [/img]
That's an order which you have ignored.

Essentially you've driven over the pavement, had there been a child('s face) walking across not expecting a car to drive through and therefore not looking then the outcome could have been worse.

You made a mistake, pay up and learn from it.

teaching a lesson for ignoring several different instructions?

And yet, quite clearly, the OP is not guilty of any of these things. He made a mistake, something which we all do from time to time.

He knows he made a mistake, knows it's wrong and likely didn't do it deliberately.

So, again, what purpose is being served by imposing the fine?

I think the authorities should do more to prevent people abusing disabled parking spots - something that does actually have a negative impact on people.

But DS, you say I have broken the law....really? I see far greater traffic violations each day.

had there been a child('s face) walking across not expecting a car to drive through and therefore not looking then the outcome could have been worse.

Oh god, why hadn't anyone thought of the children yet!?!? 😯

well...I am being serious that I think it's tight and petty. That particular point as pointed out by you and RM is weak, I agree.

And yet, quite clearly, the [s]OP[/s] Bob Diamond is not guilty of any of these things. He made a mistake, something which we all do from time to time.

And yet, quite clearly, the OP is not guilty of any of these things. He made a mistake, something which we all do from time to time.

He knows he made a mistake, knows it's wrong and likely didn't do it deliberately.

So, again, what purpose is being served by imposing the fine?

Never once have I made a mistake which saw me driving on the chuffing pavement!

My point still stands. Fine is a reminder to pay more attention, follow signage and don't drive on pavements

Is that the best quality photo they have?
I'd be requesting something a bit sharper, so that you could determine that it was your vehicle rather than any number of similar dark-coloured hatchbacks.
It's entirely feasible that someone else had a brainfart just as you did, camera was off when you erred but on when they did, and you're paying the penalty for someone else's mistake.

well...I am being serious that I think it's tight and petty

Why..?

Why..?

it's only other people who drive badly and if they were taken off the road, my life would be much easier...

like the OP then? 😉

Why..?

Because it serves no useful purpose. A fine is a deterent only if the offender wanted to offend and intends to do it again.

This is a fine for making a simple harmless (in this case) mistake - it's punative for the sake of being punative. No one was in danger and the OP appears to have no intention of doing it again (largely because he didn't intend to do it in the first place).

Because it serves no useful purpose. A fine is a deterent only if the offender wanted to offend and intends to do it again.

This is a fine for making a simple harmless (in this case) mistake - it's punative for the sake of being punative. No one was in danger and the OP appears to have no intention of doing it again (largely because he didn't intend to do it in the first place).

What about people who hit and kill cyclists in their cars? They don't intend to do it (I hope), and they don't intend to do it again, it's just a mistake... So should they not be punished?

A fine is a deterent only if the offender wanted to offend and intends to do it again.

This is a fine for making a simple harmless (in this case) mistake - it's punative for the sake of being punative. No one was in danger and the OP appears to have no intention of doing it again (largely because he didn't intend to do it in the first place).

balls. The fine serves as a reminder to pay some bloomin' attention! Or are all "Driving without Undue Care and Attention" fines/points a waste of time?

No offence in driving through a hatched area DonSimon.

Because it serves no useful purpose. A fine is a deterent only if the offender wanted to offend and intends to do it again.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=47150&mode=threaded&pid=423372

Flying Ox...definitely my car, they sent a few other incriminating photos.

Not sure I am on to a winner here. Geetee seems to understand my point. I am not trying to say I didn't do anything wrong. I am saying that the particular road feature appears to be a trap for money-making.

Not read the other comments, so apologies if someone has already said this.

The camera is there to stop lorries and other big stuff except buses. The bit where you're meant to go is narrow enough just for cars. You're not a lorry, it was just a mistake.

I'd have a word and see what they say.

Jesus weeping christ sometimes the metal articulation of people on this site makes my bloody ears bleed.

You bunch of freakin literalists.

Scenario One - the OP is pulled by a copper having committed the terrible fellony. He's been on his phone, driving at a speed deeply innapropriate for the conditions/environment and his manner is dimissive and curt.

Fine is totally appropriate in this case.

Scenario Two - the OP is pulled by the copper and is deeply apologetic, explaining that he's lost/new to the area/made a mistake but didn't put anyone's life at risk.

Copper explains the error, outlines why it could have been dangerous and the OP accepts this and promises to be more vigilant in future. OP goes on his way and everyone is safe and happy.

It's shades of grey folks. It's called NUANCE.

I don't agree the feature is there just to make money - the signage and road markings are really very clear. Mistake or not, you were caught and have been fined. No amount of arguing will change the outcome so pay up and move on.

He didn't get pulled by a copper though, so none of that happened. For all we know he would've told the copper to "**** OFF" then pulled a gun on him 😉

Scenario Two - the OP is pulled by the copper and is deeply apologetic, explaining that he's lost/new to the area/made a mistake but didn't put anyone's life at risk.

Copper explains the error, outlines why it could have been dangerous and the OP accepts this and promises to be more vigilant in future. OP goes on his way and everyone is safe and happy.

bombers and shoe weeing only legend

He didn't get pulled by a copper though, so none of that happened.

Which is my point - the use of cameras to impose fines with impunity (impunity that is to the nuanced situation I described above) cannot be argued to serve the public good 100% of the time. A lot of fines imposed this way, though entirely sanctionable by the rules, don't serve any purpose other than to raise money.

Pay the fine.

If I was in charge you'd have lost your licence for what can only be seen as a complete disregard for the rules of the road or a complete incomprehension. Both as bad as each other.

The rules of the road are clearly explained - I suggest you have a read of the highway code to refresh your memory. If you don't like the rules as they are set out then send your licence back to the DVLA in protest.

I am saying that the particular road feature appears to be a trap for money-making.

Balls.

If it was it would make very little.

Most people realise that the pointy end of an arrow is the business end.

And most people are paying enought attention when driving to notice where they are.

...collective wisdom has spoken. Just thought I'd see if the oracle agreed with my opinions, not this time.

Mistake made. I pay.

Children's faces will be saved.

Baby robins?

so long as the signs are big enough they should be ok 😉

I shall sleep soundly. 😀

In all seriousness I had a similar thing happen to me in Islington a few years ago. There was a car parked close to the entrance point of the narrow junction. A few people tried to go through and ended up hitting the kerb, scuffing wheels etc. i went through the middle.

Anyway, i challenged the PCN, went all the way to appeal. I won the appeal as I went back to the same junction and demonstrated that with a parked car close to the entrance, the entrance was not sufficently clear to enable vehicles to clear the junction.

Amazingly Islington were able to challenge the appeal! (mere mortals are not allowed) they lost again and were ordered to modify the junction and pay me reasonable costs. I have yet to see either!

...hmmm, my violation was in Islington too. Unfortunately no parked cars restricting access.

Scenario Two - the OP is pulled by the copper and is deeply apologetic, explaining that he's lost/new to the area/made a mistake but didn't put anyone's life at risk.

It's nothing to do with being lost or new to the area (even if that was the case) he drove somewhere that even from the shitty photo we can tell he's not allowed to go. Pretty sure that part of the driving test is being able to SEE and pay attention to road signs. If you did that on your test you'd fail instantly.

OP - We all do dumb stuff. I got 300 euros of traffic fines in 12 minutes in Florence once.

I once passed a cyclist, and chose to give them plenty of room by passing the wrong side of a centre island bollard with a tiny blue arrow. Otherwise empty road, except for a white car about 500 metres ahead.

Strangely, the white car waited at a roundabout, then as I got closer I realised it was a copper. I pulled up behind, and instead of indicating I should follow him, he got out and proceeded to give me a ticking off, whilst we blocked the entrance to the roundabout and several other cars drove around us, entering the roundabout on the wrong side of another blue arrowed bollard :d

However, if I'd got caught on camera I would just be holding my hands up unless there was a vehicle blocking my route.

Scenario Two - the OP is pulled by the copper and is deeply apologetic, explaining that he's lost/new to the area/made a mistake but didn't put anyone's life at risk.

Copper explains the error, outlines why it could have been dangerous and the OP accepts this and promises to be more vigilant in future. OP goes on his way and everyone is safe and happy.

It's shades of grey folks. It's called NUANCE.

But there was no copper. It was a camera with no ability to discriminate between intentional and accidental.

geetee1972 - Member

Which is my point - the use of cameras to impose fines with impunity (impunity that is to the nuanced situation I described above) cannot be argued to serve the public good 100% of the time.

Cool. Will you stand up in court on my behalf then? I Got an SP30 from a Gatso - I was doing 58 in a 50 on an empty dual carriageway at 22:30 on a Sunday evening. I wasn't hurting anyone and all the children were in bed. 😆

By the way, I paid up as soon as I received the notice. It was a fair cop.

To OP where is that location as I want to google map it ...

I want to know why they designed it that way ... weird.

[url= http://goo.gl/maps/rwjE ]here it is[/url]

So it's just there for emergency vehicles to pass through the width restriction, basically.

the particular road feature appears to be a trap for money-making.

It seems pretty well marked and clear to me. I'm not seeing how it's a 'trap'. If the road signs were missing or badly labelled then I'd agree, but there's two road signs, hatching on the entrance, a bloody big white arrow or the road where you should go, a different coloured block-paved road surface, an illuminated bollard, and just in case all that isn't enough, a warning sign that it's enforced by a camera.

I can't see any justification, or indeed any rational reason at all why you'd ever be driving slowly (as you say) across that section of 'road'. The only reason I can think to be there is if you'd come round the bend at the speed of sound and straight-lined the corner through the wider part. And if you were, gods help you if someone coming the other way ever has the same idea.

It was a camera with no ability to discriminate between intentional and accidental.

I'm not clear as to which is the 'oh, that's ok, never mind then' scenario here.

If it was intentional then it's a reckless disregard for the traffic signs (which is what it says on the ticket, natch). If it's unintentional then it's almost certainly Driving Without Due Care and Attention and I'd seriously suggest you look into advanced driving lessons. I'd be -very- wary of trying that as a defence for this reason alone; it's really clearly marked.

I'd love to hear what your excuse / reasoning behind it was. Makes no sense to me.

Cougar, I've already conceeded above, I am happy to except I made a mistake.

As for what it is; it looks like it's there to restrict the width of vehicles. There's a 6'6" maximum width sign and posts in place to prevent the passage of wider vehicles. The island is presumably to allow the passage of emergency vehicles as someone else suggested.

You don't appear to be 6'6" wide, so you've not gone down a lane you shouldn't have. On that grounds is it petty? Perhaps. Do you have a leg to stand on? No. Sorry.

whippersnapper - Member

here it is

Thanks for the link.

Okay now I see ... it's a 20mph zone in the housing area.

hhhmmm ... I guess the council has added extra traffic calming measures there to ensure drivers absolutely comply with the speed limit after turning in from the main road.

So if you are not familiar with that area there is a chance you will miss that if you do not look at the traffic signs properly.

If that's your car then just pay the £65 fine ... I doubt you will have grounds for dispute as there are traffic signs all over including Zebra crossing on the main road etc ... it's an indication you are entering a high pedestrian zone or might be entering a housing zone.

My understanding is that the traffic calming measure is there because of the block of flats just immediately after turning in from the main road. The council could have put it further down the road to give you more time to read the traffic signs but then they would miss out covering for those new flats.

Well on the bright side at least you have not scored "100 points" by mowing down some pedestrians.

p/s: I could easily make the same mistake if not careful ...

Cougar, I've already conceeded above, I am happy to except I made a mistake.

"Accept." And, sure, I think that's the better of the two options. I've certainly made enough over the years. (-:

It's a similar argument to slowly creeping through red lights on deserted roads at 4am. The lights are to control traffic flow and if it's very clear that there's nothing coming then they serve little purpose(*). But if you get caught running one even then, you'll get prosecuted for it.

(* - personally I think it's daft and they should set a lot of them to fixed amber in all directions at off-peak times, but that's a whole other conversation.)

I guess the council has added extra traffic calming measures there to ensure drivers absolutely comply with the speed limit after turning in from the main road.

I don't think that's the case, or at least if it is, that's a secondary measure. It's to keep HGVs and such out the residential area.

"Accept"

ah bugger, and another mistake...

fine will be paid tomorrow. Lesson learned.

geetee1972 -
the use of cameras to impose fines with impunity

I have to agree that cameras are not an answer to road safety. As stated a 'copper' can use discretion in such instances. However, discretion does not automatically mean you should be 'let off'.

The OP hasn't really shown any understanding of what they did, how they ended up there or that they have improved their driving skills to protect the public from dangerous driving.

A fine is the wrong penalty here. It would be better to be 3 straight points on the license. At least the accumulation of points serves as a reminder to be more observant.

Cougar -
It's a similar argument to slowly creeping through red lights on deserted roads at 4am. The lights are to control traffic flow and if it's very clear that there's nothing coming then they serve little purpose(*). But if you get caught running one even then, you'll get prosecuted for it.

Even stupider still, if you pass through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle through then you have also broken the law and can be prosecuted. It would be the Courts discretion to accept that you were doing so 'properly'.

Sure. But in that instance you've got two contradictory laws in place (I think) - isn't it also illegal to fail to yield to emergency services? I'd have to check.

No it's not illeagal to not yeild to an emergency vehicle in the UK. In the US I believe it is.

I think you may be confusing with failing to act as directed by a policeman.

mk1fan - Member

Even stupider still, if you pass through a red light to allow an emergency vehicle through then you have also broken the law and can be prosecuted. It would be the Courts discretion to accept that you were doing so 'properly'.

That would be harsh on the driver ...

mk1fan - Member

No it's not illeagal to not yeild to an emergency vehicle in the UK

That would be stupid ...

isn't it also illegal to fail to yield to emergency services? I'd have to check.

don simon - Member

That doesn't sound logical as yielding actually might slow the emergency vehicle down.

How can that slow down the emergency vehicle? Explain.

For example, if all lanes are jammed (no room for another vehicle to go through) and you are stopping at the red light and emergency vehicle needs to go through how would it be wrong to simply drive to the left passed the stop line to let it through?

If I understand yield to mean getting out of the way, then if the vehicle comes behind and you yield, you could simply be creating an extra obstacle whereas continuing until there is a safe place for said vehicle to over take.

don simon - Member

If I understand yield to mean getting out of the way, then if the vehicle comes behind and you yield, you could simply be creating an extra obstacle whereas continuing until there is a safe place for said vehicle to over take.

How could you yield if the emergency vehicle is just right up your backside and you have no way to go except driving pass the stop line to the left/side to let it through? Say it is safe to drive pass the stop line to the left.

What is a minor inconvenient to other drivers where someone in the emergency vehicle needed urgent medical attention?

🙄

You've lost me now... 😆

Scenario Two - the OP is pulled by the copper and is deeply apologetic, explaining that he's lost/new to the area/made a mistake but didn't put anyone's life at risk.

Net cost to the taxpayer - about £100.

Camera is there to save money. Just pay the fine, at least you're not getting points.

unless you reversed into the traffic Island.

Looks like a crappy bit of traffic calming to be fair, but I'd expect that from councilists.

don simon - Member

You've lost me now...

😆 I was not referring to the OP ... but say in the normal traffic lights.

Nevermind ...

Nevermind ...

I am saying that the particular road feature appears to be a trap for money-making.

There's no way that's a trap. There may as well be a sign saying don't come through this way, tigers will eat you!

I'd say suck it up, and get yourself a copy of the highway code while you're at it.

don simon - Member

I think you're actually agreeing with me in that yielding at the sound of the siren is not always the best course of action, getting out of the bloody way, is. [b]And that might mean accelerating, not stopping.[/b]
But yeah, nevermind..

Actually it's the other way round ... I would drive to the side to let the emergency vehicle through if that means driving/creeping passed the red light to the side of the road or simply position my car to the left passing the stop line. All this by taking into consideration I am not putting myself in danger of whatever traffic there is.

And that might mean accelerating, not stopping.

If you accelerate (not creeping pass) pass the red light you would in fact be putting yourself in danger because you are ahead of the emergency vehicle and other drivers may not know your intention. Creeping pass give other drivers a chance to see you ...

I'm not simply talking about in a red light zone, this I think is the confuddling bit. 😀

don simon - Member

I'm not simply talking about in a red light zone, this I think is the confuddling bit.

😆 Bloody hell ... wasted my time typing ... 😆

Guess we might be talking about very different situation here ...

😀
[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/f1-spoiler-3 ]Now get yourself on to possibly the funniest thread, EVER![/url]

don simon - Member

Now get yourself on to possibly the funniest thread, EVER!

Stone him for trying to be funny ... 😆