Be low is a letter I sent to my MP as a reply to a letter he received on my behalf form the PSNI.
This issue is concerning a fixed penalty notice issued to me for driving in a bus lane.
Please read it and give me your thoughts
This was the last in a chain of letters sent to the PSNI on this matter. I may not have had my £30 back but I have the satisfaction of knowing it must have cost the PSNI more in time and letters replying to all my correspondence.
Not quite the result I would have wanted but I make it up as a score draw!!!
XXXXXXXX,
Belfast
BTXX XXX
24th August 2007
References:
A: The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994:
B: Road Traffic Act 1988:
C: The Highway Code:
D: Human Rights Act 1998:
E: Fix Penalty Serial Number XXXXXXX. Vehicle registration XXXXXX
Dear Mr. XXXXXX MP,
I am writing in reply to; Com Sec XX/XXXX, your letter to the PSNI Chief Constable on my behalf.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you on getting a reply from the PSNI, to my letter in connection with the issuing of a Fixed Penalty issued to myself on 11th May 2007.
I will start with categorically refuting the two references in the PSNI correspondence, as to my competence as a driver. I find these two, references extremely offensive.
The first reference is in the sentence referring to the road markings and states, “The road markings are clearly all visible to any competent driver from at least 50m”. The second reference is in the next paragraph and states that “However it is felt that this would still be clearly visible to a competent driver”. As far as I am aware, I do not know nor have I ever met Inspector XXXXXX, and Inspector XXXXXX as far as I am aware does not know nor has ever met myself.
This officers sweeping assumptions and generalizations as to my competency as a driver has to be seen in the context that this officer was not an eyewitness to the issuing of the Fixed Penalty incident nor has this officer to my knowledge seen or experienced my driving. I would like to state that if my competency as a driver were as poor as Inspector XXXXXX infers, then surely this would have been reflected in my driving record and the likely list of convictions, fines and penalty points that would come with an incompetent driver.
Therefore, how this officer can make this judgment as to my competency as a driver I feel is stretching his credibility as a senior PSNI officer, after making these sweeping assumptions and generalizations.
For the record and for Inspector XXXXXX information, I have been driving for over 23 years. In all that time I have never had an accident, driving conviction, speeding ticket, parking ticket or any other driving offence. I have also held a PSV and HGV licence in this time, and again with none of the offences set out above.
Therefore, to infer that I am not a competent driver is a slur on my character and driving ability.
May I inquire what qualifies Inspector XXXXXX to make such a slur on my character and driving ability?
Inspector XXXXXX has breached any confidence I had in the PSNI and him as a senior PSNI officer to be objective, open minded and fair in this matter. Therefore, I contest that this is a breach of my Human Rights,
under The Human Rights Act 1998 Articles 6 & 7.
I will therefore be requesting an apology at the earliest opportunity from Inspector XXXXXX.
I would like to inform Inspector XXXXXX that I have been the victim on two occasions of hit and runs from what are known as run around vehicles. On both occasions, I contacted the PSNI and on both occasions, I had to provide all my personal and vehicle documentation and this I duly produced. These PSNI actions made me feel as the victim of a crime that I was a suspect and I was not treated with the respect that a victim of a crime should be afforded. I received within two weeks of reporting both incidents letters stating the PSNI were taking no further action in relation to these matters.
Therefore, maybe it was too much for me to expect that I would receive any resemblance of fair play or justice from the PSNI in this issue of the issuing of the Fixed Penalty.
I find the quote in the Chief Constables report ”Making Northern Ireland Safer For Everyone Through professional, Progressive Policing” as meaningless waffle.
I have set out in the pages contained therein a series of points on my objections to the issuing of the Fixed Penalty Serial Number N XXXXXXX on Friday 11th May 2007, the alleged incident having taken place on the Antrim Road Belfast.
The fixed penalty and fine was issued to me for allegedly knowingly, that I was driving in a bus lane during the operating times of the bus lane.
I categorically refute this allegation and feel I have set out and proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the signs at the entrance to the bus lane were not perpendicular to the road and therefore not clearly visible. This is in contravention of the Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3(b).
The Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3(b) states, “To have been lawfully so placed, unless the contrary is proved”. I contest that Chapter 52 Section 36 of The Road Traffic Act 1988, refers that signs should be lawfully placed perpendicular to the road and to all on coming traffic.
I therefore, feel I will prove there were mitigating circumstances to my driving in the bus lane. And by my taking of photographs and measurements I feel I will have shown un-rebuked evidence, and corroborated by the PSNI issuing officer Constable XXXXXX, in reply to my first correspondence to the PSNI. That the signs at the entrance to this stretch of bus lane at the time of the alleged incident were not perpendicular to the road, and to all on coming traffic. Therefore, the signs could not and were not clearly obvious.
For the signs to be clearly obvious and the information contained on the signs to be clearly observed the signs need to be placed perpendicular to the road?
The signs at this section of bus lane where nether perpendicular to the road nor were they clearly obvious. Therefore they breach the Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3 (b). I therefore, contest that it would not have been oblivious to me that I was contravening the quarantine times of the bus lane.
I would like to remind you that the first sign at the time of the incident was not perpendicular to on coming traffic therefore the sign and the information contained thereon was not clearly visible. The second sign was not visible at all. Therefore, it is overwhelmingly obvious that these signs were clearly not obvious to any oncoming traffic.
This issue obviously seems to be one of my word against that of Officer XXXXXX, on the events of that day. The PSNI have not put forward any corroborating evidence other than the events put forward by Officer XXXXXX. At what point does the evidence I have provided, be given the credibility it deserves by the PSNI. I again state that this is a breach of Articles 6 & 7 of The Human Rights Act 1998.
Can the PSNI confirm to me what more evidence is required by a motorist to prove their innocence?
If this matter is not resolved justly and to my satisfaction then the only conclusion, I as a citizen and motorist can draw is that the PSNI are using the innocent motorist and the motorist in general as a source of income.
My confidence therefore in the PSNI to deal justly with such maters has been severely dented!
The PSNI know the motorist will always have reluctance to take the issue to court as the motorist is not familiar with the court system and procedures and the motorist will be at a distinct disadvantage in the court environment.
Moreover, the perception rightly or wrongly is that the courts will always find in favour of the PSNI and larger fines with costs are likely to be handed down against the motorist.
This is why it is important that the PSNI deal with such maters justly, before the need to go to court, especially when the overwhelming weight of evidence has proved in favor of the motorist before the issue has to go to court.
The stance the PSNI are taking over this matter smacks of Bullying, and I feel it is a breach of my Human Rights, in Articles 6 & 7 of The Human Rights Act 1998.
In closing and with reference to their summing up in their correspondence, I feel I have set out in my original correspondence and again here, and with the photographic evidence corroborated by the PSNI issuing officer. The Information signs containing the bus lane times were not perpendicular to the road and therefore the signs cannot be clearly obvious.
Therefore, the signs I feel breach the Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3 (b). I therefore, contest that it would not have been oblivious to myself that I was contravening the quarantine times of the bus lane. I also felt the actions taken by the PSNI in this matter have contravened my Human Rights under Articles 6 & 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
I feel I have proven beyond all reasonable doubt and by their own omission in their first correspondence the PSNI have stated that the signs were not, perpendicular to the road therefore the signs by their own omission are incorrectly positioned and therefore not clearly visible.
However the PSNI still would not set aside the issuing of the Fixed penalty.
I now feel the only just outcome is the revoking of this
Fixed Penalty N XXXXXXX and the reimbursing of my £30 Fixed penalty fine paid by me without prejudice before the 21-day payment period was up.
Yours sincerely
Ranger1640
enc.
1. As I stated in my first correspondence I do not contest I was driving in the bus lane.
2. The PSNI State in their correspondence that the signs at the entrance to the bus lane were warning signs. This is not correct they are traffic information signs. I refer you to Road Traffic Act 1988, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 and the Highway Code Signs and Markings section. Warning signs are mostly Triangular in shape. Information signs are Rectangular.
3. The PSNI also state in their correspondence that there are road markings indicating the bus lane. I do not contest the fact that there are road markings and in my first correspondence, I referred to the fact that the words BUS LANE were located at the start of the bus lane. However, the road markings work in conjunction with the traffic Information signs.
4. The road markings do not contain or inform the driver of the times of the bus lane. This is why there are Information Signs positioned at the entrance to the bus lane.
5. As stated in my correspondence and acknowledged by the PSNI in their correspondence. I did move into lane 2 at XXXXXX Park. This was a result of observing the quarantine times for the next section of the bus lane on the properly positioned perpendicular to the road third sign. On observing the information, I therefore immediately moved into lane 2.
6. The reference in their correspondence that the traffic in lane 2 was lead by a vehicle bearing L-plates is totally irrelevant. The Fixed Penalty issued was for driving in the bus lane during the operating times of that bus lane, and not for undertaking the L-plated driver.
7. As stated in their correspondence the officer does not contest that the first 2 signs were not perpendicular (90°) to oncoming traffic. Can the officer confirm if he noted at the time of the incident the position of these signs at the entrance to this stretch of bus lane? Alternatively, was this only brought to his attention by my diligence and in my first correspondence?
8. Furthermore, to the above I would like to state that the officer did not refer to the incorrect positioning of the first two signs at the entrance to this section of the bus lane at the time of the incident.
9. The officer however did make a general reference to the effect that there were signs at the entrance to all bus lanes.
10. In the PSNI’s first correspondence, the issuing officer stated that the first sign was at an approximately 45° angle. This I feel is a matter of conjecture.
11. Can the PSNI confirm if the officer returned to make that measurement? For that measurement to be used as a material fact as stated in their correspondence it would need to be a correct measurement?
12. The only issue I feel that has any relevance or bearing, is that both signs on entering this section of bus lane were not perpendicular (90°) to oncoming traffic. (Please refer to the Photos enclosed)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/9717614@N02/?saved=1
13. I would furthermore remind you that the second sign is there to reinforce the information on the first sign. This sign was turned through a full 90° inwards facing 180° to the road. It was therefore impossible to know, not only what type of sign this was, but it was also therefore impossible to read the information contained thereon.
14. My understanding of this type of signage is to inform. I refer you again to the Road Traffic Act 1988, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994 and the Highway Code Signs and Markings. Properly positioned signage perpendicular to the road would permit drivers to observe the signage from the required distance and to act on the information contained thereon.
15. If road signage is not perpendicular to on coming traffic, drivers therefore need to alter their driving position to read all the information contained thereon. In addition, if the driver has to spend a greater time concentrating on the inappropriately positioned signs and reading the information contained thereon, then an increase in traffic accidents will be the inevitable outcome.
16. This emphasises the point why it is important that the driver’s attention is not distracted from the road instead of trying to read inappropriately positioned signage.
17. Do inappropriately positioned signs fit into the PSNI’s road safety campaigns?
18. Therefore if we take the PSNI’s theory of inappropriately positioned signage through to its final conclusion. There will be no need for properly positioned signs. Therefore we will not require Road Traffic Acts and Traffic Laws.
19. If the aim of the PSNI is to have inappropriately positioned signage as its policy then we can expect nothing less than road carnage as the only outcome!
20. The driver needs to act on all the information contained on the information signs. Therefore if the drivers, driving position has to be altered they could be a danger to other road users or pedestrians!(I refer to the practice of rubber necking at motorway accidents)
21. I would expect that all PSNI Urban Traffic Unit drivers are expertly trained, experienced and professional drivers. I therefore would expect that any competent PSNI officer from the Urban Traffic Unit should be observant as part of their duties. Therefore should they not have observed that these signs were not perpendicular to the road and therefore inappropriately positioned. And then the officer would have known that the information contained thereon was not clearly visible and therefore he should not have issued a fixed penalty, under the Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3 (b) “To have been lawfully so placed, unless the contrary is proved”.
22. If there is a failure in the observance of officers in the Urban Traffic Unit. Then it is the PSNI’s responsibility to remove these officers from duty until they have received further training as required on observation!
23. From the time of the incident and my first communication, I would have considered that the officer would have had a Duty of Care to inform the Department of Regional Development Roads Service. To inform Roads Service that these road signs where not properly positioned perpendicular to the road!
24. May I remind you that we as road users all have a Duty of Care to ourselves and others. As part of that Duty of Care and as the PSNI are public servants, I would have considered that the PSNI took this responsibility extremely seriously. This responsibility would form part of the PSNI’s professionalism and continuing campaign on road safety. Therefore, I would assume that any PSNI officer fulfilling their Duty of Care to themselves and the public would have reported at their earliest opportunity any inappropriately positioned road traffic signs!
25. As off 07/08/07, no report was forwarded to Roads Service form the PSNI. I therefore confirmed to Roads Service the location and position of these signs. As of 21/8/07, the signs are still not properly positioned.
26. I would also like to refer to their correspondence as to the distance at which they state the information contained on the first incorrectly positioned sign can be read from. They state that the information can be observed from 15-20m. This is another area of conjecture.
27. Unless the issuing officer returned to make that measurement mentioned above, it is again a matter of conjecture. I however did return to take photographs and measurements as evidence against the issuing of the fixed penalty and measured the distance the information could be read from and it is less than 10 metres. How can this be if it is not perpendicular to the road?
28. I would like to bring to your attention that a motor vehicle travelling at 30mph covers a distance of 13.4 metres per second. Working on the 15-20m they state in their correspondence, I would have at 15m 1.2 seconds to see the sign and read the information and at 20m, I would have 1.5 seconds to do like wise. All this while concentrating on my speed, other road users, pedestrians and the road conditions.
29. Do the PSNI approve of the times stated above as appropriate times for any driver not just a competent driver to observe an information sign?
30. The driver must observe and take the appropriate action required. This after observing the information contained on the traffic sign. This is in relation to the 2-second rule for braking.
31. Can the PSNI forward any reference in law, Road Traffic Act’s or Orders or in the codes of practice of the Highway Code? Where inappropriately positioned signage is suitable for use on the carriageway and the observation times (15m 1.2 seconds and 20m 1.5 seconds) stated are appropriate?
32. Can the PSNI confirm if it is the PSNI’s policy to enforce all fixed penalties irrespective of any inappropriately positioned signs or mitigating circumstances?
33. As I understand it, the issuing of a fixed penalty for a motoring offence is an absolute offence. However, can the PSNI confirm my understanding in law that if there is reasonable doubt for any offence it is to be given to the defendant and does this apply to Road Traffic offences?
34. I feel I have set out and proven beyond all reasonable doubt (Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3 (b)). That there is reasonable doubt over the correct positioning of the 2 information signs at the entrance to this section of bus lane. Also by their own omission in their correspondence the PSNI have stated that the signs were not perpendicular to the road therefore the signs are incorrectly positioned.
35. I refer you again to the Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3 (b) I feel I have overwhelmingly proven and provided the photographic evidence corroborated by the PSNI that these signs were not properly positioned so therefore there is reasonable doubt. To Quote the Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36 Para 3 (b): “To have been lawfully so placed, unless the contrary is proved”. Therefore I would consider the only just outcome to the issuing of fixed penalty notice N XXXXXXX is for a revoking of the fixed penalty and a return of the £30 fine paid without prejudice before the 21-day payment period.
36. I would also like to point out there are no references to the Fixed Penalty Notice offence code N052 issued to me on the PSNI web site.
37. Can you confirm that this code exists and if the correct Fixed Penalty Code was quoted on the Fixed Penalty issued? If the wrong Fixed Penalty code is quoted on the issued Fixed Penalty Notice, is the Fixed Penalty therefore invalid as the Fixed Penalty code does not refer to the alleged offence committed.
38. I also take issue with the way the events of the incident were recorded by the issuing officer. I was stopped and questioned then after the issuing of the Fixed Penalty I was then cautioned by the issuing officer.
39. I feel this is a breach of my Human Rights under Articles 6 & 7 of The Human Rights Act 1998. I feel I should have been informed by the issuing officer that I was to be cautioned before I was asked any questions. Therefore, I could have taken up my right to remain silent. I feel that to use any remarks I stated before my caution is therefore a breach of Articles 6 & 7 of The Human Rights Act 1998.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1988/uk ... 80052_en_1
Road Traffic Act 1988 Chapter 52 Section 36
36 Drivers to comply with traffic signs:
(1) Where a traffic sign, being a sign—
(a) of the prescribed size, colour and type, or
(b) of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the [1984 c. 27.] Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,
has been lawfully placed on or near a road, a person driving or propelling a vehicle who fails to comply with the indication given by the sign is guilty of an offence.
(2) A traffic sign shall not be treated for the purposes of this section as having been lawfully placed unless either—
(a) the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or
(b) it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the Traffic Acts that this section shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one;
and, where the indication mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is of the general nature only of the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates, a person shall not be convicted of failure to comply with the indication unless he has failed to comply with the prohibition, restriction or requirement to which the sign relates.
(3) For the purposes of this section a traffic sign placed on or near a road shall be deemed—
(a) to be of the prescribed size, colour and type, or of another character authorised by the Secretary of State under the provisions in that behalf of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2) above) to have been lawfully so placed,
unless the contrary is proved.
(4) Where a traffic survey of any description is being carried out on or in the vicinity of a road, this section applies to a traffic sign by which a direction is given—
(a) to stop a vehicle,
(b) to make it proceed in, or keep to, a particular line of traffic, or
(c) to proceed to a particular point on or near the road on which the vehicle is being driven or propelled,
being a direction given for the purposes of the survey (but not a direction requiring any person to provide any information for the purposes of the survey).
(5) Regulations made by the Secretary of State for Transport, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland acting jointly may specify any traffic sign for the purposes of column 5 of the entry in Schedule 2 to the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 relating to offences under this section (offences committed by failing to comply with certain signs involve discretionary disqualification).
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Ranger, having looked at your photos, specifically the one of the sign that's parallel with the road and also the one where the signpost isn't exactly perpendicular, there's one conclusion...