Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just got a PCN through from Southwark council for failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign. It happened on he Peckham Rye junction, I think we turned right onto East Dulwich Road. The photos on the PCN aren't very clear and we rarely drive around ED anymore having moved a bit further out 3 years ago.


The only blue sign I can see on google street view is just below the traffic lights. It doesn't appear massively visible (and we obviously didn't see it) . Also on this occasion it was dark and the weather was atrocious, really hammering it down.


I know this junction catches people out in various ways, just wondering if there is any point appealing. Would be good to get anyone's thoughts.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/89823-pcn-worth-appealing/
Share on other sites

Ok fair enough, is it just that arrow though or did we miss some other signposting?


The point of my post really is that we didn't see the signposting (possibly because of the weather) so trying to establish what signposting is actually there. We certainly didn't ignore it intentionally,

Yes, in my first post I said that I can see from google street view there is a directional arrow there. Not disputing that. However, we didn't see the arrow at the time, so I am trying to establish how we made this mistake and if there is an issue with visibility of the signposting.


So in order to do this I was trying to find out a) if there is any other signposting - e.g. a no right turn sign or something similar, which might be more visible (I have checked on google streetview and can't see anything) and b) general question really if those straight on arrows can be considered visible enough in poor conditions, as we didn't see it.


Obviously the latter is a subjective point, but wondered if anyone has every appealed on this basis and won, particularly at this junction - certainly not trying to start a proper EDF style debate and it may be a question better suited to a more specific forum.

Further back (about 500 yards) there is a junction with a big green sign on the left showing the way to Dulwich/Nunhead




Then there is the straight on only arrow on the traffic light. There are thousands of those around the country, so it's a well established road sign. You'd be challenging on that basis.


Just out of interest how likely is it that you'll make the same mistake again?

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry to hear you got a fine, but I think the

> combination of the "straight ahead" arrow below

> the lights, and arrows painted on the road are

> quite clear. So no point appealing IMO. I'd pay up

> asap if I were you, and avoid the increased fine.



Ok, just checked google street view again, a bit further back this time, and you're right we managed to miss the white arrow on the road as well. Although the PCN is specifically for the blue sign (according to the letter). But you are right we should pay up. Thanks for the input.

Fatcats, I would agree with Mark and just pay. Southwark don't want to know your reasons. I still veer towards that direction (turning right onto ED road) as you could do that sometime ago but now you have to turn left (green sign) to go away from where you want to get to!
  • 6 months later...

I got caught at this intersection as I was trying to get to a petrol station before returning a hire car. I remember the navigation aid continually re-routing and we were going in circles and getting frustrated so I probably turned right out of frustration.


Coming from Australia I'm used to seeing a 'no right turn' sign at the intersection so it wasn't obvious to me once I got to the intersection to see a blue up arrow. I can see now I was in the wrong.


As rabbitears identified "...there is also a large "no right or left turn" sign by Kinssle Rd" but perhaps this could be mistaken for a 'no right turn' into Kinssle Rd?


Personally I think it would be more obvious by putting a 'no right turn' sign at the intersection.


Anyway I paid it as I was in the wrong.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, AFAICS, the "civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300" were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...