I was stopped by a police car the other day in Lincoln. I had just gone through a crossroads over a major road.
Prior to the cross roads there was a "no right turn" sign, which I admit that I did not see or at least had no recollection of - it would not have seemed relevant as the sat nav was proposing straight across. I had no idea why I had been stopped until, after reading me my rights, the PC informed me that I had turned right in contravention of the sign.
I admitted that I could not recall it, but said that I did not, in my own mind, consider that I had turned right. The PC said that I had in fact turned right in order to go "straight across" (the junction has been made slightly staggered as they often are by mucking about with kerbs etc.) and that she had "taken it to court" previously and she was therefore right.
I wasn't abusive or argumentative, although I admit to saying "you aren't really going to report me for this are you?"
Anyway, as I have my crime on video, I may as well offer it up for opinions.
Frankly, if they send me a fixed penalty I will take it as it will cost me more in fuel to go to Lincoln and back, but in my defence/mitigation I say here
- when stopped at the junction, there are no visible signs to indicate which directions are permitted - the no-right-turn signs are at that point c. 30 yards behind the driver.
- I think it is arguable that I did not turn right anyway.
- at no time was there any suggestion that I had driven dangerously or even inconsiderately.
- clearly the authority (presumably the highways dept) wants all traffic to turn left. Why not just use a "turn left" sign i.e. white arrow on a blue background to direct all traffic to the left, and ideally position it where it can be seen at the junction?
I am slightly peeved. I have never been to Lincoln before that I can recall and I am disinclined to go again.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ujvfwx-gr6U
Street view (2014) shows a faint turn left arrow but that has now worn away, as has most of the give way line.
goo.gl/U4I8Y2
Bang to rights, or an imminent miscarriage of justice?
Last edited by: Manatee on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 19:00
|
Sorry old chap but ...
.....there is no doubt whatsover that you turned right. There is a clear sign showing no right turn on a pole on the LHS kerb.
I'd delete the video asap if I were you.
|
My sympathies, as I suspect I would have done the same.
If the authorities really wanted vehicles not to take the route you did then they could design that traffic island a lot better.
The two roads certainly seem to line up.
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 19:37
|
>>I'd delete the video asap if I were you.
Why? He knows what he did as does the Policeman/woman who pulled him over. I cannot see how having the video up is either going to strengthen or weaken the outcome.
>>For someone not familiar with the area this would be an easy trap to fall into
A cynical person might argue a deliberate trap.
And yes it's a crap junction layout, the island at the crossroads should be much wider to the left so preventing a 'right' turn.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 19:40
|
There is a no right turn sign, the junction leads you left, a fair degree of counter intuitive (not to mention a load of steering wheel "right") action needs to happen to turn right. Straight on is through a road sign on a brick wall so dont even attempt to offer that in court as a defence.
>I was stopped by a police car the other day in Lincoln. I had just gone through a crossroads over a major road.
I would say calling it a crossroads is a bit of a leap of imagination as well
Bang to rights and you need to hope you get an offer of a FPN as your minimum way out.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 19:59
|
I fear you are right, but I still don't think it's a good use of police resources!
At the very least, if there is a serious intention to make all traffic go left then a white-on-blue turn left sign visible from the give way line would be extremely helpful.
Until I reached the junction I was expecting to go straight across, certainly not right, and when I got there there was nothing visible on a final check to suggest that I couldn't.
Badly done, I say.
|
I fear you are right, but I still don't think it's a good use of police resources!
I'm sure that Lincoln Police would like a list of things that they needn't resource ! The road has been engineered specifically to stop people going right. The traffic island has been designed to make it hardto go right. Locals will still chance it and strangers might have a "monentairily lapse"* during high driver workloadThey may resource it actively because of whatever caused it to be designed like that keeps happening despite the signage. Note on the road leading up to the junction that it is a residential street, and a two way street. on a narrow narrow lane and this is not getting at you at Manatee - There is a similar area in Colwyn Bay - complex when you're try to find a particular place, there is an overload of signage, you're looking at signs confirming one way two way or dead end egaged in finding something avoiding things...easilly done but you are banged to rights. If it were a cross-roads the road you were driving into you - it would have to be straight ahead. You have some mitigation - stranger in an area etc. You could cop a plea on the basis on going on a driver imporvment prgram and avoid the points. I'd be miffed but don't go down the resouces street (two way no u turn) with Police...not worth it. Write an factual letter to them after the case or with payment for the fine if you feel that strongly. I've done worse things and worried about them for 14 days.
|
>> >>For someone not familiar with the area this would be an easy trap to fall
>> into
>> A cynical person might argue a deliberate trap.
A normal rational person would conclude its an attempt to prevent the use of that route as a rat run.
|
|
Struggling to see how you could think you didn't turn right and ther are plenty of such roads with a simple sign and no repetition. Nobody's perfect though - just put it down to momentary lack of concentration and accept the fine if any.
|
>> I'd delete the video asap if I were you.
I don't dispute what happened, but thanks for the opinion:)
|
|
I certainly see that as a right turn.
|
4.8 If traffic has to turn left or right at an unsignalled T-junction because the ahead manoeuvre is prohibited (see figure 4-5), a sign to diagram 609 (blue order to turn left only) may be used together with the road marking to diagram 1036.1 or 1037.1 as appropriate. It is
not appropriate to provide a sign to diagram 606 (blue sign as on one way street) pointing to the left or to the right. A plate to diagram 607 should be used with the sign only where traffic is turning into a one-way road. Any map-type advance direction sign should incorporate the appropriate regulatory roundel (e.g. “no entry†or “no vehiclesâ€).
PAGE 18 www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/223943/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
I would aver it should say TURN LEFT on the floor and they should have Turn Left Only signs.
The way they have it now is not ideal for a dog-leg crossroads.
Last edited by: Shiny on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 19:31
|
My initial thought was that you were clearly wrong as 1) there is a no right turn sign in advance of the junction 2) the road has been designed to massage you in a particular direction and you had to work a bit to go the way you wanted, an indication that it might not be the right way.
But on reflection I think you should provide this video in mitigation as it clearly shows the virtual absence of a left turn only arrow, and the actual absence of any other signage. For someone not familiar with the area this would be an easy trap to fall into and the council ought to be scolded for lack of upkeep.
|
Probably bang to rights, though there is an argument that the no-right turn signs are set too far back down the road to meet required specification, viz:
4.18 A prohibited turn sign to diagram 612 or 613
is always sited immediately before the junction on
the left hand side. Where there are two or more
approach lanes and a “no right turn†sign is likely to
be obscured by vehicles in the near side lane, the sign
should be duplicated either on the right hand side
of the road or on any central refuge. There might
be other situations where it would be helpful to
duplicate either the “no right turn†or “no left turnâ€
sign, e.g. where the near side lane is reserved for
buses and the left turn is prohibited. On dual
carriageways, signs should normally be mounted on
both the left hand side and the central reservation.
Lest we should argue about the word "immediately", one of the recommendations under these circumstances is to consider a blue and white arrow sign set 50 metres back from the junction as advanced warning of the restriction (which must be signed). This cannot be used immediately at the junction with a two-way road as it may lead to the impression that one is entering a one-way street.
The regulations (elsewhere in legislation) also appear to contain the wording "When the circular sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, the sign must be placed as near as practicable to that point".
(my emphasis in both cases).
To meet this, frankly the turn restriction signs should (IMO) have been no further back than the 30 limit signs (though I'm not sure if the regulations allow "co-poling" with a speed limit sign - though I've found the odd UK example with a quick search). The almost complete obscuring of the arrow on the road does no favours at all in conjunction with the substandard signage.
A good traffic lawyer might be able to plead the case, but I'd be wary of my quick research and barrack-room lawyering.
|
Shame there's no sound.
I'd have loved to have heard you swearing loudly.
|
|
Yes, it took me a few minutes to work out how to remove the sound!
|
Slight, but not massive thread drift.
On our local rural roads there are contractors working who are pulling cables through existing pipelines. Their chapter 8 roadwork skills are clearly missing. Their 400yd signs are a best 200yds from the traffic lights and similarly their 200 are indeed an obvious 100yds. This around blind bends for the Facebook heroes doesn't bode well.
Someone give me a telephone number to report these idiots.. In life it seems that NGAF!
|
Banged to rights. Its not a crossroads the no right turn is clear on street-view. photo - I'd like to see exactly what it shows today and a second opinion from an expert. There won't be any leaves obscuring it this time of the day. But a crossroads it most certainly not. I think they were a bit harsh but I see the reasoning for the sign. They don't want emerging traffic turning right into heavy traffic. I reckon thats the cause behind it. It was probably a rat-run in early days and or there are visibility issues. I'll ping th street view to a friend get a second opinion. I tell you now he won't put pen to paper either way without an on site survey. He won't like Lincoln either I would think.
Edit.
There are two prohibotary illuminagted "no right turn" signs in the street view. You were unlucky a mistake easilly made. She was either waiting for an easy ticket (those days are long gone since upwards of 50% cuts in Roads Policing) or she simply saw you do it randomly
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 21:28
|
Just checked the YouTube (sorry recovering from mind altering flu) the signs are illuminated. Pay up
Edit
Damn it can't sleep now.
OK
Look the vid.
CPS - When you got to the the junction - yes or no please - which way did you point the car's nose...left or right ?
Answer Left (nonsense or you wouldn't you have gone the other way) Right - must have been or you would have collided with the that nice victorian retaining wall.
Or am I mad ?
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 21 Jan 17 at 22:52
|
Concentrating on following a sat-nav in an unfamiliar city, I think I might well have collected a ticket, too.
There IS a hard right turn available- obviously a no-no - but given the road layout, I think a good number of drivers would reckon that's a slightly kinked straight ahead.
|
|
Yes...but no crossroads !!! The slight kink is most definately there it's been engineered in - maybe to avoid congestion on the road leading up with people witing to kink right to go left. It's prohibited turn marked TWICE in a short distance on ILLUMINATED signag. That is the message. On a not guilty plea it will be judged on the facts and the law. I would honestly pay up
|
|
Stopped by a police car in Lincolnshire for something like that, you must have been incredibly unlucky. I can go weeks without seeing a single police car.
|
I'd agree with others, pay up and chalk it to experience. On a bit of quick research I think it's fine only and no points for ignoring no right turn.
Maybe the copper would have been better used elsewhere. OTOH if it were well known that police in effect ignore this offence even committed in plain sight then the signs become pointless. Possible in that particular locale that if route ha potential for 'rat running' that there will pressure toenforce from locals.
Answer to police/resource question in London and possibly a few other cities is to devolve enforcement of these minor offences to Councils where they're enforced by Civil Enforcement Officers or cameras.
Treated like Parking Offences with disputes going to a tribunal.
|
To answer the Police resources issue. Can we assume from the film you were nicked by a police car following you? it looks that way.
Now as there was no copper hanging around that junction, with notebook handy, and we can assume that the police car does not spend all day driving up and down that section of road following cars hoping they will turn right, I think we can safely say its not being proactively enforced. Its clearly a case of bad luck, bad timing that you did what you did at that moment.
|
It clearly was once a crossroads, but has been re-engineered to make it a staggered junction.
But only in one direction - if you retrace your movements in the opposite direction then the two roads are clearly opposite each other, forming a cross-roads.
The corresponding No-right Turn from the opposite direction clearly means no right onto the main road, not no straight-across.
So what the signs you passed really mean is this is a junction with TWO right turns, one at ninety degrees, the other with a little wiggle, almost straight ahead, but we are still calling it a right turn.
|
I would just pay the fine and put it down to experience, Manatee, after all you did turn right before immediately turning left.
Frustrating nevertheless, as it would appear to be an easy mistake to make on that particular junction.
When I made a mistake at a junction a while back, I parked up nearby (as it was my intention to do some shopping there anyway) and surveyed the scene for around 5 minutes. It really was surprising just how many other drivers did exactly the same.
Last edited by: Clk Sec on Sun 22 Jan 17 at 12:12
|
>> To answer the Police resources issue. Can we assume from the film you were nicked
>> by a police car following you? it looks that way.
It's possible. There was no one behind me when I arrived at the junction, but I was stationary for a while, crossing the traffic. Once safely over the junction I looked in the mirror and saw the police car (local, Astra I think not a proper traffic job) catching up with light bar flashing. I pulled in to let it go by and it stopped behind me.
|
I would have expected to see a turn left sign.
I have just put the route in to Google maps and it suggests going right over as well (Queen's Crescent to Carline Road across Yarborough Road.
But TomTom gets it right:
Leave from Queen's Crescent. Take the Yarborough Road/B1273. Continue to your destination at Carline Road2017-01-22 11:50
¼ mi
Leave from Queen's Crescent
80 yd
Turn left onto Yarborough Road/B1273
130 yd
Try to make a U-turn at Yarborough Road/B1273
120 yd
Turn left onto Carline Road
80 yd
You have arrived at Carline Road. Your destination is on the right
But I don't like to U-Turn.
Goodness knows how self driving cars are going to manage?
|
>>
>> Goodness knows how self driving cars are going to manage?
>>
A good question.
If there is no one at the wheel, who would the policeman talk to?
Who would be to blame for the traffic offence?
|
>> A good question.
>> If there is no one at the wheel, who would the policeman talk to?
>> Who would be to blame for the traffic offence?
In this country, expect the law to be phrased so as to make the passenger responsible for the car's actions.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Jan 17 at 19:27
|
>> expect the law to be phrased so as to make the passenger responsible for the car's actions.
I don't see how it could be any other way.
|
>> I don't see how it could be any other way.
But surely the software designers, map makers and councils for their bad signage need to take some responsibility if the thing is so confused that it makes silly errors like this?
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 22 Jan 17 at 19:27
|
>> In this country, expect the law to be phrased so as to make the passenger
>> responsible for the car's actions.
>>
"the" passenger ? Which passenger? Someone in the back seat who has hired a driverless taxi? A non-driver reading a newspaper?
Or a man in a pub who has called his empty car to come and pick him up?
|
|
Maybe the registered keeper then..
|
Goodness knows!
Perhaps it should be the back seat passenger - the car wouldn't have been there if it wasn't for the passenger - this type of thinking already exists in some countries - I am led to believe where foreigners are always to blame for accidents as if they weren't in the country then the accident would not have occurred - though I suspect this is an exaggeration.
Someone will have to take responsibility for misdemeanors and I guess owners will have to press an "I accept the terms and conditions of this software" / waiver every time they use the thing which the manufacturer will hope absolves them of any blame.
Things like these will need to be sorted before the cars self drive - if they ever can or will be allowed!
Last edited by: zippy on Sun 22 Jan 17 at 15:30
|
>> Maybe the registered keeper then..
>>
I am confident our lawmakers will come up with a new definition for who is deemed to be in charge of the car while it is being "driven".
For example - there could be a seat defined as being the controlling "driver" seat where an overide button is accessed by the "driver", and the driver can only start after having his/her fingerprint read at the beginning and end of each journey. That's just an off the cuff suggestion. Lawmakers with more time on their hands will do doubt look at possible loopholes and hope to have them all covered, or amend the law as the case-law builds up.
|
Thak you all for your comments and interest.
To be clear, I never had any real intention of fighting it since it would certainly be more trouble and expense than just paying a fine, as long as that is all it is. I was not seeking adice on how to wriggle out of it, I just happened to have it on camera so I was able to share the embarrassing episode at my expense. I do not dispute the facts.
It did strike me that the traffic was being 'facilitated' to the left and I did look carefully while at the junction itself to see if there was any reason not to take the road opposite. Unfortunately the helpful signs were then at least 60 feet behind me.
I am assuming that the nonsensical phrase "fail to comply with a non endorsable traffic sign" on the NIP means I can't get any points, and that it will be a fixed penalty option.
If it is a court summons then I will if possible plead guilty by letter with a plea of mitigation, suitably humble and honest. I am still amazed that a driver carefully checking his options at the junction can see no prohibition signs or direction signs, the arrow has worn off the road, etc.
The PC was pretty vague and seemed to be saying I might get some sort of driver awareness course offer, but I could do without dragging to Lincoln for that. She also said nothing might happen but I am fully expecting it will because a NIP was issued. Why she did not just issue a FPN herself I don't know, maybe it isn't on the menu.
|
>> If it is a court summons then I will if possible plead guilty by letter
>> with a plea of mitigation, suitably humble and honest.
>>
My mitigation would be that I was a visitor, and that (as your video shows) as I was paying attention to the roadworks "obstacles" in the road, and to a man in a high-vis jacket there, these "distractions" caused me to miss noticing the no-right-turn signs.
What would yours be?
|
|
I think you are presumed to be able to cope with minor distractions whilst driving
|
>> I think you are presumed to be able to cope with minor distractions whilst driving
>>
Depends on definition of minor and the fact that the distraction is at he point where the signs are located. You could look at both in the scene at the video if you were cross-eyed! Also, it is mitigation, not an excuse. ;-)
legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mitigating+circumstances
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sun 22 Jan 17 at 19:07
|
@OP
You have my sympathies. I would have possibly done the same if I were there first time.
Usually in this case, a white on blue sign (as already mentioned by someone earlier) should have been seen.
>> Goodness knows how self driving cars are going to manage?
This is a good indication of how some roads need to be redesigned. This particular road is a bad design. It does feel like a continuation of straight road because it is staggered only a little.
IIRC Tesla autopilot feeds learning to all other Tesla cars. So once a Tesla car learns something soon (may be end of day?) it will be available to other Teslas so that no other car will make same mistake.
|
>>@OP
>>You have my sympathies
I could have done the same and sure that I have done at times, in error of course.
I know that Manatee isn't trying to get off but its probably worth having a look at www.pepipoo.com/ for fair advice.
|
Oh dear!
Seems somewhat harsh. No right turn signs on approach agreed, but reality is that your focus is drawn towards the greater hazard which would have been the junction. The prohibition /requirement should have been reinforced at the junction.
FPTs are not issued anymore by the Police. They are TORs (Traffic Offence Reports). These were introduced to provide a more consistent approach to disposal. In the background is a the national Pentip database which is a record of all traffic offences committed and disposals. A back office receives the TOR, checks the database and then a decision is made as to what sanction will be imposed. So, for example, if you have had a Speed Awareness Course anywhere in the country in the last 3 years you wont be offered another.
The mantra is 'Education over Enforcement'. To be fair I don't see what benefit a course would have in these circumstances as this was nothing to do with driver behaviour rather just a simple mistake which we could all make.
|
The road markings should have been kept up to date and there should have been a blue/white 'turn left only ' sign on the opposite kerb at eye level.
The layout is poor, a more ' curved ' kerb on the island would lead drivers to the left although this may have been thought about and decided against because of longer vehicles using the road.
We have one here, you can turn right going east, as we do a lot, but not coming from the opposite way. No reason for the ban...even the police ignore it...the divisional hq is that way. Drivers who obey the sign just go straight ahead and do a U turn round the bollards opposite. Daft!
|
Thanks Ted, and FC.
The FPN got home before I did. £50. No doubt more trouble and expense than it would be worth to argue so I will accept it, but I may well write a letter.
If it is a compulsory left turn, then it should to my mind be signed as such. Who, driving along a road and coming upon a "no right turn" sign, would feel compelled turn left?
I are disappoint with the attitude of the police on this occasion, although I have to declare an interest!
|
>> My mitigation would be that I was a visitor, and that (as your video shows)
>> as I was paying attention to the roadworks "obstacles" in the road, and to a
>> man in a high-vis jacket there, these "distractions" caused me to miss noticing the no-right-turn
>> signs.
>>
>> What would yours be?
Along those lines, yes. I genuinely was paying careful attention to the possibility of workmen or plant popping out and, having got that out of the way, I did do a careful check at the junction itself where there are no signs.
And of course "What about Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?"
|
|
We all do this sort of stuff - I was following my sister through Swansea - all the rat runs taken at speed - I missed her at some lights (because I was taking care) and had to stop to programme sat-nav...trying to focus on all the factors up'd the workload no end. I'm a country mouse these days...rare dashes into cities.
|
I'd just pay it and forget it!
Looking at the facts you passed two 'no right turn signs'
The bollards steered you towards a left turn.
Your steering wheel turned to the right to go as you say 'straight on at a crossroads' but what is clearly a dogs leg junction.
Bang to rights I'm afraid, but I know by experience indignation does subside with time;)
Pat
|
>>
>>
>> Your steering wheel turned to the right
>>
Yes, but I don't think the direction you actually steer has anything to do with whether you are making a "turn" or not.
If a main road goes round a tight bend you are still going straight on along the A1234. If there is a minor road joining at the bend which you can take without needing to make any movement of the steering wheel, you are still defined as "turning right".
|
>>Yes, but I don't think the direction you actually steer has anything to do with whether you are making a "turn" or not<<
At a T Junction it's a pretty hefty clue!
Pat
|
>> If there is a minor road joining at the bend which you
>> can take without needing to make any movement of the steering wheel, you are still
>> defined as "turning right".
I wish people goig into the community centre here understood that. Lost count of number of times they've cut across my bows on a RH turn round which I have right of way. Accidents avoided thus far because all residents of this road know the risk and creep/peep.
|
Watch out in Lincoln! - Dulwich Estate II
