# I'll Be Pleading Not Guilty To This



## Nanoman

Edit: see post 223 for the result of this case.

So apparently you shouldn't go straight on here despite what the lane-markings say. 









EDIT: Here's another pic showing a drivers eye view...








3 points and a £100 fine if I accept this. 
1) the signs do not conform to the regulations 
2) the lane markings do not conform to the regulations 
3) the officers did not see any offence being committed

My best mate and one of my closest mates are cops so I treated them with complete respect despite one of them being a total prick to me.

Anyone got experience of pleading not guilty to this kind of thing? I'll be speaking to my copper mates and also to a couple of lawyer mates but keen to hear from others on here.


----------



## ardandy

There's 2 big no entry signs with exceptions below. The lines are for them. 

Pay up id say


----------



## andystuff1971

Unless I am being thick, the two signs are very clear to me.


----------



## Rabidracoon28

Disobeyed 2 clear no entry signs. Case closed.
Admit your mistake, pay up and dont do it again.


----------



## bradleymarky

Both the no entry signs do get lost in the red shop signs but the courts wont see it that way, i know what you mean but you`re on a hiding to nothing here..


----------



## Jonnybbad

have to agree there are 2 rather large signs no defence really


----------



## ardandy

The lines don't mean go straight on, only that both lanes can be used.
Not an instruction, a notice.

This local to you?

Link to streetview would be handy or the street location etc. So we can get closer to the signs.


----------



## Kerr

The new layout of Edinburgh is poor. 

You aren't the first and you won't be the last to do that.


----------



## LeadFarmer

Are you sure those two 'no entry' signs aren't actually Local Traffic Orders? 

My knowledge might be out of date here, but a 'No Entry' sign with restrictions written underneath (such as 'between 4pm & 6:30pm) is (or at least was) actually a local traffic order, and as such shouldn't incur an endorsement on your licence, so just a smaller fine and no points. 

What exactly does it say under those no entry signs? Could be worth checking.


----------



## ardandy

Out of date:

https://www.google.com/maps/@55.948...!1e1!3m2!1sVEneX7O_LK-YDkzPgsnphw!2e0!6m1!1e1


----------



## ardandy

So the signs are for trams, taxis, buses and cycles.

Can't see a defence I'm afraid! Saying 'I didn't see it' will just make things worse.


----------



## Nanoman

I obviously didn't make it clear. Both signs had buses in front of them and could not be seen. There's nothing else to let people know it's a no-entry.

Map.








Green is the route I should have taken. Red is the the think I took. Blue is where the cops were (we both ended up on Princes St). The two red dots are where the signs are.

I don't believe the signs meet the regulations and I don't believe the cops witnessed any 'offence' even if it had happened.


----------



## Jem

Nanoman said:


> I don't believe the signs meet the regulations and I don't believe the cops witnessed any 'offence' even if it had happened.


All I can say is good luck, you're going to need it!


----------



## ardandy

Can't see anyone buying the 'bus was in the way' defence tbh.

If you were in the left lane there's no way of missing it, right lane perhaps but 2 foot wide signs on either side are all that's required (like a change of speed limit).

Go to court and plead but I'd expect without photographic evidence you'll end up getting a bigger fine, even if it was genuine.

Another reason for incar cctv I guess.




The cops witnessed you sat in a bus etc only road so that's the offence there, not crossing the signs.


----------



## Nanoman

ardandy said:


> The cops witnessed you sat in a bus etc only road so that's the offence there, not crossing the signs.


Sitting in a bus lane is a non-endorsable £30 fine rather than 3 points and £100. I can easily get a photo with both signs obscured.

Edit, also it's not a bus lane. It's a normal carriageway which just happens to be beyond two no-entry except buses, taxi's, trams, cycles sign.

Like I said I don't believe it meets the required regulations to be a no entry regardless.


----------



## GleemSpray

ardandy said:


> Out of date:
> 
> https://www.google.com/maps/@55.948...!1e1!3m2!1sVEneX7O_LK-YDkzPgsnphw!2e0!6m1!1e1


 That image is from March 2010


----------



## Jem

Nanoman said:


> Edit, also it's not a bus lane. It's a normal carriageway which just happens to be beyond two no-entry except buses, taxi's, trams, cycles sign.
> 
> Like I said I don't believe it meets the required regulations to be a no entry regardless.


It's very simple, you passed through 'No Entry' signs, and were found by the police on a road that you could only have got onto by passing said 'No Entry' signs, so it's very clear what offence was committed.


----------



## Nanoman

Jem said:


> It's very simple, you passed through 'No Entry' signs, and were found by the police on a road that you could only have got onto by passing said 'No Entry' signs, so it's very clear what offence was committed.


I've taken points twice before in my life without argument because I was committing an offence.

I honestly don't believe I've committed an offence and would like to get the opportunity for someone who knows the law to make that decision.

This isn't about getting off on a technicality. This is about not committing an offence in the first place.

For an offence to be committed the signs and road layout have to meet the regs for a start. I don't believe that to be the case.


----------



## cleancar

you need some pics showing both signs obscured by buses etc on a typical normal day


----------



## Nanoman

cleancar said:


> you need some pics showing both signs obscured by buses etc on a typical normal day


Yeah I think I will. I was in a rush to get to a customer appointment but managed to pop back for the pic I got. If I got my phone out quicker I'd have got a pic with both signs obscured. I'll pop back next week I think.


----------



## Cookies

Hi Nanoman,

Just a few thoughts based on my tiny amount of knowledge of the legislation.

On what grounds do you think the signs do not meet regulations? Do you think they're too small (3b below relates)? I'll admit that I struggled to see them in your picture but they are there, and that's basically all that matters. It's up to the driver of the vehicle to make sure he or she is aware of the law.

With regard to the police officers having not seen you drive through the signs, your presence on that street in your car is the issue here. If the police saw you driving out of, or parked in a pedestrian zone, do you think that would that be any different from their perspective?

Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 states:
(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 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.

Ignorance of the law will not be seen as just cause I'm afraid - the signs are there and you appeared at the end of the street where the police saw you. 

Those are my thoughts chum - sorry if they don't appear to back you up. Go and have a chat with a solicitor and see what they say. 

Good luck with it in any case.:thumb:

Cooks

PS - just read an earlier comment and in my opinion (and I'm sorry for saying this) you definitely committed an offence here as you directly contravened a road traffic order by driving onto that street, whether you saw the signs or not.


----------



## Nanoman

I'm still getting my head around all the legislation but I've found a few things about placing of signs including...

The primary use of the “no entry”sign is to protect the end of a one-way road, where it would be hazardous and endanger the safety of road users should the sign be ignored. No other plates are prescribed or permitted for use with the “no entry” sign. Exception plates for cycles(diagrams 954.3 and 954.4) are prohibited by direction 21(2) from being used with the “no entry”sign. Where cyclists are to be admitted, signs to diagram 953 or 955 should be used in place of the“no entry” sign, or a cycle by-pass constructed.Where access to a two-way street is restricted to a particular class of vehicle or for a specific purpose(e.g. loading), a sign to diagram 617 (no vehicles)or 619 (no motor vehicles) should be used with an appropriate exception plate.

There is no diagram 877 sign or lane markings to indicate no entry - the lane markings according to (my interpretation of) the regs should both be left arrows with an exception note.

Basically I just don't accept a £100 fine and 3 points where the only way of knowing you're committing an offence is two signs which are frequently entirely out of site at the same time and well intentioned, observant road users have no chance to see them.

I'm pretty sure if the image I'd posted had the signs entirely obscured by two buses no-one would be saying to take it on the chin.


----------



## Rabidracoon28

Were there any other car users in front of you or any that had followed you through the no entry signs?


----------



## sfstu

i understand what you're saying about the signs being obscured by bus's etc and sympathise, but not sure how that will work out for you with appealing the fine and points...
from what i've seen and heard of traffic appeals of this nature, they view it as that fine/money is already theirs now and they'll have to give it back to you if they agree with your appeal...

good luck anyway...:thumb:


----------



## lukeneale

The thing is, we know your telling the truth about a bus being in the way, however you have no evidence that the bus was directly in the way when YOU committed the offence.

Literally no chance of getting away with this one. Harsh but things like this happen!


----------



## Nanoman

lukeneale said:


> The thing is, we know your telling the truth about a bus being in the way, however you have no evidence that the bus was directly in the way when YOU committed the offence.
> 
> Literally no chance of getting away with this one. Harsh but things like this happen!


Personally I think there's a decent chance of getting away with it if I can prove at least one of the following:

Signs and road markings do not meet the regs.
Officers did not witness an offence being committed.

Either way I'm happy to go up in front of a judge and plead my case and let them make the decision.

I have a lawyer friend who has offered to help me out for free by helping me interpret the legislation and understand what I need to do in court which should help but I've told him I want to represent myself.

At the moment we both think I can prove at least one of the two defences above if not both.


----------



## lukeneale

I understand what your saying, but the police have seen you commit the offence? Your in a road your not supposed to be in?


----------



## Nanoman

lukeneale said:


> I understand what your saying, but the police have seen you commit the offence? Your in a road your not supposed to be in?


The offence I have been charged with is not being in the road. The offence is not obeying a no entry sign. They did not witness me not obeying a no entry sign.

They have to prove that I committed the offence I am charged with and they also have to prove the sign is valid in the eyes of the law.

Various reasons I could be legally driving a car where they saw me driving it:
1) Someone else drove through the no entry sign and parked it. I then got in and drove it.
2) I broke down and pushed it through the no entry sign then drove it.
3) The no entry sign was not visible and does not comply with the relevant legislation.


----------



## S63

I can see that it's entirely possible for both signs to be obscured if two buses are passing in opposite directions simultaneously, but that would only be for a second or two unless of course there was a long line of buses in each direction.

I'm sure a court would argue that a driver should be aware of these two signs from a few hundred metres away and even with buses passing there should be ample opportunity for you too observe them before reaching that point.

Photographs will be of little help to you. An onboard video of your arrival in this street with the signs obscured for the entire time before passing into the no go area seems your only chance of proving your point.

Please consider this carefully before pleading not guilty. If as Kerr has stated there are many falling foul of this setup you need strength in numbers to stand any chance of being found innocent.


----------



## Starbuck88

Can I ask why the 3 points?

When I had to got Nottingham the new tram roads and restrictions are mind boggling, living and driving in Cornwall all my driving life I managed to drive through a tram gateway.

When I got back to Cornwall I had a letter with a fine and link to view myself on video doing the offence....

How come I didn't get any points?


----------



## nick_mcuk

You went down an restricted access road.....you are in the wrong fess up pay the fine and learn to observe a bit better.

Sorry dude ignorance is not an excuse.


----------



## ardandy

For both signs to be obscured theyd have to be stationary traffic as no bus stops are there. That would mean for 50m+ you passed everyone else whilst they're not moving in lane 1. Considering lane 2 in the middle only starts just before I cant see how you missed it. 

Fight it by all means but if you lose theyll increase the penalty. 

Do wonder about the points though. Surely its a fine?


----------



## Rabidracoon28

If you put as much attention into your driving as you have in trying to wriggle out of your punishment then you wouldn't be in this situation. Just my personal opinion.


----------



## richard56

I have no idea about your situation.
I can tell you about 10 years ago dozens of motorists using the dual carriageway between Brum and Wolvo were let off their speeding fines.
Because there was insufficient speed marker signs.
I would think about paying a specialist solicitor for some advice.


----------



## chefy

I think you're gona have to take a brave pill and accept it !
I was driving along there a couple of weeks ago, first time for a long long time due to it being closed for the tram works for well over a year, and I very nearly drove straight on there myself, and didn't notice these signs until the very last second and just managed to turn up Stafford Street on the left there, funnily enough, there was a car in front of me went straight on ! (maybe that was you ?) and I thought, oh, maybe you can go through there at certain times, as I didn't really manage to read what it says under the sign, I just seen the "NO ENTRY"
I doubt very much you'll get away with it. I'm sure there will be many many more instances like this, not only there, approaching Shandwick Place, but throughout that part of the tram route to York Place.

Here is a pic of another part of the tram route, coming down North St. Andrew Street onto York Place, this is from my office window, you can clearly see the NO Entry sign, below, it says, Except trams, now, I see people turning left up there almost every day, mostly vans ! haven't seen any police, but I'm sure some will get caught, and, I doubt if there is any defence here, and sorry to say, but, I feel its the same in your case !


----------



## m1pui

Nanoman said:


> The offence I have been charged with is not being in the road. The offence is not obeying a no entry sign. They did not witness me not obeying a no entry sign.
> 
> They have to prove that I committed the offence I am charged with and they also have to prove the sign is valid in the eyes of the law.
> 
> Various reasons I could be legally driving a car where they saw me driving it:
> 
> 1) Someone else drove through the no entry sign and parked it. I then got in and drove it.
> 
> 2) I broke down and pushed it through the no entry sign then drove it.
> 
> 3) The no entry sign was not visible and does not comply with the relevant legislation.


Really though, are you willing to go in to court and lie by using one reason 1 or 2, or any argument other than the truth of being obscured? That's potential for a bit more than the £100 & 3 points you're fighting against!!


----------



## johanr77

Nanoman said:


> *The offence I have been charged with is not being in the road. The offence is not obeying a no entry sign. They did not witness me not obeying a no entry sign.*
> 
> *They have to prove that I committed the offence I am charged with and they also have to prove the sign is valid in the eyes of the law.
> *
> Various reasons I could be legally driving a car where they saw me driving it:
> 1) Someone else drove through the no entry sign and parked it. I then got in and drove it.
> 2) I broke down and pushed it through the no entry sign then drove it.
> 3) The no entry sign was not visible and does not comply with the relevant legislation.


I can see it's an honest mistake there was no intent to be a dick in what happened but seriously for your own good don't try and get out of it by saying the cops didn't see you enter the street. At the end of the day you were sat in the drivers seat at the end of a road you weren't allowed to drive down you've been caught, I would only challenge it on the grounds you didn't know the area and the signs were obscured you may get somewhere with that.


----------



## Nanoman

m1pui said:


> Really though, are you willing to go in to court and lie by using one reason 1 or 2, or any argument other than the truth of being obscured? That's potential for a bit more than the £100 & 3 points you're fighting against!!


I will absolutely not be lying in court.

I will ask the police to describe their version of events which will confirm where they were. This will confirm that they did not see any offence being committed. If they did not witness an offence being committed and they have no other witnesses that an offence was committed then the case must be thrown out and I will have no case to answer.

As I've already said being beyond the no-entry is what they witnessed. It's not a bus lane, tram lane, taxi lane or cycle lane and it is not a one way way street therefore being beyond the no-entry sign is not an offence. The offence is not obeying the no-entry and they did not witness this offence being committed. They have no evidence any offence was committed. If the vehicle was pushed, towed or driven by someone else over the line then no offence was committed by me.

If that's not enough for the case to get thrown out I can go into the regulations about the road signs and road layout. For the offence to be committed the signs must comply with the relevant legislation which I don't believe they do (I'll confirm this before the case).

So to summarise: the police did not witness an offence being committed and have no proof that an offence was committed.


----------



## Captain Pugwash

To be fair I can see why there would be some confusion. If you are not familiar with the area, the road makings would leave you thinking you go straight on, especially if you are just using Sat nav (as most will no doubt be doing)

I drive around there quite often and at time buses are queued up each side of the road, with cars, lorries queued in left lane waiting to turn left and buses in the right lane...so if your behind a bus and your sat nav is saying go straight on, it would be easy to assume with the road markings you can do so...the bus in front would no doubt also be blocking your view of the signs, and maybe a lorry in left lane as well

I have see a few cars go straight on there ...if you look at this clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9Y7PtaVwHTQ#t=160

the silver car comes out (same way you came I presume) and then as it gets near it brakes and sits for s short time ..I would say they just noticed the no entry sign and then stopped ...in a busy period you do not have the luxury of time they had

However I would also agree your on a sticky wicket trying to prove anything. and as they say ignorance is no defence

but I agree the road marking are confusing ..and if going with anything I would go with that as the main reason you carried on ...saying you never seen the signs could get you driving with out due care or some such thing

(sorry cant embed it here)


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> I'll be speaking to my copper mates and also to a couple of lawyer mates but keen to hear from others on here.


We all fancy ourselves as armchair lawyers to a degree, with mates like you have I really wouldn't bother canvassing option here. You seem very determined and confident, if you win your case I will salute you.:thumb:


----------



## ardandy

If they didn't see who put the car there then surely the police can ask you who did? Your car sir, how did it get to this location?

"Dunno?"

If you get off with this (which you might with Mr Loophole) then it will be on a technicality. You've already admitted on here that you drove it through their so the only question you can ask (to us at least) is whether or not the signs conform to regulation. If they do and Buses blocked it then that's a civil matter unrelated to this case.

If you get off on the 'coppers did not see' defence then you're getting off on it for the right reasons but in the wrong way. IE your point isn't proven.


----------



## S63

I'm more intrigued to know Nanomans motive for this. Is it a matter of principle? Is it the threat of three points that you cannot afford to add to your licence, or is it the fine?

To fight it will cost you far in excess of £100 in any case. If you are already on six to nine points with a totting up ban on the horizon, then I can see a motive.

But if it's a matter of principle, then you must weigh up what you will gain or lose depending on the verdict.

I can perfectly understand your frustrations, the signage isn't good with so much going around them. For me if it was the principle I'd most probably take the fine in the knowledge that the odds are heavily stacked against me. Then I would campaign to get the highway people to address the situation and get better signage so future motorists don't fall foul as you have done.


----------



## Nanoman

Thanks for the vid link captain pugwash. I came out where the silver car came out and as you can see the signs are easily obscured. There are no road markings and it's clear a van travelling up Lothian Road can see nothing where the offence originally happened. On Princes St there are so many road markings and signs to conform with the regs but none of that at all on Shandwick place at the junction with Stafford St.



S63 said:


> I'm more intrigued to know Nanomans motive for this. Is it a matter of principle? Is it the threat of three points that you cannot afford to add to your licence, or is it the fine?
> 
> To fight it will cost you far in excess of £100 in any case. If you are already on six to nine points with a totting up ban on the horizon, then I can see a motive.
> 
> But if it's a matter of principle, then you must weigh up what you will gain or lose depending on the verdict.
> 
> I can perfectly understand your frustrations, the signage isn't good with so much going around them. For me if it was the principle I'd most probably take the fine in the knowledge that the odds are heavily stacked against me. Then I would campaign to get the highway people to address the situation and get better signage so future motorists don't fall foul as you have done.


I do not believe I committed an offence is the only reason I'm fighting it.

I won't be paying anyone to help with this (except in beers) and will defend myself with a little bit of direction from friends with suitable experience/knowledge.

The easiest thing to prove is that the police have no evidence an offence was committed and no evidence it was committed by me if it was. I'll lead with this and hope it gets thrown out. Proving the signs and road markings don't meet the regulations will be more complex so I'll only go into that if I have to.


----------



## PaulaJayne

www.pepipoo.com


----------



## m1pui

Nanoman said:


> I will absolutely not be lying in court.
> 
> I will ask the police to describe their version of events which will confirm where they were. This will confirm that they did not see any offence being committed. If they did not witness an offence being committed and they have no other witnesses that an offence was committed then the case must be thrown out and I will have no case to answer.
> 
> As I've already said being beyond the no-entry is what they witnessed. It's not a bus lane, tram lane, taxi lane or cycle lane and it is not a one way way street therefore being beyond the no-entry sign is not an offence. The offence is not obeying the no-entry and they did not witness this offence being committed. They have no evidence any offence was committed. If the vehicle was pushed, towed or driven by someone else over the line then no offence was committed by me.
> 
> If that's not enough for the case to get thrown out I can go into the regulations about the road signs and road layout. For the offence to be committed the signs must comply with the relevant legislation which I don't believe they do (I'll confirm this before the case).
> 
> So to summarise: the police did not witness an offence being committed and have no proof that an offence was committed.


If they come back and say they have street corner CCTV that shows you driving, without breaking down, being towed or driven by anyone else, along the road leading towards that area then?

It's a pig of a situation, but it does sound like you're clutching at straws.


----------



## B17BLG

I really struggle to see why points are given out in tthese circumstances!

I really hope you get the case thrown out. Nothing worse than having point hanging over you especially when it seems its made as easy as possible to commit the offence!


----------



## Ricko78

Nanoman said:


> I will absolutely not be lying in court.
> 
> I will ask the police to describe their version of events which will confirm where they were. This will confirm that they did not see any offence being committed. If they did not witness an offence being committed and they have no other witnesses that an offence was committed then the case must be thrown out and I will have no case to answer.
> 
> As I've already said being beyond the no-entry is what they witnessed. It's not a bus lane, tram lane, taxi lane or cycle lane and it is not a one way way street therefore being beyond the no-entry sign is not an offence. The offence is not obeying the no-entry and they did not witness this offence being committed. They have no evidence any offence was committed. If the vehicle was pushed, towed or driven by someone else over the line then no offence was committed by me.
> 
> If that's not enough for the case to get thrown out I can go into the regulations about the road signs and road layout. For the offence to be committed the signs must comply with the relevant legislation which I don't believe they do (I'll confirm this before the case).
> 
> So to summarise: the police did not witness an offence being committed and have no proof that an offence was committed.


When the police stopped you did you tell them how you came to be at the location when you were pulled over? Did you argue about the signs at the time when you were stopped?


----------



## Nanoman

m1pui said:


> If they come back and say they have street corner CCTV that shows you driving, without breaking down, being towed or driven by anyone else, along the road leading towards that area then?
> 
> It's a pig of a situation, but it does sound like you're clutching at straws.


If they have it on CCTV I'll go down the route of the signs/markings not meeting the regs.

Both the lawyer and cop I've spoken to have said they are very confident it'll be thrown out as soon as the cop admits he and his colleague did not witness any offence being committed.



Ricko78 said:


> When the police stopped you did you tell them how you came to be at the location when you were pulled over? Did you argue about the signs at the time when you were stopped?


I didn't know any street names or anything and just assured them I was unaware of passing any no entry signs. My response to the charge was 'I don't believe I did'.


----------



## Kiashuma

Good luck with it, Edinburgh city centre is a joke now with these pointless trams 

The points seem very harsh indeed, the fine you could swallow but why points as well.


----------



## S63

Is this a different street?


----------



## Jem

Nanoman said:


> I do not believe I committed an offence is the only reason I'm fighting it.


You've admitted you drove through 'No Entry' signs, so you clearly have committed an offence. Man up and take it on the chin and stop trying to wriggle out of it.


----------



## frosty90

I could be wrong but sometimes they up the points if you try to argue it.....


----------



## Nanoman

Jem said:


> You've admitted you drove through 'No Entry' signs, so you clearly have committed an offence. Man up and take it on the chin and stop trying to wriggle out of it.


Excuse me. There is no offence committed if the signs and road markings are not to the regulation. The regulations are there so that *innocent* motorists are not wrongly convicted and that only guilty motorists are convicted. 
There is no 'clearly committing an offence' here.



S63 said:


> Is this a different street?


That's a different street. I'm pretty sure I would have noticed those signs and if I hadn't I would probably take it on the chin.


----------



## Jem

Nanoman said:


> There is no 'clearly committing an offence' here.


Good luck telling that to the court!


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> That's a different street. I'm pretty sure I would have noticed those signs and if I hadn't I would probably take it on the chin.


Ok but I'd guess the attitude taken by the authorities over this scheme will be the same.

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.c...-for-surge-in-shandwick-place-fines-1-3195228


----------



## scaniadaft

Edinburgh roads are a nightmare. 
As for CCTV, lothian buses have a better system than the council very high tech with clear images, and covers all city center roads, and the police do request footage and lothian buses glady hand it over. So there is a good chance of video evidence.
Good luck anyway.


----------



## Kiashuma

S63 said:


> Is this a different street?
> 
> Its the same street, further on, i think its changed again since the trams.


----------



## Kerr

I came across this a few weeks ago.

Street view is out of date, but it gives the picture.

Coming to the end of Coates Cresent, which is a one way street, I can neither turn right or left. That street ahead is also now one way and the opposite way I need.

It really was unclear where I actually had to travel. It took me a few seconds to think and even then I wasn't sure if what I did was allowed.

I had to take a slight right and travel diagonally across to Atholl Cresent. It is an unclear layout.


----------



## Captain Pugwash

It is the other end, junction of princes street and lothian road ...queensferry street to the right where bus is going


----------



## bidderman1969

Nanoman said:


> I will absolutely not be lying in court.
> 
> I will ask the police to describe their version of events which will confirm where they were. This will confirm that they did not see any offence being committed. If they did not witness an offence being committed and they have no other witnesses that an offence was committed then the case must be thrown out and I will have no case to answer.
> 
> As I've already said being beyond the no-entry is what they witnessed. It's not a bus lane, tram lane, taxi lane or cycle lane and it is not a one way way street therefore being beyond the no-entry sign is not an offence. The offence is not obeying the no-entry and they did not witness this offence being committed. They have no evidence any offence was committed. If the vehicle was pushed, towed or driven by someone else over the line then no offence was committed by me.
> 
> If that's not enough for the case to get thrown out I can go into the regulations about the road signs and road layout. For the offence to be committed the signs must comply with the relevant legislation which I don't believe they do (I'll confirm this before the case).
> 
> So to summarise: the police did not witness an offence being committed and have no proof that an offence was committed.


You say it's not a one way street (I don't know the area and I'm on the iPhone at mo ) so why did they stop you? Something must have drawn their attention to you?


----------



## S63

bidderman1969 said:


> You say it's not a one way street (I don't know the area and I'm on the iPhone at mo ) so why did they stop you? Something must have drawn their attention to you?


If the restrictions are the same as in the photo I've posted then I would say it is a one way street to regular cars in certain hours.


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> I've taken points twice before in my life without argument because I was committing an offence.
> 
> I honestly don't believe I've committed an offence and would like to get the opportunity for someone who knows the law to make that decision.
> 
> This isn't about getting off on a technicality. This is about not committing an offence in the first place.
> 
> For an offence to be committed the signs and road layout have to meet the regs for a start. I don't believe that to be the case.


I don't think you've actually stated what offence you have been charged with on the NIP?


----------



## Starbuck88

I don't see how you think the police didn't see an offence? 

If you are on that road, with those signs, whether they saw you drive past the signs at the beginning or out the end of the restricted area (as you say they saw you there) you committed the offence.

That's akin to putting something in your pocket in a shop and then the buzzers going off when you walk out the door and saying sorry guv, you didn;t see me put the item in my pocket and because there's only 1 sign saying don't shoplift which was obscured by a fatty at the sandwhich fridge I therefore have not committed an offence??!?!?


----------



## Captain Peanut

You will face the possibility of an increased fine and points if you argue this. I tried fighting a speeding fine before based on the fact that the mobile camera unit was hidden from view but it got upheld and cost me extra points (5 instead of 3) and they doubled the fine.

I cannot say why the cops would have decided to take such a hard stance but you did commit an offence by being on the road. From the map you posted there is only one way you could have been at the end of the road and that is by driving through the no entry signs. I personally think arguing that the signs don't meet regs is a hiding to nothing too, especially on a relatively new layout, as the council will be able to show plans and paperwork to prove conformity.

I feel for you as it was an innocent mistake but is it really worth the stress and potential extra cost?


----------



## Vossman

That's a no entry with restrictions as shown under the No Entry signs, your option would have been to turn left, the restrictions will read what vehicles are exempt past that point, I am guessing trams and buses. The lane markings are for non restricted traffic only, they do not dissolve you from not reading the No Entry signs.
I understand how pizzed at this you are but I would just accept the offence and forget it, in 5 years time it won't even matter, if you go to court they may make an example of you and give you double points and a mega fine, you would need time off from work to defend it and be much worse off.
Accept and move forward.


----------



## Nanoman

asonda said:


> I don't see how you think the police didn't see an offence?
> 
> If you are on that road, with those signs, whether they saw you drive past the signs at the beginning or out the end of the restricted area (as you say they saw you there) you committed the offence.
> 
> That's akin to putting something in your pocket in a shop and then the buzzers going off when you walk out the door and saying sorry guv, you didn;t see me put the item in my pocket and because there's only 1 sign saying don't shoplift which was obscured by a fatty at the sandwhich fridge I therefore have not committed an offence??!?!?


If I'm on the road beyond the signs I am not committing an offence. It's a standard carriageway. Like I've said time and time again the police did not witness an offence being committed. They have no evidence that the car was driven through the no entry, no evidence about when it happened, and no evidence who was driving at the time.

The offence I have allegedly committed is 'not obeying a no entry sign'.


----------



## ardandy

So your going to lie? You did pass the sign as you've admitted to us. Your defence should be i didn't see the signs due to xyz. Again, using a technicality to get off. 

Shouldn't it be "Yes I did pass the signs but it wasn't my fault I didn't see them, so don't prosecute me because of that."

What's the offence code?


----------



## S63

I don't fancy your chances in court if you are as vague as you're being here.

What does your NIP actually state?

What do the restrictions state below the sign?


----------



## ardandy

When did this happen? Is there a time frame?


----------



## Nanoman

ardandy said:


> So your going to lie? You did pass the sign as you've admitted to us. Your defence should be i didn't see the signs due to xyz. Again, using a technicality to get off.
> 
> Shouldn't it be "Yes I did pass the signs but it wasn't my fault I didn't see them, so don't prosecute me because of that."
> 
> What's the offence code?


At no point will I tell a lie. What lie do you think I'm going to tell?
As I have said several times I will ask them what offence they witnessed me committing. They will say 'I did not see you committing an offence' at which point the judge is likely to throw it out. They have no corroborated evidence the car was driven through the no entry. If it was they have no corroborated evidence when it happened. If it was they have no corroborated evidence who was driving at the time. There is no case to answer. That's before we get to the legality of the signage.



S63 said:


> I don't fancy your chances in court if you are as vague as you're being here.
> 
> What does your NIP actually state?
> 
> What do the restrictions state below the sign?


It's not an NIP it's a notice of conditional offer of fixed penalty. The offence code is 305.035. The offence is 'not obeying a no entry sign'.



ardandy said:


> When did this happen? Is there a time frame?


Yesterday AM.


----------



## Captain Peanut

Nanoman said:


> If I'm on the road beyond the signs I am not committing an offence. It's a standard carriageway. Like I've said time and time again the police did not witness an offence being committed. They have no evidence that the car was driven through the no entry, no evidence about when it happened, and no evidence who was driving at the time.
> 
> The offence I have allegedly committed is 'not obeying a no entry sign'.


How did your car get to be on the road beyond the signs? By being on the road it infers that you drove through the no entry signs, I believe it's called circumstantial evidence.


----------



## Nanoman

Captain Peanut said:


> How did your car get to be on the road beyond the signs? By being on the road it infers that you drove through the no entry signs, I believe it's called circumstantial evidence.


They have to prove it was driven over the line.
They have to prove I was driving.
They have to prove the signage is legal.

I don't believe they can prove any of that.


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> They have to prove it was driven over the line.
> They have to prove I was driving.
> They have to prove the signage is legal.
> 
> I don't believe they can prove any of that.


I would have thought a local magistrate would be inclined to side with the officers theory of how you arrived at that point on the street and ask you to provide evidence to the contrary.

If that was the case would you then appeal and take this to a higher court?


----------



## Cookies

I think there is some confusion here Nanoman over the nature of the street you were 'apprehended' on.

Are cars allowed on that street from the other end? i.e. can cars drive the other way and out through the no entry? Are there other streets leading onto that street between the No Entry signs and the point at which you were spotted.

I'm trying to figure out why the fine and points are contingent upon the officers actually seeing you contravene the signs. I originally thought that the street was either one way (and you were going the wrong way), or only for buses and taxis but i get the impression that this is not the case.

Cheers and good luck,

Cooks


----------



## Nanoman

Cookies said:


> I think there is some confusion here Nanoman over the nature of the street you were 'apprehended' on.
> 
> Are cars allowed on that street from the other end? i.e. can cars drive the other way and out through the no entry? Are there other streets leading onto that street between the No Entry signs and the point at which you were spotted.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out why the fine and points are contingent upon the officers actually seeing you go contravene the signs. I originally thought that the street was either one way (and you were going the wrong way), or only for buses and taxis but i get the impression that this is not the case.
> 
> Cheers and good luck,
> 
> Cooks


If you go to 2:37 in this video you'll see the silver car pull out. That's where I came from. The cops pulled me over after the lights at 3:49 (they'd come up the Lothian road from the right there). 




The red route is the route the police have assumed was taken as well as assuming I was driving. The green route is the one which should be taken to avoid any issues. The two red dots are where the no entry signs are.









The signs say the exact same as this one does...








These signs are at both ends of the street between Stafford St and Lothian Road. Being between the signs is not an offence. Not obeying the signs is the alleged offence.

Also check the road marking and signage at 3:55 in the video which DO meet the regs. Quite different to the road marking and signage at Stafford St 'no entry'.


----------



## DW58

Having read the entire thred, two questions based upon your last post: You say "the route the police have assumed you were taking as well as assuming you were driving" - What route did you actually take, if you weren't driving (bearing in mind you've already admitted that you were) who are you going to claim was driving?

As a former law enforcement officer, I think your arrogance is going to get you into trouble. As other have said, man up and pay the fine/take the points, you know you committed the offence, stop trying to take the wee-wee.


----------



## Nanoman

DW58 said:


> Having read the entire thred, two questions based upon your last post: You say "the route the police have assumed you were taking as well as assuming you were driving" - What route did you actually take, if you weren't driving (bearing in mind you've already admitted that you were) who are you going to claim was driving?
> 
> As a former law enforcement officer, I think your arrogance is going to get you into trouble. As other have said, man up and pay the fine/take the points, you know you committed the offence, stop trying to take the wee-wee.


If the signs don't meet the regulations which I don't think they do then no offence was committed. 
I admit I was driving when the officers saw me at the lights but I was not committing any offence at that time.

As an aside... if the police officer hadn't been such a prick I would probably have taken this on the chin.

I'm not sure where you're getting arrogance from. I believe I'm innocent and that the ticket won't stand up in court. I don't believe the officer should have issued it in the first place.


----------



## DW58

Nanoman said:


> If the signs don't meet the regulations which I don't think they do then no offence was committed.
> I admit I was driving when the officers saw me at the lights but I was not committing any offence at that time.
> 
> As an aside... if the police officer hadn't been such a prick I would probably have taken this on the chin.
> 
> I'm not sure where you're getting arrogance from. I believe I'm innocent and that the ticket won't stand up in court. I don't believe the officer should have issued it in the first place.


From your _Barrackroom Lawyer_ attitude. Are you going to tell the Sheriff that you think the officer was "being a prick"?

As others have pointed out, there is no other way you could have reached the spot where the officers saw you without committing the offence for which you have been ticketed, and I simply fail to understand why you think the signs are non-regulation. Surely "not committing an offence at the time the officers saw you" is irrelevant, assuming that the signs are legal then you had already committed it and couldn't have got into such a position without doing so.


----------



## Nanoman

DW58 said:


> From your _Barrackroom Lawyer_ attitude. Are you going to tell the Sheriff that you think the officer was "being a prick"?
> 
> As others have pointed out, there is no other way you could have reached the spot where the officers saw you without committing the offence for which you have been ticketed, and I simply fail to understand why you think the signs are non-regulation. Surely "not committing an offence at the time the officers saw you" is irrelevant, assuming that the signs are legal then you had already committed it and couldn't have got into such a position without doing so.


Of course I'm sounding like a backroom lawyer. I'm in the backroom debating the law. Of course I'm not going to tell the Sheriff the officer was being a prick but I did tell the officer that I thought his attitude was a disgrace and he was nothing like any other police officer I'd dealt with despite me being completely pleasant and civil with him.

Assuming the signs are legal and assuming I was driving then yes an offence was committed. Can they prove it? Should a police officer be handing out tickets when he has no evidence an offence was committed? I think my opinion on that is clear and I'm not sure any other reasonable individual would agree that the police should be dishing out tickets without witnessing an offence or doing any investigation to find out if an offence had been committed.

Should a member of the public who has not committed an offence sit back and accept a fixed penalty when they are innocent?


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> As an aside... if the police officer hadn't been such a prick I would probably have taken this on the chin.


Interesting, you have based your decision to plead not guilty due to the attitude of the officer, all previous logic flew out the window.


----------



## Cookies

DW58 said:


> Surely "not committing an offence at the time the officers saw you" is irrelevant, assuming that the signs are legal then you had already committed it and couldn't have got into such a position without doing so.


This is kind of where I was going with my questions too Nanoman. Not knowing the area ,or the street, I wanted to find out if cars were allowed into this street from either end. It turns out they arent and that there are no entry signs at both ends. So as DW58 has said, How your car could have got there without committing an offence is the issue. If you say the officers didn't see you drive through the signs I'd expect that you'll be asked to identify exactly who was driving your car on that street at that point in time.

Nanoman, is there any way your car could have appeared on that street without contravening a traffic signal? If the answer is no then I think the odds are stacked against you.

All the best of luck though.


----------



## james_death

Signs take precedence over road markings as signs can be changed faster than road markings.

Thats clearly no entry with the exceptions clearly stated.

Even without the signs You must not enter a road lane or other route reserved for trams.


----------



## Kerr

For all I can understand that the signs could have easily been shielded from your view, I think you need to weigh up the risks involved in challenging the charge. 

It isn't nice to give over £100 and get 3 points. 3 points won't make much if any difference to your licence if it was clean. 

Going to court will potentially cost you a fortune. Solicitor fees are mental and then your fine and points will likely become far harsher. 

You'll also need at least a day of work and to travel back to Edinburgh. 

I know you feel hard done to, but the risks far outweigh the benefits on this one.


----------



## lukeneale

Nanoman said:


> Thanks for the vid link captain pugwash. I came out where the silver car came out and as you can see the signs are easily obscured. There are no road markings and it's clear a van travelling up Lothian Road can see nothing where the offence originally happened. On Princes St there are so many road markings and signs to conform with the regs but none of that at all on Shandwick place at the junction with Stafford St.
> 
> I do not believe I committed an offence is the only reason I'm fighting it.
> 
> I won't be paying anyone to help with this (except in beers) and will defend myself with a little bit of direction from friends with suitable experience/knowledge.
> 
> The easiest thing to prove is that the police have no evidence an offence was committed and no evidence it was committed by me if it was. I'll lead with this and hope it gets thrown out. Proving the signs and road markings don't meet the regulations will be more complex so I'll only go into that if I have to.


I'm confused that your saying you haven't committed a offence? You went down a NO ENTRY road??? That's a offence end of?

Your saying " assuming you was driving " two police officers stopped you at the wheel of your car, so you can't win that battle.

This world would be full of people going around doing naughty stuff then saying " no one saw me actually do it so I'm ok "

It's like someone murdering someone, having the victims blood all over them. Being charged of murder, and the murderer saying " no one saw me commit the offence. " even though all the evidence is right in front of everyone's eyes


----------



## S63

If I understand this correctly Nanoman thinks "being " in the street is not an offence. Driving pass the no entry sign is an offence which he claims has not been witnessed.

My interpretation of that sign is that all vehicles are prohibited from entering that street (apart from exclusions on sign below), so he was in a street banned to cars. I find it hard to believe any judge in the land would see that differently.

As for illegal signage I don't know. Nanoman seems confident it isn't legal, perhaps he can tell us what would be legal.

His best chance of getting off the charge is to turn up at court, plenty of cases get thrown out when the officers in question don't turn up.


----------



## ardandy

You're lying by omission. Same thing.


----------



## Nanoman

Cookies said:


> This is kind of where I was going with my questions too Nanoman. Not knowing the area ,or the street, I wanted to find out if cars were allowed into this street from either end. It turns out they arent and that there are no entry signs at both ends. So as DW58 has said, How your car could have got there without committing an offence is the issue. If you say the officers didn't see you drive through the signs I'd expect that you'll be asked to identify exactly who was driving your car on that street at that point in time.
> 
> Nanoman, is there any way your car could have appeared on that street without contravening a traffic signal? If the answer is no then I think the odds are stacked against you.
> 
> All the best of luck though.


Somebody else drove the car through the no entry then stopped and got out the car. I got in and continued driving.
The car was on a recovery truck going through the no entry. It was unloaded and I continued driving.
I pushed the car past the no entry as I had broken down. I fixed it and continued driving.
3 possible ways I could have been in the road where the officers saw me without committing the offence I'm charged with.



james_death said:


> Signs take precedence over road markings as signs can be changed faster than road markings.
> 
> Thats clearly no entry with the exceptions clearly stated.
> 
> Even without the signs You must not enter a road lane or other route reserved for trams.


It's not a road reserved for trams. That only applies to segregated tramways.



Kerr said:


> For all I can understand that the signs could have easily been shielded from your view, I think you need to weigh up the risks involved in challenging the charge.
> 
> It isn't nice to give over £100 and get 3 points. 3 points won't make much if any difference to your licence if it was clean.
> 
> Going to court will potentially cost you a fortune. Solicitor fees are mental and then your fine and points will likely become far harsher.
> 
> You'll also need at least a day of work and to travel back to Edinburgh.
> 
> I know you feel hard done to, but the risks far outweigh the benefits on this one.


All true. I've got 28 days to decide.



lukeneale said:


> I'm confused that your saying you haven't committed a offence? You went down a NO ENTRY road??? That's a offence end of?
> 
> Your saying " assuming you was driving " two police officers stopped you at the wheel of your car, so you can't win that battle.


If the no entry cannot be legally enforced no offence was committed. The officers stopped me at the wheel of the car. Big deal. Can they prove an offence was committed? No. Can they prove who was driving if an offence was committed? No.



S63 said:


> If I understand this correctly Nanoman thinks "being " in the street is not an offence. Driving pass the no entry sign is an offence which he claims has not been witnessed.
> 
> My interpretation of that sign is that all vehicles are prohibited from entering that street (apart from exclusions on sign below), so he was in a street banned to cars. I find it hard to believe any judge in the land would see that differently.
> 
> As for illegal signage I don't know. Nanoman seems confident it isn't legal, perhaps he can tell us what would be legal.
> 
> His best chance of getting off the charge is to turn up at court, plenty of cases get thrown out when the officers in question don't turn up.


Being in the street is not illegal. Passing the sign is. No police officer witnessed this and no police officer can prove this.

I'm waiting to get some clarification from my lawyer friend about the legality of the signage.


ardandy said:


> You're lying by omission. Same thing.


You're funny and full of nonsense. I won't lie trust me.


----------



## james_death

If by some miracle a fellow member is a lawyer and they can put this to rest this is pointless going in circles.

Even if we do have a lawyer they possibly wont comment, as naming them would make them accountable even the fear of been charged with giving misleading information.

Now if both signs were obscured by busses been in the way you have committed an offence by entering a tram way in order to over take the buss, however if you had waited behind the buss and not entered the tram way.

When the buss moved on you would have seen the sign and not been in this position.

Ignorance is no defence they say, you will simply dig a bigger hole.

Didnt see the signs, then you have failed observation.
Signs were obscured by busses clutching at straws, you say the police need to witness you going through, you did in order to be on that road no other access to it so you drove past the signs even if you did not see them you ignored them by driving past.

You say the signs were obscured, well since you say the police had to witness you ignore them. Then for your defence you say they were obscured well the police would need to witness that.

The Police mans word, is as a law enforcement officer the law never ever argue with a police officer.

Remember a Traffic cop does not have to have a speed gun to do you for speeding, a traffic officers word is regarded as law in court.

If he said you were speeding the judge will believe the officer from his years of experience.

Really really this is not going to end well for you if you fight it, just as a snap shot of Joe public look at all the replies you have had on here when you asked for our thoughts has not everyone said pay up fess up.

I like most on here see this as take the hit.

You mention your were trying to make an appointment again thats not an excuse and shows your not paying attention your in a rush from the sound of that.

You will simply peave off the magistrate with all the i wasnt driving yadda yadda.


----------



## S63

"Somebody else drove the car through the no entry then stopped and got out the car. I got in and continued driving."

If you are the registered keeper is it not your duty to name the "other" driver?


----------



## fifer807

http://forums.pepipoo.com/

Post this up on pepipoo for some good advice


----------



## S63

Good job your not in the public eye, even a simple speeding ticket can lead to a dramatic outcome.


----------



## alan h M

I think you should go into court with the attitude that your guilty and are sorry. But that you feel hard done by because of poor signage and road markings and state that your only doing this to impove that confusing layout.
say that you dont mind the fine but the points are unfare


----------



## Starbuck88

This is getting out of hand...

You did drive the car in, you didn't notice the signs...you messed up, accept it and move on.

You mentioned someone else might have been driving, well you drove it out, if you were broken down you shouldn't have pushed it past no entry signs anyway....

I don't understand your logic at all that you think because you weren't seen physically driving past the signs you're omitted from the law?

When I drove through a tram gateway and I got the automated video sent through, I didn't notice the signs, I didn't know not to drive through 200ft of that particular road, either end I'd have been fine but as I entered that zone, I was doing wrong, can I blame it on poor signage, should there be massive lit up billboards with gigantic arrows to tell us where to go? Because the camera couldn't see a driver should I have lied and said someone nicked me car and it wasn't me driving?

I did wrong, thought 'oh ****', paid the find and got on with my life.

I really honestly believe if you go to court you're making trouble for yourself. Why bother with that hassle because unless the officers don't show up, you're not going to win.

If there were no signs present, if you were done outside of the restricted times I'd understand the need to fight it....


----------



## Jem

Maybe this thread should have been a poll :lol:


----------



## Keiron

You broke the law and got caught, man up.


----------



## Rabidracoon28

You wouldn't even win this with Nick Freeman representing you. Time to grow a pair and accept your mistake like a man.


----------



## Cornish

Sorry mate, clearly you're in the wrong, got caught and don't like it.
Man up and take the punishment.


----------



## S63

This isn't about growing a pair or manning up, takes a bit of courage to say no I'm going to fight this in court.

Nanoman canvassed opinion here and the overwhelming majority think he's guilty and totally misguided including me.

If he does go to court I'm sure we will all be curious as to the outcome.


----------



## justinio

alan h M said:


> I think you should go into court with the attitude that your guilty and are sorry. But that you feel hard done by because of poor signage and road markings and state that your only doing this to impove that confusing layout.
> say that you dont mind the fine but the points are unfare


This is probably the best piece of advice on this whole thread.


----------



## S63

justinio said:


> This is probably the best piece of advice on this whole thread.


I disagree. You won't be getting any sympathy or reduced penalties citing mitigation, you'll get a lecture for wasting their time though.


----------



## DW58

This has turned into one of the most pointless threads I've yet seen on DW - the OP has more than admitted his guilt and thus the thread is utterly pointless. IMO he has no defence or mitigation, guilty as charged M'Lud.

Any suggestions on sentence?

I'll say £1,000 and six points with a side bet on wasting Police time and contempt of court


----------



## B17BLG

asonda said:


> This is getting out of hand...
> 
> You did drive the car in, you didn't notice the signs...you messed up, accept it and move on.
> 
> You mentioned someone else might have been driving, well you drove it out, if you were broken down you shouldn't have pushed it past no entry signs anyway....
> 
> I don't understand your logic at all that you think because you weren't seen physically driving past the signs you're omitted from the law?
> 
> When I drove through a tram gateway and I got the automated video sent through, I didn't notice the signs, I didn't know not to drive through 200ft of that particular road, either end I'd have been fine but as I entered that zone, I was doing wrong, can I blame it on poor signage, should there be massive lit up billboards with gigantic arrows to tell us where to go? Because the camera couldn't see a driver should I have lied and said someone nicked me car and it wasn't me driving?
> 
> I did wrong, thought 'oh ****', paid the find and got on with my life.
> 
> I really honestly believe if you go to court you're making trouble for yourself. Why bother with that hassle because unless the officers don't show up, you're not going to win.
> 
> If there were no signs present, if you were done outside of the restricted times I'd understand the need to fight it....


How many points did you get?...


----------



## Starbuck88

B17BLG said:


> How many points did you get?...


Non but I'd still have just paid up and accepted the fact that if I'd have paid more attention it wouldn't have happened.

3 points as far as I'm aware doesn't make any difference to insurance premiums as apparently a lot of people have 3, I've never had any yet but as this thread shows its not hard to get them these days.


----------



## Fuzz573

Didn't you already confirm you had drove through the no entry signs on your first few posts?

I see you have now edited the posts?


----------



## DW58

Nanoman, by having edited your original posts you have made this entire thread into a joke. 

I wonder if you'll be man enough to tell us the end result of this ridiculous affair?


----------



## Puntoboy

These threads never go down well on here. You're better off trying a specialist forum instead.


----------



## B17BLG

asonda said:


> Non but I'd still have just paid up and accepted the fact that if I'd have paid more attention it wouldn't have happened.
> 
> 3 points as far as I'm aware doesn't make any difference to insurance premiums as apparently a lot of people have 3, I've never had any yet but as this thread shows its not hard to get them these days.


So your circumstances cannot compare! 3 points makes no difference? I'd be intrigued where you found those statistics!

Just because you accepted it doesn't mean others have to if their opinion is they shouldn't take the penalty


----------



## DW58

Puntoboy said:


> These threads never go down well on here. You're better off trying a specialist forum instead.


At least then all of the barrackroom lawyers will agree with him, but it doesn't make him any less guilty.

Reminds me of a similar thread about a year ago when one of our juvenile members from Aberdeen was trying to convince himself (and others) that he wasn't guilt of speeding. Dug himself deeper and deeper into his own hole, never did hear the end result.


----------



## Nanoman

james_death said:


> If by some miracle a fellow member is a lawyer and they can put this to rest this is pointless going in circles.
> 
> Even if we do have a lawyer they possibly wont comment, as naming them would make them accountable even the fear of been charged with giving misleading information.
> 
> Now if both signs were obscured by busses been in the way you have committed an offence by entering a tram way in order to over take the buss, however if you had waited behind the buss and not entered the tram way.
> 
> When the buss moved on you would have seen the sign and not been in this position.
> 
> Ignorance is no defence they say, you will simply dig a bigger hole.
> 
> Didnt see the signs, then you have failed observation.
> Signs were obscured by busses clutching at straws, you say the police need to witness you going through, you did in order to be on that road no other access to it so you drove past the signs even if you did not see them you ignored them by driving past.
> 
> You say the signs were obscured, well since you say the police had to witness you ignore them. Then for your defence you say they were obscured well the police would need to witness that.
> 
> The Police mans word, is as a law enforcement officer the law never ever argue with a police officer.
> 
> Remember a Traffic cop does not have to have a speed gun to do you for speeding, a traffic officers word is regarded as law in court.
> 
> If he said you were speeding the judge will believe the officer from his years of experience.
> 
> Really really this is not going to end well for you if you fight it, just as a snap shot of Joe public look at all the replies you have had on here when you asked for our thoughts has not everyone said pay up fess up.
> 
> I like most on here see this as take the hit.
> 
> You mention your were trying to make an appointment again thats not an excuse and shows your not paying attention your in a rush from the sound of that.
> 
> You will simply peave off the magistrate with all the i wasnt driving yadda yadda.


1. it's not a tramway.
2. In a couple of sentences I can prove the officers did not witness an offence being committed AND that they have no corroborated evidence of who was driving IF an offence had been committed.
3. I believe I'll be able to prove the signs cannot be enforced legally.

Regardless of whether I was driving or not if the signs cannot be enforced then I'm not guilty of committing an offence.
Regardless of whether I was driving or not if the officers cannot prove beyond *reasonable doubt * that 1) an offence took place and 2) that I was driving at the time then I cannot be found guilty.

Officer did you witness an offence being committed? 'No'.
Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was committed? 'erm'.
Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that if an offence was committed that you know who the driver was? 'uhm'.

Nowhere have I lied or misrepresented the truth.


----------



## Puntoboy

DW58 said:


> At least then all of the barrackroom lawyers will agree with him, but it doesn't make him any less guilty.
> 
> Reminds me of a similar thread about a year ago when one of our juvenile members from Aberdeen was trying to convince himself (and others) that he wasn't guilt of speeding. Dug himself deeper and deeper into his own hole, never did hear the end result.


It's not about guilt. I'm not passing judgement in that. Just from experience these threads always cause arguments on here so are completely pointless.

I was incorrectly accused of speeding a few years ago and successfully fought against it thanks to the help of a specialist forum.


----------



## DW58

Nanoman said:


> 1. it's not a tramway.
> 2. In a couple of sentences I can prove the officers did not witness an offence being committed AND that they have no corroborated evidence of who was driving IF an offence had been committed.
> 3. I believe I'll be able to prove the signs cannot be enforced legally.
> 
> Regardless of whether I was driving or not if the signs cannot be enforced then I'm not guilty of committing an offence.
> Regardless of whether I was driving or not if the officers cannot prove beyond *reasonable doubt * that 1) an offence took place and 2) that I was driving at the time then I cannot be found guilty. I don't think the police officers needed to have seen you pass the NO ENTRY signs.
> 
> Officer did you witness an offence being committed? 'No'.
> Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was committed? 'erm'.
> Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that if an offence was committed that you know who the driver was? 'uhm'.
> 
> Nowhere have I lied or misrepresented the truth.


Surely it's an absolute offence, you were in the area facing the the direction indicating that you had passed through the NO ENTRY signs. You hadn't done a u-turn which if you had would have been observed by the police officers.


----------



## S63

Nanoman.

A hypothetical question to you.

If you agreed the signage was legal would that change your stance regarding not committing any offence being beyond the signs in that street?


----------



## DW58

What I simply do not understand is Nanoman's contention that the signage is not legal. Any sign can be temporarily obstructed whether by a bus, a low cloud, a flock of magpies, an extremely tall policeman or even a low-flying Airbus 380, however none of these renders the sign illegal.


----------



## DW58




----------



## S63

DW58 said:


> What I simply do not understand is Nanoman's contention that the signage is not legal. Any sign can be temporarily obstructed whether by a bus, a low cloud, a flock of magpies, an extremely tall policeman or even a low-flying Airbus 380, however none of these renders the sign illegal.


I'm not so sure about that. Cases have been won in the past where it has been proven the signage doesn't comply with the regulations, now like yourself I'm struggling to see what's wrong with these particular signs which is why I asked Nanoman what he would consider to be legal, but he hasn't responded to that question.

I do share a certain degree of sympathy, for many years being a London chauffeur there were certain areas, intersecting Oxford Street for example where seeing traffic lights and signs was sometimes impossible with a continuos queue of double decker buses nose to tail blocking just about everything which accounts for many cyclist fatalities.


----------



## m1pui

DW58 said:


> Nanoman, by having edited your original posts you have made this entire thread into a joke.
> 
> I wonder if you'll be man enough to tell us the end result of this ridiculous affair?


:lol: I've been mostly on tapatalk so hadn't even seen the edit info. Shame no one quoted the original post!


----------



## Nanoman

DW58 said:


> Surely it's an absolute offence, you were in the area facing the the direction indicating that you had passed through the NO ENTRY signs. You hadn't done a u-turn which if you had would have been observed by the police officers.


As an ex law enforcement officer I'd expect you to know if it's an absolute offence.
Surely as an ex law enforcement officer you would accept that there are numerous ways for me to find myself where I was seen without having committed any offence.
The police made no attempt to investigate whether I had passed the signs or not.



S63 said:


> Nanoman.
> 
> A hypothetical question to you.
> 
> If you agreed the signage was legal would that change your stance regarding not committing any offence being beyond the signs in that street?


I would possibly take it on the chin but it's not just that. The fact that the police have issued a ticket without witnessing any offence seriously concerns me.



DW58 said:


> What I simply do not understand is Nanoman's contention that the signage is not legal. Any sign can be temporarily obstructed whether by a bus, a low cloud, a flock of magpies, an extremely tall policeman or even a low-flying Airbus 380, however none of these renders the sign illegal.


As discussed I'm waiting on the details from my lawyer friend but as far as I can work out the signs are too far apart, there should be another in a traffic island as it's a 4 lane road. I will argue the lane markings as misleading which, if the judge agrees with will help my case. There are other things that could be done to prevent inadvertent non-compliance which have not been done - again this could help me case.



S63 said:


> I'm not so sure about that. Cases have been won in the past where it has been proven the signage doesn't comply with the regulations, now like yourself I'm struggling to see what's wrong with these particular signs which is why I asked Nanoman what he would consider to be legal, but he hasn't responded to that question.
> 
> I do share a certain degree of sympathy, for many years being a London chauffeur there were certain areas, intersecting Oxford Street for example where seeing traffic lights and signs was sometimes impossible with a continuos queue of double decker buses nose to tail blocking just about everything which accounts for many cyclist fatalities.


Thanks for the sympathy. I don't think I'm being ridiculous here and neither do most people I've discussed this with (apart from all the law abiding folks on here with x-ray vision).



m1pui said:


> :lol: I've been mostly on tapatalk so hadn't even seen the edit info. Shame no one quoted the original post!


My original post does not admit any guilt whatsoever. I just clarified it.


----------



## Jem

I suspect you knew full well you shouldn't have driven straight on, chanced it, got caught and now are trying to wriggle out of it.


----------



## Nanoman

Jem said:


> I suspect you knew full well you shouldn't have driven straight on, chanced it, got caught and now are trying to wriggle out of it.


That's utter tosh.


----------



## ardandy

Nanoman said:


> I would possibly take it on the chin but it's not just that. The fact that the police have issued a ticket without witnessing any offence seriously concerns me.


Good god man. Don't pretend you're doing your civil duty buy trying to find a fault with the police.

Do police have to see a murder to prosecute or just have evidence to prove it was you. You originally said you didn't know about the rules when you drove through as the signs were blocked, why not stay on that argument instead of finding a loophole about seeing you pass the signs?

Just man up. You're not protecting the public, just yourself.



Nanoman said:


> As discussed I'm waiting on the details from my lawyer friend but as far as I can work out the signs are too far apart, there should be another in a traffic island as it's a 4 lane road.


There's 3 lanes in that pic you posted in thread 1, not 4?


----------



## S63

You still haven't really given a direct answer to a direct question Nanoman, I'm not attempting to trip you up, just truly understand your beliefs.

There is a good reason for asking the question which I will ask again. I want you to forget for a moment the way the officers dealt with you, let's try and get one fact straight.

If you deem the signage to be legal do you then also accept, to be found within that prohibited area regardless of whether you were seen entering is illegal?


----------



## Rabidracoon28

This is going around in circles now and is boring.


----------



## Nanoman

ardandy said:


> Good god man. Don't pretend you're doing your civil duty buy trying to find a fault with the police.
> 
> Do police have to see a murder to prosecute or just have evidence to prove it was you. You originally said you didn't know about the rules when you drove through as the signs were blocked, why not stay on that argument instead of finding a loophole about seeing you pass the signs?
> 
> Just man up. You're not protecting the public, just yourself.
> 
> There's 3 lanes in that pic you posted in thread 1, not 4?


No they don't have to witness the murder but they have to investigate and provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt as to who committed the offence.
There's 2 tram lanes and 2 drivings lanes (1 of which is trams only).



S63 said:


> You still haven't really given a direct answer to a direct question Nanoman, I'm not attempting to trip you up, just truly understand your beliefs.
> 
> There is a good reason for asking the question which I will ask again. I want you to forget for a moment the way the officers dealt with you, let's try and get one fact straight.
> 
> If you deem the signage to be legal do you then also accept, to be found within that prohibited area regardless of whether you were seen entering is illegal?


The offence is not obeying a no entry. If I drive past the signs with you in the passenger seat. Then I stop and we swap. You have not committed an offence, I have. So no, even if the signage is legal there is no offence being committed by driving after the signs. As I've said many times, they did not witness any offence being committed and they made no attempt to find out if I had committed the offence.

In case it's not clear my questions to you and the factual answer is that no, it is not illegal to be driving after the no entry signs.


----------



## johanr77

So your passenger going to say they drove through the no entry signs?. Did you tell the police that at the time?.


----------



## S63

Ok, thank you for your response, can you show me legislation to support your claim?

My understanding is...to be in a street that is banned to cars is an offence, a court I'm sure will see this the same way and will require evidence to prove differently.


----------



## Nanoman

johanr77 said:


> So your passenger going to say they drove through the no entry signs?. Did you tell the police that at the time?.


I didn't even know where the signs were that the police were referring to. Like I've said previously I won't lie. But if I can create reasonable doubt then I won't need to.



S63 said:


> Ok, thank you for your response, can you show me legislation to support your claim?
> 
> My understanding is...to be in a street that is banned to cars is an offence, a court I'm sure will see this the same way and will require evidence to prove differently.


My understanding is that the bit of road after the signs is normal carriageway. It's not a bus lane, pedestrian area or anything like that.

It's certainly not the offence I've been charged with. I believe in Scotland driving in a bus lane is a non-endorsable civil penalty of £30 issued by a council rather than a criminal offence.

Feel free to find me legislation proving otherwise. I can't find any legislation to describe a section of carriageway open to trams, buses, taxis and cycles.

This is the sign for a road which cars aren't allowed to be on


----------



## Rob_Quads

johanr77 said:


> So your passenger going to say they drove through the no entry signs?.


No they would just deny it. Its why we have all these mad cases where 2 people are in a car which has committed numerous crimes but because no-one witnessed it the police can do nothing as they both deny driving.


----------



## Vossman

Nanoman said:


> This is the sign for a road which cars aren't allowed to be on


Yes but aren't you being done for ignoring the No Entry signs? No entry is just that but with the exceptions on the plate below, if cars are not allowed there then that is why you are being done, the police actually saw you in control of the vehicle also, I am guessing that area of town will be well covered by CCTV also, if they need to they will get it and prove you drove along that road.


----------



## johanr77

Oh yeah I've heard of that excuse before it's usually reserved for chavs, drug dealers and car thieves. The op isn't going to lie though so he isn't going to say that he wasn't driving.


----------



## S63

Worth a read Nanoman, a similar scenario?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=32505&st=40

You'll need to get this right with a fine up to a maximum of £1000 looming.


----------



## Vossman

S63 said:


> Worth a read Nanoman, a similar scenario?
> 
> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=32505&st=40
> 
> You'll need to get this right with a fine up to a maximum of £1000 looming.


Having read that the case is similar but miles apart from my reasoning, in this case there are no conflicting signs - just the No Entry and the plate below giving what restrictions exist.
It would be interesting to see what the restrictions on the signs say.


----------



## DW58

Keep digging the hole Nanoman, now you're not only making yourself look stupid, but a total a**e into the bargain.

Clearly you don't understand an absolute offence, or you wouldn't have dragged this thread out to 13 pages, or rather you wouldn't have started it. By virtue of benig on the side of the road you were, facing in the direction you were was suffient evidence, _Ergo_ offence committed.


----------



## S63

Vossman said:


> Having read that the case is similar but miles apart from my reasoning, in this case there are no conflicting signs - just the No Entry and the plate below giving what restrictions exist.
> It would be interesting to see what the restrictions on the signs say.


If you look at an earlier photo I posted of signs close by, the restrictions are clear to read and according to Nanoman the same.


----------



## S63

DW58 said:


> Keep digging the hole Nanoman, now you're not only making yourself look stupid, but a total a**e into the bargain.
> 
> Clearly you don't understand an absolute offence, or you wouldn't have dragged this thread out to 13 pages, or rather you wouldn't have started it. By virtue of benig on the side of the road you were, facing in the direction you were was suffient evidence, _Ergo_ offence committed.


In fairness it's the likes of me and a few other members including yourself that are keeping this thread going, all Nanoman is doing is responding to our questions.

He firmly believes he's been done an injustice, I think he's seriously misguided as do the majority of us, that doesn't make him a pratt or various other expletives you've alluded to.


----------



## DW58

OK, maybe I'm being rather hard on him but I do feel he's on a hiding to nothing and editing his early posts did him no favours.


----------



## Vossman

DW58 said:


> OK, maybe I'm being rather hard on him but I do feel he's on a hiding to nothing and editing his early posts did him no favours.


I agree with this, as to my previous post though there are no "blue - buses only " signs to conflict with the No Entry sign, the offence is clear.


----------



## Nanoman

S63 said:


> Worth a read Nanoman, a similar scenario?
> 
> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=32505&st=40
> 
> You'll need to get this right with a fine up to a maximum of £1000 looming.


Thanks for this one S63. I've been on Pepipoo but the registration e-mail doesn't seem to be coming through. I you look at Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual it gets interesting. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/223943/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

Section 4.40 states that no plates other than 'Except buses' or 'Except local buses' are prescribed or permitted with the no entry sign. 
The sign I passed has a plate saying 'Except, trams, buses, taxis and cycles' and another saying 'Loading permitted 8 pm- 7 am'. The interpretation is that everyone who has ever passed the sign should be prosecuted or none at all.

As for DW58 I'm a bit disappointed as he's normally alright on the forums. Maybe it's the fact that he made a bit of an idiot of himself asking if it was an absolute offence after stating he's a ex old bill. How long a career can you have not knowing what an absolute offence it. Maybe he was the type of cop who gave out tickets with no evidence an offence was definately committed or who committed it. You only have to read a few of my forum posts relating to the subject to see I'm normally a supporter of the cops due the number of close friends who are serving officers.


----------



## ardandy

The only offence here is if we don't get to hear what happens up to the end.


----------



## Nanoman

Another wee update:
The traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002 schedule 21(2)
specifically states


> (2) A plate shown in diagram 954.3 or 954.4 or the sign shown in diagram 954.6 or 954.7 shall not be placed in combination with the sign shown in diagram 616.


954.3 and 954.4 are the 'except buses, cycles and taxis' signs. Diagram 616 is the no entry sign.
The main issue is that the sign mentions trams but that doesn't appear to be in any of the documents relating to the Act. If the sign including trams is essentially meaningless in the eyes of the law then again I'm likely to get away with it regardless of the actual circumstances.


----------



## B17BLG

DW58 said:


> Keep digging the hole Nanoman, now you're not only making yourself look stupid, but a total a**e into the bargain.
> 
> Clearly you don't understand an absolute offence, or you wouldn't have dragged this thread out to 13 pages, or rather you wouldn't have started it. By virtue of benig on the side of the road you were, facing in the direction you were was suffient evidence, _Ergo_ offence committed.


The only one making themselves look siIly here is you handing out personal insults when the OP has not insulted you....


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> Thanks for this one S63. I've been on Pepipoo but the registration e-mail doesn't seem to be coming through. I you look at Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual it gets interesting. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...le/223943/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
> 
> Section 4.40 states that no plates other than 'Except buses' or 'Except local buses' are prescribed or permitted with the no entry sign.
> The sign I passed has a plate saying 'Except, trams, buses, taxis and cycles' and another saying 'Loading permitted 8 pm- 7 am'. The interpretation is that everyone who has ever passed the sign should be prosecuted or none at all.
> 
> As for DW58 I'm a bit disappointed as he's normally alright on the forums. Maybe it's the fact that he made a bit of an idiot of himself asking if it was an absolute offence after stating he's a ex old bill. How long a career can you have not knowing what an absolute offence it. Maybe he was the type of cop who gave out tickets with no evidence an offence was definately committed or who committed it. You only have to read a few of my forum posts relating to the subject to see I'm normally a supporter of the cops due the number of close friends who are serving officers.


I think you calling the officer a p***k may have ruffled his feathers, understandable given his previous career.

I've stated all along that I think you are on a losing wicket, however, many motorists have been and still are being prosecuted wrongly because signage doesn't meet the required regulations. Looking at your photo doesn't tell us the whole story and I don't know the area but it's immediately apparent just how much is going on in a very confined area, an awful lot of data for a motorist to take in within a few seconds.

People need to sometimes take a stand and challenge the system, if you win you'll be a hero, many others could get fines and endorsements quashed, lose and you'll face a bigger punishment and will be constantly told "I told you so"

If you haven't already done so you really need to research this system, when was it implemented? and just how many motorists have been caught going through the signs?


----------



## DW58

Nanoman said:


> As for DW58 I'm a bit disappointed as he's normally alright on the forums. Maybe it's the fact that he made a bit of an idiot of himself asking if it was an absolute offence after stating he's a ex old bill. How long a career can you have not knowing what an absolute offence it. Maybe he was the type of cop who gave out tickets with no evidence an offence was definately committed or who committed it. You only have to read a few of my forum posts relating to the subject to see I'm normally a supporter of the cops due the number of close friends who are serving officers.


I didn't say I was ex "Old Bill" as you put it, you assumed that - what I actually stated was that I was ex Law Enforcement, different thing! In my former occupation, I was an officer commissioned by HM The Queen with higher and more varied powers than in any other Government body.

What makes you say I don't know what an absolute offence is? My career generally involved matters somewhat more complex than what you term "Old Bill' giving out tickets, I certainly know but do you?

I suspect your current attitude stems purely from your current situation of anger and may I suggest confusion over what define has happened. Bear in mind that the officer(s) concerned don't know you from Adam and didn't single you out for the alleged offence because they fancied doing so.

Everything a Constable does these days has to be justified totally, they are under constant scrutiny, and generally don't stop random motorists just because the feel like it. Why would a police officer issue you with a ticket if he didn't consider that you had committed an offence, also bear in mind that both officers have to be of that opinion. Remember that one officer isn't going to issue you with a ticket if the other officer disagrees with his opinion on the offence.

You mention corroboration earlier - don't you think that corroboration is needed for the offence that you have allegedly committed? I don't know exact and current police procedures, but I'm guessing the fact that in Scotland officers generally work in pairs counts for something - don't you think?

Seriously, you need to step back from this, cool off for 24-48 hours and then look at this with a more reasoned mind and try to work out if fighting such a small fine and three points is really in your interests. Then and only then decide if you can really justify fighting the case, and if you are prepared to risk a much higher financial penalty and perhaps double the points if you loose.

I don't know if you have ever been in a court under oath before, but trust me it's not something to be taken lightly, I know I've been there, being cross-examined by cunning and experienced Advocates/Lawyers isn't fun I can assure you.

If you insist on pursuing the matter, ensure that you are absolutely 100% on the facts of what happened, and that you are even more sure of your arguments.

Tread very carefully on the like of Pepipoo or whatever it's called, advice you receive there isn't likely to have come from the most informed sources.


----------



## ardandy

Nanoman said:


> Another wee update:
> The traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002 schedule 21(2)
> specifically states
> 
> 954.3 and 954.4 are the 'except buses, cycles and taxis' signs. Diagram 616 is the no entry sign.
> The main issue is that the sign mentions trams but that doesn't appear to be in any of the documents relating to the Act. If the sign including trams is essentially meaningless in the eyes of the law then again I'm likely to get away with it regardless of the actual circumstances.


So you are trying to get away with it then.


----------



## DW58

B17BLG said:


> The only one making themselves look siIly here is you handing out personal insults when the OP has not insulted you....


For which I have already apologised.


----------



## DW58

Nanoman said:


> If the sign including trams is essentially meaningless in the eyes of the law then again I'm likely to *get away with it* regardless of the actual circumstances.


Unfortunate wording - I suspect what you actually mean is "have my ticket withdrawn" or words to that effect. I suspect "get away with it" isn't how the police/court will be seeing it surely?


----------



## Nanoman

S63 said:


> I think you calling the officer a p***k may have ruffled his feathers, understandable given his previous career.
> 
> I've stated all along that I think you are on a losing wicket, however, many motorists have been and still are being prosecuted wrongly because signage doesn't meet the required regulations. Looking at your photo doesn't tell us the whole story and I don't know the area but it's immediately apparent just how much is going on in a very confined area, an awful lot of data for a motorist to take in within a few seconds.
> 
> People need to sometimes take a stand and challenge the system, if you win you'll be a hero, many others could get fines and endorsements quashed, lose and you'll face a bigger punishment and will be constantly told "I told you so"
> 
> If you haven't already done so you really need to research this system, when was it implemented? and just how many motorists have been caught going through the signs?


I didn't call the officer a prick. I was pleasant and civil the entire time as I always am with the police.



ardandy said:


> So you are trying to get away with it then.


I intend to prove I'm not guilty of committing an offence, yes.



DW58 said:


> For which I have already apologised.


I haven't seen any apology. Also, you've made many incorrect assumptions in this thread so don't go calling me out for saying using law enforcement and old bill interchangeably.

Also 'it' in my view is 'not committing any offence'.


----------



## S63

Nanoman said:


> As an aside... if the police officer hadn't been such a prick I would probably have taken this on the chin.


I referred to this comment.


----------



## Starbuck88

B17BLG said:


> So your circumstances cannot compare! 3 points makes no difference? I'd be intrigued where you found those statistics!
> 
> Just because you accepted it doesn't mean others have to if their opinion is they shouldn't take the penalty


Those I know that have 3 points said it didnt affect their premiums so I'm just basing it on that and after doing a bit of research after I thought I might have got points thanks to slowing down too slowly from a 60 to 40 and there being a mobile speed trap.

The jist is, I personally don't understand why nanoman is going after this like a dog with a bone, the signs are there...are they legal I dont know but this whole thing 'seems' like he did wrong albeit unintentionally and is now trying to find a way of getting out of it.

The remark about the police not seeing him drive past the signs seems totally bizarre to me as he obviously did, the only way I see this coming good for him is if the signage isnt up to standard...


----------



## B17BLG

asonda said:


> Those I know that have 3 points said it didnt affect their premiums so I'm just basing it on that and after doing a bit of research after I thought I might have got points thanks to slowing down too slowly from a 60 to 40 and there being a mobile speed trap.
> 
> The jist is, I personally don't understand why nanoman is going after this like a dog with a bone, the signs are there...are they legal I dont know but this whole thing 'seems' like he did wrong albeit unintentionally and is now trying to find a way of getting out of it.
> 
> The remark about the police not seeing him drive past the signs seems totally bizarre to me as he obviously did, the only way I see this coming good for him is if the signage isnt up to standard...


3 points made a difference for me?

Why should he accept the points if he believes he is not in the wrong?

I have to be honest aswell that the no entry signs in the OP ate indeed very hard to spot!

You have to look the at the picture for sometime to actually get sight of them, surely in a built up area it's more dangerous to take your concentration off the road and look for poorly placed signage! I'd rather be looking out for pedestrians in the road, cyclists and other road users

Its probably all legal, but its a fantastic money making scheme! Just like the camera Vans!


----------



## B17BLG

DW58 said:


> For which I have already apologised.


Via PM I take it as no apology in here or edits or posts....


----------



## Paintmaster1982

asonda said:


> Those I know that have 3 points said it didnt affect their premiums so I'm just basing it on that and after doing a bit of research after I thought I might have got points thanks to slowing down too slowly from a 60 to 40 and there being a mobile speed trap.
> 
> The jist is, I personally don't understand why nanoman is going after this like a dog with a bone, the signs are there...are they legal I dont know but this whole thing 'seems' like he did wrong albeit unintentionally and is now trying to find a way of getting out of it.
> 
> The remark about the police not seeing him drive past the signs seems totally bizarre to me as he obviously did, the only way I see this coming good for him is if the signage isnt up to standard...


I've been banned with no points and £143 fine Inc costs. My insurance was cheaper that year.

Good luck to the chap but I really dont think its worth it. If you have no points and lots of no claims bonus then it won't harm your insurance premium in my experience.

If it does go up it might be no more than the fine they have issued. Much less than if you lose. Think of the bigger picture buddy it will work out much much cheaper in the long run.


----------



## chrisyeti

Nanoman said:


> Another wee update:
> The traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002 schedule 21(2)
> specifically states
> 
> 954.3 and 954.4 are the 'except buses, cycles and taxis' signs. Diagram 616 is the no entry sign.
> The main issue is that the sign mentions trams but that doesn't appear to be in any of the documents relating to the Act. If the sign including trams is essentially meaningless in the eyes of the law then again I'm likely to get away with it regardless of the actual circumstances.


[URL="http://https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...chapter-03.pdf[/URL]

Chapter 3 Section 16 is specific to Trams?


----------



## Vossman

I'm sure the op will keep us posted on how it goes, good luck either way.


----------



## Exotica

OP do what you believe in if you can accept the consequences if it doesn't go your way. 
If you believe you've been bent over then fight it.


----------



## Darlofan

Nanoman said:


> I've taken points twice before in my life without argument because I was committing an offence.
> 
> I honestly don't believe I've committed an offence and would like to get the opportunity for someone who knows the law to make that decision.
> 
> This isn't about getting off on a technicality. This is about not committing an offence in the first place.
> 
> For an offence to be committed the signs and road layout have to meet the regs for a start. I don't believe that to be the case.


So it's not about getting off on a technicality yet you're going to argue the signs are not up to standard? That'll be a technicality then. How can you say you've not committed an offence when you've admitted driving through no entry signs? What exactly did you say when stopped? As you started off by saying I didn't see the signs due to buses. You need to man up, stop being a [email protected] and take your punishment. You're starting to sound like the chavs you see on YouTube videoing themselves arguing with police over the law.


----------



## Nanoman

asonda said:


> The remark about the police not seeing him drive past the signs seems totally bizarre to me as he obviously did, the only way I see this coming good for him is if the signage isnt up to standard...


Like I've said loads of times it's not obvious if the car was driven past the no entry or even who was driving or when it happened. The fact I was driving several hundred metres after the no entry doesn't mean an offence was committed.

For me getting off on a technicality is knowing the speed limit is 30 but doing 50 and getting caught doing 50 but because the gun wasn't tested that morning you get away with it.

For me this about the police giving out tickets with no evidence an offence was committed and no evidence who committed the offence that might have happened. It's also about whether the signs are fair and reasonable and whether the lane markings create confusion.

Anyone coming off Coates Crescent has about 20 metres before the signs which are either side of a 4 lane road, after two arrows suggesting straight ahead is fine in either lane and completely obscured every time a bus goes past.

It's VERY possible for a driver coming off Coates Crescent to have ZERO visibility of the signs. There are numerous things the council could do which they have chosen not to do which are recommended (but not necessarily required) which would prevent inadvertent non-compliance.


----------



## alan h M

One thing I think would help your case is.
take some pictures of similarly confusing junctions , print them out 4foot square. 
Get one of the policeman or judge etc to answer your questions. 
Unveil one picture for 1 or2 seconds and ask them to tell you about all the different signage and road markings etc. Im sure they will get some right but imguessing theywill miss a lot
they will probably miss the signs in question like we all did the first time we saw them
remind them that sitting in a court room looking at the pictures is alot easier than driving because there is a lot less to watch and keep an eye on. Pedestrians, cyclists or crazy drivers

you need to prove to them that even if it is legal the signage is vastly inadequate and potentially dangerous.


----------



## S63

^^^^ are you being serious? You'd get done for wasting courts time. Try and remember this won't be in front of a high court judge but just a local magistrate.


----------



## uruk hai

alan h M said:


> One thing I think would help your case is.
> take some pictures of similarly confusing junctions , print them out 4foot square.
> Get one of the policeman or judge etc to answer your questions.
> Unveil one picture for 1 or2 seconds and ask them to tell you about all the different signage and road markings etc. Im sure they will get some right but imguessing theywill miss a lot
> they will probably miss the signs in question like we all did the first time we saw them
> remind them that sitting in a court room looking at the pictures is alot easier than driving because there is a lot less to watch and keep an eye on. Pedestrians, cyclists or crazy drivers
> 
> you need to prove to them that even if it is legal the signage is vastly inadequate and potentially dangerous.


That won't happen, if you wish to bring evidence to a trial you first have to disclose it to the CPS. If you produce it on the day it may not even be allowed and if it is the court may discount it if they believe it has no relevance to your case. If you represent yourself you can cross examine but only questions relevant to your case will be allowed and you certainly won't be permitted to question a magistrate or district judge, should one hear your case.

You could bring a picture of the place and signs if you feel it would help you more effectively make your case, it may well help but there is a chnace that you will just be confirming to the bench that the signs are clear, visible and legally correct. As I say it could help but equally it could end up being used against you and people have although not many or often been convicted as a result of evidence they believed would help in their defence.


----------



## DW58

S63 said:


> ^^^^ are you being serious? You'd get done for wasting courts time. Try and remember this won't be in front of a high court judge but just a local magistrate.


This is Scotland, therefore it'll likely be before the Sheriff - quite a different proposition as the Sheriff is a legally trained professional in most cases.



uruk hai said:


> That won't happen, if you wish to bring evidence to a trial you first have to disclose it to the CPS. If you produce it on the day it may not even be allowed and if it is the court may discount it if they believe it has no relevance to your case. If you represent yourself you can cross examine but only questions relevant to your case will be allowed and you certainly won't be permitted to question a magistrate or district judge, should one hear your case.
> 
> You could bring a picture of the place and signs if you feel it would help you more effectively make your case, it may well help but there is a chnace that you will just be confirming to the bench that the signs are clear, visible and legally correct. As I say it could help but equally it could end up being used against you and people have although not many or often been convicted as a result of evidence they believed would help in their defence.


Again, as it's Scotland it's the Procurator Fiscal rather than the CPS, a long established and generally less problematical organisation.

My suggestion would be that the OP researches exactly what he's going to be up against and what he can/can't do before stating how he's going to conduct his defence.

_Caveat_ The Police, Fiscal, Sheriff have all been there before, they know about how to deal with motorists who think they can challenge the law, think they have been unfairly treated etc., etc.


----------



## ardandy

Worried about police handing out tickets without evidence even though you did do what they say you did?

You did what you are been prosecuted for and you're complaining?

This is why people don't understand what you're doing, it's not a point of principle here but trying to worm out of points.


----------



## uruk hai

My bad, I didn't read the part that mentioned Scotland !

Disregard every word I said, sorry :lol:


----------



## DW58

ardandy said:


> Worried about police handing out tickets without evidence even though you did do what they say you did?
> 
> You did what you are been prosecuted for and you're complaining?
> 
> This is why people don't understand what you're doing, it's not a point of principle here but trying to worm out of points.


This is just why I can't see the OP's contention that it is unfair/illegal.

The police didn't have to see him actually pass through the line of the signs, his very position where they saw/stopped him indicates that he, in vehicle (presumably) driven by him committed the offence for which they issued the ticket.

In my opinion the onus is actually on him to prove that he didn't commit the offence (which he has admitted that he did), and to prove that the offence is invalid because of technicalities which he claimed render the signage invalid.

Whilst it is the OP's right to try to fight his case on this, it's not like it's an offence which may result in a lengthy ban and thus affect his life/livelihood. In my opinion he's pissing into the wind and ought to pay up and put up. Whilst a top traffic lawyer might get him off, it would cost him thousands and thus achieve absolutely nothing.

In all honesty, I think the OP's emotions are clouding his judgement and reasoning in this case.


----------



## andy monty

This is where a dash cam would have come in very handy for the OP...... 

would have been a simple appear with video of the run into the street and prove beyond all doubt the signage was totally obscured




Saw one documentary a year or so ago where some miscreant had spun a no right turn sign round so it was unreadable to traffic, Chap still got a ticket (iirc it was CCTV enforced)

he went to the adjudicator / judge and took a nice big a4 print out of a photograph of the street and the sign been twisted they let him off almost instantly


----------



## Puntoboy

Another reason I have a dash cam. £100 well spent.


----------



## DW58

andy monty said:


> This is where a dash cam would have come in very handy for the OP......
> 
> would have been a simple appear with video of the run into the street and prove beyond all doubt the signage was totally obscured
> 
> Saw one documentary a year or so ago where some miscreant had spun a no right turn sign round so it was unreadable to traffic, Chap still got a ticket (iirc it was CCTV enforced)
> 
> he went to the adjudicator / judge and took a nice big a4 print out of a photograph of the street and the sign been twisted they let him off almost instantly


I totally see the point that a dash-cam might show an obscured sign/manipulated sign etc., but isn't this coming to a point of being totally ridiculous?

Every road sign can be obscured temporarily at some point, does this mean that we all have to have dash-cams operating all the time just in case we disobey a sign because it has been obscure by an eclipse/passing pterodactyl/flock of starlings/low rain-cloud/bolt of lightning/policeman's helmet (in England/Wales)/lollypop lady's sign/etc., etc.*

The state of paranoia among some motorists is getting out of control.

* delete as applicable.


----------



## Nanoman

ardandy said:


> Worried about police handing out tickets without evidence even though you did do what they say you did?
> 
> You did what you are been prosecuted for and you're complaining?


I am being prosecuted for committing an offence of passing legally enforceable no entry signs. I don't believe I'm guilty of that offence.



DW58 said:


> This is just why I can't see the OP's contention that it is unfair/illegal.


In my opinion being prosecuted for passing signs that are not legally enforceable and very likely to be not visible to a motorist with contradictory road markings is not fair or reasonable or legal.


----------



## DJ X-Ray

Makes me laugh how they dish out points for a no entry violation (or not as the case may be) yet if you're texting/phoning It's just a fine! What's all that about ?


----------



## Nanoman

DJ X-Ray said:


> Makes me laugh how they dish out points for a no entry violation (or not as the case may be) yet if you're texting/phoning It's just a fine! What's all that about ?


No entry violation is supposed to result in travelling the wrong way up a one way street which is very dangerous. Another reason the sign doesn't meet the regs and the offence shouldn't stand up in court.


----------



## Vossman

DJ X-Ray said:


> Makes me laugh how they dish out points for a no entry violation (or not as the case may be) yet if you're texting/phoning It's just a fine! What's all that about ?


Sorry but texting and phoning is 3 points, its like 6 points for no insurance, a copper cannot elect to give you a fine because the offence carries 3 points. If you argue in court it can easily be 8 points, a mate of mine argued the toss with police, they got his records from o2 and proved he had been on the phone when they saw him. The beak gave him 8 points and a £300 fine.

Apologies for sidetracking this .... ooops


----------



## DJ X-Ray

Nanoman said:


> No entry violation is supposed to result in travelling the wrong way up a one way street which is very dangerous. Another reason the sign doesn't meet the regs and the offence shouldn't stand up in court.


Were they traffic, or normal old bill?


----------



## chrisyeti

Nanoman said:


> No entry violation is supposed to result in travelling the wrong way up a one way street which is very dangerous. Another reason the sign doesn't meet the regs and the offence shouldn't stand up in court.


That is not strictly correct a No entry sign can be used in conjunction with other signs to prevent certain vehicles from entering i.e cars .HGVs etc


----------



## DW58

Nanoman said:


> I
> In my opinion being prosecuted for passing signs that are not legally enforceable and very likely to be not visible to a motorist with contradictory road markings is not fair or reasonable or legal.


If as you put it the signs are not legally enforceable, then theres no offence, so on what basis has the police officer issued you a ticket?

What is the actual offence stated on the ticket - not your definition of it?

... ... ... a situation of ever-decreasing circles, you know what happens next?


----------



## Rabidracoon28

Do you the OP have any points currently on your licence??


----------



## B17BLG

Paintmaster1982 said:


> I've been banned with no points and £143 fine Inc costs. My insurance was cheaper that year.
> 
> Good luck to the chap but I really dont think its worth it. If you have no points and lots of no claims bonus then it won't harm your insurance premium in my experience.
> 
> If it does go up it might be no more than the fine they have issued. Much less than if you lose. Think of the bigger picture buddy it will work out much much cheaper in the long run.


When you got banned your insurance was cheaper?


----------



## BRYHER

Looks like you have looked up the legislation on signs, size, shape etc.
*Go measure them*.

Now look for the *LOCAL ORDER* for the *ERECTION* of the said signs and see if they match! Position, sighting, height. Do they, if not the legality may be questioned!
The local order for the signs usually states many of these things perhaps even who has to erect them .

Under the *freedom of information act* ask for details of numbers of prosecutions here and perhaps see how many more people put up the arguments you are, that is:-

Poor approach visibility (You could go to the location at the same time of day you passed through and take lots of photographs of obstructed views of the signage)

Misleading road markings straight on large white arrows (mitigation no real weight in law? Scotland!) Have these been changed recently by the council? If so it may go towards showing some acceptance and therefore blame from local government/highways that what was there before was inadequate or at fault etc.

If others have also gone to court to fight this or if complaints have been raised with the police and or council (freedom of information act ask) then if this is so the council/authorities are duty bound to put things right, I'd have thought as this (in other circumstances) would be a safety issue PEOPLE GOING UP ONE WAY STREETS the wrong way, I understand this is in effect a restricted access area and perhaps NO ENTRY signs are not appropriate?

Are these no entry just revenue makers? They don't appear to be for safety!

Long post from me a bit rambling have you spoken to local newspapers to see if this is common known about problem (plus it gives them a story).

Pass this by your lawyer pal see what he thinks. Laws are made usually for safety reasons and rules are there to bee kept if local authority breaks these when planing for signs or do not fit them correctly according to the rules then they should be held accountable, just remember if you prove the points and escape an unfair prosecution you likely unlock the flood gates for past bad prosecutions,

Michael


----------



## Nanoman

DJ X-Ray said:


> Were they traffic, or normal old bill?


They said something about not being traffic officer but being 'community police'.



chrisyeti said:


> That is not strictly correct a No entry sign can be used in conjunction with other signs to prevent certain vehicles from entering i.e cars .HGVs etc


Complete ********. The only permissible exceptions are 9.54 and 954.2 'except buses' or except local buses'. Lane markings 1046 'NO ENTRY' and 1048.3 'BUS ONLY' are also permissible. Nothing else. I've already posted what schedule 20(2) states.



DW58 said:


> If as you put it the signs are not legally enforceable, then theres no offence, so on what basis has the police officer issued you a ticket?
> 
> What is the actual offence stated on the ticket - not your definition of it?


I've already stated that several times in the thread but here it is again just for you 'not obeying no entry sign'.


----------



## DW58

Nanoman said:


> I've already stated that several times in the thread but here it is again just for you 'not obeying no entry sign'.


You're so gracious


----------



## Nanoman

Just sent this off to Edinburgh City Council...


> Hi
> 
> Please provide me with the approvals from Scottish Ministers to site 'no entry' signs at the junction of Stafford Street and Shandwick place; and at the Princes Street end of Shandwick Place.
> 
> Please also help me understand under which legislation the 'No entry' signs are enforceable. Schedule 20(2) of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifically states that: (2) A plate shown in diagram 954.3 or 954.4 or the sign shown in diagram 954.6 or 954.7 shall not be placed in combination with the sign shown in diagram 616.
> 
> Section 4.39 of Chapter Three of the Traffic Signs Manual the states that 'The signs must be placed so that one is clearly visible at all times to traffic approaching from any permitted direction'. This is clearly not the case at the junction of Stafford Street and Shandwick Place as the signs are fully concealed by every passing bus. If two buses are stopped or pass at the same time the signs will be fully concealed.
> 
> If I can draw your attention to section 4.42 of the same document mentioned above 'the primary use of a no entry sign is to protect the end of a one way road, where it would be hazardous and endanger the safety of other road users should the sign be ignored'. Again, this is clearly not the case at the junction of Stafford Street and Shandwick Place.
> 
> Section 4.42 goes on to say that 'No other plates are prescribed or permitted for use with the 'no entry' sign'. The signs at Shandwick Place (and other locations around Edinburgh) have two exception plates which are not permitted.
> 
> Section 4.42 goes on to say that 'Where cyclists are to be admitted, signs to diagram 953 or 955 should be used in place of the 'no entry' sign, or a cycle by-pass should be constructed'. This is clearly not the case at the junction of Stafford Street and Shandwick Place.
> 
> In the absence of any act over-ruling the above it's clear that the courts should be prosecuting every vehicle which pass any of these signs in Edinburgh even if they are a Tram, Bus, Taxi or Cycle. Either that or all prosecutions should be dismissed and all signage removed then replaced with signage which is actually enforceable.
> 
> I look forward to your response.
> 
> Regards


----------



## S63

BRYHER said:


> Looks like you have looked up the legislation on signs, size, shape etc.
> *Go measure them*.
> 
> Now look for the *LOCAL ORDER* for the *ERECTION* of the said signs and see if they match! Position, sighting, height. Do they, if not the legality may be questioned!
> The local order for the signs usually states many of these things perhaps even who has to erect them .
> 
> Under the *freedom of information act* ask for details of numbers of prosecutions here and perhaps see how many more people put up the arguments you are, that is:-
> 
> Poor approach visibility (You could go to the location at the same time of day you passed through and take lots of photographs of obstructed views of the signage)
> 
> Misleading road markings straight on large white arrows (mitigation no real weight in law? Scotland!) Have these been changed recently by the council? If so it may go towards showing some acceptance and therefore blame from local government/highways that what was there before was inadequate or at fault etc.
> 
> If others have also gone to court to fight this or if complaints have been raised with the police and or council (freedom of information act ask) then if this is so the council/authorities are duty bound to put things right, I'd have thought as this (in other circumstances) would be a safety issue PEOPLE GOING UP ONE WAY STREETS the wrong way, I understand this is in effect a restricted access area and perhaps NO ENTRY signs are not appropriate?
> 
> Are these no entry just revenue makers? They don't appear to be for safety!
> 
> Long post from me a bit rambling have you spoken to local newspapers to see if this is common known about problem (plus it gives them a story).
> 
> Pass this by your lawyer pal see what he thinks. Laws are made usually for safety reasons and rules are there to bee kept if local authority breaks these when planing for signs or do not fit them correctly according to the rules then they should be held accountable, just remember if you prove the points and escape an unfair prosecution you likely unlock the flood gates for past bad prosecutions,
> 
> Michael


Excellent post.:thumb:


----------



## DW58

"Hi" and "Regards" in a formal letter, surely not a chatty e-mail? 

What ever happened to "Dear Sirs" and "Yours Faithfully" bearing in mind your communication will need to be produced in evidence?


----------



## Puntoboy

DW58 said:


> I totally see the point that a dash-cam might show an obscured sign/manipulated sign etc., but isn't this coming to a point of being totally ridiculous?
> 
> Every road sign can be obscured temporarily at some point, does this mean that we all have to have dash-cams operating all the time just in case we disobey a sign because it has been obscure by an eclipse/passing pterodactyl/flock of starlings/low rain-cloud/bolt of lightning/policeman's helmet (in England/Wales)/lollypop lady's sign/etc., etc.*
> 
> The state of paranoia among some motorists is getting out of control.
> 
> * delete as applicable.


If you fit a dash cam for that reason you're mad. It's just an added benefit. I know people that have saved hundreds, points on their licences and been proven right by having a dash cam.


----------



## Paintmaster1982

B17BLG said:


> When you got banned your insurance was cheaper?


Yep and that was going from a pug 306 hdi 90bhp which I got banned in to a 168 bhp mk3 golf gti 16v and. Madness and its slowly got cheaper every year.


----------



## 182_Blue

Paintmaster1982 said:


> Yep and that was going from a pug 306 hdi 90bhp which I got banned in to a 168 bhp mk3 golf gti 16v and. Madness and its slowly got cheaper every year.


Its not that mad, i remember thinking i had been done speeding so in a panic i did a insurance quote to see how much extra 3 points would cost me and to my amazement the quote with 3 points came back £15 cheaper than a clean licence ! (i didnt get any points after all though).


----------



## Nanoman

DW58 said:


> "Hi" and "Regards" in a formal letter, surely not a chatty e-mail?
> 
> What ever happened to "Dear Sirs" and "Yours Faithfully" bearing in mind your communication will need to be produced in evidence?


This'll have zero effect on the evidence I produce, in a letter I'd do it differently but in an e-mail it's 'Hi' and 'Regards'.



BRYHER said:


> Looks like you have looked up the legislation on signs, size, shape etc.
> *Go measure them*.
> 
> Now look for the *LOCAL ORDER* for the *ERECTION* of the said signs and see if they match! Position, sighting, height. Do they, if not the legality may be questioned!
> The local order for the signs usually states many of these things perhaps even who has to erect them .
> 
> Under the *freedom of information act* ask for details of numbers of prosecutions here and perhaps see how many more people put up the arguments you are, that is:-
> 
> Poor approach visibility (You could go to the location at the same time of day you passed through and take lots of photographs of obstructed views of the signage)
> 
> Misleading road markings straight on large white arrows (mitigation no real weight in law? Scotland!) Have these been changed recently by the council? If so it may go towards showing some acceptance and therefore blame from local government/highways that what was there before was inadequate or at fault etc.
> 
> If others have also gone to court to fight this or if complaints have been raised with the police and or council (freedom of information act ask) then if this is so the council/authorities are duty bound to put things right, I'd have thought as this (in other circumstances) would be a safety issue PEOPLE GOING UP ONE WAY STREETS the wrong way, I understand this is in effect a restricted access area and perhaps NO ENTRY signs are not appropriate?
> 
> Are these no entry just revenue makers? They don't appear to be for safety!
> 
> Long post from me a bit rambling have you spoken to local newspapers to see if this is common known about problem (plus it gives them a story).
> 
> Pass this by your lawyer pal see what he thinks. Laws are made usually for safety reasons and rules are there to bee kept if local authority breaks these when planing for signs or do not fit them correctly according to the rules then they should be held accountable, just remember if you prove the points and escape an unfair prosecution you likely unlock the flood gates for past bad prosecutions,
> 
> Michael


Thanks Michael. As S63 said it's an excellent contribution to the thread. (I nearly missed it).

I'll take your advice on the FOI requests I think. My 'Lawyer' is my mate who is a fully qualified & practicing lawyer but I'm not paying for his services.

I've got 24 days to get enough evidence together to have very little doubt of the outcome whilst representing myself.


----------



## Nanoman

test post: saw some posts appear last night that disappeared shortly afterwards and then it's gone terribly quiet. This is just a test to see if I get an error message.


----------



## BRYHER

I also thought about another argument/point of interest that may apply pressure on local government which is:- *"NOT IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST"*... that would be to spend a lot of money taking you to court over a matter that you may well win or not but costs a great amount of time and money ...2 police officers (I think you need 2 in Scotland), perhaps documentation from planning (may be the officer too), whoever erected the signs to state they were in accordance with planning, the list could go on because if the planing, passing of plans, legality of location,and erection, limitations etc, haven't been done correctly start to finish then you may have a case. Notwithstanding Win or Lose, the local papers would pick it up at court, think how many people might also feel aggrieved at these signs and surface afterwards (your Lawyer mate could make a killing supporting them).

Now did they give you a *NIP* notice of intended prosecution? or a fixed penalty notice ? (there used to be a time limit on NIP or the case was lost in ENGLAND). I'm not sure but can they give you a *FPN* (fixed penalty notice) if you denied the offence at the scene ?!

Or did they bamboozle you and fob you off because they couldn't be bothered to report you correctly at the time and put a report in for court from the start (relying on apathy and people "manning up",yeah right!) May have reason for complaint regarding police procedure not being adhered to! Do bear in mind they will 2 one you here.(and its in SCOTLAND so things are different to ENGLAND)

Time limit..will it be *statute bared* in 6 months? (your Lawyer will know)

finally, many thanks for the "thank's" I have received.
Michael


----------



## BRYHER

Your test has appeared


----------



## BRYHER

ROAD SIGN VIOLATIONS, an advert but may be of interest, http://www.roadtrafficexpert.com/road-sign-violations.htm

found this just after my last post.

Moderators please remove the link if this contravenes the rules
Michael


----------



## BRYHER

Oh one more point if you get to court and the sheriff magistrate judge or whoever asks if you *accept* that you drove through the signs, do not accept, keep to your original point you do not believe you contravened a lawful no entry signs. Be determined here, no matter how nice they appear how softly spoken if you commit yourself and state you drove through no entry signs ..then you did...(be careful of a hypothetical question too!)
A little point here if you leave a private car park say with unlawful signs placed by the owner and turn right, and the sign says left turn only with a rubbish drawing of a left turn arrow (because its a busy road say) and have a bump, it can be construed that you went against the sign and therefore were driving without due care or consideration, because a sign, in this case home made was there as a guide and you chose to ignore it you didn't have full regard.
Michael


----------



## DW58

BRYHER said:


> ROAD SIGN VIOLATIONS, an advert but may be of interest, http://www.roadtrafficexpert.com/road-sign-violations.htm
> 
> found this just after my last post.
> 
> Moderators please remove the link if this contravenes the rules
> Michael


Link invalid - results in a 404 error.


----------



## m1pui

DW58 said:


> Link invalid - results in a 404 error.


Stick an 'l' on the end
http://www.roadtrafficexpert.com/road-sign-violations.html


----------



## Nanoman

Thanks all. Based on the information I have I've gone straight to the top. The following mail went to the Scottish Parliament for the attention of the Transport and Justice ministers first thing...



> FAO Kenny MacAskill MSP & Keith Brown MSP
> 
> Dear Sirs
> 
> I am writing to you today regarding plentiful 'No Entry' signage in Edinburgh which is being enforced by Police Scotland despite the fact they are in breach of the act The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
> 
> Please treat this communication with the appropriate urgency. There are numerous fixed penalty notices being issued every day resulting in fines of at least £100 with license endorsement of 3 points and in some cases driving bans and ruined lives.
> 
> As per Section 4.42 of Chapter Three of the Traffic Signs Manual 'the primary use of a no entry sign is to protect the end of a one way road, where it would be hazardous and endanger the safety of other road users should the sign be ignored'. In several locations throughout Edinburgh these signs are not being used for this purpose.
> 
> Furthermore Section 4.42 goes on to state that 'No other plates are prescribed or permitted for use with the 'no entry' sign'. Also, Schedule 20(2) of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 specifically states that: (2) A plate shown in diagram 954.3 or 954.4 or the sign shown in diagram 954.6 or 954.7 shall not be placed in combination with the sign shown in diagram 616 ('No entry' sign). The signs at Shandwick Place (and other locations around Edinburgh) have two exception plates which are not permitted 1) 'Except trams, buses, taxis and cycles' and 2) 'Loading Permitted 8 pm - 7 am'.
> 
> According to the act The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 a 'No Entry' sign can only be placed 'At a site which has been approved by the Scottish Ministers'. I can only assume permission to use the sign has not been granted as this sign has a very specific use case which is very different to the way this sign is used in Edinburgh.
> 
> If placed correctly, not obeying this sign would mean a road user would driving the wrong way up a one-way street or a lane closed to all traffic 'Except Buses' or 'Except Local Buses'. This is very dangerous therefore it is a criminal offence with an appropriate punishment.
> 
> In Edinburgh, the primary purpose of this sign is to prevent cars, and goods vehicles from using ordinary carriageway during tram operating hours when the council wants to restrict access to Trams, Buses, Taxis and Cycles. Using a bus lane is not an endorseable criminal offence.
> 
> I put it to you that the relevant signage should be immediately removed and replaced with the correct alternative and that all prosecutions for not obeying the signage should be cancelled. The only alternative would be for Police Scotland to enforce the 'No Entry' signs to the letter of the law which, in the absence of an exception plate which is permissible under the act, would mean prosecuting every vehicle (Tram, bus, taxi and cycle) that passes them.
> 
> In addition to the above the council have placed misleading road markings in front of the signs as per the attachment showing the junction of Stafford Street and Shandwick Place. You will also see that the signs are obscured by every bus that passes them. Due to the misleading road-markings and obscured signage any motorist coming from Coates Crescent is likely to continue along Shandwick Place and inadvertently commit the offence of 'Not obeying a no entry sign'.
> 
> I look forward to your response and request your immediate intervention to prevent innocent motorists being wrongly targeted.
> 
> Your Sincerely


----------



## BRYHER

WOW what a read


----------



## andy monty

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-26841421


----------



## Starbuck88

Has there been any further movement on this?


----------



## Nanoman

asonda said:


> Has there been any further movement on this?


I've had a response from the Central Edinburgh MSP who is going to consult with the Scottish Government's traffic law experts. No response from Justice or Transport ministers yet.

I still intend to fight it.


----------



## B17BLG

DW58 said:


> This is just why I can't see the OP's contention that it is unfair/illegal.
> 
> The police didn't have to see him actually pass through the line of the signs, his very position where they saw/stopped him indicates that he, in vehicle (presumably) driven by him committed the offence for which they issued the ticket.
> 
> *In my opinion the onus is actually on him to prove that he didn't commit the offence* (which he has admitted that he did), and to prove that the offence is invalid because of technicalities which he claimed render the signage invalid.
> 
> Whilst it is the OP's right to try to fight his case on this, it's not like it's an offence which may result in a lengthy ban and thus affect his life/livelihood. In my opinion he's pissing into the wind and ought to pay up and put up. Whilst a top traffic lawyer might get him off, it would cost him thousands and thus achieve absolutely nothing.
> 
> In all honesty, I think the OP's emotions are clouding his judgement and reasoning in this case.


Well that's wrong isn't it.....

Surely if it went to court they would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt he committed the offence.

I don't think the court would take the words " I would presume the defendant drove through the no entry signs"


----------



## bidderman1969

If only that were true (from my experiences anyway)


----------



## Cookies

Any more word on this? 

Interested to hear if OP has been prosecuted or not.

Cooks


----------



## chrisyeti

Me too


----------



## andyb

Strangely quiet since 2nd April.


----------



## Cookies

Andy - funny I was thinking the same!! Surely if he got away with it there would have been a bit of a fanfare?!

Cooks


----------



## Kerr

Cookies said:


> Andy - funny I was thinking the same!! Surely if he got away with it there would have been a bit of a fanfare?!
> 
> Cooks


Could be that nothing has happened.

It you do contest a decision it could take ages to progress to court.


----------



## Cookies

Kerr said:


> Could be that nothing has happened.
> 
> It you do contest a decision it could take ages to progress to court.


Fair enough Kerr, point taken:thumb:. I'm just being more than a little bit nosey....

Cooks


----------



## Nanoman

Taking it to court. Will update you all don't worry.


----------



## Nanoman

So here's the latest...

I received a letter with a charge sheet and a summary of evidence. I needed to respond by next week otherwise a warrant could be issued for my arrest. I have three options for my response...
1) Plead Guilty
2) Plead Not Guilty
3) Provide an explanation.

I've signed the bit that says 'I plead not guilty. Send me a date for trial.'

I have enclosed a letter to the PF which highlights two things...
1) My interpretation of the legislation indicates the signs are not enforceable.
2) The officers summary of evidence is incorrect. Technically there are a couple of clear lies in it but I haven't put it that way. 

I have asked them to contact me to discuss the matter and will let you guys know what happens next.

For those interested the officers said I told them I traveled along Athol Place. I absolutely did not travel along Athol place. They said I told them there was a bus in front of the sign (kind of suggests I knew it was there but ignored it coz there was a bus in front of it), again this is not true.


----------



## James_R

Nanoman, can I be the first in a while to wish you all the best.

I understand what you originally posted and the whys and wherefores of everything since that post.
Its unfortunate that a lot of people just think you're trying to 'get away with it' and come on all holier than thou etc etc like they've never done anything wrong.

If I KNEW a road was no entry, i really wouldn't go along it hoping that I didn't get caught, likewise I'm confident that you didn't.

I think you're standing up to something that needs addressing, correcting and making clear so that other people don't fall foul of this.


----------



## B17BLG

Agree with James.

Surely if it's no entry, it's there for safety reasons so all the more reason to make it more clear.

It would be very cynical of me to think they are happy to continue motorist as its easy income..... It just couldn't possibly ring true...


----------



## Kerr

Best of luck with it. 

Brave man for taking the case on, but if you know you are right, maybe worth the chance. 

I'm sure lots of people accept points and small fines fearing the outcome and costs involved with court.


----------



## kh904

Kerr said:


> Best of luck with it.
> 
> Brave man for taking the case on, but if you know you are right, maybe worth the chance.
> 
> I'm sure lots of people accept points and small fines fearing the outcome and costs involved with court.


That's how the system works and we get screwed over. They set the fine at a level as high as possible but just low enough for people not wanting to challenge it, the time and hassle etc


----------



## Nanoman

So another update...

I hadn't heard anything back from the court so when I was in Edinburgh on business yesterday I popped in to ask for some info. I've got an intermediate diet in October whatever that means.

I was passing the area and noticed that the signs have changed. I stayed for 10 minutes and found that anything except cars obscures one of the signs completely and any high vehicle turning up Stafford Street obscures the other sign completely.

I counted more people passing the new signs than obeying them!

It's so obvious that you're getting 3 points and £100 fine if you go straight ahead here isn't it!


----------



## kh904

I think you got a case for your defence imo and I hope you win.
In a general note, I think we have an overdose of signs on our roads which can confuse drivers (me included), and some road systems are overly complicated causing unintentional problems.
In some cases I believe it's on purpose to trap drivers into committing an offense and fining them.


----------



## S63

kh904 said:


> I think you got a case for your defence imo and I hope you win.
> In a general note, I think we have an overdose of signs on our roads which can confuse drivers (me included), and some road systems are overly complicated causing unintentional problems.
> In some cases I believe it's on purpose to trap drivers into committing an offense and fining them.


This has been proven where experiments have taken place removing signage in areas over burdened with info thus resulting in fewer mishaps.


----------



## Nanoman

Latest update...

I'm due in court next week. I'll let you all know how it goes obviously.

I submitted an FOI request with the following question...


> I notice that the 'no entry' signs the Shandwick Place // Stafford Street junction have been replaced with new illuminated signs and without the two exception plates.
> 
> Please advise why the original 'no entry' signs and exception plates have been removed.


And this was the reply...


> Variable message signs (VMS), that could be turned off at night, were the only permissible signs that could practicably be used (the Regulations which control the type of signs that are used by Road Authorities is called 'Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002').


I suspect this will help my case quite a bit but I'm prepared for it to be discounted/ignored.


----------



## S63

Good luck.


----------



## Bill58

All the best with this. Edinburgh is a nightmare for drivers.


----------



## Kash-Jnr

Good luck mate!


----------



## Cookies

Good luck chum. I hope you're successful.

Cooks


----------



## BRYHER

The restrictions across the bridge in York, (I think no entry restricted access )Have been removed and people can apply for a refund of any fines. I am sorry I don't have better details just saw the end of a local news report a few days ago. 
Good luck with justice in this case.
Michael


----------



## Sh1ner

Good luck from here too.


----------



## Nanoman

Nanoman 1. Cops 0.


----------



## Starbuck88

Nanoman said:


> Nanoman 1. Cops 0.


Wicked. Come on...spill the beans.

How'd it all go down?


----------



## cossiecol

Nice one! But you're going to have to expand on it now......c'mon lad, out with it! lol


----------



## Nanoman

I had a chat with the Prosecutor as we adjourned for lunch and told her what my defence was going to be. She came back from lunch having confirmed their case was full of holes and case was deserted.

In scots law case deserted means they decided not to proceed without the facts being determined.

Thanks for all the good luck messages. I think they helped!


----------



## Vossman

Nanoman said:


> I had a chat with the Prosecutor as we adjourned for lunch and told her what my defence was going to be. She came back from lunch having confirmed their case was full of holes and case was deserted.
> 
> In scots law case deserted means they decided not to proceed without the facts being determined.


Well done mate - long job but all over now, could you ask for costs for time off work/stress/postage/traveling and stationary?

In any case - good job. :thumb:


----------



## Kerr

Good stuff. Hopefully didn't cost too much to defend yourself


----------



## Nanoman

Kerr said:


> Good stuff. Hopefully didn't cost too much to defend yourself


About £50 and two days off work as annual leave.


----------



## Steve

sweet dude


----------



## S63

Pleased to see the courage of your convictions proved correct.:thumb:


----------



## Jonnybbad

well done justice prevailed for once


----------



## millns84

Brilliant result, well done!

And to all the haters throughout the thread suggesting he should pay, well, there's some serious egg on their faces now eh? :lol:


----------



## Rabidracoon28

All the way back in the 4th post I said you should pay up. Glad you ignored me and the others. Well done pal


----------



## Bero

I missed this thread until today.

Well done, must be a relief putting this behind you!

Did you ever get a response from that twonk Kenny MacAskill?

......although I still think you still got off on a technicality


----------



## Nanoman

Bero said:


> I missed this thread until today.
> 
> Well done, must be a relief putting this behind you!
> 
> Did you ever get a response from that twonk Kenny MacAskill?
> 
> ......although I still think you still got off on a technicality


I can't agree that I got off on a technicality. If I'd gone to trial and they said the signs weren't technically correct for the local traffic order then that would have been the case. The fact was the officers had clearly colluded, there was a question hanging over the legality of the signs and they had no evidence that the signs were even visible (which they need for a prosecution).

I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles in numerous countries, in cars, vans, motorbikes and towing caravans. I've trained with IAM and had my riding assessed by a police motorcyclist. I find it very hard to believe that I simply didn't see the signs (although the arrows on the road certainly wouldn't have helped - bus coming up left hand lane can go straight on while you have to turn left in from the right hand lane across the other lane).

And no, Kenny McAskill wasn't interested. The MP for Edinburgh city got in touch though.


----------



## Bero

Nanoman said:


> I can't agree that I got off on a technicality. If I'd gone to trial and they said the signs weren't technically correct for the local traffic order then that would have been the case. The fact was the officers had clearly colluded, there was a question hanging over the legality of the signs and they had no evidence that the signs were even visible (which they need for a prosecution).
> 
> I've driven hundreds of thousands of miles in numerous countries, in cars, vans, motorbikes and towing caravans. I've trained with IAM and had my riding assessed by a police motorcyclist. I find it very hard to believe that I simply didn't see the signs (although the arrows on the road certainly wouldn't have helped - bus coming up left hand lane can go straight on while you have to turn left in from the right hand lane across the other lane).
> 
> And no, Kenny McAskill wasn't interested. The MP for Edinburgh city got in touch though.


I do sympathise with your original situation, and glad you 'got off'/justice was served.

Viability of the signs is irrelevant (assuming size an erection is correct), no law is ever qualified by 'unless a bus is blocking your visibility', and at no point in the highway code does it say signs only need to be obeyed if you see them. The driver not seeing a sign is never mitigation, failure to obey does not take into account observance.

If you looked at the signs and were confused by the 'and trams' part as it does not comply with the regulations that you know and you chose to continue I would agree it was not a technicality.

As you drove past (unknowingly and unsighted perhaps) then researched signage and how these ones don't don't comply with the letter of the law, although their intention is clear I would call that a technicality. 

I'm really not wanting to drag it into a side discussion, so this will be my last post (probably!) :thumb:


----------



## BRYHER

Just imagine if these signs and large white arrows were at the start of the *exit* to a Motorway and weren't seen because of the traffic etc.

Driving through them would be disastrous!

I bet the authorities wouldn't keep just fining people for driving through those, the authorities would be grossly negligent for such a bad road layout, as it happens it looks as if they can't be bothered to rectify a POOR road lay out which happens to be generating revenue.

NANOMAN you may wish to point the following out to the local authorities (in bold )
I hope they improve this ambiguity soon* "as danger may be caused to other road users, especially pedestrians and cyclists"*

Let them ignore that at their peril, once it has been said.
Michael


----------



## Nanoman

FYI I'll be posting copies of the Summary of Evidence and the two officers' statements within the next few days. I'll redact reference numbers and people's names of course. There's some interesting details which might interest a few of you. 

In future if I had any doubt about the legitimacy of a fixed penalty which had been issued to me I'd absolutely take it to court and defend myself. At very least plead guilty with mitigation and aim to be admonished*. Yes, you might end up worse off than if you accept the ticket but I'd say it's worth the risk. There were a couple of people admonished for things a lot worse than traffic offences while I was there. 

*Admonition: Where a person has pleaded guilty or been convicted of an offence, In some circumstances the court may admonish the offender not to do it again and impose no other penalty.

If you're going to try it yourself I'd highly suggest spending a day or two in court just to watch proceedings, see what goes on and get your head around what happens. 

Luckily for me I was called close to the end of each session so I saw what not to do when people before me who were representing themselves tried various things.

Saying that if I knew I'd ****ed up and deserved the ticket I'd take it on the chin as I've done twice previously.


----------

