I got a fixed penalty today

[fossyant]

Because the police would have caught up with me even more easily...

Ah..you are in need of the SCR Go To Fast Club......get it sorted out my son..........

 

[mangaman]

Seems a mess, if you're right and there are no warning prior signs before the picture you posted.

I applaud your attitude of taking the penalty "on the chin". Good to see we don't descend to the ""Mr Loophole"" type defences rich drivers often do.

Accepting the FPN and then politely explaining to the council how the signage could be improved would be a very mature and unusual approach. So unusual, the council may actually clarify the signage. (He says in vain hope)

 

[kendalcottages]

Thanks for that, lee. It's always nice to have a smart-arse in our midst. Yes, I knew what I was doing and I knew it was wrong. That's why I'm taking it on the chin, in case you hadn't noticed, but I still think it's not as clear as it could be.

 

[kendalcottages]

Accepting the FPN and then politely explaining to the council how the signage could be improved would be a very mature and unusual approach. So unusual, the council may actually clarify the signage. (He says in vain hope)

I wrote to my MP on Facebook about it. He's a good guy... just put himself forward as deputy of the Lib Dems. Not a party I'd tend to vote for, to be fair, but he's an excellent MP for the area, so maybe he'll get them to look at it.

 

[Noodley]

blah blah blah blah

Whatever....maybe.

 

[mangaman]

Come off it, have a look at the HC to help explain what that sign means - apply it to the layout of the junction and the sign underneath with respect to buses and Robert's your Father's Brother.

Sounds to me like you are a bit pissed about getting caught and rather then take it on the chin (like you have said) you have to have a pop at the sign but it's plain to see. I really don't see how it can be misconstrued for anything else.

Come on Lee - I can't speak for Kendallc. as I don't know him, but he's never disputed the fine in this thread. He's been reasonable throughout.

He's paid up and is trying to colour in a grey area. A lot of members on here (and I'm looking at you Bad Company etc) would have hired expensive Mr Loophole-type lawyers to avoid the fine.

As I understand, kendal has fessed up and payed, but wants clearer signage to improve road safety - which seems a good thing

 

[mangaman]

Whatever....maybe.

Cross-posted, but your's was more to the point than mine Noodley!

 

[kendalcottages]

Thanks, guys. And yep, I was wrong. I know that and I'm paying. I think I've been saying that all along. I'm not "a bit thick" - unless they give PhDs to thick people.

I would, though, like to correct my earlier statement about there not been signage earlier on the road. I've just come back from work on foot, and checked again. It turns out there is, afterall. I never realised, despite looking for it previously (I'd always wondered why there wasn't any!) - it's completely concealed by a big 'to let' sign jutting out from one of the shops, with a sign with one of those white arrows on a blue background closely following behind it. If you were approaching in a car, or on a bike, you just wouldn't see it. As is the case with many shops these days, I think that sign has been on there for quite a long time - not sure if it was before the sign went up or not as they're constantly chopping and changing what they're doing with the road signs, crossings and traffic lights around this junction. But yep... it is there... it's just a long, long way off being easily visible.

 

[Rhythm Thief]

I still think, from the photo you posted all those pages ago, that the signage is about as clear as it could be. The only way it could cause confusion is if you were unsure whether or not you were driving a bus.

 

[lukesdad]

The whole layout of the junction including the signage is pants. Get a mini roundabout put in or better still ban traffic alltogether especially anything over 3.5 tonnes.

 

[jazzkat]

The whole layout of the junction including the signage is pants. Get a mini roundabout put in or better still ban traffic alltogether especially anything over 3.5 tonnes.

It's the main road into Kendal from the north and is quite possibly the worst road planning I've ever seen, a mini roundabout wouldn't change a thing and the heavies have to come in that way to avoid the narrow roads and stupid one way system around the river kent.

Don't worry KC, Kendal council will change it all again in a couple of years time, I've been here five years and I think that junction has changed twice IIRC.
I don't know why they got rid of the traffic lights its not as if the traffic is any less snarled up as you get hit by the lights round the corner.

Kendal = traffic misery

commiserations on the FP

 

[domd1979]

I still can't understand how anyone can seriously claim confusion and ambiguity....

I know I'm repeating myself, but don't care.... The sign directs you to the left, there is a whacking great left arrow in the road, there is only one possible left movement. How is there anything confusing when there isn't a choice to make?

As for the layout of the junction, lots of towns have road layouts determined centuries ago, not ideal for modern day traffic, but we're stuck with them unless you want lots of demolition to put nice shiny junctions in.

To those criticising the layout, what precisely would you do with road markings and signage to make it any better? No right turn sign not an option because there are two right turns.

 

[kendalcottages]

Thanks, jk... I've been here just over 10 years and they've been chopping and changing their minds with what they're doing around town throughout that time, and particularly around this junction. As you say, it's only a matter of time before it gets changed again.

 

[ufkacbln]

It does, and has done since the signs were introduced 50ish years ago.

This is the online highway code page with the mandatory blue signs listed.

Interesting page that!

We had a "discussion" over cycle paths at work with a particularly petrolhead colleague who objects that I don't use a cycle path adjacent to the main road.

He states this is a mandatory sign stating cyclists "must" use the path, whereas I interpret this as informing others that the route is for cycles only.

This is unclear, and it is difficult to "prove" my stance.

There is a second booklet to the Highway code Know your Traffic Signs.

This puts the arrow under discussion as "Usery", whilst the cycle sign is not.

Not the easiest.... the official version does not tell you whether cycle paths are mandatory

Blue circles generally give a mandatory instruction, such as "turn left", or indicate a route available only to particular classes of traffic, e.g. buses and cycles onl

 

[Debian]

Not the easiest.... the official version does not tell you whether cycle paths are mandatory

This sign doesn't mean that cyclists and pedestrians must use the path:

A BLUE CIRCLE generally gives a positive(mandatory) instruction or indicates a route for use only by particular classes of vehicle (see sections on tram signs and busand cycle signs).

The sign contains no instruction so what it means is that ONLY cyclists and pedestrians can use the path, not that cyclists and pedestrians must use the path.