Following a van did not excuse failing to check for oncoming traffic (2026)

Case 2250424214 / 2025-12-29 / Adjudicator Anju Kaler

Salter's Hill

“If the driver could not see what was going on because his view was obstructed, he should have waited until he could see if there were any oncoming vehicles.”

Anju Kaler

Lambeth's PCN concerned a motorcycle travelling under the bridge towards the mini-roundabout at Salter's Hill. Traffic in that direction was required to give way. A white van proceeded first, followed by the motorcycle.

Anju Kaler found that both the van and the motorcycle failed to give way. If the rider's view was obstructed, they should have waited until they could see whether vehicles were coming the other way. The adjudicator was satisfied that the restriction was properly signed and refused the appeal on 29 December 2025.

The finding illustrates the difference between an inadequately conveyed instruction and a driver continuing despite being unable to check traffic. The van's movement did not give the motorcycle permission to follow. The published reasons do not identify a separate signage defect or a vehicle-specific exemption.

Read this alongside allowed case 2250488487. In that case, the adjudicator found the signage itself inconspicuous from the driver's position; here, the sign was accepted and the obscured view was a reason to wait. A useful appeal must demonstrate which issue the evidence actually supports.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 2250424214 in the London Tribunals register to find the official decision. This commentary distinguishes the adjudicator's finding from a possible argument in a different case; previous tribunal decisions do not bind another adjudicator.