Jump to content


style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2286 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Those nice people at Snapper TV have made a documentary for the BBC, about local authorities and their use of CCTV for apparent violations by the unwary public and the revenue made from it.

 

... 'They claim they do it to keep the traffic flowing smoother. But private emails obtained by Panorama reveal a different story, with officials congratulating each other on the number of tickets issued: 'Another record month, guys. Well done,' says one. The programme visits the box junction where the council fines so many drivers - 29,000 last year alone;...

 

 

A link to the programme.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xcnpr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those nice people at Snapper TV have made a documentary for the BBC, about local authorities and their use of CCTV for apparent violations by the unwary public and the revenue made from it.

 

... 'They claim they do it to keep the traffic flowing smoother. But private emails obtained by Panorama reveal a different story, with officials congratulating each other on the number of tickets issued: 'Another record month, guys. Well done,' says one. The programme visits the box junction where the council fines so many drivers - 29,000 last year alone;...

 

 

A link to the programme.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xcnpr

 

Why the 'but'? That's like saying the Police claim to aim to keep crime down 'but' emails show they congratulate each other on how many people they send to jail each month?? The statement makes no sense whatsoever!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the 'but'? That's like saying the Police claim to aim to keep crime down 'but' emails show they congratulate each other on how many people they send to jail each month?? The statement makes no sense whatsoever!

 

If crime was proven to be reduced the police numbers would have to be shrunk accordingly.

 

With local authorities now dealing with both fixed and moving traffic violations, the amount of revenue required must of course go up, but not to the extent that justifies the number of PCN's issued.

The taxpayer additionally funds ;

the employment of wardens,

the council offices used by the parking / traffic departments,

the CCTV operators and processing staff,

the lawyers, and

the legislation manipulated to cover the most innocent driving error under the umbrella of coded offences and a fixed penalty

 

through their council tax, which does not go down, despite the police having less work on the roads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If crime was proven to be reduced the police numbers would have to be shrunk accordingly.

 

 

So you think that if crime goes down a percentage of the Police just sit around drinking tea and waiting for a crime? You must live in a very nice part of the world where the Police have nothing to do.

 

The simple fact is parking/moving traffic penalties increases compliance, the laws relating to traffic signs have not changed they were in place when most of us did our driving test. The only thing that has changed is the chances of getting caught for your 'innocent error'!

Do you think the number of people using mobiles while driving or driving faster than 70 on the motorway do it because they do not know the law? They do it because they think they are above the law and crucially will NOT get caught.

One persons 'innocent error' of ignoring a no entry sign is another persons life changing head on collision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's refreshing to know your ability for tangential responses hasn't been tempered.

 

Since when has your local authority had the power to deal with speeding and motorway offences ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's refreshing to know your ability for tangential responses hasn't been tempered.

 

Since when has your local authority had the power to deal with speeding and motorway offences ?

 

When did I say they did? The point is people break the law because they know there is little chance of getting caught not because of an 'innocent mistake'. No doubt if catching those on mobiles was passed to local authorities you would defend the those texting on the motorway as innocent drivers? Where will it end would you think drunk drivers are innocent if that was enforced by local authorities? You seem to think that ignoring no left/right turn, no entry, one way street, pedestrian zone etc signs should be permitted for some strange reason, why not make all traffic signs advisory in your cloud cuckoo land world. The regulations have not changed since Councils started enforcement, the signs and traffic orders still have the same meaning. If you turn right where prohibited it was an offence when enforced by the Police as it is now, the only difference is the Police did not have the resources to target traffic offences and there was a high probability you would not get caught, that does not make the offence acceptable or safe to commit.

If you get caught by a Police officer you get fined and can elect not to pay the fixed penalty and try your luck in Court, how is that any different from getting a penalty charge and going to an adjudicator? Under criminal law going to Court is likely to increase the penalty where as PCNs do not increase in cost if you appeal.

What is the actual objection to local authority enforcement, that they are better at catching offenders than the Police? Surely as a public service that is a success and provides value for money not a fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the actual objection to local authority enforcement, that they are better at catching offenders than the Police? Surely as a public service that is a success and provides value for money not a fault?

 

I would guess a police officer, with a few months of college experience (Hendon ?) and some time in the community, is capable of distinguishing between a criminal act from a genuine error and is allowed in most cases to use their discretion.

 

Local authority officials work on a commission based monthly quota, and a set of offence codes to punch into a handheld device. The remote camera operators have little more than an image to work on. The issue of a PCN forms the basis of a money making procedure as opposed to an element in crime management or reduction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would guess a police officer, with a few months of college experience (Hendon ?) and some time in the community, is capable of distinguishing between a criminal act from a genuine error and is allowed in most cases to use their discretion.

 

Local authority officials work on a commission based monthly quota, and a set of offence codes to punch into a handheld device. The remote camera operators have little more than an image to work on. The issue of a PCN forms the basis of a money making procedure as opposed to an element in crime management or reduction.

 

I'd love you to find me a Council official who works on commission! :lol: Motoring offences are absolute you either adhere to a sign or you don't making a mistake is not a defence I think you will find. Why is getting a PCN from the Council and getting a fixed penalty from a Police officer any different, its the cost that is there to deter you regardless of who issues it. Police traffic offences also use a list of offence codes, your arguments really don't hold any water , do they? If a PC lets you off a motoring offence its usually because he cannot be bothered with the paperwork or has other targets to meet. Yes your lovely bobby on the street also has targets to meet such as response times to 999 calls and will prioritise that over stopping you driving through a no entry sign, which is why the enforcement of minor road traffic offences was passed on to local authorities. The Police get more than enough reported crime without wandering the streets looking for more unreported crimes being done by car drivers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd love you to find me a Council official who works on commission! :lol: Motoring offences are absolute you either adhere to a sign or you don't making a mistake is not a defence I think you will find. Why is getting a PCN from the Council and getting a fixed penalty from a Police officer any different, its the cost that is there to deter you regardless of who issues it. Police traffic offences also use a list of offence codes, your arguments really don't hold any water , do they? If a PC lets you off a motoring offence its usually because he cannot be bothered with the paperwork or has other targets to meet. Yes your lovely bobby on the street also has targets to meet such as response times to 999 calls and will prioritise that over stopping you driving through a no entry sign, which is why the enforcement of minor road traffic offences was passed on to local authorities. The Police get more than enough reported crime without wandering the streets looking for more unreported crimes being done by car drivers.

 

 

I see the typical g&m responses. if you think that every single FP the councils issue is because the driver has committed an offence you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The councils and their wardens use various unfair, unreasonable and sometimes unlawful means to try catch out motorists in order to issue FPs. The difference is that most police officers have received an appropriate level of training and don't get measured on targets of how much money they bring in, whereas there have been numerous reported cases and whistleblowing that some councils demand certain financial targets by wardens & officers. additionally the councils often use underhand means to try catch motorists out and when advised by patas etc that the signs are unlawful still do nothing to rectify the situation but rather continue to rake in the revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see the typical g&m responses. if you think that every single FP the councils issue is because the driver has committed an offence you are living in cloud cuckoo land. The councils and their wardens use various unfair, unreasonable and sometimes unlawful means to try catch out motorists in order to issue FPs. The difference is that most police officers have received an appropriate level of training and don't get measured on targets of how much money they bring in, whereas there have been numerous reported cases and whistleblowing that some councils demand certain financial targets by wardens & officers. additionally the councils often use underhand means to try catch motorists out and when advised by patas etc that the signs are unlawful still do nothing to rectify the situation but rather continue to rake in the revenue.

 

How much training in traffic law does the average PC have then to gain the appropriate amount, since you seem to be an expert on the matter? If the Police are so perfect why do we bother having Courts surely everyone they stop for a motoring offence is guilty? PATAS is not the law, those that work for PATAS do not make the law they only give their opinion on the facts before them, just because a single adjudicator states HE thinks a sign is not lawful that does not make it a fact and in many cases they are wrong. What happens is a motorist gets off a speeding charge because a sign was missing, does the magistrate advise the Police to tell every PC to stop issuing tickets? A Council employee cannot make someone break the law they can only issue PCNs to those that they believe are doing so. The simple fact is if you adhere to the traffic signs you will not pay a penny to the Council, 90% of PCNs get issued because people are stupid, lazy or dishonest and the rest are just genuine mistakes like being late back. If you think millions of perfectly safe innocent law abiding drivers are somehow being tricked into breaking the law you are very deluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How much training in traffic law does the average PC have then to gain the appropriate amount, since you seem to be an expert on the matter? If the Police are so perfect why do we bother having Courts surely everyone they stop for a motoring offence is guilty? PATAS is not the law, those that work for PATAS do not make the law they only give their opinion on the facts before them, just because a single adjudicator states HE thinks a sign is not lawful that does not make it a fact and in many cases they are wrong. What happens is a motorist gets off a speeding charge because a sign was missing, does the magistrate advise the Police to tell every PC to stop issuing tickets? A Council employee cannot make someone break the law they can only issue PCNs to those that they believe are doing so. The simple fact is if you adhere to the traffic signs you will not pay a penny to the Council, 90% of PCNs get issued because people are stupid, lazy or dishonest and the rest are just genuine mistakes like being late back. If you think millions of perfectly safe innocent law abiding drivers are somehow being tricked into breaking the law you are very deluded.

 

 

There have been numerous cases reported to where signs are totally misleading, incorrect or unlawful. Such as 2 signs at an entrance to a road showing no vehicles over 1.5t and another showing no vehicles over 2t for instance. Very confusing as the driver may only see the one sign. Do the councils take down the 1 sign - NO, because the make a fortune by drivers that don't appeal. So the simple fact that obeying all signs do not mean you won't get a FP from the councils. There are also many cases where councils issue fps for drivers stopping in box junctions and they conveniently ignore the fact the driver was turning right so was perfectly entitled to be in the box junction. Again they are working on the percentages the same as the private parking companies that the majority of drivers will not appeal but will pay. It's all about the money and some councils play the percentages game to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are also many cases where councils issue fps for drivers stopping in box junctions and they conveniently ignore the fact the driver was turning right so was perfectly entitled to be in the box junction. Again they are working on the percentages the same as the private parking companies that the majority of drivers will not appeal but will pay. It's all about the money and some councils play the percentages game to make money.

 

What about the percentage that are turning right and not exempt, turning right in itself is not an exemption? Its people like yourself that do not even know the rules of the road that get PCNs and instead of looking at your own ignorance you try and blame those that issue the PCNs!

Numerous cases?? How many is numerous compared to the thousands of road traffic signs in London? How many cases have been thrown out of magistrates courts for the signage compared to the number cancelled at PATAS?

You seem to be very willing to throw around allegations but have very little to back them up!

You claimed a PC got more training in moving traffic and parking legislation than a Council employee, statistics please!

I have yet to see anyone start a campaign to stop the Police using unmarked cars on traffic patrols but these are widely used to catch, speeders, those on phones, no seat belts etc. how is that about being a deterrent? I can tell you if you cannot work it out! CCTV is VERY effective at keeping traffic moving and the fear of getting caught raises compliance dramatically. I will once again ask a simple question, how many people that you see using a phone while driving do so because they do not know its a crime? The reason they do it is because they think they will not get caught. Why would that reasoning not be used when making other choices when driving? Shall I ignore that no right turn sign or not? I can remember when bus lanes got enforced by the Police the compliance was a joke, you'd have a quick look around for a PC then nip down the bus lane to save a few minutes, the abuse was wise spread. CCTV came in and now you rarely see any vehicles apart from those permitted in bus lanes.

The rules are there for a reason, making a mistake is not an excuse, an innocent mistake could cost someone their life. If you make a mistake parking and dent your car you do not blame the car maker or the person that built the wall you just reversed into, you pay for the damage and hopefully learn from your mistake. If you make a mistake and stop in a box junction its your mistake.......stop looking for excuses!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the percentage that are turning right and not exempt, turning right in itself is not an exemption? Its people like yourself that do not even know the rules of the road that get PCNs and instead of looking at your own ignorance you try and blame those that issue the PCNs!

 

ok Mr know-it-all, calm down. show us your evidence on any restrictions that turning right in a box junction is not an exemption. the only time a driver can not stop in a box junction when turning right is if there is a no right-turn sign or it is a signalled roundabout( but in most cases where the CCTV catches drivers stopping in the box junction and then the driver turns right it is just a normal box junction yet the council will send a FP as they are hoping for the driver to just pay up.

 

I don't know what planet you are living on but the majority of people know that the majority of the time the only reason councils stick up the CCTV when related to traffic offences is to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Those nice people at Snapper TV have made a documentary for the BBC, about local authorities and their use of CCTV for apparent violations by the unwary public and the revenue made from it.

 

... 'They claim they do it to keep the traffic flowing smoother. But private emails obtained by Panorama reveal a different story, with officials congratulating each other on the number of tickets issued: 'Another record month, guys. Well done,' says one. The programme visits the box junction where the council fines so many drivers - 29,000 last year alone;...

 

 

A link to the programme.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b02xcnpr

 

This box junction is a total nightmare and people get stuck because of the timing of the traffic lights. Some years ago the lights were set differently and the traffic flowed quite smoothly. Now because only about four cars can cross at a time, and enter from two different roads on the right as you come into Central London on the main (New Kings Road), you can sit at the lights for about six light changes and not move at all.

 

Immediately after the junction is another set of traffic lights and it is because traffic is waiting there that people have to wait so long to get across the box junction. The turning on the left has a left hand filter which is frequently used by people who aren't in fact turning left but want to undertake and then cut into the traffic going straight ahead, so they jam the left hand filter lane and more people get stuck in the box junction. It's a complete logjam in the rush hours and if they really wanted the traffic to run smoothly they'd change the timings on the traffic lights. But they don't want the traffic to run smoothly because this is such a nice little earner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the percentage that are turning right and not exempt, turning right in itself is not an exemption? Its people like yourself that do not even know the rules of the road that get PCNs and instead of looking at your own ignorance you try and blame those that issue the PCNs!

 

ok Mr know-it-all, calm down. show us your evidence on any restrictions that turning right in a box junction is not an exemption. the only time a driver can not stop in a box junction when turning right is if there is a no right-turn sign or it is a signalled roundabout( but in most cases where the CCTV catches drivers stopping in the box junction and then the driver turns right it is just a normal box junction yet the council will send a FP as they are hoping for the driver to just pay up.

 

I don't know what planet you are living on but the majority of people know that the majority of the time the only reason councils stick up the CCTV when related to traffic offences is to make money.

 

7.—(1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person—

(a)who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right; and

(b)stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn

Therefore if you enter to turn right and the exit is blocked by cars that didn't turn right in front of you, there is no exemption. At a T junction for example only the side you are turning right out of should be marked as a box junction, the opposite side should not be marked. If traffic is queuing across the junction from left to right and you enter the box trying to turn right and stop in the junction due to this traffic you are guilty of an offence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This box junction is a total nightmare and people get stuck because of the timing of the traffic lights. Some years ago the lights were set differently and the traffic flowed quite smoothly. Now because only about four cars can cross at a time, and enter from two different roads on the right as you come into Central London on the main (New Kings Road), you can sit at the lights for about six light changes and not move at all.

 

Immediately after the junction is another set of traffic lights and it is because traffic is waiting there that people have to wait so long to get across the box junction. The turning on the left has a left hand filter which is frequently used by people who aren't in fact turning left but want to undertake and then cut into the traffic going straight ahead, so they jam the left hand filter lane and more people get stuck in the box junction. It's a complete logjam in the rush hours and if they really wanted the traffic to run smoothly they'd change the timings on the traffic lights. But they don't want the traffic to run smoothly because this is such a nice little earner.

 

The lights are phased by TFL who do not enforce the junction so the argument doesn't really hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then H&F should ask TFL to change the lights back to the original settings in order to make the traffic run more smoothly. I thought TFL wanted traffic to run more smoothly.

Edited by Desperate Daniella

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/road-junctions-170-to-183

 

174 Box Junctions

 

You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.

 

 

I have done exactly this on countless occasions at a box junction where there are cameras from every angle and I have never received a ticket. All the TFL buses do it too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The H&F should ask TFL to change the lights back to the original settings in order to make the traffic run more smoothly. I thought TFL wanted traffic to run more smoothly.

 

Maybe they should but its odd that when moaning about box junctions this one is always used as an example, if the 'problem' is so widespread they could just use any box junction surely? If people directed their anger in the correct place rather than using such issues to further a different agenda maybe it would have been fixed by now? The same goes for the media, the Panorama programme was replaced with a factual programme explaining why people got tickets and educating them that loading bays are not free parking to pop into Tesco express, bus stops mean 'no stopping' not no stopping except if you want to drop someone off, double yellow lines are 24 hours a day and not just when you think CEOs are working, single yellows do not finish at 6.00pm, parking on the footway is banned in London etc etc how many people would bother watching? Facts do not make interesting viewing feeding peoples paranoia and prejudice sadly does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason they use this one is because it is not a standard box junction. I have waited at this junction refusing to move into the box junction and people behind you will sit there with their hands on their horns.

 

If you google 'road map Bagley's Lane' and click to move slightly north, you will understand the problem. There are lights where Wandsworth Bridge Road meets the New Kings Road. Then there are lights at the junction with Bagleys Lane (which is always used as a cut through by people wanting to avoid the WBR queue). Then just past that there are the lights at Harwood Road and there is only space for about four cars between the top of Bagleys Lane and the lights at the Harwood Road junction, so when those lights turn red everything gets jammed, especially if the left hand filter lane is used by people who want to get across the box junction but don't want to go into Harwood Road, so they block that lane and then shove in front of the cars waiting to go straight ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason they use this one is because it is not a standard box junction. I have waited at this junction refusing to move into the box junction and people behind you will sit there with their hands on their horns.

 

If you google 'road map Bagley's Lane' and click to move slightly north, you will understand the problem. There are lights where Wandsworth Bridge Road meets the New Kings Road. Then there are lights at the junction with Bagleys Lane (which is always used as a cut through by people wanting to avoid the WBR queue). Then just past that there are the lights at Harwood Road and there is only space for about four cars between the top of Bagleys Lane and the lights at the Harwood Road junction, so when those lights turn red everything gets jammed, especially if the left hand filter lane is used by people who want to get across the box junction but don't want to go into Harwood Road, so they block that lane and then shove in front of the cars waiting to go straight ahead.

 

I know where it is and know why people are cross but arguing the entire decriminalised system is wrong because of one box junction is never going to get anywhere.

 

A classic example of 'people power' was the removal of the M4 bus lane, however most of the public including Jeremy Clarkson failed to understand the purpose of it. It was clearly shown to work to speed up ALL traffic into London but people decided they knew best and it was removed. Traffic is now back going slower than during the bus lane era but of course Mr Joe Public in his Audi obviously knows more about traffic than a qualified engineer.

http://www.cbrd.co.uk/indepth/m4buslane/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing the entire system is wrong because of one box junction, but the situation on this particular one would be improved if they phased the Harwood Road traffic lights differently. It is totally ludicrous to have traffic joining from two very busy roads and then almost immediately stopping them at the Harwood Road traffic lights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not arguing the entire system is wrong because of one box junction, but the situation on this particular one would be improved if they phased the Harwood Road traffic lights differently. It is totally ludicrous to have traffic joining from two very busy roads and then almost immediately stopping them at the Harwood Road traffic lights.

 

That is my point if the programme addressed the traffic issue rather than go down the well trodden 'its all about the money' trail they would probably achieve something. I may be wrong the programme may well feature some in depth research from independent engineers showing the problem with the junction and offering some alternatives, but I suspect it will just be shock horror 'man paid to issue PCNs gets email saying well done for issuing PCNs'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may be surprised to know it moved much better before they installed the traffic lights at the junction with Bagleys Lane. Either there was just a white keep clear marking or there was nothing at all. Drivers wanting to join the road in either direction from Bagleys Lane waited until the traffic going West had stopped at the red light at the junction with Wandsworth Bridge Road. Then they either turned left to go West, or crossed the waiting traffic to join the lane going East towards Chelsea. There was usually time to do this when the New Kings Road traffic coming from the West was stopped and before the WBR traffic got the green light to join the New Kings Road. Admittedly it did sometimes get a bit gridlocked but the hold ups were nothing like as bad as they are now! (And people weren't getting penalties either!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be surprised to know it moved much better before they installed the traffic lights at the junction with Bagleys Lane. Either there was just a white keep clear marking or there was nothing at all. Drivers wanting to join the road in either direction from Bagleys Lane waited until the traffic going West had stopped at the red light at the junction with Wandsworth Bridge Road. Then they either turned left to go West, or crossed the waiting traffic to join the lane going East towards Chelsea. There was usually time to do this when the New Kings Road traffic coming from the West was stopped and before the WBR traffic got the green light to join the New Kings Road. Admittedly it did sometimes get a bit gridlocked but the hold ups were nothing like as bad as they are now! (And people weren't getting penalties either!)

 

You may be surprised to know there is usually very little those that issue PCNs have to do with traffic issues. Those that enforce the restrictions are given the locations to enforce and are judged by how well they do it. The design and lay out is done by traffic engineers who have very little contact with the enforcement team. Traffic engineers have nothing to do with enforcement and are not judged on how many PCNs are issued.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...