Councils claim to be short of /tight for funds .... this will be abused to enrichen their coffers. Pity a legal appeals process was not included in the legislation too so that interested locals could challenge the restrictions if they felt them to be inappropriate.
If people feel they are being ticketed inappropriately ie where no actual infringement took place there will be a legal process for appeals; The Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
As I've already said in this thread I think the 'conspiracy' theory that Councils will set traps for the unwary is at it's mildest, unproven.
The appeal tribunal cannot allow an appeal where an infringement was committed on poorly defined infrastructure or a ticket was issued unfairly. It can and will formally request the Council to reconsider and a council denying such a request risks serious adverse publicity.
|
|
""" would argue that if the busses weren't running at that time or traffic is significantly reduced then bus lane enforcement should be time based (around rush-hour only for example). Otherwise its just a waste of road surface paid for by the tax payer."""
A good point. However where I live the bus lanes are time specific but nobody trusts the times displayed even though the bus lanes are not covered by cameras. Consequently the bus lanes are deserted all day. You then have the 100yard bus lane with more signs and times and the bus only left lane filter more signs! It is hard to believe that the council is employed by us and that its employees are you and me. What I feel sorry for is the strangers new to an area trying to navigate all these signs. They deserve a medal if they avoid a fine. It is no wonder accidents happen and the odd cyclist is injured or worse.
|
|
I have had 3 speeding tickets in the last 25 years. In no case was I driving dangerously, but I was going faster than signed. It was my inattention that caused the infringements.
Cameras and ANPR are dumb - they react based on how they are programmed/set. With improvements to IT they could be made to work more thoughtfully - 40mph in a 30 limit when the schools are turning out is rather greater risk than 1.00am.
My recollection is that the siting of cameras was based on road fatalities and serious injury statistics. But it makes sense (IMHO) to (eg) site a camera at (say) the start of a 30mph limit rather than half way through the village because that is where the accidents happen.
I do not generally believe the conspiracy theory or revenue earning mantra. It is simply an excuse for failing to observe road signs - although they are sometimes less clear than they should be or swamped with information overload from far too many.
Mandating high quality, visible and appropriate street and road surface signage should be a prerequisite for issuing a fine. Failure to adequately sign should lead to fine cancellation.
|
|
|
|
Councils claim to be short of /tight for funds .... this will be abused to enrichen their coffers. Pity a legal appeals process was not included in the legislation too so that interested locals could challenge the restrictions if they felt them to be inappropriate.
If people feel they are being ticketed inappropriately ie where no actual infringement took place there will be a legal process for appeals; The Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
As I've already said in this thread I think the 'conspiracy' theory that Councils will set traps for the unwary is at it's mildest, unproven.
Please prove that - with cited evidence.
The appeal tribunal cannot allow an appeal where an infringement was committed on poorly defined infrastructure or a ticket was issued unfairly. It can and will formally request the Council to reconsider and a council denying such a request risks serious adverse publicity.
And council staff are always honourable people just doing their civic duty for the benefit of all.
((pig flies past my window))
More likely that camera partnerships (not with citizens) and councils do as much as they can get away with before blaming 'the systemn', 'central government dictats' or 'an innocent mistake' after such deliberate acts to or gross incompetence.
|
|
Please prove that - with cited evidence.
I've said it's unproven as in I've seen no proof. Your asking for evidence of a negative. There is no clear evidence, beyond egregious on offs, that such a thing exists.
It's up to those asserting malfeasance and conspiracy to produce examples.
The appeal tribunal cannot allow an appeal where an infringement was committed on poorly defined infrastructure or a ticket was issued unfairly. It can and will formally request the Council to reconsider and a council denying such a request risks serious adverse publicity.
And council staff are always honourable people just doing their civic duty for the benefit of all.
I'm talking about the independent tribunal. If it allows an appeal the Council, subject to asking for a review or seeking Judicial Review, are bound by the decision. The Chief Adjudicator has not been shy of speaking out when Councils have rejected advice to let a penalty drop.
More likely that camera partnerships (not with citizens) and councils do as much as they can get away with before blaming 'the systemn', 'central government dictats' or 'an innocent mistake' after such deliberate acts to or gross incompetence.
I don't know what this paragraph means. Camera Partnerships are/were about speeding offences. The money from that now goes to the national Exchequer. Council have no incentive to 'nick' people and, at least for a time, the old Northamptonshire County Council turned off cameras as they became unviable.
What we're talking about now is Councils enforcing things like turn contraventions.
It's worked in London for approaching 20 years.
Edited by Bromptonaut on 26/06/2021 at 13:07
|
|
In 2019 ~2.0m bus lane fines were issued raising ~£60m - seems like a lot but put it in proportion:
- it amounts to about 90p per head per year for each person in the UK - less than half a cup of coffee or 6 chips from the chippy
- there are 32m cars on UK roads. If the 2.0m fines were issued to 2.0m motorists this would be ~6% of UK motorists getting fined. As many will have been fined several times, I suspect ~2% of motorists received a fine (1 in 50)
- total revenue spending by local authorities is ~£95bn a year. £60m in fines is an utterly trivial addition - roughly equivalent to someone on say £30k salary pa getting an increase of £20 a year
Even if parking fines, U-turn fines, etc etc treble the size of the fine income, it is hardly a major story.
Edited by Terry W on 26/06/2021 at 13:09
|
|
|
Please prove that - with cited evidence.
I've said it's unproven as in I've seen no proof. Your asking for evidence of a negative. There is no clear evidence, beyond egregious on offs, that such a thing exists.
It's up to those asserting malfeasance and conspiracy to produce examples.
Ah, the tried and tested excuse. Looks like you aim in the fish barrel ain't as good as you thought or the fish appear to be avoiding your shots with ease (once again). :-p
The appeal tribunal cannot allow an appeal where an infringement was committed on poorly defined infrastructure or a ticket was issued unfairly. It can and will formally request the Council to reconsider and a council denying such a request risks serious adverse publicity.
And council staff are always honourable people just doing their civic duty for the benefit of all.
I'm talking about the independent tribunal. If it allows an appeal the Council, subject to asking for a review or seeking Judicial Review, are bound by the decision. The Chief Adjudicator has not been shy of speaking out when Councils have rejected advice to let a penalty drop.
Most people can't afford or be bothered to go through lengthy appeals processes when the onus is (sadly) on them, not the council to prove their innocence. Hardly justice, is it?
More likely that camera partnerships (not with citizens) and councils do as much as they can get away with before blaming 'the systemn', 'central government dictats' or 'an innocent mistake' after such deliberate acts to or gross incompetence.
I don't know what this paragraph means. Camera Partnerships are/were about speeding offences. The money from that now goes to the national Exchequer. Council have no incentive to 'nick' people and, at least for a time, the old Northamptonshire County Council turned off cameras as they became unviable.
What we're talking about now is Councils enforcing things like turn contraventions.
It's worked in London for approaching 20 years.
Even where money from 'camera partnerships' goes back to central government, I'm sure there's an incientive to get more in return for councils to get a nice backhander for doing so, in the form of 'grants' - I mean why would councils and Police Authorities continue operating them out of their coffers if they weren't given money from central government to pay for it all?
Odd also why well known accident blackspots rarely have cameras on them or, in many cases, the money raised put to good use (as it should be 100% of the time) in modifying roads, crossings, etc to make them safer. Odd also why many cameras get installed at locations with almost or no history of accidents, just people 'speeding' that are then used as cash cows (some make £Ms). I thought it was supposedly all about safety and traffic flow.
Please provide proof of your assertion that it has been 'working' in London for 20 years.
|
Ah, the tried and tested excuse. Looks like you aim in the fish barrel ain't as good as you thought or the fish appear to be avoiding your shots with ease (once again). :-p
In all seriousness Andy how do you suggest a negative can be proved?
.
Most people can't afford or be bothered to go through lengthy appeals processes when the onus is (sadly) on them, not the council to prove their innocence. Hardly justice, is it?
The Appeal process is free and most cases are decided on the papers. I've watched an Adjudicator doing paper appeals in my old Civil Service role. Quick but thorough.
I've also used the process myself in relation to a parking infringement in London. Attended in person as the stats say you have a better chance that way. It allows a decent inquisitorial approach by the Adjudicator so any gaps get filled in. Exactly the same principal applies to Social Security Tribunals,
Even where money from 'camera partnerships' goes back to central government, I'm sure there's an incientive to get more in return for councils to get a nice backhander for doing so, in the form of 'grants' - I mean why would councils and Police Authorities continue operating them out of their coffers if they weren't given money from central government to pay for it all?
Odd also why well known accident blackspots rarely have cameras on them or, in many cases, the money raised put to good use (as it should be 100% of the time) in modifying roads, crossings, etc to make them safer. Odd also why many cameras get installed at locations with almost or no history of accidents, just people 'speeding' that are then used as cash cows (some make £Ms). I thought it was supposedly all about safety and traffic flow.
The bottom line with all of that is that it starts with the cash cow 'conspiracy' theory.
One of the drivers for getting a Camera installed is local pressure. If you ask people in pretty much any locale to list their top concerns speeding drivers will be near the top. There are a few installed by the former SCP round here. Two on the A43, at the Blisworth turn between Northampton and Towcester and the Green Man pub/hotel at Brackley Hatch were in places where there had been serious fatal accidents. Dual Carriageways with a mix of flat and grade separated junctions are particularly dangerous.
The local plod are outside our rural comp with a mobile camera on a regular basis; another way of covering danger spots with lower traffic volumes.
Please provide proof of your assertion that it has been 'working' in London for 20 years.
You mean in the sense that people are being caught making illegal turns etc in numbers they never were when it was down to the Police?
|
Ah, the tried and tested excuse. Looks like you aim in the fish barrel ain't as good as you thought or the fish appear to be avoiding your shots with ease (once again). :-p
In all seriousness Andy how do you suggest a negative can be proved?
I'm sure you can, given you expect me to all too often. It's not as though you haven't got the time or the inclination, is it?
Most people can't afford or be bothered to go through lengthy appeals processes when the onus is (sadly) on them, not the council to prove their innocence. Hardly justice, is it?
The Appeal process is free and most cases are decided on the papers. I've watched an Adjudicator doing paper appeals in my old Civil Service role. Quick but thorough.
I've also used the process myself in relation to a parking infringement in London. Attended in person as the stats say you have a better chance that way. It allows a decent inquisitorial approach by the Adjudicator so any gaps get filled in. Exactly the same principal applies to Social Security Tribunals,
Most people have better things to do than take half a day off work (especially those with family and/or who need holiday time to get over their day job) just to try and get off something that a reasonable person at the council/Police etc would already have let them off with, or, in the 'good ol' days, just had a quiet word of advice and let the matter rest there.
You also worked in a related field in a civil service organisation, making your appeal far 'easier', as I'm sure you were far more aware of the process and had a far more easy time getting the time off to attend. I'm sure that you were a fellow civil servant didn't do your case any harm either.
Even where money from 'camera partnerships' goes back to central government, I'm sure there's an incientive to get more in return for councils to get a nice backhander for doing so, in the form of 'grants' - I mean why would councils and Police Authorities continue operating them out of their coffers if they weren't given money from central government to pay for it all?
Odd also why well known accident blackspots rarely have cameras on them or, in many cases, the money raised put to good use (as it should be 100% of the time) in modifying roads, crossings, etc to make them safer. Odd also why many cameras get installed at locations with almost or no history of accidents, just people 'speeding' that are then used as cash cows (some make £Ms). I thought it was supposedly all about safety and traffic flow.
The bottom line with all of that is that it starts with the cash cow 'conspiracy' theory.
One of the drivers for getting a Camera installed is local pressure. If you ask people in pretty much any locale to list their top concerns speeding drivers will be near the top. There are a few installed by the former SCP round here. Two on the A43, at the Blisworth turn between Northampton and Towcester and the Green Man pub/hotel at Brackley Hatch were in places where there had been serious fatal accidents. Dual Carriageways with a mix of flat and grade separated junctions are particularly dangerous.
The local plod are outside our rural comp with a mobile camera on a regular basis; another way of covering danger spots with lower traffic volumes.
Again, I've never said that ALL cameras are wrongly placed, but a decent number certainly are.
Please provide proof of your assertion that it has been 'working' in London for 20 years.
You mean in the sense that people are being caught making illegal turns etc in numbers they never were when it was down to the Police?
That the number making such manouvres were previously so great and the effect so large that it justified cameras in so many locations. Surely there must've been a proper, London-wide feasibility study you can point to with evidence to show the situation was that bad?
|
Again, I've never said that ALL cameras are wrongly placed, but a decent number certainly are.
Please prove that - with cited evidence ;-)
|
|
|
I'm sure you can, given you expect me to all too often. It's not as though you haven't got the time or the inclination, is it?
If I've asked you to prove a negative then please give me an example.
The time/inclination point makes no sense.
Most people have better things to do than take half a day off work (especially those with family and/or who need holiday time to get over their day job) just to try and get off something that a reasonable person at the council/Police etc would already have let them off with, or, in the 'good ol' days, just had a quiet word of advice and let the matter rest there.
OK, the police let most people off (if you say so). Where they didn't it went to the Magistrates so half a day whatever,
You also worked in a related field in a civil service organisation, making your appeal far 'easier', as I'm sure you were far more aware of the process and had a far more easy time getting the time off to attend. I'm sure that you were a fellow civil servant didn't do your case any harm either.
I've worked with Justice /Tribunals since 1978 so yes, I understand what's involved; I'm articulate and I'd focus on the issue at hand. As above, the alternative is the Magistrates; same principle for time off and focus etc .
The 'fellow Civil Servant' bit is nonsense and a totally fact free slur on Judicial Appointees.
Again, I've never said that ALL cameras are wrongly placed, but a decent numberc certainly are.
Your assertion seemed to be that most were placed for revenue. Examples of those wrongly placed would help.
That the number making such manouvres were previously so great and the effect so large that it justified cameras in so many locations.
You understand London traffic and the effect of box junction blockers and ignoring prohibited U turns as well as I do. Police/Traffic Wardens could have achieved the same capture rate with cameras but, like parking, it was better to reform the whole system.
|
|
If the object of speed cameras etc is to improve road safety why do they find us? Surely a stronger deterrent would be points only punishments.
|
If the object of speed cameras etc is to improve road safety why do they find us? Surely a stronger deterrent would be points only punishments.
Fine first, that hopefully deters you...then points afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
