The latest nonsense is that traffic wardens will be given the power to report 'moving offences'. With no doubt the automatic £60 fine ramping up to £1,000 if you dare challenge it.
Now, let us say a traffic warden reports me for an illegal U turn and there ain't no cameras about (unlikely in camera mad Britain but go with me). Surely its my word against his?
Is there going to be a presumption that he is telling the truth? Will I have to prove I am not guilty and how would I do this?
This really is getting Orwellian.
|
Wasn't only a few threads ago that people were complaining that "s************s" only caught people speeding and not those other offences? Many times on these boards have we complained about people blocking box junctions etc. having something done about it doesn't seem too terrible to me.
As for the traffic wardens maybe it'll free up some police time to look at other crimes. Perhaps traffic wardens should all be given digi cameras though so they can photograph the offending vehicle and stop people getting fined for a cloned number plate etc. hmm an attack of common sense - I'll shut up now!
|
They left out my personal pet hate: turning right at traffic lights.
Why do so many people find it so hard to turn in front of each other and insist on turning behind each other? Sure there isn't a problem if there is only one car to turn behind but the amount of time wasted beggars belief.
|
"Why do so many people find it so hard to turn in front of each other and insist on turning behind each other? Sure there isn't a problem if there is only one car to turn behind but the amount of time wasted beggars belief."
Eh? If I understand, you seem to be complaining about people who turn right 'offside to offside' rather that 'nearside to nearside'. Offside turns are much, much safer because you can guarantee to see oncoming traffic. Until recently, the Highway Code stated offside turning; it was changed because so many lazy drivers were ignoring the rules. Time wasted v safer turns; I know which I'd choose.
And, back on the thread, the more enforcement of illegal right turns, box junctions, etc, the better. There's a no right turn on The Avenue into Southampton that is regularly ignored, is very dangerous and holds up dozens of cars every time that needs a bit of enforcing. The only problem is that I'd rather the Police were funded to do it - I'd trust a Copper over a target-chasing Traffic Enforcer every time.
V
|
|
I think the Highway Code has always stated nrside-nrside turning ie turn in front of each other (nearside = nearest the curb). If you don't do this then when the traffic queues each side blocks each other in.
|
The highway code allows either nrside - nrside or offside - offside
When turning at a cross roads where an oncoming vehicle is also turning right, there is a choice of two methods
turn right side to right side; keep the other vehicle on your right and turn behind it. This is generally the safest method as you have a clear view of any approaching traffic when completing your turn
left side to left side, turning in front of each other. This can block your view of oncoming vehicles, so take extra care.
Road layout, markings or how the other vehicle is positioned can determine which course should be taken.
|
|
|
"I think the Highway Code has always stated nrside-nrside turning ie turn in front of each other (nearside = nearest the curb). "
It hasn't; it used to say offside to offside. It was changed within the last ten years or so to say that you should go offside to offside as it is safer but that nearside to nearside is OK though less safe. Exact wording now is:
'When turning at a cross roads where an oncoming vehicle is also turning right, there is a choice of two methods
turn right side to right side; keep the other vehicle on your right and turn behind it. This is generally the safest method as you have a clear view of any approaching traffic when completing your turn
left side to left side, turning in front of each other. This can block your view of oncoming vehicles, so take extra care.'
V
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bolton Traffic Wardens do have digicams, and they take a photo of the VIN as well as the index plate. Not possible to get the VIN on moving traffic, granted.
|
|
|
|
This is the point.
These are all issues that we have complained about at some time or other. However the Traffic Management Bill is short on detail, and leaves a lot to be dealt with in later legislation which is almost certian not to receive the same degree of scrutiny and debate.
Don't forget it also "civilianises / privatises" motorway policing with the civilian officials having the authority to pull drivers over and presumably give fines. ??
I believe that there is already ample evidence where such services have been passed over to councils and agencies that they lack the objectivity we expect, and in my opinion, do get from the police. There have been many cases where "privatised" services, particularly in parking control, have acted appallingly, usually because of financial or target pressures.
Take a look at the Welsh SCP where they have prosecuted 2,500 people incorrectly yet only paid back to around 10. Plus they have no intention of writing to the people wrongly convicted, you have to contact them to claim the money and points back.
What constitutes an offence needs to be very carefully defined, e.g. I'm waiting to turn right at a YBJ. There is a vehicle already in the box waiting for a gap in opposing traffic. I don't have a wheel on the yellow lines but the front overhangs the box, offence or not? How do I know except by hanging back behind the stop / give way line to make absolutely sure. Surely this could mean more of an impedance to traffic flow.
PU, I think you may be quite busy next few years.
|
But surely at the end of the day the offences are already there and it is because drivers disobey good motoring manners and commit these offences that enforcement is necessary.
It is the method of enforcement that worries me along with other matters that FiF touches upon. Yet more areas removed from Plod. In effect removing him from contact with the public and into more isolation. Traffic Warden etc. do not have the discretion that Plod had and offences detected by them are reported come hell or high water for their Masters have turned enforcement into a business and profit must be shown on the balance sheet at the end of the year.
Twas said on Rad 2 this noon that this latest innovation could lead to the loss of a further 150 Traffic Officers.
Seems to me, and very worrying, is that a noose is being drawn around the Motorist and being ever tightened. The danger as I see it will be civil disobience and offenders ignoring Conditional Offers/Payment of Parking fines, requiring the Authorities to burden the Courts to effect justice. Which is just the opposite of why Conditional Offers etc were brought in -i.e. to relieve the burden on Courts. This is already apparent in the ever increasing numbers of drivers returning CO/NIP forms for speeding unsigned. Also bear in mind that there has been a reduction in Courts through consolidation and centralisation.
Weird time folks.
DVD.
|
But surely at the end of the day the offences are already there and it is because drivers disobey good motoring manners and commit these offences that enforcement is necessary.
I really do agree about this DVD. I cannot recalling hearing one comment questioning the need for sorting this sort of behaviour, the problem is the method of enforcement.
Let us face facts, the level of trust between public and b-i-b is at an all time low. What will it be with these jokers?
I really do think Labour's anti motoring agenda could be their poll tax equivalent.
|
If you wish to read the proposed Bill it is at
www.tinyurl.com/3a2q7 may take time loading.
Explanatory Notes on it at
www.tinyurl.com/3yswg
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
DVD - removing tasks from Plod makes sense when a common complaint is that there are far too many offences committed for Plod to handle. So 'they' are sub-contracting one area of traffic policing to another outfit. We shall see how much ticket rage will follow this change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have never had a great deal of sympathy for those who declare a paranoid opposition to fines via speed cameras, as they can always avoid the possibility as long as they know what speed limit they should be obeying. But the new box-junction scenario will be much harder to avoid. Can we expect the new rash of cameras to make exception for those who are obstructed in their (reasonable) attempt to cross such a junction?
|
Has anyone heard of the new proposed system? I don't know if this is true but I heard that the government is looking at a new system of 20 points. All well and good you may say but apparently 23mph in a 20 zone would land you with 7 points and a fine. 75-85mph would land you with around 12 points and an excessive fine. Again, I am unsure as to the validity of this....maybe DVD could shed some light on the situation.
I'm sure this has already been suggested but wouldn't an adjustable points and fine system be so much more effective. E.g. 35 in a 30 = 0 points and a fine. 37mph maybe = 1 point and a fine and save the excessive points for the boy racers and dangerous drivers. With regards to the box junction cameras....like Andy-T said - these situations are difficult to avoid - putting a camera there will not serve as a deterrent. I'm sure someone would find a flaw with that......go on - I challenge you!
Thanks
Adam
--
"Give Way"? Wait....I know this one...give me a minute
|
Personally I think the fines system for traffic offences is unfair to start with. It unfairly penalises those without much spare cash but doesn't really concern those with the money to buy really expensive cars.
I think we should scrap fines and make people who get flashed by a camera (or traffic warden) spend a weekend cleaning litter off the streets or scrubing the local underpass. It would deter both the people in flash cars as well as the financilly challenged and the community would get something out of it as well.
|
|
I wonder whether we will now see a rash of feverish activity from certain councils 'installing' new box junctions at every available point?
|
|
See my post about One Junction, 73 sets of traffic lights. Bet you could rack up one helluva fine on that junction.
|
|
|
|
But the new box-junction scenario will be much harder to avoid. Can we expect the new rash of cameras to make exception for those who are obstructed in their (reasonable) attempt to cross such a junction?
The highway code is quite explicit
"You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear"
Thge sole exception is for right turners waiting only on passing traffic. I regularly wait two green phases at one set of lights on my daily journey because of people stopped in the box. The rule is clearly either ignored or not understood by a large swathe of the population and is well overdue for vigorous enforcement.
|
It must be clear to the contributors to this thread and most others, that the present scale of UK road traffic means that the system can only work smoothly if nearly all drivers conform to the rules voluntarily. Even with total surveillance it is just not possible to enforce compliance by adding more constraints. As now seems to be the case, public resentment rises, defeating the object because of deliberate non-co-operation.
On the box-junction rule, what SB says is accurate, but I doubt that at busy times the most efficient way to move traffic is for every vehicle to wait until the box ahead is seen to be completely empty.
|
the present scale of UK road traffic means that the system can only work smoothly if nearly all drivers conform to the rules voluntarily.
Spot on. This is the crucial point. The problem is that the authorities seek ever better ways of automating enforcement so that (ultimately) every moving vehicle can be checked for compliance 24/7. Once this is achieved then it will no doubt be fair. In the meantime the system is bearing down harder on those who are essentially honest though imperfect (as we all are) who try nevertheless to "do the right thing". It misses the fundamentally mendacious who are unregistered, uninsured etc etc.
Worse, this is combined with a withdrawal of traffic police who are able to spot the dangerous, the illegal etc and a reduction in the efforts made to educate the driving public. I remember public service adverts that taught us the two second rule. Now they just tell you to slow down regardless.
I wrote to the DoT to complain about a radio advert that (literally) assumed that all listeners were speeding. What got my goat was listening to it in a traffic jam, stationary, and wondering exactly how I should slow down? Their view was that if the advert irritated half the public then that was ok with them provided it made someone slow down.
DVLA are also proposing to fine those who forget to renew automatically. OK, but my experience is that they don't respond when told about repeat offenders.
So, for the time being, the combined effect of a number of measures is to shift the impact of enforcement from the dangerous and the illegal to the "basically honest but imperfect". Whilst these drivers have indeed broken the rules, the perception is that the system is no longer fair.
When the system is perceived as unfair, people stop co-operating. That means the road network cannot operate smoothly, as Andrew-T notes.
A final thought - last year 1 million speeding fines were issued. The UK population is roughly 50 million, so 2% of the population was prosecuted. I find that frighteningly high.
|
|
As an extension of your final point, Patently, I bet rather more than 2% of the population had speeded (sped?) without being caught?
|
The Association of British Drivers cites research showing that 59% of drivers on UK motorways travel above the speed limit.
Not sure of the declension of "to speed" in the past tense - how about:
I sped
You received an NIP
He/She now has three points
We spad (?)
...
|
|
|
|
The highway code is quite explicit "You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear"
But thats the point it isn't explicit.
Definition of entering the box?
Car fully inside box = yes
One wheel inside box = quite probably
One wheel impinging on border = who knows
Wheels outside but front bumper over line = again who knows.
I totally agree it needs enforcing, but if we are to be fined on the say-so of a target pressured civil servant I for one would like things defined a little better than they are now.
\disengages pedant mode
|
To be honest I think that something does need to be done to force compliance, as there are too many selfish drivers around. This morning I witnessed a queue of cars waiting to pull into a bus stop layby to drop their loved ones off. This caused mayhem in the traffic behind which couldnt proceed because of the stopped cars.
I do hope though that the new super wardens do not operate on a bonus scheme similar to parking wardens. It shouldnt be about profit.
|
We all know (even me) that the offences listed above are illegal, and I for one would love to see them penalised. However I do agree that if it means wardens are again put on commission then it will become a farce.
|
|
|
|
Fif,
Just a thought, what do you think would happen if....
I arrive at a box junction to turn right - exit is clear, I move fully into the box to await space in oncoming traffic.
Some oncoming trafffic turns left into my clear exit from the box, builds up a queue, light changes and I cannot exit the box?
Some plonker then has the right to hit me with a fine and has a photo of me to back it up?
Do we now all carry cameras to prove the exit was blocked - will operating a camera while driving become the next new law to be introduced?
Matt35.
|
Matt,
totally valid points.
It is often not the actual situation but how it developed which tells the true story.
Rather like tailgating cameras which are reputed to operate / proposed in some areas of mainland Europe.
How do these deal with the situation when someone nips across into your lane just at the wrong moment?
Reminds me of an episode of Malcolm in the Middle....
FiF
|
Fif,
This is why I combine IAM Observing with Religion sometimes - as in 'God - I need a drink after that!'
Matt35.
|
Matt,
Not to mention that most insurance claims reputedly start with the phrase "unexpectedly....."
;)
FiF
|
Ppppssssttttt Fif ..... no one around?
Shield the screen with your left hand while you read this?
You appreciate, do you not that Box Junction markings, No right turns are signs to which 36 RTA 88 apply i.e. offence to fail to conform to Traffic Sign. And what does this mean? Yes. NOIP.
Will our PTO"s (Private Traffic officers) appreciate that it has to be served.
Oh gawd more unsigned forms....
DVD
|
FiF/DVD,
Imagine the paperwork if all of the "larger vans over 2 tonnes maximum laden weight, but not exceeding 7.5 tonnes,not articulated and not car derived" were nicked for exceeding 60 on dual carriageways, as per the Code.
The A12 for one, would come to a stop (nothing new in that right enough).
Matt35.
Maybe to be shifted to the Highway Code thread?
|
Imagine the paperwork if all of the "larger vans over 2 tonnes maximum laden weight, but not exceeding 7.5 tonnes,not articulated and not car derived" were nicked for exceeding 60 on dual carriageways, as per the Code.
Matt/DVD,
Or even if Goods vehicles exceeding 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight exceeded 40 on an NSL single carriageway. A17 likewise would come to a halt, put a dampener on the Norfolk Broads fishing trip!
You know reckon I've sussed out the strategy.
Post office in trouble, needs a new large customer to replace business lost to competition. Yep you got it..... NoIPs. Plus it doesn't matter how many they lose as the law deems they've been delivered.
FiF
Pls excuse typing, I'm doing this sort of blindfold.
I've clicked on all the links I can find, opened and closed it umpteen times, gone back forward, refreshed the screen till my F5 button is getting worn, but that V*lvo ad just will not pink fluffy dicing go forth and multiply.
|
Ppppssssttttt Fif ..... no one around? Shield the screen with your left hand while you read this? You appreciate, do you not that Box Junction markings, No right turns are signs to which 36 RTA 88 apply i.e. offence to fail to conform to Traffic Sign. And what does this mean? Yes. NOIP. Will our PTO\"s (Private Traffic officers) appreciate that it has to be served. Oh gawd more unsigned forms.... DVD
Typing this half behind that lovely Volvo advert so aplogies if my keying is even worse than usual.
Just spent a happy half hour in the company of part 6 and Sched7 of the bill. This is all about Civil enforcement. If you follow the principles of decrim parking enforcement you won\'t go far wrong. Section 68(3)a prohibits the bringing of criminal proceedings or the issue of fixed penalty notices for any act (my paraphrasing) in the scope of this system. There are further provisions allowing the Lord Chancellor (interesting to note that while DCA Civil Servants are beavering away finding all the exosotng references to the Lord Chancellor so as to remove them new ones are being created!)to make regulations dealing with appeals and adjudicators who will be lawyers of seven years standing. Again the parking model provides the template.
The rotine appears to be (i) caught by approved device or uniformed enforcement officer (ii) receive notice in the post (iii) pay up or ask for review by the Council (iv) appeal to an adjudicator. If you stillrefuse to pay then it\'s off to the county Court for enforcement by a baliff. suspect no appeal to the county court except for procedural messups- just like parking.
The optimist in me says this might actually be a good thing!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
