Mobile Traffic Enforcement - They Have to Go !

[kford]

Not helped by honey-traps like this: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23955010-streets-baffling-traffic-signs-trap-41000-drivers-and-raise-pound-5m.do

[Penguin68]

When you consider the plethora of parking etc. fines which have been over-turned by magistrates because the people operating them didn't know the rules (and these were only a tiny sub-set of driving rules directly associated with what they were doing as a job of work) then to expect all of us (trained drivers or not) to be aware of all the minutiae of rules frequently passed locally or since we ourselves passed our tests is to expect too much. We (of course) drive sensibly and carefully and considering other road users but that isn't nearly sufficient when the multitude of chargeable offences proliferates by the minute. The Labour government in its ten years of office created over 3,000 new crimes, a portion of them associated with driving and roads. Local ordinances create more offences.

We have at least 2 speed limits in ED (20mph & 30mph) - if you are within either zone you have to remember* what it is (some may recall the debate about whether Wood Vale was one or the other, even the signage was confusing there). At least the French put regular 'Rapel' signs up to remind you what the local limit is, but then they don't use traffic offences where they can use taxation to fund their activities. There is no easy way of telling as some local streets are 20mph and other identical local streets 30mph - Underhill is 20, Wood Vale 30 - I challenge anyone standing out of sight of an entry sign to tell just by the street they are in which is which.

(*Remembering is easy if you are driving continuously, not if you have stopped off for a time and then got back in the car)

[Loz]

Precisely, kford - that sort of thing should be ringing alarm bells that there is some problem with the markings and signage.

[jonny vantastic]

@ Loz - I just gave in and paid a fine on the box junction at batterrsea rise/ northcote road.

the picture they sent me showed the lights on amber, 2 cars behind me, a pedestrian about to cross in front of me and a cyclist coming up the side; my back wheels were on the box junction for 5 seconds after the light turned red - I did not stop the crossing traffic at all - but the 8 page letter they sent me rejecting my 1st appeal more or less told me to cough up or go to court and face losing and pay ?120!

@ all those saying don't breeak the rules etc. you are missing the point. minor offences which don't do anything to stem traffic flow are being disproportianately punished by people who could be better employed doing something genuinly useful.

[James Barber]

Hi Mr.Edwards,

I didn't say ?3.5M on lolly pop people. I said lolly pop people were one of the many things funded by the surplus.

I don't see that they should have to have placed a sign, i know the regs say they should, but that implies the laws can be ignored where no sign.

Kford is correct these smart cars are provided by contractors of Southwark Council to enforce regulations Southwark can enforce - typically parking. Sadly they're not loaded with ANPRS catching missing vehicle excise duty or the uninsured.

The main thing is they should again show more discretion and apply some humanity.

Getting rid of targets is tricky. I had a long chat several years ago with Met Traffic Wardens. They had no targets and were really not bothering or focused. Lovely people but frankly not doing their job. But targets that create over zealous behaviour clearly not right either.

[StraferJack]

Some good points from loz ? and to clarify again: I am against targets for wardens, I accept some of them are overzealous, no I don?t think behaviour such as removing identification on their cars is ok. And yes, those of us who have said ?don?t break any rules and you won?t get caught? would be well short of 100%on any exam

With that said, however..

The petty fines angle is being overplayed to support an argument here I feel ? petty fines happen, and appealing them should be easier and I support all of that ? the fact is it?s a bit of a side-issue. Too many drivers play fast and loose, not through ignorance, but through arrogance. Go out to a street now ? and count how many people are on their phones, push their luck at junctions etc. The wardens on that basis should be sacked for allowing so many people to get away with it. But it is the fact that so so many drivers think themselves above the law that wardens exist at all. But hey once they exist then of course targets are going to be introduced, no matter how innapropriately, because modern thinking is obsessed with targets.

I drive infrequently in London ? which on the one hand means by the law of averages I?m less likely to be caught? Or does it mean because I?m shaky on the practice I?m more likely to get caught out at a junction? In any case, it seems that by using common sense I have avoided a fine (so far)

But lets say I get caught some day ? it would have to be extremely petty instance for me to complain about it on here. If they came out from behind a bush with Jeremy Beadle and an ITV camera crew I wouldn?t be so petty as to say ?ah well legally you shouldn?t be hiding? IF I had been caught on my mobile phone for example. Because even tho? they were sneaky, Iknow why they exist and I know I done wrong. To pretend otherwise is just arrogance

To me, unless you have been really harshly penalised, the complaining doesn?t sound that different than the people on buses who complain about being fined when they caught by surprise inspections.

[Loz]

jonny vantastic

I Am Not A Lawyer... but if you entered a box junction before the exit was clear and was forced to stop then they have you bang to rights, no matter how long you stopped for. But, if the exit was clear when you entered and but then you were forced to stop (i.e. someone changing lanes or a pedestrian crossing in front of you) OR you stopped out of choice (i.e. you could have exited the box, but didn't) you have grounds for an appeal.

See more at http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/yellow.htm

The councils very rarely grant appeals. I'm afraid it's take it further or pay up. However, I believe that as a council PCN you may take it to the adjudicator, rather than to court.

But get further advice ... I repeat, I am not a lawyer.

[Mr.Edwards]

James, im sure you have stopped in a 30 minute bay maybe 5 minutes over at some point in your life. You know that these cars and they way they are stooping to any measure possible to grant a fine is wrong, but you just cant admit it due to your job.

Ive just returned from Lordship lane where some members of the public and shopkeepers were warning people of the enforcement guy. In general most people are pretty pissed off with these cars. We can argue here all day but the bottom line is most of the people and residents i know would vote for anyone that insinuates even that they will look into removal of these cars. Or at least addressing the appointed agencies. Maybe even a 2 strike policy, where you get a warning on the first parking offense.

[Mr.Edwards]

Im pretty sure Straferjack must be employed by the council or blogging on behalf of someone. No one can be this shortsighted.

[Penguin68]

the complaining doesn?t sound that different than the people on buses who complain about being fined when they caught by surprise inspections.

Travelling on public transport without a valid ticket is a clear attempt to defraud (the bus company suffers a financial loss by carrying you for no fare paid) - many of the infringments we are talking about are victim-less 'crimes' with no attempt to defraud. In may cases even the proximate reason for restricting road usage - to avoid congestion etc. is irrelevant, at times of low traffic intensity etc. These are 'crimes' where no one has suffered or can be demonstrated to have suffered - it's just an infringement of a petty restriction, and it is clear that pursuing such infringements has everything to do with gaining money and nothing to do with making life better for residents and other road users.

If you see intentional fraud as the moral equivalent of overstaying a parking time by a minute or two, or parking an inch across a double yellow line, then I suggest you have your moral compass recalibrated.

[Mr.Edwards]

@Penguin68 Brilliant ! Well put

[StraferJack]

That isn't what I said, or meant, at all. And I have an idea penguin knows it too

I thought I was clear on common ground

I could be wrong but I'm not reading the op as complaining about just the really petty stuff. But being caught at anything. So would I say driving while texting was as bad as fair evasion? Yep. Would I say parking a cm over a line even warranted any fine? Hell no. But I did say that that was an example that was being overplayed to make a wider point to berate wardens for even existing

[Gimme]

James Barber - Any stats you know of that say what portion of the budget shortfalls are funded by traffic fines? And has their activity been increased since the budget cuts?

[Loz]

I believe that any surplus can only be put to "road safety" purposes.

I put that in inverted commas as one council (Westminster) somehow decided that hanging baskets were an important tool in the fight for better road safety.

[edstar]

I spotted this from the train at Peckham Rye a couple of weeks ago... seemed very hypocritical.

[jimmyraj]

They're regularly parked up at Peckham Rye - in that spot, which is blocking someone's drive in - looking to catch drivers who have stopped momentarily outside the station to drop someone off.

[RosieH]

I pass the spot on the Rye where the enforcement car parks up every day. It's NOT hiding behind a bush - it's a designated spot for the car (when it's not there, you can see the white lines marked out on the ground). If the bushes are a little overgrown at the moment, that's clearly not the warden's fault, no? Earlier in the year, when the trees were bare, the car was still parked there - was it still 'camouflaged' then?

Does anyone perhaps think that traffic wardens might be more open to using their discretion where a car is 1cm over the line (rather than people taking an extra 5 minutes in a parking bay limited to 30 minutes) if they weren't subject to daily abuse? Frankly, if the people I had to deal with day in day out constantly called me a cunt, I too would be inclined to punish them for every infraction.

[PeterW]

I'm always amused by the way so many car drivers get outraged at ? the horror! ? having to pay fines for breaking the law. As has been said before: these traffic wardens/speed cameras/other law enforcement measures aren't to blame: it's your fault for committing an offence.

I'm even more amused by the notion than such road rule enforcement is petty and people should be trusted to drive in a safe manner. Oh yes, and that by objecting to this you're somehow a "killjoy".

That would work slightly better as an argument if a/ London traffic speeds weren't roughly the same on average as they were over a century ago and b/ not far short of 3,000 people didn't die annually in traffic incidents. Three thousand deaths a year is something to get outraged about, not a Smart car supposedly hiding in bushes (a curious image).

Get some perspective. And yes, I am a driver.

[blackadder]

sums up what CCTV Parking Enforcement

is all about.

[StraferJack]

Ha - a link to a video where the second post is

"blacks have no ideas of laws in this country

they just make it up"

and you say THIS is what parking enforcement is all about

You are like the "lawyer" in Idiocracy

[Willard]

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ha - a link to a video where the second post is

>

> "blacks have no ideas of laws in this

> country

>

> they just make it up"

>

> and you say THIS is what parking enforcement is

> all about

>

> You are like the "lawyer" in Idiocracy

Not sure who the lawyer in idiocracy is, you might need to explain that reference to me. However just because some retard has written "blacks have no ideas of laws in this country they just make it up" as a 2nd post, it doesn't undermine the hypocrisy of Southwark parking control and the reasons why the video was posted in the first place. They could have posted "the moon is made of cheese" - equally retarded, equally irrelevant to the matter in hand.

The person who posted the video on youtube can't control who views it and the moronic opinions of the people who chose to comment. Doesn't mean the video shouldn't be posted.

[StraferJack]

If you post a video like that on youtube, it is exactly morons like that who will flock to it. And i twould be naive to suggest otherwise

As for the video itself it is just the same lame old stuff again - councils make X amount of money from penalising motorists. And I say again there isn't enough penalising going on if you care to observe motorists for just 5 minutes.

I've also said I am sympathetic to some of the claims made against excessive enforcement - but the OP's point was the he doesn't know anyone who disagrees with him and if this thread has done nothing else it shows him to be wrong there

[Willard]

So you shouldn't post on Youtube in case you get some ridiculous comments?

Feels a bit like starting a thread on here some times.....

[StraferJack]

I never said that. But given the general standard of comments on youtube, yeah I would be choosy about what I do post

[Mrs Fishy]

Actually I don't think that was the OP's main point if you read back to his first post, but well done you have definitely argued against that point ferociously over the past 5 days!!!