Fine for enterting no entry zone in Peckham (Lounged)

[vivienne]

I think that might have been me. I just got a fine through today...and this is AFTER i had read all your fine talk. I have lived in Peckham for twenty years and have always known this is no entry to vehicles so there is no excuse, in fact I can't believe I've done it so I'm going to the parking shop to look at the video. My only explanation to myself is that maybe one day I just thought I was riding my bike when in fact I was driving !!! ?60 for daydreaming on the road! its a fair cop!

[Timmy]

I've received a fine for this offence also. Has anyone on this form successfully appealed?

[Ratpack]

I just got my car clamped and charged 650 quid by a bailiff. The council still haven't told me what it was for but the photo they sent me said Rye Lane/ Heaton. Maybe this is what it is for.

Not that it makes it any better... I'm still angry and upset and 650 quid down.

[woodie]

Nooo! we just got the 'heaton' fine. The photoshop pics couple of pages back are really funny.Thanks for them! Must be a constant earner that little spot. Knew I'd read of it here first. Do'h

[wagtap]

I've been done there as well - it's totally pathetic. I thought we were trying to stop cars polluting the atmosphere instead of making them drive extra miles diverting them around a junction.

Anyway, there are technical issues here:

Are the signs aligned properly?

Is their distance apart too much?

There are no road markings directing traffic to the left, just an obscured arrow amongst all the other rubbish on the pavement (way too much signage on pavements these days)

Examine closely the details on your PCN - any error invalidates the ticket. Check timings, pictures, codes, has it been signed etc.

I shall be in the Adjudicators Office on Monday fighting one.

(What a waste of time over something so harmless - oh the joys of having a meaningless existence in modern London - the curtain-twitchers' CCTV paradise)

Any advice welcomed if I've missed something that'll stop the licensed thievery a Southwark Council...

[LuvPeckham]

The scheme was implemented to stop people driving down Rye Lane (by making it harder to exit at either end) and I guess the question to anyone who has been caught by it, is why were you driving along Rye Lane in the first place? It would be interesting to know if people use Rye Lane as a short cut or have to use it for other reasons.

[zephyr]

I use rye lane every now and then (usually picking up offspring). The signs are pretty clear and it is obvoius that car drivers should pull off to the left.

[nunheadbelle]

This has been a NO ENTRY to cars for many, many years. I always turn left and go round the one way system if I get that far up Rye Lane. I find it quicker though to turn right into Choumert Rd where the market is and cut through the road at the back of Netto near Thomas Calton College, then left and left again. It's a bit of in and out but you get used to it.

This no entry spot was where they installed the ?2m rising bollards a few years ago, as I remember. They were removed after a few months because several cars got caught on them rising when they tried to follow the buses through. ?2m down the drain almost literally.

N.

[Mikey]

I had the same experience. ?60 fine. Personally I think it's an abuse of CCTV. I can understand the need to control serious crime, but using CCTV to catch drivers for minor motoring offences is overstepping the limit in my opinion.

[RosieH]

Seriously, I blame Jeremy Clarkson for peddling this spurious notion that they're out to get car drivers.

It's pretty simple, break the law, pay the fine, suck it up. They can't get you if you've done nothing wrong. If you don't want to pay a fine, then don't drive in a bus lane, don't break the speed limit, don't go through a no entry (and while you're at it, don't let your dog crap wherever it likes, don't ride your bike on the pavement, don't drop litter, don't steal your neighbour's milk, write 'bastard' on their door when they catch you at it, then kill them with sticks when they confront you - these things are wrong - if caught you will be punished).

[SeanMacGabhann]

But Rosie - there are people actually killing pensioners and babies so therefore we should be allowed to get away with these "victimless crimes"

That seems to be the logic followed by some people anyway - I'm with you

[wagtap]

RosieH - that's a very simplistic view, and of course, a 'technically' correct one.

However, who really wants to live in a country where any technical infringement will cost you? Petty petty petty. Most of these motoring contraventions are so harmless that no one notices (apart from the geek with the CCTV camera who is spying on the public).

I've just been penalised 120quid for going through that 'no entry' spot at the bottom of rye lane. A totally harmless MISTAKE. And, it was nothing more than that - I don't go around doing things like that deliberately. Had a copper been standing there, it would have been a quick chat "Do you realise what you've just done, sir?" etc..."mind how you go". Was it seriously a violation of such magnitude as to incur a 120pound fine? No. Certainly not.

We preach tolerance in this country. Except for anyone on wheels. Then, ooh, you'd better watch out. One inch out of line and you'll be hammered for it. No room for error anymore.

Well, that's very sad...and very communist/fascist.

Ridiculous.

This is not what my Grandfather fought for, nor what my Great Uncle died for.

In the meantime, what is the council doing about the seriously dangerous driving that goes on on my road - Colyton Road - where there a loads of kids, dogs, parklovers and pensioners milling about to use Peckham Rye Park, whilst motorists and truckers drive by at speed of up to 60mph? Precisely nothing. A mistake here will kill someone. Yet, no fines, no sign of any concern from the council or the Police, no enforcement of the 20mph speed limit. This isn't a poxy no entry sign we're talking about.

It's all out of kilter. There's probaly no money in it...

[ruffers]

Did you deliberately break the rule at the junction?

Unless you did some might say you were fined ?120 for driving along not paying attention to signs which are posted on clearly at the junction. If this is your usual level of observation then you would apear to well on the way to becoming a dangerous driver. I hope the fine makes you pay a bit more attention from now on and has therefore prevented a serious potential future accident.

(Tongue maybe a bit in cheek there)

[wagtap]

I'm glad you're tongue was in cheek. There is nothing potentially serious about driving through that junction. It's just discriminating against private transport.

What is potentially dangerous is constantly having to check every signpost and every inch of PAVEMENT for an indication of something you might get fined for, INSTEAD of paying attention to the ultimately more important task of keeping one's eyes on the road and watching out for pedestrians, other road users etc.

Any competent driver will tell you there are far too many distractions around already without having to decipher unnecessary wallet-busters that are there for nothing more than spurious revenue raising for the inefficient treasury dept at the local council...

This junction makes thousands of poinds every week for Southwark council. If it is transgressed that often there is clearly something wrong with it. If they are so keen to stop motorsits driving through it, then they should come up with something sensible and effective. But then that wouldn't rake in loads of cash, would it?

And, if you must know, I went through on my motorbike through force of habit as I cycle through that junction all the time - which is 'allowed'. A very simple, totally harmless MISTAKE.

A sensible society wouldn't be bothered by it.

[ruffers]

Given the way this thread is going perhaps the junction should be turned into a roundabout?

[wagtap]

...with a cashpoint on it.

[SeanMacGabhann]

?120 for a trivial offence sounds, to most if us, like an OTT penalty in proportion to the crime. Ditto, I tend to agree about the amount of signange and distractions to drivers

But once again the bigger picture needs to be looked at... to take two examples:

1) The situation on your rd - Colyton Rd. Given that drivers are hurtling down there at 60mph what is your solution to the problem? You appear to suggest cameras would be better employed there so let's go with that for now. Let's say they were introduced and drivers responded by slowing down... ooohh but wait - that means money-spinning fines work? Plus, with the road now safer, you will get the odd driver who still gets a penalty and posts a thread wondering who he/she is harming by driving at 40mph down a little street

2) If you drive through that junction on a bike regularly then you have either seen that sign already and know about it - or you haven't seen the sign at all, despite using the junction many times, which makes it sound like you are a careless driver. Either way, it undermines your argument that you are being penalised for ONE LITTLE MISTAKE. Umm... my caps.. sorry

[BJL]

Isn't the ?120 fine reduced to ?60 if you pay it promptly?

[Keef]

Shouldn't this thread be in the lounge, as it certainly isn't ED specific! ;-)

[zephyr]

ruffers Wrote:

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

> Did you deliberately break the rule at the

> junction?

>

> Unless you did some might say you were fined ?120

> for driving along not paying attention to signs

> which are posted on clearly at the junction. If

> this is your usual level of observation then you

> would apear to well on the way to becoming a

> dangerous driver. I hope the fine makes you pay a

> bit more attention from now on and has therefore

> prevented a serious potential future accident.

>

> (Tongue maybe a bit in cheek there)

I would take out the 'tongue in cheek' bit. It is very worrying if they did not see the sign.

Of course the interesting thing is, it is exactly 'driving without due care and attention'. In this case it was not particularly dangerous but what about the next sign that is missed? Should the person plead that it is waste of time when they have missed a reduction in speed limit with the results that someone was killed or injured?

A number of years ago you would have been prosecuted for driving without due car and attention. A mate of mine was done as we were caught going down a bus lane (before CCTV)

[wagtap]

Sean - money-spinning cameras aren't the solution. They don't PREVENT things, they merely rake in money from them. In fact, it is in the council's interest for these petty infringements to take place in order to make money out of them.

I would not put speed cameras on Colyton Road. They are a witless solution to any problem.

I would introduce proper measures that actually have an effect on traffic, rather than measures that make that effect elective.

As per the no entry sign - if you're the sort of person who never makes a mistake and lives life in rule-obedient perfection, then well done you. Rules are there for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men.

If you're happy with all this surveillance and spying and petty-fine mongering, then you and I should inhabit very different philosophies. And you're welcome to yours as it's of no interest to me.

As for the bigger picture - it's about time Britain refocussed on what that might be, as it doesn't have a clue at present.

[ruffers]

wagtap Wrote:

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

> Sean - money-spinning cameras aren't the solution.

> They don't PREVENT things, they merely rake in

> money from them. In fact, it is in the council's

> interest for these petty infringements to take

> place in order to make money out of them.

>

If they don't prevent things can we assume you'll continue to commit the same offence in the future?

[SeanMacGabhann]

wagtap - again you have said what you don't like and what you think doesn't work

So your solution for the (by the way you described it, criminal) situation on Colyton Rd is....... ?

[LuvPeckham]

Wagtap - Playing the Devils Advocat to your point here, but if CCTV doesn't work (and I sort of agree that a fine after the offence has been committed rather then being stopped at the time could lead to questions of 'what have I done wrong') then what CCTV has done in this situation is clearly to raise the reason about why people have been fined, and also raised the issue (in this case) of the no entry section in Rye Lane. A form of Viral advertising to let other people know that it is wrong to drive through this piece of road or they will get a fine.... Should deter others in the future I am sure.

Yes there is the overall question of revenue generation vs deterent, and I have to ask are they not one and the same at the end of the day (if you get fined then you more then likely will be detered from doing it again thus reducing the amount of revenue generated in the future!!! )

[wagtap]

Well it's a tangent, but the concept of any road measures should be to be effective where necessary. Speed limits can often be surpassed without any danger - they are a broad application of something that may only be specific in one area. Driver judgement counts. Doing 30 past an emptying school may be inappropriately fast, but is still legal. Doing 50 past that school at 0400 would not be a different matter. Discretion.

Where it is deemed essential to be effective then measures must be just that: effective. Cameras leave you with options and are far too 1984 for a democracy that takes itself seriously.

Chicanes, for example, along with the much-maligned speed humps, mini-roundabouts at T-junctions, all require an actual reduction in speed, not a theoretical one.

They do not require endless numbers of road signs to be read (a bad distraction) and you cannot choose to do 60 through them.

There may be more ideas out there - all welcome.

Common sense and discretion. Which is why black&white application of rule is impossible.