CCTV Contravention Warning Notice

[Rockets]

Sue, firstly, no need to be rude - it's against forum rules and we have enough council supporters who will demonise anyone who dares challenge how they act.

But, given the original discussion on this thread, given the huge increase in the number of PCNs issued (which has come about as the council puts more cameras in like the one on Lordship Lane at Overhill) and given we have established that the council can raise revenue from these fines to spend on vanity projects like the Dulwich Square project you can see why they are incentivised to place as many traps as possible.

Even better if signage is poorly placed, obscured or the measures are policed in an overhand way (all real examples of which you can read about here) to ensure maximum revenue generation from them. Look at the council's keenness to roll out CPZs against the wishes of their constituents. Why? Revenue. Revenue to waste on projects like Dulwich Square.

So whilst you think you're ever so funny suggesting I do a course in logic it appears I already did and passed with flying colours because it is more than clear what is happening here.

But I am more than happy for you to provide your evidence to counter my position.....

[Sue]

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Sue, firstly, no need to be rude - it's against forum rules and we have enough council supporters who will demonise anyone who dares challenge how they act.

But, given the original discussion on this thread, given the huge increase in the number of PCNs issued (which has come about as the council puts more cameras in like the one on Lordship Lane at Overhill) and given we have established that the council can raise revenue from these fines to spend on vanity projects like the Dulwich Square project you can see why they are incentivised to place as many traps as possible.

Even better if signage is poorly placed, obscured or the measures are policed in an overhand way (all real examples of which you can read about here) to ensure maximum revenue generation from them. Look at the council's keenness to roll out CPZs against the wishes of their constituents. Why? Revenue. Revenue to waste on projects like Dulwich Square.

So whilst you think you're ever so funny suggesting I do a course in logic it appears I already did and passed with flying colours because it is more than clear what is happening here.

But I am more than happy for you to provide your evidence to counter my position.....

As you haven't quoted my post,  it is rather hard to respond, as I can't see what I said without having to keep changing page.

Perhaps you could edit your post to quote mine?

Thanks x

I'm pretty sure I didn't contravene any forum rules, btw. But if I did, I'm sure I will get my hand slapped by admin, in  which case I will of course apologise 😀

[Penguin68]

Without entering into the spat above, I think it's worthwhile considering the fact that Southwark determined that it was worth investing in a camera and other necessary expenditures e.g. by a turn 'through' a bus lane - one where (I live reasonably close) I have not heard of any incidents which suggest there was before a traffic problem here. Other things suggest that the Southwark and the TFL approach is very different in gauging offences cause by legitimate and legal turns across a bus lane.

We also know that other impediments and changes to traffic rules in our bits of Southwark seem inevitably to be accompanied by cameras and fines - some of the signposting of which has been attacked as being confusing and obscured.

And yet, in the past, changes to road priorities and usage, also signed, have not been inevitably accompanied by cameras and fines.

Ths would suggest that Southwark is investing (the cameras cost money) in road traps - and that investment does not seem linked (as many speed traps are and are meant to be) to driver behaviour which is causing e.g., accidents (and which speed cameras are normally allowed, and signposted, to stop such behaviour) but as a revenue raising exercise. 

Of course Southwark is suffering from underfunding, but the way the law works at the moment any fines excess (and there is not meant to be an excess) is quite strictly hypothecated. An hypothecation which does appear somewhat stretched in Southwark's case. I don't think, for instance, that excessively expensive prettification of a tiny part of the borough was top of the minds of the legislators when they set the rules about use of excess revenues over and above the cost of scheme administration.

[malumbu]

Cameras are placed where people may ignore rules eg cutting into the bus lanes to avoid stationary traffic.  I see it fairly often.  It is right to use cameras to enforce roads where drivers do not behave themselves.  If you do not transgress, you do not pay.  Simple.

Speed cameras are a matter for the police, and tend to be at incident hot spots.  It's sad that some of the speed cameras are not installed until there has been a death or serious injury.

Southwark is no different to most London Boroughs, even Tory ones.  Some go much further.

The thread started with someone who was disappointed to get a penalty notice as they were unaware and didn't see the signage.  I have sympathy having my own fair share of penalty notices - only one or two this millennium.  It's gone the way of most of threads, a small hard core who repeat the same view, Southwark are crooks, and, often, cyclists are a menace.

[ianr]

Did anyone here make any submissions in response to the 2024  https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions?

[Rockets]

I know this was when the Tories were desperately trying to stoke the fires but I thought this was interesting:

However, enforcement should be undertaken proportionately and not used as a means to raise revenue.

 

Can anyone provide any evidence to counter the claim that Southwark are abusing the powers afforded to them as they are doing it as a means to raise revenue?

Penguin68 I am with you...clearly Southwark has determine that PCNs can pay for their vanity projects so need to find locations to place cameras that can earn the most revenue, not where the need is greatest from a safety perspective.

All over the borough the council is installing cameras with the sole purpose of generating revenue. The Lower Road bus lane camera was illegally fining drivers because of an admin " oversight" and was Southwark's biggest earning camera raking in £500,000 in one year. Not only that but the signage was incorrect for the bus lane too. One wonders how no-one from the council ever bothered checking. Shocking.

 

[Sue]

16 hours ago, ianr said:

Did anyone here make any submissions in response to the 2024  https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions?

Very interesting point, Ianr!

[malumbu]

Sunak's desperate attempt to get the motorist's vote had no great impact in the election, I expect that many diehard petrolheads had already switched to Reform  Until Sunak every government since Blair had been committed to reducing dependency on the car, increasing active travel and improving the environment. To varying degrees of success.

Edited January 12 by malumbu

[vladi]

3 hours ago, malumbu said:

Sunak's desperate attempt to get the motorist's vote had no great impact in the election, I expect that many diehard petrolheads had already switched to Respect.  Until Sunak every government since Blair had been committed to reducing dependency on the car, increasing active travel and improving the environment. To varying degrees of success.

Don't you mean Reform?

[malumbu]

in deed don't know why I mix Galloway's short lived party with Farage's

Edited Friday at 19:50 by malumbu

[alex_b]

On 09/01/2025 at 09:08, floradora said:

Recently received a penalty fine for driving down Amott Road and turning right into Adys road. I am a very vigilant driver but had not noticed the sign on the left saying it was a pedestrian and cycle zone between 3pm- 3.45pm. (My ticket was issued at 3.04 not that that's particularly relevant). Like other people on this thread have said, the signs need to be much bigger, markings on the road,  flashing lights- whatever to draw attention to them - and most importantly signs on both sides of the road not just the left which is the passenger side and where a driver is less likely to focus especially when there are high vehicles such as vans parked. 

The normal position for road signs in the UK is the left hand side of the road, so as an attentive driver that is where you should be looking. However the signs on Amott (and Adys and Ondine) are on both sides of the road. Their position on Amott are just on the Adys side of the Keston Road junction. As there are 3m double yellows on that junction there is at least 6m clear in front of the sign on the left hand side of the road even if the right hand sign was obscured by a high sided vehicle when you drove down the road. 

Edited Friday at 18:30 by alex_b

[Earl Aelfheah]

On 11/01/2025 at 17:08, Penguin68 said:

Other things suggest that the Southwark and the TFL approach is very different in gauging offences cause by legitimate and legal turns across a bus lane.

Just to be clear (because Rockets cherry picking and misinformation is going to cause more people to get tickets if we’re not careful). You are not allowed to enter a bus lane during hours of operation, (regardless of whether you’re turning left), unless there a broken white line and an arrow indicating that you can. This applies to all bus lanes, whether operated by Southwark or TFL.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/rules-of-red-routes/bus-lanes

“When you can enter a bus lane

The times of operation and the type or types of permitted vehicle are indicated on a blue sign. The sign is located in advance of the bus lane and repeated if the bus lane is long.

If you want to turn left across a bus lane, an arrow or a dotted white line on the carriageway will indicate if this is permitted.”

Edited Sunday at 07:45 by Earl Aelfheah

[Rockets]

Earl,

Two things.

No it does not apply to TFL if you challenge the PCN - TFL will give you 20 metres grace.

Secondly, answer me this. Southwark say you must not touch the line at the junction of Overhill and we know that 100 metres down the road TFL allows you to at Underhill and stops their bus lane far enough ahead to allow for 20 metres grace.

But just 50 metres down the road from Overhill, still in Southwark, to park in front of the shops or go to the builders merchant everyone has to break the bus lane - is this then a revenue opportunity in waiting for the council? The bus lane is not broken there at all. So are all these vehicles liable for a fine too?

[malumbu]

Well that's the way it is.  Move on.

[Rockets]

6 minutes ago, malumbu said:

Well that's the way it is.  Move on.

Ha ha...spoken like someone who knows there is a problem....

[Earl Aelfheah]

imagine getting a fine for driving in a bus lane and being so unable to just accept your mistake / take it on the chin. 🤣

Why don’t you appeal it instead of moaning across multiple threads. 

Edited Monday at 23:03 by Earl Aelfheah