tinyurl.com/m48cj4r
(link to the Evening Standard)
Apparently a BBC1 Panorama programme (tonight, 7:30) will expose e-mails that reveal how cameras are seen as revenue-generating by H & F council.
Well, that's nothing new, then. But it might be fun to see them squirm.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Wed 12 Jun 13 at 12:58
|
|
If people disobey the rules, and are caught doing so, then they deserve to have to pay the penalty. Hammersmith and Fulham councils are merely using their equipment to the best of their ability to catch offenders. If it helps to keep their council tax down then it's good accounting practice. I'm all for it.
|
>> If people disobey the rules, and are caught doing so, then they deserve to have
>> to pay the penalty. Hammersmith and Fulham councils are merely using their equipment to the
>> best of their ability to catch offenders. If it helps to keep their council tax
>> down then it's good accounting practice. I'm all for it.
>>
How about when the rules are unnecessary or even perverse?
Such as a great big wide street and nowhere at all to stop and deliver something.
Would you not expect some common sense and a small degree of leeway?....or are you happy for a parking attendant to hide, watch you struggle in somewhere with a load, then nip over and give you a ticket.
Some cities have yellow lines everywhere as a bigger picture to prevent drivers in general, regardless of the layout of any individual road, which is a bit of a bummer if you live there, visit there or deliver there.
|
>> How about when the rules are unnecessary or even perverse?
>>
>> Such as a great big wide street and nowhere at all to stop and deliver
>> something.
>>
As I'm sure you will recall WP waiting and loading (ie delivering) are different restrictions. If you can show you were dropping a package or flowers then the waiting infringement is not made out.
The trick is to retain and rely on your loadsheets/bills and be able to explain to Council or if necessary the adjudicator where you had to deliver stuff too.
The trap some people fall into is to allow it to become personal and accuse the attendant of lying etc. That's far more difficult to prove and even if you know he is the facts still outweigh assertion.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 12 Jun 13 at 15:39
|
>> How about when the rules are unnecessary or even perverse?
If you don't agree with the rules, then make your council aware of your opinion.
|
>> >> How about when the rules are unnecessary or even perverse?
>>
>> If you don't agree with the rules, then make your council aware of your opinion.
>>
Oh I see, a sort of King Canute style letter...
..."Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to draw your attention to.....blah, blah, blah............ and the reality seems to be that some of the parking restrictions defy common sense and only appear to be there for revenue raising reasons.....etc
Yours faithfully,
The Honourable Albert C Westpig"
........and the local authority's response?
A bland clear off letter and more mirth in the office.
|
There's no getting this right when parking spaces are effectively prime estate and brazen stupidity can gridlock a street in seconds.
Was here goo.gl/maps/8qdBS on lunchtime toddle a couple of weeks ago.
White van stopped on the yellows just past the postbox - driver possibly gettin a sarnie in Eat or nipped ito Lincoln's Inn to drop something. The P&D bays on right were partly empty and traffic flowing OK.
BT van then arrives and pulls into P&D bay opposite the illegaly stopped van. Driver, presumably an engineer on a call runs into Barristers chambers. Gap too narrow for car to pass and in seconds street is blocked with hooting taxis etc. Queue back into Fleet St in no time.
After 10 mins BT man emerges averring that it's not his problem as he's parked legally!! Eventually after five more minutes and under threat of lynching he moves forward and queue disperses.
|
|
The problem with that Bagleys Lane/New Kings Road junction in Fulham is the traffic light phasing. It is done in such a way that it is extremely difficult to get out of the junction during peak times without breaking the rules. If you obey the rules you be there for ages. So it is not as simple as just saying "Don't break the rules and you won't get caught".
|
>> If you obey the
>> rules you be there for ages. So it is not as simple as just saying
>> "Don't break the rules and you won't get caught".
>>
No, it is as simple as if you are impatient (or too important to obey the rules) you get a fine.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 12 Jun 13 at 18:07
|
>> No, it is as simple as if you are impatient (or too important to obey
>> the rules) you get a fine.
>>
Don't get me wrong, I've never been done for a yellow box infringement in 30 years of driving in London, so I am patient. But simple re-phasing of the lights would ease the problem (oh, but reduce the Council's income). That is what is so irksome.
|
I was more talking about the big wide roads near London tube stations...you know, the ones littered with yellow lines and residents parking zones...those same roads that commuters could park in and get the tube to work, rather than clog the roads.
If there's a main through route, a possibility for congestion, any other reasonable reason...I have no problem with restrictions and think we should all comply...but...a road where parking would be fine...that has a load of yellow lines down it or a CPZ...then I do have a problem....and there's loads out there in every town/ city across our land.
|
While there are many good points above, the main issue here, I think, is H & F's money-making attitude. It's not that money from fines is an incidental source of revenue; it's that in some of the e-mails councillors explicitly bemoan the loss of revenue when more motorists actually obey the law.
Many would argue that fines are there to act as a deterrent - full stop. It seems as if H & F don't actually want too many motorists to comply with the law.
|
>> the loss of revenue
>> when more motorists actually obey the law.
>>
That's a contradiction inherent in any system that uses financial inducement to persuade people to do, or not do, something.
|
'Don't park in this perfectly harmless, non-obstructive place where we have made workmen paint a garish yellow line or three, or we will be obliged to rob you.'
Financial inducement indeed... that would mean paying you to park legally.
|
|
Anyone watching the program on BBC 1 at the moment? The automated moving traffic offence cameras are impressive. Zero take note. :-)
|
|
Watched it. As I expected, much attempted obfuscation by H & F council. Some suggestion, too, that their use of cameras may be contrary to parliamentary guidlines. The experiment with the unauthorised sign was a lovely two-fingers up at them!
|
|
Thank the good Lord i seldom have to go near the dump now, Park Royal about as close as i get and thats too near for sanity.
|
I recorded it. For heaven's sake...it clashed with Corrie !!
Although I can park in any council bay for free and as long as I want, I always get out before I switch off and check I'm within the limits of the bay. There have been many reports of folk getting tickets because the towball or spare wheel has been over the white lines.....not a serious matter in the great context of the world, but some wardens like to show their authority.
I was sorting out a problem on one of our Fiat 500s yesterday when a young warden came along checking P&D tickets and tax discs. I chatted with him for a while and he moved off after a few minutes. My next job was to MOT the VW van round the corner about 50yds away. When I got there, the warden was there being shouted at by a small, middle eastern young man clutching a PCN. A fascinating one-sided ' argument ' was going on. I sat in the van with the window down and enjoyed the rant which the warden was taking very quietly and calmly.
Before I left, they were both on their phones, the man ringing the police accusing the TW of harassment and the TW asking his supervisor to come out. I offered my service as a witness but he didn't need me. Nor did he want me to give bloke a smack (jokingly). I don't know whether the Bill came, but if they did, I don't think they would have been too pleased ! Forty years ago, he'd have been up against the charge office counter and charged with something disorderly !
Ted
|
>>
>> Financial inducement indeed... that would mean paying you to park legally.
>>
Sometimes they pay you if you don't do things, sometimes they tax you if you do other things.
Smoking, tax avoidance, alcohol consumption, welfare payments, etc. The inducements can be negative or positive, but always in the end the outcomes become morally dubious, and cash becomes the real driving motive.
|
|
That's why we hang a tea towel over the numberplate by trapping it in the bonnet on some journeys these days.
|
Looking bad for Hammersmith and Fulham Council - L'escargot
