Bus Lane PCN

[andrew1]

They should be made to repay everyone back they ever charged for this. Just relying on people complaining is not good enough. I know this junction well and one wonders how many people have been caught there during its lifetime sited there. Maybe a FOI Act request to find out - if people are writing to their MP's?

 

This brings me on to warn those people who are in this area of a new camera installed at the bus lane in Blackheath Village. I just got caught in it. 30 yrs driving around Blackheath and never picked up so much as a partking ticket. This is sited at the top of the village coming in from the Heath and runs down the left hand lane of what is just over 2 car widths size of road.

 

Parking restrictions are lifted at 6.30pm for yellow lines and parking bays, but the bus lane carries on until 7pm. 7 am - 10.am 4pm - 7pm Mon-Fri.

 

As the Village sports many restaraunts people are prone, after 6.30, to park on the yellow lines on the R/H of the road making the left hand the natural driving line especially if you are driving through the village past the station and beyond.

 

It is folly to expect a driver to cling to the r/hand side where cars are parked and risk catching their sides when the width of the road is only just sufficient to support another vehicle (except for the bus lane) and one is driving through filtering into the left hand lane just before the traffic lights. It is also a taffic hazzard to stick to the right holding up cars wishing to turn right at the bottom junction.

 

This bus lane has been marked for years on the road and one imagines that through its ridiculous original marking no-one took any notice of it because it is not a natural bus lane of any benefit to traffic flow. Now all of a sudden they have a camera sited on the lamp post at the top of the village and must be catching hundreds of motorists, just before Christmas, with no prior warnings to locals and in my opinion, just put there to make up for lost revenues at Lewisham Council from government cut-backs.

 

Be warned...! I have enough to do without having to have yet another fight on my hands for a stupid bus lane ticket - I propose paying the fine with an attached protest, writing to my MP and then fighting to get the money back. Rather than get the £120 full fine later. Parasiticle, entrapment, gits....all those came through my mind when this came in the post and someone else said above, if it was for a traffic offense like going through a red light I'd fully understand and I'd pay it, or speeding or using a mobile whilst driving which I see hundreds of people still doing which irks me no-end as my wife was knocked off her cycle and seriously hurt by a person on the phone dreaming whilst talking, but this is just money grabbing and I'll not leave it.

 

Thanks for all the advice here, I'll start a thread myself as soon as I can get the time and take it up there.

Edited December 27, 2010 by andrew1
spelling - must have been drunk!

[green_and_mean]

This brings me on to warn those people who are in this area of a new camera installed at the bus lane in Blackheath Village. I just got caught in it. 30 yrs driving around Blackheath and never picked up so much as a partking ticket. This is sited at the top of the village coming in from the Heath and runs down the left hand lane of what is just over 2 car widths size of road.

 

Parking restrictions are lifted at 6.30pm for yellow lines and parking bays, but the bus lane carries on until 7pm. 7 am - 10.am 4pm - 7pm Mon-Fri.

 

As the Village sports many restaraunts people are prone, after 6.30, to park on the yellow lines on the R/H of the road making the left hand the natural driving line especially if you are driving through the village passed to station and beyond..

 

Maybe you should blame thiose that are parked for your PCN rather than the Council?! The road opposite the bus lane is no waiting 7am-7pm so anyone parked whilst the bus lane is in use is parked in contravention. If people have ignored it for years is it any surprise the Council have been forced to enforce by camera? The road is one way and over two lanes wide why does anyone need to drive in the bus lane its not exactly a confusing road layout?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Blackheath+Village,+Greenwich&sll=51.465882,0.009071&sspn=0.002072,0.005659&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Blackheath+Village,+Greenwich,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.467138,0.008646&spn=0,0.001415&t=k&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.46723,0.008649&panoid=1QfvP07lR3gn8ueVCfn5tg&cbp=12,170.39,,0,5

[andrew1]

You do have a point. The no waiting times are until 7pm, but cars park there just after the double yellow lines after 6.30pm.

 

I came in from Montpelier Vale and parked in a parking bay facing the shops to pick up a curry. The new signage has been put on the lamp post just where your picture shows the blue sign with the turn right 45 degree arrow. I have driven past there a thousand times and never even noticed the new sign added recently. Cars were on the right hand side and if you take a close look at those pictures from the Google walkabout you will see clearly what kind of space is left for passing traffic. It's not a squeeze I admit, but we are talking about common sense driving when at the bottom of the hill, which is what - 200 yards? I was turning left and following the road like thousands do every day up through the village to the left which keeps the traffic flowing, not holding it up. By doing as the council are asking us to do and sitting in the right hand lane the traffic builds up and clogs the village all the way around the one-way system when it needn't. It is a natural line to carry on down on the left hand side and it certainly doesn't hold busses up which is what they are trying to prevent by adding a bus lane is it not?

 

Busses are held up more by taxis waiting to turn into the station cab rank than they are by people using that lane. The Council have been forced to enforce with a camera as it's another money spinning machine - that's all, this is not about busses and traffic.

[green_and_mean]

The Council have been forced to enforce with a camera as it's another money spinning machine - that's all, this is not about busses and traffic.

 

Statistics show otherwise, bus lanes that are enforced by camera have a far far higher level of compliance than those that are not enforced. CCTV is the only way Councils can enforce bus lanes they are not permitted to stop vehicles. As you point out the camera was installed years after the bus lane so the bus lane itself was not installed to make money, it seems a bit pointless having bus lanes if you just allow cars to drive down them so enforcement is the natural solution. As with all camera enforcement it only makes money if people ignore the road signs, cctv enforcement is very expensive its not just a case of sticking a camera from Maplins on a lamp post. A BTEC course to train a single CCTV CEO costs £2000, then there is the cost of the camera and certification add in maintenance costs, staff costs etc and its not a get rich quick scheme by any means.

[andrew1]

Thanks for your observations and explanations G & M, I feel a little raw as you can no doubt detect, but at £60 a shot £2000 will soon be recouped given the number of people I know who have been caught in this I know too.

 

There's more to this than keeping the busses moving and I intend to find out what as this is like entrapment although I will try and keep my feet truely grounded and your observations constantly in my mind. I'll let you know what happens.

 

Andrew

[Bristolhomer]

Just received a letter, which is interesting for two reasons. Firstly they have addressed all the points put on this website.

 

Also, an interesting aside, they seem to have completely confused me with someone else! They talk about a rejection letter I received from them on 4th December but my PCN wasn't even issued until over a week later.

 

Very baffling - and also why they seem to be staning up for themselves here where everyone else seems to have 'got off' straight away. Has anyone else received a correspondence such as the below?

 

Anyway - they have made £225k here in 2.5 years!

 

Our ref: FOI/NM

 

5 January 2011

Dear XXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Transport for London: Penalty Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

I am in receipt of your email dated 28 December 2010 regarding Penalty Charge Notice XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. As Customer Correspondence Manager your email was passed to me for response.

Firstly I would highlight that the points raised in your letter regarding the validity of the PCN have been addressed in our Notice of Rejection dated 4 December 2010. This letter clearly outlined the reason why your representation was rejected and also highlighted your right to appeal to an independent adjudicator. As of the date of this letter TFL has not been informed that you have made an appeal and the PCN remains payable at £60. In light of this I will not comment any further on the PCN at this time but endeavour to address your more general enquiries.

For ease of reference I will address your points individually.

1. The start of the bus lane starts with the solid white line (1049) and not the Taper (1010). A vehicle caught within the taper will not be issued a ticket. You are correct in saying that it does not have the correct dimensions, however due to the layout of the area this was the best possible solution as the 1010 cannot be laid across a side road.

2. I’m afraid this marking does appear to be not laid in accordance with the guidance in Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual. This is because site conditions dictated that a 1:10 taper would not fit in this particular case. It should be pointed out that the Traffic Signs Manual has the status of guidance – mandatory requirements are only set out in the TSRGD. In fact, the Traffic Signs Manual explicitly states that “The advice [in the TSM] is given to assist authorities in the discharge of their duties under section 122 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 , but it is for traffic authorities to determine what signing they consider necessary to meet those duties.“ I would argue that as Traffic Authority we installed this bus priority measure as a means to meet two of the four explicitly stated duties under section 122. (The two duties are (i) restricting the use of roads by heavy vehicles to preserve the amenity of the area and (ii) facilitating the passage of public service vehicles). In order to meet those duties it was necessary to deviate slightly from the advice in the Traffic Signs Manual (although crucially, not from the mandatory Regulations). As authority we would argue that this deviation from TSM advice does not compromise the safety or meaning of the restriction.

3. To advise the advance signs are referred to in guidance and are not regulatory (the TSRGD outlines what is required and he Traffic Sign Manual is “good practice” guidance).

4. Refer to point 1.

5. Bus Lane contraventions in London are governed by Part II the London Local Authorities Act 1996. Section 4 of the 1996 Act states what information a Penalty Charge Notice must include:

3) A penalty charge notice under this Part of this Act must state—

(a) the grounds on which the council [or, as the case may be, Transport for London] believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(b) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

© that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(d) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(e) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council [or, as the case may be, Transport for London] on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;

(f) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(g) the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act.

(4) In subsection (3)(d) above, “specified proportion” means such proportion, applicable in all cases, as may be determined for the purposes of this section by [the appointing authorities] acting through the Joint Committee.

Your assertion that it is necessary for the enforcement authority to state “which one [bus lane] is involved in the alleged contravention” is incorrect. Notwithstanding this, as you have yourself confirmed, the PCN in question did in fact state the location at which the contravention occurred (Kidbrooke Park Road).

6. As stated previously we are confident that all signage and markings meet the requirement of the Traffic Signs Manual. We continue to check the compliance of this area on a regular basis.

In your representation you also request information via the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Once again I have addressed these points individually:

a) Please refer to the attached file (Traffic Order)

b) The bus lanes were implemented at this location in 2004. I regret that the plans and safety audit are no longer available, and cannot be supplied.

c) I regret that these plans are no longer available, and cannot be supplied.

d) None of the signs relating to the bus lane at the above location deviate from The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).

e) Please advise the dates of the logs you wish to see, and we shall supply them. Please note that we do not hold any information in this regard relating to any date earlier than April 1 2007.

f) Our CCTV devices used for Traffic enforcement are certified by the Secretary of State at the Department for Transport (DfT).

g) Because our system is digital, there is no longer a logbook. All information is held electronically.

h) Transport for London does not record or retain still images because we have made a digital video recording. The still images are obtained within the Penalty Charge Notice issuing software and then sent out with the Penalty Charge Notice. TfL does not have the technical facility to print out hundreds of still pictures.

i) The number of PCN’s issued by TfL at this location from 9 September 2004 to 31 August 2010 is 5176.

j) The number of PCN’s cancelled by TfL following informal challenges is 12.

k) The number of PCN’s cancelled by TfL following formal challenges is 370.

l) The number of PCN’S cancelled by TfL following appeal to PATAS IS 97.

m) 386 PCN’s issued by TfL in respect of this location and not pursued by TfL for any other reason.

n) £6462.07 is the average monthly amount revenue raised at this location.

o) The total penalty revenue raised at this location since 1 August 2008 to date is £224,945.01

p) The number of complaints received with respect to this location is 1409.

Thank you for writing to TfL.

Yours Sincerely

[Bristolhomer]

Further to the above post, having just re-read the appeal I originally sent them, I made eight points and they have replied to six of them and not in the correct order. Basically, they've sent a reply intended for someone else to me by accident.

 

My inclination now is to ignore them and then play dumb whenever they bother to get back to me, saying that their correspondence was gobbledegook and I couldnt understand it (such as their assertions that my appeal was rejected a week before they even sent me my PCN!). Is there anything to be gained by this? I'm assuming that if they are going to send me a 'proper' response, that they have to do it within a certain period of time. I'm certainly not inclined to help them by e-mailing them back now and pointing out their mistake for them!

[andrew1]

.

m) 386 PCN’s issued by TfL in respect of this location and not pursued by TfL for any other reason.

n) £6462.07 is the average monthly amount revenue raised at this location.

o) The total penalty revenue raised at this location since 1 August 2008 to date is £224,945.01

p) The number of complaints received with respect to this location is 1409.

 

I wonder whether the English case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79 would apply?

 

" It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that the aforesaid charges would not reflect any actual and or real loss."

 

These charges are outrageous, nearly a quarter of a million pounds in fines in just over 2yrs for one tiny bus lane? Are we a 'contractual party' in this - if they fine us we must be?

 

I'm staggered. I'd write to your MP and bring this up - it's a disgrace, is entrapment and with 1409 complaints, how many got the fine and didn't complain when they felt cheated?

 

This bus lane they say has been there since 2004 with over 5000 fines - something must be wrong with the layout for that to happen - 5000 drivers are not stupid, maybe 10% could be said to be wreckless but not 5000.

Edited January 6, 2011 by andrew1

[green_and_mean]

.

m) 386 PCN’s issued by TfL in respect of this location and not pursued by TfL for any other reason.

n) £6462.07 is the average monthly amount revenue raised at this location.

o) The total penalty revenue raised at this location since 1 August 2008 to date is £224,945.01

p) The number of complaints received with respect to this location is 1409.

 

I wonder whether the English case of Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v New Garage and Motor co Ltd [1915] AC 79 would apply?

 

" It was held that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that the aforesaid charges would not reflect any actual and or real loss."

 

These charges are outrageous, nearly a quarter of a million pounds in fines in just over 2yrs for one tiny bus lane? Are we a 'contractual party' in this - if they fine us we must be?

 

I'm staggered. I'd write to your MP and bring this up - it's a disgrace, is entrapment and with 1409 complaints, how many got the fine and didn't complain when they felt cheated?

 

This bus lane they say has been there since 2004 with over 5000 fines - something must be wrong with the layout for that to happen - 5000 drivers are not stupid, maybe 10% could be said to be wreckless but not 5000.

 

Its only 16 people a week roughly 3 a day if you consider how many cars use the road thats not exactly a lot is it?

[Bristolhomer]

Right, further to the e-mail that was sent to me in error (above), I've just received a formal letter which is actually intended for me REJECTING MY APPEAL.

 

Unless their new year's resolution was to be an even bigger bunch of ***** this year, I can't understand why mine would be rejected whereas, as far as I can see, everyone else who has followed the same procedures as me was let off (including someone the week before me!).

 

Anyone got any ideas on how to proceed?

 

Part of their spiel is that all cases are considered on an individual basis. However, as everyone else was let off due to their previous good record (and I have no previous of this kind whatsoever), I'm minded to ask them what it is in my character which means that I'm not liable for the same treatment.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

It is perfectly reasonable to write and tell them that they have an obligation to be fair and consistent in their application of discretion and while you reserve your rights to take the matter to PATAS you are asking for an explanation as to why they are not exercising their discretion in the same way as they have done for so many others.

[Bristolhomer]

Cheers Bernie, will do. Am also going to play dumb and claim to be confused by the discrepancies between the e-mail they sent me (which is responding to someone else's appeal) and the letter they sent me (which relates to mine).

 

Hopefully they will find it easier to strike this pcn off than admit that they've been sending out confidential information to the wrong person!

[andrew1]

Sounds good to me, Just say it how it is. I think you've had a rough deal and you should say so. Mind you I'm begginning to feel my opinion is faltering given what green and mean is saying so take my advice with caution.

 

3 people a day being caught is not indicative of a signing which is clear. This tiny junction you have been caught in is there to make money, the figures speak for themselves. If the signage was clear then it might be 3 people a week if they were unlucky, but this road Kidbrooke Park Road is but a minor road and used by people either coming to and from the school or into the Blackwall tunnel for work on a regular basis. Other than that it is visitors to the area. The locals would in the main be already wised up to it so it is a honey trap and you should make as much noise as you can about it. Those stats are appalling.

 

I was caught in the new Blackheath village camera having driven around that village for 30 yrs. I never saw the new signs perched above parked cars, sizeable and ugly though they are once I went looking for them, but with all the signs, gadgets like bus sensors on lamposts and shop signs, people walking across roads to the shops and restuarants, cars parked, other traffic moving is it any wonder people are not looking out for new signs?

 

I'm not a bad driver if I do say so myself and I drive with a large quantity of common sense attached to the wheel. Common sense takes us into a driving line, away from people dodging between cars parked and into a safety mode where the road is clear and one is less likely to cause congestion and that's exactly what I have been doing for 30 yrs around this village one way circuit.

 

Since I picked up the bus lane fine, I find myself having to drive in an uncomfortable driving line which has no particular merit in the situation it is in. The camera is there as I have said before, to make money, not in the interest of safety or busses.

 

I'd be more interested in seeing the stats of people and vehicles having been hit by drivers too busy watching out for signage and these daft cameras than I would on how much the council have made as a result.

 

Go for it.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

andrew1,

 

With respect I think you are understating the significance of Kidbrooke Park Road. It is a red route and an "A" road and therefore is not minor. The purpose of this system of restrictions is to keep heavy vehicles off the bridge over the railway.

 

The TFL letter above is I think quite damming. TFL acknowledge that the signage is non-compliant but bleat that there was not enough space to comply. That is not good enough they designed the system and they should explain why they simply didn't swap the locations (so to speak) of the northbound restriction with the southbound.

 

Non-compliance because they couldn't be arsed to figure out a compliant layout is not good enough when the end result is penalties for otherwise innocent motorists.

 

As for the Blackheath Village bus lane. The camera facilities have been there for yonks, its the enforcement that is new (and loads of people have been caught out). That does not take away the ludicrous nature of the bus lane which serves no one well (buses included). Take a look at the Blackheath Society website and see what they say about it.

 

I'd go and take a look at the signage in your shoes.

[andrew1]

andrew1,

 

With respect I think you are understating the significance of Kidbrooke Park Road. It is a red route and an "A" road and therefore is not minor. The purpose of this system of restrictions is to keep heavy vehicles off the bridge over the railway.

 

The TFL letter above is I think quite damming. TFL acknowledge that the signage is non-compliant but bleat that there was not enough space to comply. That is not good enough they designed the system and they should explain why they simply didn't swap the locations (so to speak) of the northbound restriction with the southbound.

 

Non-compliance because they couldn't be arsed to figure out a compliant layout is not good enough when the end result is penalties for otherwise innocent motorists.

 

As for the Blackheath Village bus lane. The camera facilities have been there for yonks, its the enforcement that is new (and loads of people have been caught out). That does not take away the ludicrous nature of the bus lane which serves no one well (buses included). Take a look at the Blackheath Society website and see what they say about it.

 

I'd go and take a look at the signage in your shoes.

 

Kidbrooke Park Road is an A road because it was the end of the main A20, which now is superceded by the very close and widened A2. I accept the necessity for the road to have width restrictions to stop large vehicles for the bridge, no problem with that, but the bridge is not where this bus lane is and if the bus lane was reduced to just that, a bus lane to let busses through and only larger vehicles attempting to bypass the width restrictions fined then I would have every respect for it, but it's not is it?

 

Not quite sure what you mean by looking at the sineage in my shoes. I hope it's a compliment, but I'm guessing it maybe not. I don't mind differeing views, that's what makes the forum what it is, maybe I seek a degree of mild sympathy for being caught up in this police state we have to live in and have had to pay a fine, but I also like to look at the practicalities of these things and the benefits they are supposed to be bringing to a better society to live in. I just don't see in my niaeve way what the purpose of fining people is if it brings no benefit to the actual purrpose of the fine. Okay, I'll keep out of the bus lane and hooray shout the people in the Council and those who agree with them as that's what it is there for - to keep me out, but when you see a quarter of a million £'s raised in 2 yrs money becomes an incentive, not a prevention for safety's sake. I've just finished a 6 mile walk so my walking shoes are okay too... Now I'll pop over to the Society's website and find out what the locals say - thanks for the tip.

[lamma]

"I'd go and take a look at the signage in your shoes."

 

I read to me as -

If I was in your position I would go and look at the signage and take lots of pictures

[andrew1]

"I'd go and take a look at the signage in your shoes."

 

I read to me as -

If I was in your position I would go and look at the signage and take lots of pictures

 

aha, that's a strong possibilty thanks, I didn't think I was being pulled over the coals as the rest of the post was relatively agreeing with me, but I'm open to being shown contrary views and hadn't quite spotted what you say this may mean. Thank you - Of course that's what it means, and my thanks to Bernie. Mind you, I've taken a look at the Blackheath Society website and compared to our campaigning here on cag it is rather mild...LOL

 

I have looked on foot, but I haven't taken photo's yet - I will though. Also on the Society's website it states that the camera should show vehicles parked on the r/h side of the road which is not strictly true as the pictures I received with the fine do not cover that far..digging, that's what I need to do - thanks everyone..I'll ave em! LOL

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Kidbrooke Park Road is an A road because it was the end of the main A20, which now is superceded by the very close and widened A2.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The A2 and the A20 converge at New Cross. They are then entirely two separate roads. The A2 heads in a broadly easterly direction to Blackheath (where it dog-legs a bit) while the A20 goes SE to Lewisham. They are both arterial trunk roads. One does not supersede the other. Kidbrooke park road connects the two just before they both intersect with the south circular.

 

I accept the necessity for the road to have width restrictions to stop large vehicles for the bridge, no problem with that, but the bridge is not where this bus lane is and if the bus lane was reduced to just that, a bus lane to let busses through and only larger vehicles attempting to bypass the width restrictions fined then I would have every respect for it, but it's not is it?

 

I agree that it is not where the bridge is but I see little relevance to that. This is how these restrictions work on bus routes.

 

Not quite sure what you mean by looking at the sineage in my shoes. I hope it's a compliment, but I'm guessing it maybe not.

 

Sorry, I thought that "in your shoes" was a reasonably well known idiom, my mistake if it's not. What I meant by it was that if I was in your position (with the PCN from the Blackheath Village bus lane) I'd be going and studying the signage that is there and comparing it with what should be there to formulate an appeal. That's what I did when I got a PCN in Kidbrooke Park Road. You stand much more chance of success if you do that than complaining about "honey traps" and "police states".

 

[Edit - drafted but not posted until later. In the meantime I see lamma clarified]

[andrew1]

I totally agree Bernie and I don't usually go banging the 'police state' drum although with all the road humps and cameras it's getting to feel a bit that way. I generally stick to facts as that's all you win on at the end of the day not hot angry air.

 

Not that it makes a lot of difference here to argue the transport activity of A20 vs A2 but I have lived here all my life (60 yrs) and I do know the road extremely well. I agree with your description, it is spot on, but the use of the roads have changed over the years and I guess it's that point I relate to rather than the A road/trunk road status the road has.

 

It is busy, The Kidbrooke estate (all be it quieter now since regeneration is going on), the school trips and passing traffic, but it is not as busy as the Westorne Avenue or Sidcup By-pass or even the Eltham Road to which you refer especially after the bridge and bus lane leading up towards the main A2 junction towards the heath. By comparison Kidbrooke Park Road is almost a B road.

 

Someone somewhere decided this was a good place to stick a camera, not for me to reason why, but I still feel the balance of probablities does not weigh heavily on the actual effectiveness of better travel movement, but more towards financial gain although I do understand your very well put reasoning.

 

I'll stick to my Villagebus lane issues as I haven't ever been caught in KPR bus lane, and I hope those caught in KPR manage somehow to get some justice for all concerned.

 

Thanks guys and gals. I'll let you know how I get on.

[green_and_mean]

 

3 people a day being caught is not indicative of a signing which is clear. .

 

I think you will find most red light camera sites catch more than 3 people a day I guess traffic lights must also confuse people? 3 people a day is well below average for a bus lane I would suspect most traffic resitrictions in built up areas even if clearly signed get contravened more than 3 times a day because the Police rarely bother with them and drivers think they won't get caught.

[andrew1]

Green and mean, you make me feel as though I have missed out on a massive slice of life and everything is passing me by unnoticed. I'll try and read the Daily Mail a bit more..

 

Why am I so out of touch???? - Why am I so out of touch???? Why am I so out of touch?????

 

[andrew1]

Seems like a barrister is taking this Blackheath village camera on. In the Evening Standard today following a Freedom of Information Act application, Lewisham Council admit... in 3 months 3742 people caught, £220,000 in fines, just under a £million projected in a year - now tell me this is not about money! It sure as hell isn't about busses.

[Tony P]

Read all Abaht it!

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23913201-bus-lane-camera-that-is-set-to-take-pound-1m-in-fines-from-drivers-this-year.do

 

Although about a mile away, this is NOT the camera/bus lane in this thread.

And a different enforcing authority (Lewisham not TfL).

Edited January 13, 2011 by Tony P

[andrew1]

Read all Abaht it!

 

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23913201-bus-lane-camera-that-is-set-to-take-pound-1m-in-fines-from-drivers-this-year.do

 

Although about a mile away, this is NOT the camera/bus lane in this thread.

And a different enforcing authority (Lewisham not TfL).

 

 

Sorry, that was my fault bringing up the Village camera and I'll stop talking about it so as not to hijack the thread. Apologies.

[Tony P]

I'll stop talking about it so as not to hijack the thread. Apologies.

 

Apologies not needed at all.

Although not specific to this thread, mention of all legal activities concerning other cameras are worthy of note.

 

As you say "It sure as hell isn't about busses."