Aldgate triangle

It appears that they have decided to totally screw up the Aldgate gyratory system. Basically, they have taken what was three lanes in each direction and reduced it to two or even one. The land that was previously road is used instead for enormous pedestrian islands complete with numerous new pedestrian crossings and traffic lights. Some new open space is also made available for local tramps and juvenile delinquents to get drunk in while the employed are at work or trying to sleep.

Presumably the rationale is to increase traffic congestion as much as possible (in the supposed interests of pedestrian safety and better amenities for the local pissheads community) in order to make driving an even more miserable experience than it is at the moment, in the hope that people will give up and walk. But I thought that Ken Livingstone had moved on? Must be a legacy project…

Labels: driving, london

Westminster Council

Presumably incensed by people sucessfully appealing wrongfully imposed charges for parking motorcycles in motorcycle bays, Westminster Council are apparently now going to change the rules so that they can just charge people for parking motorcycles in motorcycle bays.

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Camden Council

I see that there is another article by David Williams in the Evening Standard about the Boswell Street camera over which I went to war with Camden Council. I too lodged an appeal. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Tribunal eventually ruled in my favour, but only on the grounds that Camden had “lost” the video evidence by the time that the hearing came around and that I had done enough in my submissions to convince the adjudicator that one photograph alone could not be sufficient evidence to substantiate a moving violation of this nature (in the adjudicator’s words, whether or not one has “turned left” is a “question of fact and degree”).

It is interesting that in the case described by latest article, the driver’s defence appears to have been based on producing evidence that lots of other people commit the same violation, so the signs must be unclear (i.e. a mitigating factor), rather than the defence that I attempted to run (i.e. that no violation had occured at all because the sign had been complied with). My (in retrospect probably over–ambitious) argument was:

1. in these circumstances, you HAVE turned left (the Penalty Charge Notice offence here is actually “failure to drive in the direction shown by a blue sign”) provided that you don’t turn right (the identical type of blue arrow sign on a mini–roundabout is a good analogy);
2. this argument is bolstered by the fact that in performing the allegedly infringing manoeuvre, you have not travelled the wrong way along ANY of the streets designated as one–way by the London Traffic (Prescribed Routes)(Holborn) Regulations 1963, which is the statutory instrument imposing the one–way system that the that the signs on Boswell Street are supposed to be implementing.

Although he found in my favour based upon lack of evidence, the above argument was rejected by the adjudicator (despite 45 minutes of attempting to convince him!) but principled reasons for the rejection were not articulated.

So where does this leave us? The latest article states that Camden has apparently lost 20 of these cases at appeal, but won 91. Because decisions of the PTAT do not set precedent, Camden will no doubt leave everything as it is, continue to send out hundreds of tickets, of which a small fraction will appeal, of which about fifth or so will win (good preparation and a coherent argument of whatever nature probably being the determining factor).

Therefore, this remains a fantastic gravy–train for Camden until someone takes it to the High Court, which does set precedent, and demonstrates that Camden is wrong — either on the basis that the existing signs are unclear and unfair, or (less likely) that there is no offence being committed here at all. If only 20% of appeals to the PTAT succeed at the moment, and hundreds of tickets are issued a month, I would be led cynically to suggest that Camden is likely to go out of its way to avoid a case on this camera ever getting that far…

Labels: driving, london

Speed cameras

Watch out for these new indestructible speed cameras. Complete with camoflage, apparently. I am looking into the statement that there has been a change in the rules meaning that speed cameras no longer have to be painted yellow…

Update 30/08/07: It appears that the absolute requirement for yellow paint on speed cameras fell away some time ago, in April 2007. I don’t recall any great fanfare about that. I had certainly missed it.

Labels: driving

Footway parking

It seems that I am not the only one fighting the London councils on their petty parking tickets. Unfortunately for this guy, having taken it all the way up to the High Court, he had his over–literal interpretation of the wording of the infringement rejected by Lord Justice Moore–Bick and found himself liable to pay some 100 parking tickets plus costs.

I believe that I have fallen foul of the prohibition in question myself. It sounds very much like Penalty Charge Notice Code 62, which prohibits parking on the pavement. Only in London is there this general prohibition on parking on the pavement. Elsewhere, parking on the pavement is allowed unless specifically prohibited or an obstruction is being caused. This means that on a reasonably wide pavement out of London, you are usually OK to park a motorcycle, but in London you will get a ticket if a warden passes by.

It sounds like this bloke must have run a defence based upon a literal interpretation of the wording of the infringement, which is “Parked with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)”. Because his bike was up on the stand, with both wheels off the ground, I assume he argued that there was no infringement. However, the judge apparently decided that the “motorcycle can quite properly be said to be parked on the pavement, even if neither wheel is directly in contact with it”.

As a matter of interpretation, that is clearly the only common sense approach. Otherwise, one could park on the pavement with impunity by jacking the car up, or even by making sure that there was a sheet of newspaper under each tyre. Still, one has to admire the balls of this guy for running up a hundred parking tickets (£10 grand’s–worth) and fighting all the way up to the High Court based upon his conviction that such a technical defence would suceeed.

Incidentally, my own route to seeking to get off was to obtain plans from the Land Registry in the hope of showing that, although parked, I was not “on any part of an urban road” but rather on private property. Sadly, the plans availed me not on that occasion, showing that the wall against which I was parked marked the limit of the private land, so I decided to pay up at the 50% discount for early settlement and live to fight another day.

Labels: driving, law, london, motorcycles

Speed camera

Got flashed by this very sneaky speed camera when I went out to Canary Wharf today. My own fault for not spotting it, but this illustrates the dangers of driving to places to which you do not usually go. If you’re coming out from underneath Canary Wharf, just after you filter into the Limehouse Link tunnel, watch out for this one, because it is not obvious until you see the white lines on the road and it’s too late. Unless you are a bad driver and take the spot of tarmac 20ft in front of your vehicle as your focal point when driving through a tunnel. A long 14 days waiting for the ticket now begins.

Update:No ticket so far. Starting to think I got away with it (28/06/07).

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Camden

Got home tonight to judgment on the Camden Penalty Charge Notice. I got off (hurray!) but only on the basis that a week before the hearing, Camden had written to me and the tribunal indicating that the video evidence had been ‘misplaced’. The adjudicator rejects my legal arguments as to why a hypothetical turn out of Boswell Street, around the traffic island and into Procter Street would not amount to “failure to drive in the direction shown on a blue sign” anyway, but states that since this is a question of ‘fact and degree’ he cannot be satisfied from just the still photograph on the PCN that I could not have turned left as directed, so has to let me off. So the decision preserves Camden’s ability to continue to shaft people for this so–called contravention, but they’ve thrown me back on this occasion due to lack of evidence.

It is as one might have expected. I suppose that the adjudicator was never going to topple the status quo regarding whether or not this is legally a contravention. You would probably need a legal challenge in the High Court to do that, with the inherent risk that you would lose and face the attendant liability for Camden’s costs. But if the adjudicator had found against me on the facts on the material before him, for a “moving violation” without any moving pictures or witness evidence, a judicial review application would not have seemed out of the question. Everyone’s a winner, I guess. It occurs to me that if the Evening Standard article was right about this camera making £12,000 per day for Camden, it would be well worth Camden spending £1m fighting all the way to the House of Lords to maintain their right to fine people for this manouevre. I remain of the opinion that this sort of thing is an example of how this country is going to the dogs, with London in the vanguard.

A win is still a win though. Yippee!!!!!!!

Labels: driving, london

Camden

Had the appeal against the Boswell Street penalty charge notice this morning. Lasted a hard–fought 45 minutes. The adjudicator reserved judgment to be delivered in writing at a later date, so I will make no further comment as to how it went for the time being.

Labels: driving, london

Speeding

So the House of Commons Transport Committee wants to limit the speed of motorcycles because they are dangerous and cause pollution.

Sounds fair enough, you might say. What is the possible justification for a vehicle being able to go over 70mph when that is the maximum permitted speed? The trouble with this is that it is an accepted part of living in a free country rather than a police state that many of the laws are drafted in a draconian way on the understanding that it is in fact perfectly acceptable to break them whenever you like as long as you don’t take the piss.

However, it has now become technologically possible to enforce many more of the laws absolutely than in the past. GPS in every car, linked to speed limit map and engine management system could prevent people from ever breaking the speed limit. Maximum speed limits at the top end could be just the beginning. They’ve already banned guns on an arguably shakier premise (in that despite its potential to be used for unlawful reasons, a gun can at least also be used for lawful reasons: there is no lawful reason for a road–licensed vehicle to do more than 70mph).

More and more CCTV cameras go up in London every day and before long it will be possible to nick and send out fixed penalties to each and every person who at any time commits a parking offence, traffic violation, piece of bad driving, or who spits gum on the floor or has a smoke when it’s raining in a “semi–enclosed area to which the general public habitually has access” (bus shelter). What’s the problem: if people aren't supposed to do it, they should expect to get punished for it. The problem is that it’s not how this country has historically worked and absolute law enforcement of relatively minor laws is absolutely an encroachment on day–to–day freedom.

Labels: driving, motorcycles, UK politics

Apparently, Westminster suck slightly less than Camden

Westminster has backed down, although not with a great deal of good grace. Their letter kindly explains the rules for me:

“The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours. The notes made by the Parking Attendant at the time of the contravention show that the vehicle was parked on double yellow lines.

Yellow lines, at the edge of the road, means that there are parking restrictions in force, which apply to the whole length and width of the road, apart from designated parking places, such as parking bays [my emphasis]. These have their own restrictions, which are displayed on associated signs and instruction plates.

On this occasion only, your Representation has been accepted, and the PCN and Notice to Owner has been cancelled”.

So given the fact that my vehicle was clearly parked in a designated parking place exactly as they describe and that therefore to the PCN was issued entirely without justification, their stance is that they are kindly prepared to let me off the “contravention” just this once. Nice of them. Still, the right result. Now, just Camden to deal with.

Labels: driving, london

Westminster suck even more than Camden

Wankers! Westminster Council have rejected my written representations as well! Unlike Camden, Westminster give no reasons for the rejection, but jump straight to the increased fine and threats of bailiffs. I know they say that you should beware a war on two fronts, but I thought this one was a slamdunk. I am going to have to appeal it. What a bloody waste of time, though. I think it’s a disgrace.

Labels: driving, london, motorcycles

Camden

Well, Camden have rejected my written representations about the penalty charge notice, so I must either pay up or appeal to the independant adjudicator. In two minds. £50 for an easy life or stand on principle?

Update: The guy in the comments is right. It’s not about the money or the hassle, but is rather a question of civic duty to stand up against unfairness in the State/citizen relationship. Appeal papers have been filed. I will probably live to regret this.

Labels: driving, london

Arghh!

Just got another Penalty Charge Notice today, this time affixed to my motorcycle by Westminster Council. I must say that I am at a loss as the the basis upon which this one is to be justified, given that I was parked in what appeared to be a designated motorcycle bay, which showed no sign of having been suspended:

On this occasion, I was actually parked a quarter of a mile away from where I wanted to be, on the basis that I was attempting to park in a “legal” parking spot. I am starting to wonder about whether or not it is even worth trying to obey the law.

Update: The bay I parked in appears to be listed on Westminster Council’s own website.

Labels: driving, london

Over-regulation on the roads

Should the amount of traffic lights on the roads be reduced? I say yes. There has been a steady increase in the number of junctions around where I live in London to which lights have been added and my impression is that most of the time it clogs the roads up and slows everything down. When driving outside of rush hour, frankly, I’d be tempted to ignore the lights and drive on where safe to do so, if it wasn’t for the fact that in many cases these days some wanker will have been stationed by the local council to watch my actions via a 24–hour camera and send me a £100 fine.

On a related note, TFL’s Road Safety Advisor, Jenny Jones was on BBC breakfast this morning having a pop at 4x4s in London. She did a good job of confirming my suspicions that TFL contains a fair number of irrationally prejudiced, interfering gits. Her basic argument was that 4x4s are unnecessary and that “PEOPLE NEED TO REALISE THAT THEY’RE JUST NOT ACCEPTABLE”. She did not have a sensible answer to arguments that 4x4s take up no more road space than do a lot of cars and are no more polluting, that the feeling of safety for which Londoners supposedly purchase them in fact has a solid basis in the statistics and that the real problem is actually goods vehicles, which take up much more space and produce a third of all pollution from vehicles, not to mention being noisy and damaging roads inadequately designed for their use.

My response to Ms Jones would be that everything beyond breathing and bare subsistence could be said to be unnecessary and, assuming that civilization is about more than the merely necessary, what is actually unacceptable is the government, the council and TFL steadily increasing the number of restrictions, obstructions, prohibitions, penalties, taxes, tolls and charges in the way of law–abiding citizens in a free country without reasoned, genuine justification.

Labels: driving, london

Camden Council

Just got back from a three night short break skiing in Austria (not much snow, but enough for two full days snowboarding) to find that Camden Council have caught me again on one of their evil 24–hour real–time video monitors (operator 1576!) and sent me a £100 Penalty Charge Notice. A google search suggests that I am not the first person to be caught by this camera, which according to the linked Evening Standard article makes an estimated £12,000 a day for the Council! Nothing appears to have changed in terms of the road layout or the signage since the article in 2005. It seems from the evidence therefore that this is a money–making scheme, undertaken with malice aforethought by the Council, to tempt people into committing what a reasonable man would not realise was an offence so that fines can be levied. That is wrong and makes me cross. It is not appropriate for what is supposed to be a public service to act as a highway robber, extracting unjust tolls with menaces on those passing through its territory. If Camden Council needs more money to fund its services, it should raise the council tax (sorry, Camden residents) or procure more funds from central government. The employment of men and women to raise funds by watching these 24–hour real–time cameras and sending out penalties leaves an extremely bad taste in my mouth.

Labels: driving, london