Appeal declined - ticket for unloading in loading bay?!

[budfox]

Surely a punishment is meant to fit the crime, and not to help pay for the cost of enforcing that crime.

If the cost of enforcement is a factor then why would someone being pulled over by a police officer for speeding received the same fine should they have been caught by a camera?

[supermono]

Hol said:

But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?

"realize"... Being American you don't know that our UK councils make vast sums of money fleecing people like the OP for doing absolutely nothing contrary to the sense of the restriction. Unfortunately though our country is awash with complete morons who are quick to support them, the same morons support the wholesale industrial scale speeding tickets from camera vans believing it makes the roads safer.

You are also mistaken about the money funding "enforcement teams" (gimps I like to call them), whilst they have employed vast numbers of faceless gimps to run the extortion costing loads I'm sure together with installing all the video equipment for them to hide behind, the money they rake in yields vast profits hence the minister (lawmaker) wanting to put a stop to the whole miserable business.

[Phatboy317]

Any law or rule which is enforced to the letter whilst ignoring the spirit, is a bad law, or made that way by said enforcement.
This is really no different in principle to the schoolroom bully, who gets away with it because he can.

[98elise]

catman said:

It seems to me that they are saying that in their view, dropping off a passenger and their luggage doesn't constitute loading.

The sign means (in their view) loading of a commercial vehicle.

Tim

That's how I see it, however I can't see why stopping for 1 minute to drop of passengers should get a ticket. It was an area designed for stopping, so not causing any problems.

[g3org3y]

Hol said:

g3org3y said:

My suggested model is for camera operators to use a modicum of common sense.

Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?

If you can do it cheaper, then fair-dos.
But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?

I am not overly supportive of my excess tax money being used to-offset somebody who thinks that the world owes them more than the next 99people.
I would rather it went to the people who genuinely needed the extra care or benefit in order to survive - thank you.

If you disagree, then perhaps you can pay the difference on the one-percenters behalf??

Still serious? I love your thinking though. Cost is ok as this will pay for better and more sophisticated ways of myself being caught and fined for minor/negligible misdemeanours.

Do you really think the £130 fine is commensurate with the offence?

Do you really think the £130 is just enough to cover costs.

Did the council do enough on their sign to define 'loading'? Is the average member of the public supposed to know this?

Council parking fines are one of their most lucrative sources of income. On numerous occasions they have been demonstrated to not play by the rules, issue inappropriate tickets (even illegal tickets) and generally be a law unto themselves.

[tenpenceshort]

98elise said:

That's how I see it, however I can't see why stopping for 1 minute to drop of passengers should get a ticket. It was an area designed for stopping, so not causing any problems.

London has a space problem. Local authorities quite rightly try to ensure the roads are overwhelmed as little as possible (which in London is a tough job). Venues that attract a large number of visitors typically have limited or no parking.

With the above in mind, it's a valid policy decision to discourage use of cars when visiting particular venues. London has a very efficient public transport system to substitute.

Secondly, the level of the fine needs to be sufficient to discourage disobedience. Set it too low and people will take a risk and the fines simply become a revenue stream, which defeats both the law and the purpose.

[Fastdruid]

tenpenceshort said:

98elise said:

That's how I see it, however I can't see why stopping for 1 minute to drop of passengers should get a ticket. It was an area designed for stopping, so not causing any problems.

London has a space problem. Local authorities quite rightly try to ensure the roads are overwhelmed as little as possible (which in London is a tough job). Venues that attract a large number of visitors typically have limited or no parking.

With the above in mind, it's a valid policy decision to discourage use of cars when visiting particular venues. London has a very efficient public transport system to substitute.

Secondly, the level of the fine needs to be sufficient to discourage disobedience. Set it too low and people will take a risk and the fines simply become a revenue stream, which defeats both the law and the purpose.

It's already a revenue stream, from this posted previously:

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10915510/Ban-on-CCTV-parking-fines-for-unwitting-motorists.html said:

But councils warned that they would have less money to invest in road repairs and subsidised bus travel.

[tenpenceshort]

My understanding is that the money collected by such schemes has to be used on transport investment and cannot be used to fund other things or build a profit.

[Fastdruid]

tenpenceshort said:

My understanding is that the money collected by such schemes has to be used on transport investment and cannot be used to fund other things or build a profit.

And I'm sure it is but of course by a bit of creative accounting it can go elsewhere.

eg suppose the subsidised bus costs 1m per year, by taking 500k from the "fines" which are going "entirely" to transport there is now 500k that can be spend elsewhere.

[tenpenceshort]

Again, my understanding is the monies are ringfenced to prevent such pilfering.

[Hol]

g3org3y said:

Hol said:

g3org3y said:

My suggested model is for camera operators to use a modicum of common sense.

Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?

If you can do it cheaper, then fair-dos.
But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?

I am not overly supportive of my excess tax money being used to-offset somebody who thinks that the world owes them more than the next 99people.
I would rather it went to the people who genuinely needed the extra care or benefit in order to survive - thank you.

If you disagree, then perhaps you can pay the difference on the one-percenters behalf??

Still serious? I love your thinking though. Cost is ok as this will pay for better and more sophisticated ways of myself being caught and fined for minor/negligible misdemeanours.

Do you really think the £130 fine is commensurate with the offence?

Do you really think the £130 is just enough to cover costs.

Did the council do enough on their sign to define 'loading'? Is the average member of the public supposed to know this?

Council parking fines are one of their most lucrative sources of income. On numerous occasions they have been demonstrated to not play by the rules, issue inappropriate tickets (even illegal tickets) and generally be a law unto themselves.

I don't park where I already know i shouldn't so I couldn't really care less how high the fine was for the small minority of people who don't give a fk about inconveniencing other people. Because I ain't one of them - thank you.

I'm really surprised that after passing their test that you really believe some people don't know where you should or should not park and that everybody should give them a 'test go' before, until they 'realise'

If you and Supermofo think the fines are too high, then don't park there.
That's what the vast majority of people do.

Edited by Hol on Tuesday 26th August 11:13

[Hol]

supermono said:

Hol said:

But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?

"realize"... Being American you don't know that our UK councils make vast sums of money fleecing people like the OP for doing absolutely nothing contrary to the sense of the restriction. Unfortunately though our country is awash with complete morons who are quick to support them, the same morons support the wholesale industrial scale speeding tickets from camera vans believing it makes the roads safer.

You are also mistaken about the money funding "enforcement teams" (gimps I like to call them), whilst they have employed vast numbers of faceless gimps to run the extortion costing loads I'm sure together with installing all the video equipment for them to hide behind, the money they rake in yields vast profits hence the minister (lawmaker) wanting to put a stop to the whole miserable business.

American??? Right!!.... Good one

And all people hate speed cameras, so it's a bit desperate to try and tie their lame supporters to people who don't get fines just because they DO park correctly and can read a sign.

[Timsta]

Hol, you do realise that this had nothing to do with parking, don't you. You should probably go park that horse of your's.

[Hol]

There's no high horse, just because I have no sympathy for people lose at Russian roulette.

They took a risk, and they lost.


In terms of cost for a civil servant...

£35,000 for annual salary
£7,000 for pension contribution. (Min)
£5,000 for premises, rent, office infrastructure etc.
£x,000 for sick leave and holiday/pointless union training courses

If you ignore the cost of any CAPITA type system fleecing of the public purse to create any ANPR interface and then supporting it under an annual contract, then you have at least £47,000 per year for a bum on a seat.

220 working days, makes that £30 a man hour minimum, just for the lowest level civil servant - just to do the eyeball part of the admin, including the cases they don't take forward.

The mailing house they use for the fines will charge £5+ for the postage/printing etc, as all of that will also be tightly controlled and triple checked to make sure the right person is fined.



If they only fine for one in three cases. at £130 a pop, it's hardly a money spinner if.

[g3org3y]

Hol said:

g3org3y said:

Hol said:

g3org3y said:

My suggested model is for camera operators to use a modicum of common sense.

Do you genuinely think £130 is reasonable for such a misdemeanour? You were suggesting it should be higher?

If you can do it cheaper, then fair-dos.
But, you realize that the fine is used to offset the cost of the enforcement team having to exist?

I am not overly supportive of my excess tax money being used to-offset somebody who thinks that the world owes them more than the next 99people.
I would rather it went to the people who genuinely needed the extra care or benefit in order to survive - thank you.

If you disagree, then perhaps you can pay the difference on the one-percenters behalf??

Still serious? I love your thinking though. Cost is ok as this will pay for better and more sophisticated ways of myself being caught and fined for minor/negligible misdemeanours.

Do you really think the £130 fine is commensurate with the offence?

Do you really think the £130 is just enough to cover costs.

Did the council do enough on their sign to define 'loading'? Is the average member of the public supposed to know this?

Council parking fines are one of their most lucrative sources of income. On numerous occasions they have been demonstrated to not play by the rules, issue inappropriate tickets (even illegal tickets) and generally be a law unto themselves.

I don't park where I already know i shouldn't so I couldn't really care less how high the fine was for the small minority of people who don't give a fk about inconveniencing other people. Because I ain't one of them - thank you.

I'm really surprised that after passing their test that you really believe some people don't know where you should or should not park and that everybody should give them a 'test go' before, until they 'realise'

If you and Supermofo think the fines are too high, then don't park there.
That's what the vast majority of people do.

That chap stopped to let a passenger off for 1 minute.

OP:

motoroller said:

I stopped in the loading bay outside Earls Court tube station, to drop off a passenger and their luggage (2 large bags and a carrier bag). As it was a loading zone, I thought that unloading would be permitted.

Your vehicle entered the red route loading bay at 21:12 and was continuously observed until its point of exit at 21:13. During this period, no activity that could be construed as loading was observed. Occupying a loading without loading or unloading constitutes a contravention.

It's not a case of a 'test go' it's a case of the punishment being commensurate with the crime.

1 minute (literally) in a loading bay is not worthy of £130 fine.

As we've discussed above, even PHers were unsure as to what exactly constituted 'loading'.

It's not like the chap parked up on double reds for 20 mins!

[motoroller]

Hol said:

There's no high horse, just because I have no sympathy for people lose at Russian roulette.

They took a risk, and they lost.


In terms of cost for a civil servant...

£35,000 for annual salary
£7,000 for pension contribution. (Min)
£5,000 for premises, rent, office infrastructure etc.
£x,000 for sick leave and holiday/pointless union training courses

If you ignore the cost of any CAPITA type system fleecing of the public purse to create any ANPR interface and then supporting it under an annual contract, then you have at least £47,000 per year for a bum on a seat.

220 working days, makes that £30 a man hour minimum, just for the lowest level civil servant - just to do the eyeball part of the admin, including the cases they don't take forward.

The mailing house they use for the fines will charge £5+ for the postage/printing etc, as all of that will also be tightly controlled and triple checked to make sure the right person is fined.



If they only fine for one in three cases. at £130 a pop, it's hardly a money spinner if.

This is some of the most backwards logic applied to a governmental role. Local government really doesn't work this way, it's not as clear-cut as "x job paid for by y". The government doesn't work the same way as a small privately-run business.

Even if it did, I'd wager that the number of fines issued outnumbers the number of civil servants linked to their processing in many areas in the country.

Let's not even start on whether or not the number of civil servants in this country is sensible.

g3org3y said:

It's not a case of a 'test go' it's a case of the punishment being commensurate with the crime.

1 minute (literally) in a loading bay is not worthy of £130 fine.

As we've discussed above, even PHers were unsure as to what exactly constituted 'loading'.

It's not like the chap parked up on double reds for 20 mins!

Hear, hear! So far we've figured out that the offence was probably that the main unloading was of a passenger, and that the goods unloaded were not enough to constitute loading. We're not even 100% sure of this. No-one was inconvenienced because the roads were quiet and I stopped in a place that was designated for stopping - in the dark it can be difficult to read signs like this. I wonder if stopping and then simply moving off again would have had the same penalty...

[Hol]

The road outside that station is double reds, apart from the loading by outside some shops.

The sign says, (outside the CO OP)


RED ROUTE

No Stopping at Any Time

Except
Loading Max 20mins
(Logo of a man with a sack barrow)



It's not a huge leap of faith to think, that maybe you are not supposed to drop off passengers?


It's also something that could be included as part of the driving test....
https://www.learnerdriving.com/learn-to-drive/high...


The OP was unlucky to get caught. But as ai said in an earlier really.

It's a lesson learnt.

[John145]

Hol said:

The road outside that station is double reds, apart from the loading by outside some shops.

The sign says, (outside the CO OP)


RED ROUTE

No Stopping at Any Time

Except
Loading Max 20mins
(Logo of a man with a sack barrow)



It's not a huge leap of faith to think, that maybe you are not supposed to drop off passengers?


It's also something that could be included as part of the driving test....
https://www.learnerdriving.com/learn-to-drive/high...


The OP was unlucky to get caught. But as ai said in an earlier really.

It's a lesson learnt.

Only lesson learnt is ambiguity is the weapon of choice.

Removing anything from a vehicle is unloading a vehicle regardless of whether it is commercial, private or charitable.

[motoroller]

Hol said:

The road outside that station is double reds, apart from the loading by outside some shops.

The sign says, (outside the CO OP)


RED ROUTE

No Stopping at Any Time

Except
Loading Max 20mins
(Logo of a man with a sack barrow)



It's not a huge leap of faith to think, that maybe you are not supposed to drop off passengers?


It's also something that could be included as part of the driving test....
https://www.learnerdriving.com/learn-to-drive/high...


The OP was unlucky to get caught. But as ai said in an earlier really.

It's a lesson learnt.

If we want to be pedantic about it, technically the road markings there should be red, not white, based on your link.

Google Maps shows it to clearly be marked in white
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.491887,-0.192498...

The road markings are inconsistent with the sign.

[mph1977]

Hol said:

There's no high horse, just because I have no sympathy for people lose at Russian roulette.

They took a risk, and they lost.


In terms of cost for a civil servant...

£35,000 for annual salary

half that for the average EO post outside London, 35 k is for graduate / professionally qualified managers or where a ring fenced Police COnstable is part of a team

Hol said:

£7,000 for pension contribution. (Min)

see above assuming the role is eligible for the LGPS final salary scheme

[quote]
£5,000 for premises, rent, office infrastructure etc.

fair enough

Hol said:

£x,000 for sick leave and holiday/pointless union training courses
[/quote}

leave and sickness is included in the the salary figure given above, unless you are freferring to the ratre occaisions where a member of staff on long term sickness is removed from establishment before their few months of OSP is exhausted ( certainly in the NHS and as I understand it most of the public sector apart from the military - anyone on sick leave for over a year is getting paid NOTHING by the employer just ESA - as SSP entitlement will have been exhusted 6 months after the full pay OSP period ends )

training is incorporated into the staffing calculations for establishment setting , but then again it's generally also the same in the private sector and sometimes considerably more generous as desirable (to professional development) training can be accessed using the study leave budget rather than essential to service training that fits into the 2- 3 % of total hours allocated to training .

so come back when you have a clue rather than pulling figures out your arse