Caught by Camera - Alleged moving traffic violation
Discussion
Bri957 said:
Signs can be seen here.
It is not a bad piece of road now, just means people have to give way....which can be an issue in S.London.
No!?
Think of the children...
Dwight VanDriver said:
Would the friend have proceeded after being waved out from a red light?
The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
Hi DVD. I sort of agree with the red light point but what if the other driver broke down/ran out of petrol etc, do we wait until he gets going again. I said to go and check the signage, as I cant see from the photo but I would be surprised if Lambeth haven't covered all the bases.The pinch SHOULD have been preceeded by Sign Diagram 615 - Priority MUST BE given to the vehicle from the opposite direction. As such it is a specified sign for the purposes of Section 36 Road Traffic Act 1988 - which states an offence not to comply.
Interesting is that the offence is excluded from Schedule 2 Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 - the punishment for failing to conform to traffic sign attracts not only points but penalty points. The punishment in this case being under Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 - failing to comply with the order authorising its presence. This brings it within the decriminalisation aspect so that LA's can take action and issue PCN.
There was such a sign wasn't there?
There is a Traffic Regulation Order by LA covering the proshibition?
dvd
PS Never rely on hand signals.......
Technically a traffic sign that has to be obeyed remains so until such time as it is unlawful.
If a light is at red then one should wait or put a bag over the light - no longer lawful.
There is an Irish civil case of some years standing that if it appears defective then OK to proceed WITH CAUTION.
So if bloke at t'other end had broken down and was in the same predicament he could have turned the sign around or friend action as above re red light. But to me there is no suggested that t'other had broken down.
dvd
o
~*~
If a light is at red then one should wait or put a bag over the light - no longer lawful.
There is an Irish civil case of some years standing that if it appears defective then OK to proceed WITH CAUTION.
So if bloke at t'other end had broken down and was in the same predicament he could have turned the sign around or friend action as above re red light. But to me there is no suggested that t'other had broken down.
dvd
o
~*~
Bri957 said:
It is not a bad piece of road now, just means people have to give way....which can be an issue in S.London.
Definite improvement with the "calming" imho. I think the scamera Smart is the same one that was by the new entrance to Streatham Common & annoyed everyone that got caught on the yellow box junction. The lights may have been faulty but the box hasn't moved.......oldsoak said:
In my view..Give Way today means 'Nip out quick before the other guy' Much the same as 'give Priority to oncoming vehicles' means 'Get through before the other guy does'
Very few want to slow down for ANYTHING never mind a little tin sign and a chicane.
agreed, the chicane is seen as a driving challenge and we all become Lewis Hamilton for a few seconds (not me you understand Very few want to slow down for ANYTHING never mind a little tin sign and a chicane.
)Dwight VanDriver said:
Technically a traffic sign that has to be obeyed remains so until such time as it is unlawful.
If a light is at red then one should wait or put a bag over the light - no longer lawful.
There is an Irish civil case of some years standing that if it appears defective then OK to proceed WITH CAUTION.
So if bloke at t'other end had broken down and was in the same predicament he could have turned the sign around or friend action as above re red light. But to me there is no suggested that t'other had broken down.
dvd
o
~*~
Yes I dont think there was any suggestion of a breakdown but my brother may contend that he was proceeding with caution.If a light is at red then one should wait or put a bag over the light - no longer lawful.
There is an Irish civil case of some years standing that if it appears defective then OK to proceed WITH CAUTION.
So if bloke at t'other end had broken down and was in the same predicament he could have turned the sign around or friend action as above re red light. But to me there is no suggested that t'other had broken down.
dvd
o
~*~
By the way you're not suggesting that the public can put bags over lights that are not working are you?
i'm sure I know some broken speed cameras somewhere.Gerry Breen said:
Mr_annie_vxr said:
Gerry Breen said:
Hello forum. My brother's just received a penalty notice (code 37) for not giving way to oncoming traffic. He was initially a bit confused about this but then remembered when it happened and that the person he allegedly didn't give way to had actually waved him on. Not sure if he has a defence as I dont have photo of his "offence" but its a bit off especially when you look at the attached website which is where he got done. Anyone else had a similar experience here or elsewhere?
http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/
the conspiracy theorists might postulate that someone from the council could be employed to be the oncoming vehicle (at £50 a time) but I couldnt possibly subscribe to that.
Never heard of anyone getting done for that. From the pic can he get details of the other driver ? They would surely back up his version of events. Got to be honest i'm shocked that they are dealing with this. Is it the police or council?http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/
the conspiracy theorists might postulate that someone from the council could be employed to be the oncoming vehicle (at £50 a time) but I couldnt possibly subscribe to that.
Parrot of Doom said:
Thats not just 'zooming in' - all of the cars have clearly moved between the 2 images.
No, but what is clear from the pictures on the site posted above is that they are making use of the perspective compressing effect of a telephoto lens to make the cars look closer together than they actually are.Hi all,
My name is Jonathan Greatorex and I set up the website in question. Someone emailed the link to this to me over on mini2.com.
I just wanted to clarify the position about the two photos referred to above:
and
The issue with these two pics is that these shots were taken at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (14:41:41). The cars HAVE NOT MOVED, but the image has been foreshortened by altering the focal length (the zoom on their camera moves extremely quickly) and the cars appear far, far closer together!!!
There's a more in-depth explanation on it on this page of the site, here: http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/image_fore...
One other interesting photo is this one of the CCTV camera car, SERIOUSLY illegally parked:
Unbelievable isn't it?
Cheers for now,
Jonathan
My name is Jonathan Greatorex and I set up the website in question. Someone emailed the link to this to me over on mini2.com.
I just wanted to clarify the position about the two photos referred to above:
and
The issue with these two pics is that these shots were taken at EXACTLY THE SAME TIME (14:41:41). The cars HAVE NOT MOVED, but the image has been foreshortened by altering the focal length (the zoom on their camera moves extremely quickly) and the cars appear far, far closer together!!!
There's a more in-depth explanation on it on this page of the site, here: http://www.greatorex.org/lambethparking/image_fore...
One other interesting photo is this one of the CCTV camera car, SERIOUSLY illegally parked:
Unbelievable isn't it?
Cheers for now,
Jonathan
Edited by JGX on Friday 29th June 15:27
Edited by JGX on Friday 29th June 15:28
The local councillor issued this press release:
CALL FOR A STOP ON UNFAIR FINES
AS LAMBETH COUNCIL CAMERAS ROLL
The recently built pinch point on Salters Hill has become notorious for creating “give way” offences and generating penalty notices for unsuspecting motorists. According to Councillor Graham Pycock, “This restriction may have slowed down the traffic at a dangerous point, which is what we wanted. However, the council’s camera cops are regularly there to generate penalty notices and revenue. The alleged offences are based upon dubious camera long-shots and take no account of speed.”
“This is legalised mugging and these motorists are victims not villains. Meanwhile a yobs’ army of the untaxed, unregistered and uninsured drivers never has to pay these fines. Lambeth Council, like the government, is tough on honest motorists and soft on cheats. It is grossly wrong that the council is prosecutor and judge on technical offences which only exist because the council itself created the camera trap.”
“I will request that the use of mobile enforcement cameras on Salters Hill is reviewed, alongside a review of the effect of the pinch point itself. We want safer roads not unfair fines.”
Fair play to him. . . We can only hope that the net will start to close on these thieves. . .
JGX
CALL FOR A STOP ON UNFAIR FINES
AS LAMBETH COUNCIL CAMERAS ROLL
The recently built pinch point on Salters Hill has become notorious for creating “give way” offences and generating penalty notices for unsuspecting motorists. According to Councillor Graham Pycock, “This restriction may have slowed down the traffic at a dangerous point, which is what we wanted. However, the council’s camera cops are regularly there to generate penalty notices and revenue. The alleged offences are based upon dubious camera long-shots and take no account of speed.”
“This is legalised mugging and these motorists are victims not villains. Meanwhile a yobs’ army of the untaxed, unregistered and uninsured drivers never has to pay these fines. Lambeth Council, like the government, is tough on honest motorists and soft on cheats. It is grossly wrong that the council is prosecutor and judge on technical offences which only exist because the council itself created the camera trap.”
“I will request that the use of mobile enforcement cameras on Salters Hill is reviewed, alongside a review of the effect of the pinch point itself. We want safer roads not unfair fines.”
Fair play to him. . . We can only hope that the net will start to close on these thieves. . .
JGX
Edited by JGX on Friday 29th June 16:21
Edited by JGX on Friday 29th June 16:21
Why don't you just do the obvious thing and only pass the pinch point when the road is clear? That way no amount of camera work can lead to a fine.
At the end of the day it has made the road a lot safer. It may delay journeys by 1 minute, but thats not the end of the world.
Cheers
Bri
At the end of the day it has made the road a lot safer. It may delay journeys by 1 minute, but thats not the end of the world.
Cheers
Bri
Bri957 said:
Why don't you just do the obvious thing and only pass the pinch point when the road is clear? That way no amount of camera work can lead to a fine.
At the end of the day it has made the road a lot safer. It may delay journeys by 1 minute, but thats not the end of the world.
Cheers
Bri
Seem to think you have missed the whole point of the thread.At the end of the day it has made the road a lot safer. It may delay journeys by 1 minute, but thats not the end of the world.
Cheers
Bri
The OP is stating, and evidence appears to support that vehicles and drivers are passing when clear.
It is the misuse of camera lens, angle and photo cropping that is being used to falsely charge people that is the issue.
Bri957 said:
Why don't you just do the obvious thing and only pass the pinch point when the road is clear? That way no amount of camera work can lead to a fine.
At the end of the day it has made the road a lot safer. It may delay journeys by 1 minute, but thats not the end of the world.
Cheers
Bri
What constitutes 'clear'? A vehicle 50 yards away? 100 yards? 150 yards? 500 yards?At the end of the day it has made the road a lot safer. It may delay journeys by 1 minute, but thats not the end of the world.
Cheers
Bri
Errm, with respect Bri you've missed the point entirely! The issue is that people ARE stopping at the give way point. The problem is that the give way point is far away from the pinch point and what happens is that when you pass the give way point, the road is clear, then a car comes around the corner and Lambeth take a photo of you (having LEGALLY passed the give way point when the road was clear) going around the pinch-point NOT at the give way point.
It's best demonstrated in the film that the BBC took of it. Look carefully at the film at 11 seconds and between 14 seconds. You see me well past the give-way point on the road when another car comes around the corner.
See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no...
It's best demonstrated in the film that the BBC took of it. Look carefully at the film at 11 seconds and between 14 seconds. You see me well past the give-way point on the road when another car comes around the corner.
See here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/no...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff