One motorist's victory over £1m traffic spy camera
Discussion
London Evening Standard said:
Motorist's victory over £1m traffic spy camera
David Williams, Motoring Editor 16.10.07
A driver has successfully challenged a notorious traffic camera that is estimated to issue £1 million a year in fines.
The Evening Standard has reported how thousands of motorists have been fined £120 each for making an illegal right turn in Theobald Street, Holborn.
The drivers followed a "left-turn" sign out of Boswell Street into Theobald Street but then almost immediately turned right into Drake Street, unaware the manoeuvre is illegal and they had been trapped by the Camden council camera.
When they received their fines in the post, some simply paid up while others appealed unsuccessfully to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
But now one man has successfully appealed after he compiled a dossier of evidence, including photographs, explaining how drivers like him were being unfairly trapped. IT specialist Matt Briggs was caught at the junction on a family day out and decided to protest.
The 36-year-old from Wandsworth argued he had followed the turn-left sign correctly and after driving a short distance along Theobald Street he made a "perfectly legal" right turn into Drake Street.
His dossier featured photographs of numerous vehicles, including ambulances and black cabs, doing exactly the same thing.
"It's a total scam," said Mr Briggs. "I discovered that between 4pm and 7pm on the day I was done, 26 other vehicles were penalised. The signs are totally misleading."
At appeal, Camden failed to appear. The adjudicator sided with Mr Briggs, saying he had offered "compelling mitigation".
The adjudicator gave the council 14 days to provide evidence supporting the fine but it failed to respond.
"They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on," said Mr Briggs. "They decided to bow out quietly without admitting liability. They knew that if they appeared at the hearing and lost, they would have to close down the cameras and stop fining people. They lost by default and the cameras are still running."
Engineer Mac McCullagh, whose daughter was fined at the same location, today called the camera operation a "con".
In her case, it took a prolonged letter writing campaign before the council finally backed down.
Mr McCullagh said: "Camden's attitude is to bully people by refusing to back down until the last possible moment in the hope they pay up. No wonder - they must be making thousands of pounds a day from this operation."
Camden said today that while it had lost 20 cases at appeal, it had won 91.
"The sign is there to make the road safer, not to raise revenue," said a spokesman, adding that one adjudicator pronounced the signing "clear and unambiguous".
"Our signs are constantly under review to make sure they are clear," he said.
But Mr Briggs said: "The sheer volume of drivers getting it wrong at this junction, including professional drivers, shows that the signing is unclear.
"It would require only the smallest adjustments by Camden - perhaps an additional 'no right-turn' sign or by extending the traffic island in the middle of the road. Why have they failed to do this? Because they want the money."
David Williams, Motoring Editor 16.10.07
A driver has successfully challenged a notorious traffic camera that is estimated to issue £1 million a year in fines.
The Evening Standard has reported how thousands of motorists have been fined £120 each for making an illegal right turn in Theobald Street, Holborn.
The drivers followed a "left-turn" sign out of Boswell Street into Theobald Street but then almost immediately turned right into Drake Street, unaware the manoeuvre is illegal and they had been trapped by the Camden council camera.
When they received their fines in the post, some simply paid up while others appealed unsuccessfully to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service.
But now one man has successfully appealed after he compiled a dossier of evidence, including photographs, explaining how drivers like him were being unfairly trapped. IT specialist Matt Briggs was caught at the junction on a family day out and decided to protest.
The 36-year-old from Wandsworth argued he had followed the turn-left sign correctly and after driving a short distance along Theobald Street he made a "perfectly legal" right turn into Drake Street.
His dossier featured photographs of numerous vehicles, including ambulances and black cabs, doing exactly the same thing.
"It's a total scam," said Mr Briggs. "I discovered that between 4pm and 7pm on the day I was done, 26 other vehicles were penalised. The signs are totally misleading."
At appeal, Camden failed to appear. The adjudicator sided with Mr Briggs, saying he had offered "compelling mitigation".
The adjudicator gave the council 14 days to provide evidence supporting the fine but it failed to respond.
"They knew they didn't have a leg to stand on," said Mr Briggs. "They decided to bow out quietly without admitting liability. They knew that if they appeared at the hearing and lost, they would have to close down the cameras and stop fining people. They lost by default and the cameras are still running."
Engineer Mac McCullagh, whose daughter was fined at the same location, today called the camera operation a "con".
In her case, it took a prolonged letter writing campaign before the council finally backed down.
Mr McCullagh said: "Camden's attitude is to bully people by refusing to back down until the last possible moment in the hope they pay up. No wonder - they must be making thousands of pounds a day from this operation."
Camden said today that while it had lost 20 cases at appeal, it had won 91.
"The sign is there to make the road safer, not to raise revenue," said a spokesman, adding that one adjudicator pronounced the signing "clear and unambiguous".
"Our signs are constantly under review to make sure they are clear," he said.
But Mr Briggs said: "The sheer volume of drivers getting it wrong at this junction, including professional drivers, shows that the signing is unclear.
"It would require only the smallest adjustments by Camden - perhaps an additional 'no right-turn' sign or by extending the traffic island in the middle of the road. Why have they failed to do this? Because they want the money."
Personally i would not even attempt to carry out that maneuver, it is not consistent with good driving practice. The junction was at sometime in the past a crossroads? and the intent of the authority is obviously to prevent traffic from going straight ahead, so to be honest i concur in this respect that the offence is real.
Why is it bad to turn right? It looks like a badly made junction to me. Without knowing the junction and the conditions when he did it, it's impossble to say.
Strikes me as a bit sad though, the the first reaction of many people is to think how we can tighten this up - the assumption that he got off on some underhand technicality, when he should rightly be prosecuted for manouevering safely through an awkward junction.
Strikes me as a bit sad though, the the first reaction of many people is to think how we can tighten this up - the assumption that he got off on some underhand technicality, when he should rightly be prosecuted for manouevering safely through an awkward junction.
Well to be fair I can see several problems with turning right there.
Its the red lanes.
Because of the red lanes anyone using that turning manouvre will block traffic coming from the right.
They also can't drive onto the right turn junction as depicted by the red car graphic as they would be on a red lane again. So they would actually have to feed over to the far lane. Either way anyone using that turn will be at some stage impeding other motorists or breaking another law.
I can't see the fuss.
I would turn left and then take the next available sensible right turn.
Its the red lanes.
Because of the red lanes anyone using that turning manouvre will block traffic coming from the right.
They also can't drive onto the right turn junction as depicted by the red car graphic as they would be on a red lane again. So they would actually have to feed over to the far lane. Either way anyone using that turn will be at some stage impeding other motorists or breaking another law.
I can't see the fuss.
I would turn left and then take the next available sensible right turn.
When it comes to the car, Camden are utter 
s, they dont want you driving in Camden, they dont want you doing business in Camden, what they want in Camden is Italian Bakeries, square lensed glasses and ing art galleries.
Its not illegal, crack on and more people should be taking stands like this.
s, they dont want you driving in Camden, they dont want you doing business in Camden, what they want in Camden is Italian Bakeries, square lensed glasses and ing art galleries.Its not illegal, crack on and more people should be taking stands like this.
Plotloss said:
When it comes to the car, Camden are utter s, they dont want you driving in Camden, they dont want you doing business in Camden, what they want in Camden is Italian Bakeries, square lensed glasses and ing art galleries.
Its not illegal, crack on and more people should be taking stands like this.
Genius. How many times have we said it? If these tossers had ever held a job or vocation outside of state security, they would simply not be such spectacular Stalinists.s, they dont want you driving in Camden, they dont want you doing business in Camden, what they want in Camden is Italian Bakeries, square lensed glasses and ing art galleries.Its not illegal, crack on and more people should be taking stands like this.
Plotloss said:
When it comes to the car, Camden are utter s, they dont want you driving in Camden, they dont want you doing business in Camden, what they want in Camden is Italian Bakeries, square lensed glasses and ing art galleries.
Its not illegal, crack on and more people should be taking stands like this.
Pleased to see that its not just me that thinks Camden is hell-on-earth... s, they dont want you driving in Camden, they dont want you doing business in Camden, what they want in Camden is Italian Bakeries, square lensed glasses and ing art galleries.Its not illegal, crack on and more people should be taking stands like this.
Absolutely right about making a stand though. The more that these things are used against us, the more that the "system" will be abused. We have to ensure that these little Hitlers don't get away with it. Pleased to see that Camden have nothing better to do with their time than penalising drivers - what about giving value for money services and making sure the bins are cleaned and the streets are clean? Oh, sorry I forgot - that's all optional extra now. We pay money to councils so that we can be fined for using the roads we paid for.....
mark69sheer said:
Either way anyone using that turn will be at some stage impeding other motorists or breaking another law.
Not if there was no other traffic going either way at that time. Or if (more likely) the traffic was stopped anyway due to congestion, but with big enough gaps to get through.Impossible to know without seeing it, but I am in principle glad to see someone not getting fined for something when they haven't harmed anyone or damaged any property.
IIRC someone posted the original traffic order on here a year or so ago.
The intention of the compulsory "Turn left" seemed to be, to prevent people turning right against the one-way flow of traffic into the lane where the white van is, at top right of the first photo. The second photo is consistent with that reading of both the order and of the signage pictured.
The infringement people are being fined for, looks more like they've made a legal left turn, immediately followed by a turn which could be considered as either a U-turn in Theobalds road or as a right turn off Theobalds road into Drake Street. It was not clear that either of those were prohibited by the traffic order, or that there was signage to that effect.
The intention of the compulsory "Turn left" seemed to be, to prevent people turning right against the one-way flow of traffic into the lane where the white van is, at top right of the first photo. The second photo is consistent with that reading of both the order and of the signage pictured.
The infringement people are being fined for, looks more like they've made a legal left turn, immediately followed by a turn which could be considered as either a U-turn in Theobalds road or as a right turn off Theobalds road into Drake Street. It was not clear that either of those were prohibited by the traffic order, or that there was signage to that effect.
Rob-C said:
IIRC someone posted the original traffic order on here a year or so ago.
The intention of the compulsory "Turn left" seemed to be, to prevent people turning right against the one-way flow of traffic into the lane where the white van is, at top right of the first photo. The second photo is consistent with that reading of both the order and of the signage pictured.
The infringement people are being fined for, looks more like they've made a legal left turn, immediately followed by a turn which could be considered as either a U-turn in Theobalds road or as a right turn off Theobalds road into Drake Street. It was not clear that either of those were prohibited by the traffic order, or that there was signage to that effect.
exactly what i was thinking .seen this one before .The intention of the compulsory "Turn left" seemed to be, to prevent people turning right against the one-way flow of traffic into the lane where the white van is, at top right of the first photo. The second photo is consistent with that reading of both the order and of the signage pictured.
The infringement people are being fined for, looks more like they've made a legal left turn, immediately followed by a turn which could be considered as either a U-turn in Theobalds road or as a right turn off Theobalds road into Drake Street. It was not clear that either of those were prohibited by the traffic order, or that there was signage to that effect.
Regardless of the technicalities of this case, whose ever idea it was to give councils the right to do enforcement via camera should be put up against the wall and shot. Round our way, we now have a Smart car with a periscope, the sole purpose of which is to drive round filming 'parking infringements' and issuing tickets at £100 a go.
My brother recently got one from this thing for parking on the pavement, which was easily wide enough for 2 cars let alone pedestians, at a point in the road where there is a bend and to park completely in the road would cause an unnecessary obstruction and restrict visibility. Technically an infringement, but practically the sensible thing to do.
My brother recently got one from this thing for parking on the pavement, which was easily wide enough for 2 cars let alone pedestians, at a point in the road where there is a bend and to park completely in the road would cause an unnecessary obstruction and restrict visibility. Technically an infringement, but practically the sensible thing to do.
The requirement is to proceed in the direction of the arrow. If you haven't done that you commit the offence.
It's a badly marked junction which could benefit from a kerbed island to clarify matters, although that would prevent the free passage of emergency vehicles. I believe the actions will contravene the sign in the vast majority of occasions. The problem comes from camera enforcement because there will be opportunities to make that manoeuvre entirely safely, and other times where it's going to seriously hold up traffic.
It's a badly marked junction which could benefit from a kerbed island to clarify matters, although that would prevent the free passage of emergency vehicles. I believe the actions will contravene the sign in the vast majority of occasions. The problem comes from camera enforcement because there will be opportunities to make that manoeuvre entirely safely, and other times where it's going to seriously hold up traffic.
iaha said:
Here's another pic of the same junction. It looks pretty well signed to me.
Agreed. This isn't the junction which was discussed on here before, or at least isn't the junction discussed that I'm thinking of. In that case the signage was definitely ambiguous.However in both that case and in this one that jink left and right is not a manouevre I would perform.
However it's been overturned, so as vh says, more street furniture. :-(
Some of the signs are already obscured.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff