WYorks Scamera Partnership - My turn to see how they respond
Discussion
Ok, so I was a bit bored tonight, but after finding the Highway Code online, thought I would try to do some tiger baiting, to see how West Yorks Scamera Crew respond to a little "Error Correction" from their website.
I thought I would pick on this little number from their "FAQ" section:
www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq-answer.htm?faq=52
Editing the full text (to save space):
"Why can your vehicles park in places that, if I parked there, I would receive a ticket from the Police. In particular I am refering to Asdale Road in Wakefield where the camera van parks on the grass verge at the side of the road but has to drive over a cycle path and a footpath in order to do so."
Their response includes:
"5. It is not a traffic violation to park on a grass verge. If it was, then half the people who park outside their own home would be committing an offence!
5. Similarly, it is not an offence to cross a footpath or cycle path (or how would people park in their own driveways?)"
So I thought I would toss the following into the ring, with my "Pedant" hat firmly in place, and have fired off the following email.......
Upon reading your "FAQ" section, specifically the response to Philip Rowley of Wakefield, who raised the query around the manner of parking of Camera Partnership vehicles, I though I should point out some factual errors and correct a couple of assertions you make in your response.
Firstly, you state "It is not an offence to cross a footpath or cycle path (or how would people park in their own driveways?)"
I would refer you to Rule 123 of the Highway Code, which states "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA sect 34"
Therefore, your assertion that it is not an offence for the Camera Partnership vehicle to cross a cycle path and footpath to reach a grass verge is untrue, as the vehicle was not gaining lawful access to a property, merely using the route to park on a (public) grass verge.
Secondly, you also state that "It is not a traffic violation to park on a grass verge. If it was, then half the people who park outside their own home would be committing an offence!"
This is also an untrue statement, although I admit is does depend on the size of the vehicle, as Highway Code Rule 220 states "Goods vehicles. Vehicles with a maximum laden weight of over 7.5 tonnes (including any trailer) MUST NOT be parked on a verge, pavement or any land situated between carriageways, without police permission. Law RTA 1988 sect 19"
I concede that the Camera Partnership vehicles may not be over the prescribed 7.5 Tonnes, and would no doubt have Police authority, but I thought it only right to clarify the somewhat misleading statement you made in this respect.
Let's see the standard of response we get here, then. Although, based on others' experiences, I'm expecting the usual tirade of abuse.......
I thought I would pick on this little number from their "FAQ" section:
www.safetycameraswestyorkshire.co.uk/faq-answer.htm?faq=52
Editing the full text (to save space):
"Why can your vehicles park in places that, if I parked there, I would receive a ticket from the Police. In particular I am refering to Asdale Road in Wakefield where the camera van parks on the grass verge at the side of the road but has to drive over a cycle path and a footpath in order to do so."
Their response includes:
"5. It is not a traffic violation to park on a grass verge. If it was, then half the people who park outside their own home would be committing an offence!
5. Similarly, it is not an offence to cross a footpath or cycle path (or how would people park in their own driveways?)"
So I thought I would toss the following into the ring, with my "Pedant" hat firmly in place, and have fired off the following email.......
Upon reading your "FAQ" section, specifically the response to Philip Rowley of Wakefield, who raised the query around the manner of parking of Camera Partnership vehicles, I though I should point out some factual errors and correct a couple of assertions you make in your response.
Firstly, you state "It is not an offence to cross a footpath or cycle path (or how would people park in their own driveways?)"
I would refer you to Rule 123 of the Highway Code, which states "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA sect 34"
Therefore, your assertion that it is not an offence for the Camera Partnership vehicle to cross a cycle path and footpath to reach a grass verge is untrue, as the vehicle was not gaining lawful access to a property, merely using the route to park on a (public) grass verge.
Secondly, you also state that "It is not a traffic violation to park on a grass verge. If it was, then half the people who park outside their own home would be committing an offence!"
This is also an untrue statement, although I admit is does depend on the size of the vehicle, as Highway Code Rule 220 states "Goods vehicles. Vehicles with a maximum laden weight of over 7.5 tonnes (including any trailer) MUST NOT be parked on a verge, pavement or any land situated between carriageways, without police permission. Law RTA 1988 sect 19"
I concede that the Camera Partnership vehicles may not be over the prescribed 7.5 Tonnes, and would no doubt have Police authority, but I thought it only right to clarify the somewhat misleading statement you made in this respect.
Let's see the standard of response we get here, then. Although, based on others' experiences, I'm expecting the usual tirade of abuse.......
Alice Cupra said:
Firstly, you state "It is not an offence to cross a footpath or cycle path (or how would people park in their own driveways?)"
I would refer you to Rule 123 of the Highway Code, which states "You MUST NOT drive on or over a pavement, footpath or bridleway except to gain lawful access to property. Laws HA 1835 sect 72 & RTA sect 34"
Therefore, your assertion that it is not an offence for the Camera Partnership vehicle to cross a cycle path and footpath to reach a grass verge is untrue, as the vehicle was not gaining lawful access to a property, merely using the route to park on a (public) grass verge.
Land is property.
Where you have lawful authority to be on public land (the grass verge) you therefore have legal access to it under the Highways Act & Road Traffic Act.
Alice Cupra said:
Secondly, you also state that "It is not a traffic violation to park on a grass verge. If it was, then half the people who park outside their own home would be committing an offence!"
This is also an untrue statement, although I admit is does depend on the size of the vehicle, as Highway Code Rule 220 states "Goods vehicles. Vehicles with a maximum laden weight of over 7.5 tonnes (including any trailer) MUST NOT be parked on a verge, pavement or any land situated between carriageways, without police permission. Law RTA 1988 sect 19"
I concede that the Camera Partnership vehicles may not be over the prescribed 7.5 Tonnes, and would no doubt have Police authority, but I thought it only right to clarify the somewhat misleading statement you made in this respect.
Concede.
An exemption may be granted where deemed necessary, thereby giving lawful authority both to be on the verge & lawful access to it under the of Highways Act or Road Traffic Act.
In many places there is nothing to stop people parking vans on footways or verges unless there are specific prohibition signs (London however has a ban on doing such a thing without exemption).
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 5th December 00:17
The PR guy at WY Scams is a prat. When you point out an error or that his assertions are not backed up even by his own facts you get a tirade of abuse. You have to point out to him that it doesn't look good that he does that before he backs down. I have said to him that maybe PR isn't the right career for him!
telecat said:
The PR guy at WY Scams is a prat. When you point out an error or that his assertions are not backed up even by his own facts you get a tirade of abuse. You have to point out to him that it doesn't look good that he does that before he backs down. I have said to him that maybe PR isn't the right career for him!
Send a copy of any of his abusive answers to the local press.
jasandjules said:
telecat said:
The PR guy at WY Scams is a prat. When you point out an error or that his assertions are not backed up even by his own facts you get a tirade of abuse. You have to point out to him that it doesn't look good that he does that before he backs down. I have said to him that maybe PR isn't the right career for him!
Send a copy of any of his abusive answers to the local press.
Or Paul Smith of Safespeed ( www.safespeed.org.uk ) who has plenty of press contacts.
Ok guys, here's their response (unedited.....)
"There's nothing misleading about our response, as you yourself make
clear in your last statement: "Camera Partnership vehicles may not be over
the prescribed 7.5 Tonnes, and would no doubt have Police authority"."
Bull. Red Rag........
My email just gone back:
Further to my email of Monday 4th December, and your subsequent response of the 5th, I wish to make the following points:
1) Re: Your response.
I find the tone of your response curt, dismissive and somewhat condescending for an organisation who claims to be representing the people of West Yorkshire (of which I am one) in their activities.
2) I contest that your original point IS misleading.
You make an absolute statement that "Parking on a grass verge is not an offence".
This absolute statement is incorrect, as there are circumstances in which is IS an offence, although you do not make this distinction in your response to Mr Rowley.
By way of comparison, If I were to state that "It is not an offence to drive through a red traffic light", this absolute statement is incorrect.
However, if I were to state that "It is not an offence to drive through a red traffic light when instructed to do so by a uniformed Police officer", the statement would be correct.
3) I note that you have conveniently failed to make any reference to the first point made in my email, relating to the offence of crossing a pavement, when the vehicle in question is not gaining lawful access to a property.
I look forward to your further response, which I trust will be more considered and less authoritarian in its content.
"There's nothing misleading about our response, as you yourself make
clear in your last statement: "Camera Partnership vehicles may not be over
the prescribed 7.5 Tonnes, and would no doubt have Police authority"."
Bull. Red Rag........
My email just gone back:
Further to my email of Monday 4th December, and your subsequent response of the 5th, I wish to make the following points:
1) Re: Your response.
I find the tone of your response curt, dismissive and somewhat condescending for an organisation who claims to be representing the people of West Yorkshire (of which I am one) in their activities.
2) I contest that your original point IS misleading.
You make an absolute statement that "Parking on a grass verge is not an offence".
This absolute statement is incorrect, as there are circumstances in which is IS an offence, although you do not make this distinction in your response to Mr Rowley.
By way of comparison, If I were to state that "It is not an offence to drive through a red traffic light", this absolute statement is incorrect.
However, if I were to state that "It is not an offence to drive through a red traffic light when instructed to do so by a uniformed Police officer", the statement would be correct.
3) I note that you have conveniently failed to make any reference to the first point made in my email, relating to the offence of crossing a pavement, when the vehicle in question is not gaining lawful access to a property.
I look forward to your further response, which I trust will be more considered and less authoritarian in its content.
Edited by Alice Cupra on Tuesday 5th December 20:48
Alice Cupra said:
3) I note that you have conveniently failed to make any reference to the first point made in my email, relating to the offence of crossing a pavement, when the vehicle in question is not gaining lawful access to a property.
Land is property.
Where you have lawful authority to be on public land (the grass verge) you therefore have legal access to it under the Highways Act & Road Traffic Act.
vonhosen said:
Alice Cupra said:
3) I note that you have conveniently failed to make any reference to the first point made in my email, relating to the offence of crossing a pavement, when the vehicle in question is not gaining lawful access to a property.
Land is property.
Where you have lawful authority to be on public land (the grass verge) you therefore have legal access to it under the Highways Act & Road Traffic Act.
Except when VH is around and you ain't a scp van. If you live by the letter expect to be JUDGED by the letter.
Oh and here's his response to my last enquiry. He now ignores me because I don't include my Address, inside leg meas=measurement etc.
My Initial response to them stating that a camera on the A64 between Seacroft and Thorner is now in place. By the way it still isn't there.
Apart from the now blatently obvious fact that 90% of your "Fixed" sites obviously don't cut casualties you now are insulting the intelligence of web users by claiming to have a Camera that does not exist!!!! Having said that the start date is the 1st April so maybe the jokes on you! Oh and can we have a "Not a hope" option for SCaN please. That way you might start to get an idea how badly some people want to see you shut down!!
His reply
… Then you, and they… the sad, tiny number of people who feel that speed limits are ok for everyone else but not for them… and in for a serious disappointment. Cameras are here to stay. They work. Almost everybody wants to see more of them because they save lives and reduce casualties on local roads. That’s what people want.
A shame his cameras are on Main roads I have yet to come across one one on a "local" road.
Oh and the recent survey they had on the web site that asked wheater it was a good idea to have Speed cameras in Brighouse or not DID NOT HAVE ANY REPLY BUT "YES IT'S A GOOD IDEA". That's good PR?? Stay on the LAW VH and stay away from PR. You ain't good at it.
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 6th December 00:40
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 6th December 00:58
telecat said:
vonhosen said:
Alice Cupra said:
3) I note that you have conveniently failed to make any reference to the first point made in my email, relating to the offence of crossing a pavement, when the vehicle in question is not gaining lawful access to a property.
Land is property.
Where you have lawful authority to be on public land (the grass verge) you therefore have legal access to it under the Highways Act & Road Traffic Act.
Except when VH is around and you ain't a scp van. If you live by the letter expect to be JUDGED by the letter.
Oh and here's his response to my last enquiry. He now ignores me because I don't include my Address, inside leg meas=measurement etc.
My Initial response to them stating that a camera on the A64 between Seacroft and Thorner is now in place. By the way it still isn't there.
Apart from the now blatently obvious fact that 90% of your "Fixed" sites obviously don't cut casualties you now are insulting the intelligence of web users by claiming to have a Camera that does not exist!!!! Having said that the start date is the 1st April so maybe the jokes on you! Oh and can we have a "Not a hope" option for SCaN please. That way you might start to get an idea how badly some people want to see you shut down!!
His reply
… Then you, and they… the sad, tiny number of people who feel that speed limits are ok for everyone else but not for them… and in for a serious disappointment. Cameras are here to stay. They work. Almost everybody wants to see more of them because they save lives and reduce casualties on local roads. That’s what people want.
A shame his cameras are on Main roads I have yet to come across one one on a "local" road.
Oh and the recent survey they had on the web site that asked wheater it was a good idea to have Speed cameras in Brighouse or not DID NOT HAVE ANY REPLY BUT "YES IT'S A GOOD IDEA". That's good PR?? Stay on the LAW VH and stay away from PR. You ain't good at it.
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 6th December 00:40
Edited by telecat on Wednesday 6th December 00:58
I'm not talking about what PR is on their website, just merely clarifying that they are allowed to cross a footpath etc to get to land on the other side where they have authority to be on that land. That's because land is property & you are allowed lawful access to it under the Highways Act & Road Traffic Act.
Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 6th December 06:46
telecat said:
Oh and here's his response to my last enquiry.
… Then you, and they… the sad, tiny number of people who feel that speed limits are ok for everyone else but not for them…
Hmmm, according to their own online survey, that'll be those who think it is appropriate to break the speed limit when they believe it is safe, then?
Wasn't that "Sad, tiny number of people" somewhere around 80% of those in the poll???
Anyhow, my latest response from Philip Gwynne is:
"Casualty reduction vehicles do not committing an offence (sic!) in the execution of their duties. I'm not sure what else you expect to hear!"
Well, a "Head of Public Affairs" who has a reasonable grasp of the English language would be a start......
Email ping pong time, methinks.......
You're wasting your time talking to West Yorkshire scammers. The "mentally challenged" Mr Gwynne is about as receptive to criticism of "his" site as Hitler was to his policies.
The West Yorkshire site is absolutely littered with factual untruths and inconsistencies. When they are pointed out he flatly rejects them and ignores all other correspondence. I've given up trying to correct the below average IQ scammer employee.
The West Yorkshire site is absolutely littered with factual untruths and inconsistencies. When they are pointed out he flatly rejects them and ignores all other correspondence. I've given up trying to correct the below average IQ scammer employee.
DeMolay said:
You're wasting your time talking to West Yorkshire scammers. The "mentally challenged" Mr Gwynne is about as receptive to criticism of "his" site as Hitler was to his policies.
The West Yorkshire site is absolutely littered with factual untruths and inconsistencies. When they are pointed out he flatly rejects them and ignores all other correspondence. I've given up trying to correct the below average IQ scammer employee.
The West Yorkshire site is absolutely littered with factual untruths and inconsistencies. When they are pointed out he flatly rejects them and ignores all other correspondence. I've given up trying to correct the below average IQ scammer employee.
Never give up Demolay, I know it's like banging your head against a brick wall at times, but if we don't challenge their lies no one will!
Alice Cupra said:
However, if I were to state that "It is not an offence to drive through a red traffic light when instructed to do so by a uniformed Police officer", the statement would be correct.
In point of fact, people have been prosecuted for driving through a red traffic light whilst a police car was behind them with their lights on and siren blowing, instructing them to get out of the way, hence why they went through the red light. If it was not an offence to drive through a red traffic light when instructed to do so by a uniformed Police officer, then why were they prosecuted?
The Hitman said:
Alice Cupra said:
However, if I were to state that "It is not an offence to drive through a red traffic light when instructed to do so by a uniformed Police officer", the statement would be correct.
In point of fact, people have been prosecuted for driving through a red traffic light whilst a police car was behind them with their lights on and siren blowing, instructing them to get out of the way, hence why they went through the red light. If it was not an offence to drive through a red traffic light when instructed to do so by a uniformed Police officer, then why were they prosecuted?
Because rightly or wrongly what you describe is not judged to be an instruction by a Police officer to do any such thing, just as having an ambulance behind you with blue lights & two tones on is not an ambulance driver instructing you to go through the red light (because the ambulance driver has no power to instruct you to do so).
The blue lights are there to facilitate the progress of the emergency vehicle & you should assist in that where you can legally do so.
The Police vehicle behind you can't make a judgement from back there that is safe for you to enter the junction, or assure your safe passage into the junction. Where they are engaged in directing traffic they would have stopped traffic from other directions before calling you through the junction & they aren't doing that in this case.
It isn't IMHO desireable to prosecute someone commiting to a safe action in good faith whilst trying to assist the emrgency services, but each case would have to be treated individually on it's own merits.
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 7th December 06:49
vonhosen said:
The blue lights are there to facilitate the progress of the emergency vehicle & you should assist in that where you can legally do so.
a couple of weeks ago i had an option - allow through 2 police cars with lights and sirens on or use a bus lane, right infront of buslane camera. i stayed put impeding their progress. is using a bus lane illegal? if not then then presumably one is expected to use it and incur the fine.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff