Jump to content

New camera installed at the top of Copleston Road / Oglander road SE15


trinidad

Recommended Posts

Hello All,


I thought I would warn drivers who drive into Copleston Road, and then drive through the no entry signs into Oglander Road, not too.


Southwark Council or TFL have installed a camera at the start of Copleston road this year. No one consulted the residents, just install a camera and let the money come in!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Righty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good - I'm delighted by this. I think we should

> have more cameras generally.

>

> Only a problem if you break the rules.


Presumably you'd agree to one installed in your front room, pointed at you then? As long as you don't break any rules...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Presumably you'd agree to one installed in your

> front room, pointed at you then? As long as you

> don't break any rules...


That clearly would a violation for your privacy and covered by article 8 of the HRA. Being filmed in public breaking the law for the sole purpose of law enforcement would not I would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Righty Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Good - I'm delighted by this. I think we should

> have more cameras generally.

>

> Only a problem if you break the rules.


Of course You have broken the rules,

you just don?t know it yet :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

henryb Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Presumably you'd agree to one installed in your

> > front room, pointed at you then? As long as you

> > don't break any rules...

>

> That clearly would a violation for your privacy

> and covered by article 8 of the HRA. Being filmed

> in public breaking the law for the sole purpose of

> law enforcement would not I would say.



He wants 'more cameras generally'.


I'll send him a copy of 1984.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought it is next to impossible to turn right into Oglander from that little bit of Copleston anyway given the way the paving is built out to shape the corner. Even if you manage it that end of Oglander is one way. Not sure how many cars/vans the camera will catch unless it is specifically for scooters/mopeds doing the right turn or coming down Oglander and over the paving...neither of which I can recall seeing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not aware of conducting any illegality (criminal or civil) in my living room - though this is besides the point as HenryB ably points out.


The point is that if you drive your car over the limit or into a section of road that is marked as not for entry, then I think it reasonable to expect some form of enforcement to take place.


Otherwise what's the point of the law/rules regarding speed limits/road entry?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly think that it would, eventually, get a lot of dodgy drivers off the road - yes.



PeckhamRose Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So there should be cameras at every junction,

> traffic light, one way system, at the point of

> every instruction sign, every bus lane, cycle

> lane, and you seriously think that would improve

> things?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that enforcement of 'reasonable' laws (OK, matter of definition) is one thing, but where local authorities engineer the roads and enforcement to drive a revenue stream (in London this has certainly happened with some box junctions and short traffic light cycles) then 'break the law and you pay the price' doesn't look so compelling. An area of considerable problem is the extension of bus lanes to only a car's length before a permitted left turn - knowing that any early lane adjustment is a technical infringement, even where the only impact is to unblock traffic not wishing to turn left. Local authorities can create legal, but wholly unreasonable, road topologies which then become nice little earners. And, in many cases, do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The issue is that enforcement of 'reasonable' laws

> (OK, matter of definition) is one thing, but where

> local authorities engineer the roads and

> enforcement to drive a revenue stream (in London

> this has certainly happened with some box

> junctions and short traffic light cycles) then

> 'break the law and you pay the price' doesn't look

> so compelling. An area of considerable problem is

> the extension of bus lanes to only a car's length

> before a permitted left turn - knowing that any

> early lane adjustment is a technical infringement,

> even where the only impact is to unblock traffic

> not wishing to turn left. Local authorities can

> create legal, but wholly unreasonable, road

> topologies which then become nice little earners.

> And, in many cases, do.



So why do some people seem to be especially prone to being caught out, whilst others sail through their lives without getting a single ticket?


Most people only get caught out once!


And on box junctions, please; if you can't see a way out of it, don't go into it. No excuse unless you get deliberately cut up in one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brilliant! 4,472 drivers who for some reason entered the box without checking to see if they could get out the other side.


"The Highway Code states drivers should only enter a yellow box if their exit is clear, or blocked only by oncoming traffic if they want to turn right. "


How hard is that rule to follow?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Penguin68 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The point was that the box was so large, and the

> timing of the lights so quick, that it wasn't

> possible to clear the box. 2 Police cars were also

> caught by this. And, please note, the box junction

> was changed because it was seen as being

> unreasonable.


The fact that 2 police cars were caught is irrelevant. The timing of the lights and the size of the box is completely irrelevant.


The fact that 4,472 drivers entered a box when they could not get out of the other side is relevant. Why did they go into the box when they could see they couldn't get out on the other side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did they go into the box when they could see they couldn't get out on the other side? Their option was simply parking up in the middle of the street, because they were unable (at any time) to go forward. The box junction was never clearable - there was never enough time to cross (without excessive and dangerous acceleration). It had been set up to raise revenue. (The lights were phased so that you could only advance when cars in the next section were stopped; if you waited for them to move off so that you could cross and exit the box, then the lights would already have changed against you).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Traffic Light, Box, space for one or two cars, Traffic Light, Box. As long as you (The Management) ensure that the first lights are green only when the second lights are red there is never sufficient time (except in the late evenings when there is no waiting traffic) to cross over the first box and get into a non boxed area. So, unless you travel into the first boxed area and wait (illegal) until the second lights change to green and the held-up traffic ahead of you moves on you will never progress. People behind you hoot when you don't move on green, so you do, get snapped and fined. Simples.


Edited to say - and no, this never happened to me - I don't drive into the City in day-time, so this isn't sour grapes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Just had a carpets cleaned by Steve Nourse and his colleague at short notice. They are lovely guys and the cleaning was quick and carpets look great. Good value. 
    • Looking for tickets for 2 adults one child under 2 and one child over 2. However, please let me know if you have any combination of tickets you are no longer able to use.  Thanks 07756110500
    • all I said was "take a pro cash stance too far" - what twisting have I done?   plenty of good arguments for retention of cash - but let's not get too detached from reality either lest we go back to trading livestock   But to go back to your post DD:   "Or don't stop using cash" Yep plenty of people will agree with this - nothing controversial here   "Stop using your phone or even your watch as a banknote" - getting a bit weird now - why not - it's super convenient for both users and businesses. And far easier to keep a track of your balance using your electronic wallet than old systems of cheques taking days to clear, how much did I take from cashpoint 2 days ago etc. But people will differ so whatever works   "God only knows how much damage we're doing to the planet because all the above must require a hell of a lot of resources and juice from the grid" - big straw man argument here. Why bring this in? Unless you are also suggesting we don't buy any goods not made from within a 5 mile radius and nothing transported by air or sea? "a big lump of plastic with a screen and full of personal information that can be easily gleamed." I've had my phone stolen but nothing was lost because it was secure.I've been mugged and lost cash and valuable. It's not a binary thing   "your sky rocket with a phone in your hand. It's become a source of dopamine for many. It's an addiction for many."  Proper overreaching now There is a reason people like their modern phones - and it isn't just replacing cash. Replacing all of these functions in a tiny device is a magnificent achievement and to just boil  it down to "big lump with a screen" is reductive in the extreme  
    • I agree with the posts that housing is an urgent need in Peckham and throughout Southwark. But as Alice says, it’s the percentage of social / affordable housing that matters. In October last year, there were over 4,200 households on the Council’s waiting list for housing in Peckham alone (over 17 thousand across Southwark). But the developer is only offering 35% affordable housing (which means that 65% will be unaffordable). Both Southwark Council and the GLA say that a big development like this should provide 50% affordable housing.   Re-development of the site is a great opportunity to make the town centre “cleaner, safer and more sustainable and welcoming” (borrowing Nigello’s great words). Is this dense development going to do that, when it provides no real green and open space where people can spend time outside and nature can help us tackle the growing problems of climate change like absorbing flood water, cooling the air on baking summer days? Are 7-storey buildings along Rye Lane (where the average buildings are 2-3 storeys) going to be welcoming to users of the town centre? How will the development impact on Peckham’s economy? Currently there is busy daytime commercial activity of shops providing for different demographics and needs including a rich offering of international groceries and other products, alongside a thriving night-time economy. I can’t see anything in the proposal that suggests how it will enhance and empower the local economy. Yes please, let’s have a great development on this site that enhances the town centre. This means not letting the developer get away with packing people into dense blocks that turn their back on the town centre and which will be a recipe for urban decay in the long run. Peckham deserves better than this!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...