first mate

Earl, it is disingenuous to use the results of a borough-wide consultation on a raft of issues and interventions, as the counter response to a highly local and issue specific consultation. If you want to understand the views of those living in a specific area on a specific issue, then which route is likely to be more accurate, one which is area cohort and one issue specific, or something much broader, bringing in views from all over the borough?

Are you seriously asking me this? Please cite where I have ever said this?

Again, they waive thousands, as previously pointed out. Most of which were not of the discretionary type I refer to, a point you have deliberately ignored. The thousands you mention were repaid because Southwark literally had no choice as they were down to internal errors and maladministration- a completely different matter. For someone that repeatedly accuses others of twisting, turning and deflecting (as well as lying, of course) you make a pretty good fist of the same.

Earl said "When you drive along, or 'cut across', an active bus lane, you are liable to be fined". You now seem to be shifting your argument. You now accept that Rockets as likely 'cut across' or as he put it, clipped, the bus lane as he turned left. This is pretty clearly an accidental consequence of a manoeuvre to turn into another street. It just feels very different from driving along a bus lane. Yes, a fine is made because cameras cannot exercise discretion, but at appeal the human end can - if they want to. It feels like Southwark will only waive a fine if they absolutely have to; - of course that fits with their stated agenda to make driving as difficult as possible. TFL just seems a more 'human' in its approach. I guess it boils down to whether we think every single accidental infringement of a 'rule' should be punIshed - an £80 fine is not peanuts. Clearly, if you are fanatically anti -car you will celebrate each and every fine as a means towards an end. Others might feel an accidental and momentary lapse should not be treated in the same way as, say clear, deliberate rule- breaking ( so long as that lapse has not caused injury or worse). But in this instance the accidental and the deliberate breach carry the same penalty.

Earl is just relentless; it doesn't matter how many times the person who was fined explains they were not 'caught' driving along the bus lane ( I think they said they drove across it while turning left, clipping the edge of it), Earl will insist that person is lying. They also insisted I was lying when I posted about an upsurge in the numbers of cyclists I had seen cycling carelessly in the area. The reason given that I must be lying was that Earl had not witnessed this, so it could not be true.

I don't think you are miserable; the fireworks 'thing' seems to be growing. It used to be that you knew when they would likely happen and they were relatively rare, two or three times a year, for just one evening each time. Now, not only do there seem to be more and more large organised events, with extremely loud fireworks, even making Halloween a must do fireworks date- but people just seem to randomly let off four or five really loud ones at odd times of the night, for around 6 months of the year. Given the environmental impact, I'd have thought the council might want to encourage use of low noise fireworks at large events. I really, really hope something can be done.

Or be involved in research used by the council;)

Does anyone know what time tonight's events, the second night of the new phenomenon of Halloween Fireworks, end? These do sound too major to be anything but large- scale organised events and they are loud, very loud. So anyone, for their own reasons, that dislikes or objects to this level of noise for the next x amount of hours, really has no choice in the matter! Could those addicted to loud bangs possibly have a kind of silent disco setup with the bangs sent through headphones, so the rest of us could be spared?

Spot on. I also am beginning to think that these threads are populated by a number of people that work with or in council transport/ traffic design.

Again, you indicate a motivation that probably does not exist in most cases, as in 'trying to get away with'. A driver that accidentally and momentarily breaks a rule and then self corrects is not trying to get away with anything. Fines are issued because cameras cannot make discretionary decisions, so an appeals process exists for just that. However, it seems Southwark may prefer to simply stick to camera results- as in black and white. How many of the successful appeals you refer to do not involve incorrect issue or technical/ admin errors by Southwark? It seems like a large slice of the figure you referred to is down to Southwark mistakes in the first place.

No, he is debating a difference in approach by two enforcement bodies and querying that difference, especially when the two roads are so close together. As I said above, like TFL, Southwark could easily resource and undertake a wider discretionary approach instead of choosing a simple black and white, computer says no, option. It is easy to conclude that the option to keep all fines revenue is too attractive.

I believe it is about motivation; an accidental momentary breach of a rule is not the same as a deliberate breach. TFL, rightly in my view, take a discretionary approach and if evidence suggests the breach was momentary and accidental, they waive the fine. Why can't Southwark do the same? They certainly have the money (huge PCN slush fund) to resource this. Someone in an earlier post said they may not have the appetite to review fines and that is the nub of it, I feel. It suits them and means revenue from all fines can be kept. Also breaching the rule is in the first instance decided by a camera, so it has to be black and white, with no shades or grey ( a camera cannot decide if there are extenuating reasons for the breach). The shades of grey has to be a human decision, hence the two stage process, with fine and then appeal.

Again, such loaded language, designed to belittle and play the man and not the ball. It is a difference of opinion. I get where Rocket's is coming from. The inconsistency in approach/ enforcement between TFL and S'wark council is not helpful and you wonder why. Why could S'wark not follow guidelines already set out by TFL?

If it was limited to a couple of days a year, so we all knew, that would be fine. In the last few years (and it is a recent thing) you get random fireworks going off any time after dusk for half the year. It does more than cause problems for pets and wildlife- it can mean lasting damage and massive expense and hassle for pet owners. All because some get a buzz out of loud bangs.

But, since it was not a deliberate action your phrasing and use of words like "caught" and Malumbu's use of "innocence" sounds really loaded. It is beginning to feel like some posters on this thread are in some way involved in how Southwark chooses to manage driving infractions.

Yes, except round here is started in early September, through October, in all that means fireworks season is now 5 months of the year. Again, what is the attraction in startling random bangs. Why do people think this is okay?

So now Halloween is celebrated with fireworks too; the loudest flippin' fireworks some people could find, by the sounds of it.

I had not realised just how involved you are in Council traffic design and enforcement. Some might ask why you have to drive around to check signage etc? They might wonder why you cannot use an e-bike or scooter to do your checks?

But that was not what was being claimed. As I understand it, there can be a 20 m grace area, where TFL exercise discretion as to whether the driver meant to drive through the bus lane or simply clipped it or veered into it momentarily- again, revealing driver intention. Whatever way you cut it, the difference between the TFL policy and that of Southwark, is to enforce clear violations, where a driver is deliberately driving through a bus lane, instead of chasing down every possible opportunity to fine the driver whatever the apparent motivation. I was also surprised by Malumbu's statement that he often turns left at the turning referred to- I had thought he did not drive in London, but cycled or used public transport?

Now who might that be?

I'm a bit confused. I thought you barely drove anywhere in London, but always cycled or used public transport?

I view this as a bit of unnecessary political point scoring. I mean, it's not as if she has more important things on her mind. She should get a rap on the knuckles but resignation? I don't think so. Quite how the Tories have the temerity to point fingers after the shambles and outright corruption that took place over Covid, I really don't know.

My view is that in an ideal world, with camera evidence, motivation is fairly clear. A wheel that touches or encroaches onto the white line momentarily and then immediately moves away is a driver noting and correcting a small error within an equally small timeframe. A fine could be mad, or not, at the discretion of the enforcing body that has the camera evidence. An organisation that is more interested in money made through a technicality is going to choose to pursue the fine; an organisation more interested in rewarding 'good' behaviour might note the driver self corrected and choose not to fine. That is how I see it. I see no reason to disbelieve Rockets' version of what happened.

This is where you lose the debate, in my view. A car wheel touching the outer edge of a bus lane demarcation line is clearly not crossing into the bus lane. That is like stating that someone who accidentally brushed against you while passing, deliberately shoved you. Rockets also states that a TFL operated bus lane a few roads up from the lane under Southwark control, would not elicit the same punitive measures. I wonder why? Could it possibly be that TFL recognise that the car did not cross into a bus lane at all?

Yes, agreed and for those rare, 7% of crashed/incidents 20mph will help mitigate damage but it will have probably have zero effect on the risk taker/criminal driver.