Jump to content

Beware new bus lane camera on Lordship Lane near junction of Overhill Road


Recommended Posts

....it's pinging anyone who even puts one wheel inside the bus lane as they turn left onto Overhill.

TFL guidance is that they give you 20 metres or four car lengths grace if turning left into a junction across a bus lane but Southwark are not using that and issuing fines for the slightest infraction.

Southwark's manta seems to be....If You Touch The Line You Get A Fine and a lot of people are falling foul of it as the gap from the solid bus lane line and the hash marks for the pedestrian crossing is really small (interesting that Southwark did not put a broken line ahead of the junction which some are suggesting is deliberate to create a revenue-generating fine hot-spot).

  • Like 2

Absolutely. Clearly the council has laid a revenue-generating trap and I bet it is raking it in. The ludicrous thing is that if you did the same at the junction of Underhill 100 metres further up the road TFL would not have a problem with that. How are drivers supposed to know when there is no consistency?

How can councils be allowed to set their own rules, over-zealously police it to levels not matched by TFL and not then admit it is about targetting drivers for revenue-generation?

Edited by Rockets
  • Agree 1
  • 2 weeks later...
2 hours ago, malumbu said:

Wow yet another thread demonising Southwark and putting drivers first.

No Malumbu,  a thread highlighting how Southwark council makes it's own rules in the pursuit of generating revenue from motorists and ignores the guidance set by the authority responsible for roads in London - namely TFL.

Why do you think Southwark does that? I will tell you why, because I know you will never answer, because they do it to maximise the revenue generated by such cameras. 

Southwark Council is laying traps to generate revenue from drivers. In fact, they are entrapping drivers in their pursuit of revenue generation.

It was this sort of behaviour that people were concerned about when the power to police was handed over to local authorities- that they would abuse the power they had been given and it is quite clear they are doing exactly that. 

Happy to discuss but I have a sneaky feeling you won't want to....

Edited by Rockets
  • Like 1

You only pay if you drive in a bus lane.  The level of discretion is up to the enforcement body,  If you have a problem then complain to the enforcement body, go through their complaints process/ombudsman, your MP or the Transport Secretary,  Much better use of your time.  Then report back.

Have you ever been fined for driving in a bus lane? I have, and whilst I grumped about it at the time as it was near to the end, I learned from the experience, and now avoid driving in bus lanes.  Helps that I rarely drive.

Malumbu, when you drove in a bus lane were you 20 metres or four car lengths from the end of the bus lane and turning left into a junction off the bus lane? If so TFL would rescind any fine as they would deem that OK as you were turning left. 

Southwark Council says it is not OK and if you touch the line you get a fine.

Why do you think that might be? 

  • Agree 1

Just because you are only fined if you 'break the rules' doesnt mean they arent also 'revenue-generating traps' - see also thread about bus gate fines in school holidays. Of course you could follow the rules and avoid the fines but why are they fining drivers in the school hols when the hours the bus gates apply clearly imply that they are there to restrict term time traffic. 

Whether you think they are justified or not them is the rules so perhaps move onto an issue where you can make a difference.  You are whistling in the wind on this, ULEZ, CPZs, LTNs etc.  Unless Reform get in, in 2029.  God help us all.... 

But you have to agree that the powers given to local authorities to issue PCNs for things like bus lane and yellow box infringements does seem to be being abused so they can generate more revenue from drivers. Does it not? Is it not slightly odd that TFL rules say one thing and Southwark rules say another…..100 metres further up the road and TFL rules apply….how on earth are motorists supposed to know whose rules apply and at what point….it’s utter madness….like the yellow line rules which always were easy to understand until local authorities were allowed to determine their own rules.

Such high revenue generating traps are clearly being laid to catch unsuspecting motorists and using them for revenue generation to fund vanity projects like Dulwich Square. The positioning of the camera at that junction suggests the council knows exactly what it is doing and has designed it to catch people turning left onto Overhill.

it is utterly shameful and someone really needs to be held to account. The fact that TFL gives some limited leeway for those turning left across a bus lane and the council doesn’t speaks volumes - just 100 metres up the road different rules apply….

 

When the rules set are unfair and do not reflect rules of a similar authority which allow e.g. legal turns into side streets with normal safe driving behaviour then they are designed not to penalise illegal activity but to raise revenues in ways not common or normal, or, actually possibly, legal. Cars are not designed, or safe, to make 90 degree (right angle) turns, which is what is required here if you are to proceed 'in the rules'. 

  • Like 1

The rules are that you don't drive in a bus lane. There is a sign stating that it's in operation at all times and that there are enforcement cameras. It is not difficult to turn left without entering the bus lane, there is plenty of room to turn. Unless you're trying to squeeze pass cars on the left to save time, there is not really any reason to enter the bus lane.

It sucks to get a fine, but not difficult to avoid.  

Picture1.png

...also, are these cameras new? I believe there has always been enforcement cameras on this spot. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Agree 1

Earl, Overhill junction not Underhill...you've used a picture from the Underhill junction.

That's the TFL one at the junction of which probably explains why the bus lane finishes 4 car lengths or 20 metres ahead of the junction.

Now compare it to the one at the council revenue trap at the Overhill junction....you see the difference?

Two junctions 100 metres apart but two very different intentions from the authorities managing them...one is road management the other revenue generation.

P.S. thanks for helping illustrating my point for me!

You're quite right! I thought you were talking about a different junction.

Looking at the Overhill one, the bus lane does run much closer to the junction, although the turn is also easier / at less of an acute angle

image.thumb.png.65fc62f455ef78fd8c52a3628c59ed1a.png

Still very difficult to see how one would need to, or could accidentally enter the bus lane when turning left. 

Not sure the photo above is 

On 23/12/2024 at 17:06, first mate said:

Proof, if proof were needed, that it is all about making money

Again, it sucks to get a fine, but not difficult to avoid. 

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 2

At a guess, cars looking to turn left may, based on other experiences of taking a left turn across a bus lane area, expect a longer line free area before the junction. Harder to judge in lower light. The key point made earlier by Rockets is that at this particular left turn you do not have to enter the bus lane to get a penalty, your vehicle wheel just needs to touch the white line.

On 23/12/2024 at 13:58, Rockets said:

....it's pinging anyone who even puts one wheel inside the bus lane as they turn left onto Overhill.

Always the case that if you enter a bus lane you are liable for a fine. this is not specific to this bus lane. 

On 23/12/2024 at 13:58, Rockets said:

TFL guidance is that they give you 20 metres or four car lengths grace if turning left into a junction across a bus lane but Southwark are not using that and issuing fines for the slightest infraction.

My understanding is that there  are no definitive rules for the termination of a bus lane in advance of a left turn into a side street. Each site is considered on an individual basis dependent on the site-specific circumstances. But more importantly, Tfl guidance only applies to tfl managed roads. The relevant question is why you think it is not possible to turn comfortably into the side road without entering the bus lane?

On 23/12/2024 at 13:58, Rockets said:

Southwark are not using that and issuing fines for the slightest infraction.

You think that TFL don't issue fines for similar 'infractions'?

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

At a guess, cars looking to turn left may, based on other experiences of taking a left turn across a bus lane area, expect a longer line free area before the junction. Harder to judge in lower light.

You think people can't see the bus lane?

19 minutes ago, first mate said:

The key point made earlier by Rockets is that at this particular left turn you do not have to enter the bus lane to get a penalty, your vehicle wheel just needs to touch the white line.

You think this is the key point? Does Tfl ignore people crossing into a bus lane if they only do it a little bit? I think this thread is likely just about Rockets getting a fine entirely avoidably and not taking it on the chin.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
4 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

Each site is considered on an individual basis dependent on the site-specific circumstances

Don't you mean according to what extent the council think people can be suckered into getting fines?  For you to put someone that drives close to a white line, into the same category as someone that drives up a bus lane is interesting.

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

Don't you mean according to what extent the council think people can be suckered into getting fines? 

No I don't. The side road is not at a right angle to the main road. It is very easy to make that turn and there is absolutely zero reason to cross into the bus lane.

8 minutes ago, first mate said:

For you to put someone that drives close to a white line, into the same category as someone that drives up a bus lane is interesting.

I haven't done that have I. No one has claimed that Southwark are issuing fines for driving close to a white line, but rather for crossing the white line (another way of saying, driving in in the bus lane). My guess is that people are being fined for moving into the lane before turning. Likely to squeeze pass cars on the left, make the turn sooner and save time

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
33 minutes ago, Earl Aelfheah said:

You think that TFL don't issue fines for similar 'infractions'?

But TFL, as you so aptly demonstrated with your original picture, give cars turning a good distance to do so without infraction upon the bus lane.

 

So the question is, who do Southwark not do the same? You keep telling us that these measures are not about revenue generation yet in a 100 metre stretch of road we see two very different approaches - one of which is clearly designed to catch drivers infringing. And one where the council has decided to strategically place a camera. I bet that spot is a big revenue earner for the council, catching people clipping the bus lane as they turn left into Overhill, especially during times of queuing traffic.

More money for their vanity projects like the Dulwich Square LTN to keep their local cheerleaders happy!

 

Edited by Rockets

Thanks for posting the picture Earl.  I've cycled on this piece of road 100s of times.  I've driven on it too.  The only drivers I have seen in it were doing this on purpose so I welcome the camera.  Absolutely no issue with turning left here without touching the bus Lane.  You'd only do this if you cut the corner on the junction, and/or were speeding.  Poor driving and you'd fail your test for not being able to control your vehicle. Really don't understand the fuss. 

Edited by malumbu
  • Agree 1

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

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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