Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think that little white car with the camera on a pole sits outside The Cheese Block pointing its camera at the junction opposite just up the road. I noticed that people turning left into the side street tend to start their turn (when they are in the right lane - the left being the bus lane) a few yards before the actual side street and they presumably then get a ticket for moving momentarily into/across the bus lane. They are not actually driving along the bus lane but crossing diagonally over it rather than at right angles when they get level to the side street. I have never seen a bus in the lane at the particular point and I doubt whether they could ever go in it just there because of the position of cars parked on LL near to that junction. From what I could make out it looks like a complete con. I have no sympathy for motorists that choose to break the law or park where they shouldn't or who drive along bus lanes, but it looked to me like people were being targeted (and presumably fined) for doing something that (1) they didn't even realise they were doing wrong and (ii) was in a real sense trivial and neither dangerous or anti-social/obstructive.

dulwichbloke Wrote:

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

> like people were being targeted (and presumably

> fined) for doing something that (1) they didn't

> even realise they were doing wrong and (ii) was in

> a real sense trivial and neither dangerous or

> anti-social/obstructive.


Ignorance is no defence in law. Highway Code is a requirement. Bus lanes have broken lines for turning at such junctions. What you described sounds like corner cutters and so law breakers. Bus lane abuse holds up hundreds of people.

I have. 'Unlurked' - I agree with some of the bl**ding obvious which you just stated, but not the last part. What is in the picture (and what I saw several times with my own eyes) could never rationally or properly be described as bus lane 'abuse'! THe vehicles were in no way blocking or obstructing anything (buses or anything else) or driving dangerously. The reason that white car spends so much time at that spot is because it is a cash cow - drivers clearly don't think they are doing anything wrong so they are easy prey.


If you don't quite understand what I am (perhaps inelegantly) describing, go and take a look some time - you will see what I mean and you will probably see the little white car! I bet if the Council disclosed the proportion of tickets given at that precise spot it would be a disproportionate number of the overall tickets in the ED area.


Oh, and for the record, I have never been nicked there so have no axe to grind and I am a daily cyclist not a car commuter. I just hate to see the Council cynically ripping people off for doing something so trivial or without even realising they were doing wrong. It sucks! Saying the Highway Code must be obeyed doesn't for excuse taking advantage of a situation such as this.

dulwichbloke Wrote:

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

> I have. 'Unlurked' - I agree with some of the

> bl**ding obvious which you just stated, but not

> the last part. What is in the picture (and what I

> saw several times with my own eyes) could never

> rationally or properly be described as bus lane

> 'abuse'! THe vehicles were in no way blocking or

> obstructing anything (buses or anything else) or

> driving dangerously. The reason that white car

> spends so much time at that spot is because it is

> a cash cow - drivers clearly don't think they are

> doing anything wrong so they are easy prey.

>

> If you don't quite understand what I am (perhaps

> inelegantly) describing, go and take a look some

> time - you will see what I mean and you will

> probably see the little white car! I bet if the

> Council disclosed the proportion of tickets given

> at that precise spot it would be a

> disproportionate number of the overall tickets in

> the ED area.

>

> Oh, and for the record, I have never been nicked

> there so have no axe to grind and I am a daily

> cyclist not a car commuter. I just hate to see

> the Council cynically ripping people off for doing

> something so trivial or without even realising

> they were doing wrong. It sucks! Saying the

> Highway Code must be obeyed doesn't for excuse

> taking advantage of a situation such as this.



Doh! Lets see, where would the best place to locate a traffic enforcement camera car be? I know, somewhere where drivers keep breaking the law. It's bleeding obvious.

One corner cutter will lead to two etc etc and the bus lane will be blocked.

I FOI'd for a list of the bus lane offences on Lordship Lane for last 12 months by date and time. Please see attached.


Shows 621 people given bus lanes tickets on Lordship Lane of whom 3 given after 10am. Amazingly one in the evening - I hope they appealed and didnt pay. On reflection I should have asked for that. Guess the argument for all bar one would be the car was parked in the bus lane before 10am but it takes a few moments to issue a ticket.


So is the bus lane clear?

Is it necessary?

Unlurked. You obviously haven't seen the spot I was referring to which is why you appear to have no idea what you are talking about. Suggest you go and have a look then form an opinion. If 50 people 'cut' the corner the lane would not be blocked.

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

    • Per Cllr McAsh, as quoted above: “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution. " Is anyone au fait with the Clean Air Act 1993, and  particularly with the state of 'Smoke Control' law and practice generally?  I've just been looking  through some of it for the first time and, afaics, the civil penalties mentioned  were introduced into the Clean Air Act, at Schedule 1A, in May 2022.  So it seems that, in this particular,  it's a matter of the enforcement policy trailing well behind the legislation.  I'm not criticising that at all, but am curious.  
    • Here's the part of march46's linked-to Southwark News article pertaining to Southwark Council. "Southwark Council were also contacted for a response. "Councillor James McAsh, Cabinet Member for Clean Air, Streets & Waste said: “One of Southwark’s key priorities is to create a healthy environment for our residents. “To achieve this we closely monitor legislation and measures that influence air pollution – our entire borough apart from inland waterways is designated as a Smoke Control Area, and we also offer substantial provision for electric vehicles to promote alternative fuel travel options and our Streets for People strategy. “We as a council support the work of Mums for Lungs and recognise the health and environmental impacts of domestic solid fuel burning, particularly from wood-burning appliances. “We are currently updating our Enforcement Policy and changes will allow for the issuing of civil penalties ranging from £175 to £300 for visible smoke emissions, replacing the previous reliance on criminal prosecution.  “This work is being undertaken in collaboration with other London boroughs as part of the pan-London Wood Burning Project, which aims to harmonise enforcement approaches and share best practice across the capital.” ETA: And here's a post I made a few years ago, with tangential relevance.  https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/278140-early-morning-drone-flying/?do=findComment&comment=1493274  
    • The solicitor is also the Executor. Big mistake, but my Aunt was very old, and this was the Covid years and shortly after so impossible to intervene and get a couple of close relatives to do this.  She had no children so this is the nephews and nieces. He is a single practitioner, and most at his age would have long since retired - there is a question over his competence Two letters have already gone essentially complaining - batted off and 'amusingly' one put the blame on us. There are five on our side, all speaking to each other, and ideally would work as a single point of contact.  But he has said that this is not allowed - we've all given approval to act on each others behalf. There are five on her late husband's side, who have not engaged with us despite the suggestion to work as a team, There is one other, who get's the lion's share, the typicical 'friend', but we are long since challenging the will. I would like to put another complaint together that he has not used modern collective communication (I expect that he is incapable) which had seriously delayed the execution of the will.   I know many in their 80s very adept with smart phones so that is not an ageist comment. The house has deteriorated very badly, with cold, damp and a serious leak.  PM me if you want to see the dreadful condition that it is now in. I would also question why if the five of us are happy to work together why all of us need to confirm in writing.             The house was lived in until Feb 23, and has been allowed to get like this.
    • Isn’t a five yearly electricity safety certificate one of the things the landlord must give for a legal tenancy?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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