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

[trinidad]

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!!!!

[nxjen]

I'm curious what your submission would have been had there been a consultation. "I'm against this because it means me disregarding a sign that clearly says 'No Entry' will be recorded and I will be fined"?

[rabbitears]

Why should there be a consultation?

You'd need a lot of tickets issued every day to make a profit on a camera like that. They cost a bomb to install and operate.

[kford]

There's going to be a load of tickets issued to pizza delivery mopeds, I reckon

[Azalea]

It would never occur to me to enter Oglander Rd from that end while driving as it is clearly signposted.

[Righty]

Good - I'm delighted by this. I think we should have more cameras generally.

Only a problem if you break the rules.

[kford]

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...

[henryb]

> 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.

[JohnL]

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 :)

[kford]

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.

[henryb]

I am not keen on more cameras or surveillance but claiming speed cameras or other traffic monitoring cameras are an Orwellian violation of our rights is stretching it.

[almost peckham]

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.

[Righty]

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?

[PeckhamRose]

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?

[rabbitears]

False premise. Boring.

[Righty]

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?

[Penguin68]

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.

[Lowlander]

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.

[Penguin68]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/box-junction-cut-down-to-size-6984361.html

[Lowlander]

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?

[Penguin68]

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.

[Lowlander]

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?

[Penguin68]

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).

[Lowlander]

How did traffic fill the other side? It sounds like everyone was ignoring it so it became unusable?

[Penguin68]

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