Jump to content

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!!!!

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...

> 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.

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 :)

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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).

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

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

    • I thoroughly recommend Jay from JK Electrical Contractors who is an NICEIC registered. NICEIC is the UK's leading certification body for the electrical contracting industry and conducts regular audits and assessments on all its members. It is the specialist trade body which certifies professional electricians.  Jay completed the installation of a 19 way consumer unit for us and works to the highest standards and our entire electrical installation is now fully compliant with 18th Edition of the electrical wiring regulations. Before installing the new CU he traced and corrected faults that had developed over the last 25 years -some of which were my DIY bodges that were non-compliant.  We now have an installation that is 100% safe and  reliable . His contact details are :- 0208 150 6450 [email protected] Here is what he installed for us.
    • I fully support this petition, however it will need to be shared far & wide to be effective. Also there is always a huge amount of interest / objection during the festival, but not so much when they start consulting for the next one, usually around January. It's crucial that everyone that has been impacted makes their voice heard then.  A couple of points which may be good to include in the wording (if it is still possible to amend?) - The total tickets sold are way more than 3000. The licence allows a capacity of up to 9,999, but this may include staff & performers etc. The published attendance for 2024 was:  Friday – 8,999 / Saturday – 9,512 / Sunday – 9,422 So that's c.28,000 people trampling & littering our park over three days - people who have no need or desire to take any care or consideration of our park.  - Gala claim for 2024 that "62% of all ticket holders were from Southeast London and 18% of these were from hyper-local postcode areas SE15 and SE22." So a bit of maths shows that means that around 89% of attendees were not what most people would term 'local'... - Gala have ambitions / plans to extend the number of event days to 6, over two weekends. They applied for a licence for this in 2024, but then withdrew it. Instead they added a "free" event, billed as a community day, to the existing 3 day festival, thereby increasing the event days to 4.  This would appear to be an attempt to set a precedent for increasing the number of event days, and it's inevitable that they will attempt to secure the 6 days they desire for 2026, to increase their profits further. Two weekends in a row of noise, disturbance & disruption would be unacceptable, plus an extra c.18,000 trampling & littering the park... - The site size has been increased. The claim is that it is to compensate for lost storage space due to recent flood alleviation works, but the area has increased by more than the area lost, and appears to have been used for attendee activity rather than site storage. Gala have often stated that the festival can only be located in the park because the footprint has been designed specifically for that area, and yet this year the footprint had been amended & extended without any apparent issues. Surely this proves that it could be relocated?  Apologies, I just can't help going into rant mode on this issue, but hopefully some of the above may be helpful in increasing the argument presented by the petition?
    • Best to just get in touch with the council. You need to see what works were approved and the scope.  It's probably advisable to get an independent legal survey (not a standard RICS) and look at current condition, what they said they'd fix, if they did what they said and what the problems are with what they did. Was it just your flat and the other flat mentioned? Asking in case there's any other leaseholder/ tenant involved  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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