Councils want signing 'dumbed-down'

The current consultation being undertaken by the Department for Transport sees councils wishing to save money by dumbing down traffic signs.

The method on the right could save a lot of money!

You could even have the Traffic Penalty Tribunal chanting its mantra that 'no reasonable person could be misled!'

Apparently, there are a few adjudicators who still think that they can ignore statute law and the will of the courts ...

Show me the money ...

Traffic management ... absolute failure if there is this level of non-compliance.

Cash Cow value ... up there top of the league

Council makes fortune from street where drivers are fined £2,500 a day
London Evening Standard
Tom Harper
7 Feb 2011

It is an unremarkable residential street in south London flanked by housing estates and dotted with takeaways.

But today Clapham Park Road can be named as the biggest "cash cow" for parking tickets in the capital.

In a stretch of road measuring less than 500 yards, wardens raked in almost £1 million in parking and traffic fines last year - £300,000 more than its nearest London rival.

Coffers at Lambeth council were swelled by £2,500 a day through the activities of civil enforcement officers and two CCTV cameras patrolling bus lanes in Clapham Park Road.

The disclosure threatens to reignite the debate over town halls' use of parking fines as a stealth tax - in breach of Whitehall guidelines - to generate cash at a time of budget cuts.

AA president Edmund King said: "That is an incredible amount of money for one street. Something is wrong with the system - the intention of the council should be to keep traffic moving, not make money. At best it's very poor traffic management and at worst, frankly, it's profiteering."

Last year, Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles warned boroughs they must cope with 25 per cent budget cuts without using civil parking enforcement as a way of raising revenue. But an investigation by the Evening Standard found 20 town halls in London generated a massive £146 million in tickets and fines last year.

Information obtained using the Freedom of Information Act shows that top of the list was Kensington and Chelsea, which earned £36 million through penalty charge notices for parking and traffic violations.

But revenue from those tickets - which cost drivers up to £120, the highest in Britain - was spread across many streets. The top earner was King's Road, at £203,123.
This figure is dwarfed by Clapham Park Road, which amassed £914,040 through 16,800 tickets last year.

Residents and businesses - the street has a handful of shops and two bars - said motorists were often caught out by cameras monitoring a bus lane, which has had its layout changed several times in recent years. Other drivers say they are targeted by over-eager parking inspectors who strike within seconds of them leaving their cars.

A Lambeth spokesman said: "This is an extremely busy area used by thousands of vehicles a day and a minority of motorists add to congestion by driving in the bus lane."

Next highest for revenue was Green Lanes, a four-mile road stretching from Hackney through Haringey into Enfield. Wardens in the Haringey section gathered £606,903 from 12,689 tickets.
The borough said it was a "long and major route" and needed to be kept free of vehicles. The Broadway, a busy shopping street in Ealing, came third, generating £534,041 with 8,385 tickets.
Last week, Barnet councillor Brian Coleman triggered uproar when it emerged he boasted town hall parking policy was to "never knowingly undercharge".

Campaigners advise motorists they should appeal against all tickets as many are issued wrongly. In London last year 68 per cent of drivers who took their case to the independent adjudicator won.
Last month, transport minister Norman Baker ordered a review of signs and markings amid concerns that they feature impenetrable lists of timings, exemptions and instructions.

Some tickets have been put down to overzealous wardens. In November, a driver got a £120 fine after a yellow line was painted under his car. Daniel Jacob, 26, of Basildon, said: "It's not even straight, it's a wobbly scrawl.

Moneyspinners
Clapham Park Road (Lambeth) £914,040
Green Lanes (Haringey) £606,903

The Broadway/Herbert Rd (Ealing) £534,041

Kentish Town Road (Camden) £395,491

Mare Street (Hackney) £356,012

Chiswick High Road (Hounslow) £351,416

Elephant Road (Southwark) £327,472
Lea Bridge Road (Waltham Forest) £250,270
King's Road (Kensington & Chelsea) £203,123
Penge High Street (Bromley) £194,005

Baker Street (Westminster) £189,515

Uxbridge High Street (Hillingdon) £172,075
London Road (Croydon) £171,295

Hackney Road (Tower Hamlets) £145,612

Macfarlane Road (H'smith & Fulham) £135,319

Garratt Lane (Wandsworth) £118,436

Wellington Street (Greenwich) £75,726

Yew Grove (Barnet) £47,910

Market Place Car Park (Havering) £34,185

Grove Road (Sutton) £22,686

Highest earning street for traffic and parking fines in each borough. Other boroughs failed to respond or gave only partial information that was not comparable.

Should a yellow line have a t-bar? Is the adjudication service independent?

Parking adjudicators will have you believe that the law doesn't concern itself with trifles BUT it isn't a trifle when you get walloped for a £120 fine.

However, there is a High Court case pending which could re-establish the rule of law and ensure that local authorities comply with the law. Adjudicators (funded by the local authorities who have repeatedly failed to comply with the law ... the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) have seized on the phrase 'substantial compliance' with the interpretation that if a sign 'looks' like a sign (or line) then 'no reasonable motorist' could have been misled.

That is not how the law is written. TSRGD 2002 is explicit and sets out the dimensions (and permitted variants) for road traffic signs. Any deviations from prescribed signage requires Special Authorisation from the Secretary of State.

Don't take my word for it ...
Here is the British Parking Association's submission to the House of Commons Transport Committee:
TRAFFIC SIGNS
30. Traffic and parking regulations are given effect by traffic signs and markings. In the UK signs are prescribed precisely in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction TSRGD (SI 2002/3113) and if a sign or marking does not comply with TSRGD then the regulation has no effect. We believe that it is important that, particularly for parking, where drivers are expected to comply with regulations, that the precision of signing is preserved and enforced. Where a driver is at risk of a financial penalty, or worse, signs cannot be "about right".

Not convinced?
Check out the statement of the DETR (now the Department for Transport) in relation to the requirement to have t-bars terminating double and single yellow lines reported by the BBC here:

One of the main problems, he claims, is when double yellow lines are painted without a T-bar finishing off the lines at each end.

The Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR) confirmed that with single or double yellow lines there must be a block painted at a 90-degree angle at the end of the lines.
A spokesman said: "If this end line isn't there then the lines have been laid out incorrectly by the local authority and you would have grounds to challenge the ticket in court."

In the above case North Yorkshire Police admitted:

We have been open and honest about this matter from the beginning and we have admitted we were in the wrong
North Yorkshire Police

One has to ask the question when was the law allowed to be 'dumbed down' and by whom?
Well, it seems to be that adjudicators are applying their own interpretation to the law (TSRGD 2002) ... and just remember that the adjudicators are appointed by the Joint Committee and are remunerated by the Joint Committee.

Who are the Joint Committee? The Joint Committee comprises of members from the councils participating in Civil Parking Enforcement.

To ensure that all the lines and signs comply with the law is an expensive business ... hence the reason for 'dumbing down.'
Apparent bias in the Judicial context. Lord Goff of Chieveley cited the dictum of Blackburn J in R and Rand (1866) LR 1 QB 230, 232:
“Any direct pecuniary interest, however small, in the subject of inquiry, does disqualify a person from acting as a judge in the matter.”

Once it is realised by the motoring public that the 'independent' adjudication services are remunerated on a per ticket basis (60p per PCN in the case of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) then the more tickets issued the more money they receive.

Successful technical defences based on councils failure to comply with TSRGD 2002 reduce the amount of PCNs that can be issued and enforced.

Any rocket scientists care to comment?

Oh, the case of Glenn Dickinson v Hull City Council has been given leave for Judicial Review on the grounds that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are not independent and signs must be as prescribed in law. Looks like Herron v The Parking Adjudicator (independence of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and TSRGD points) and Pendle v The Parking Adjudicator (TSRGD points) are likely to follow the same route after being refused at written stage are now both moving towards an oral hearing.

In the meantime, anyone with a ticket on an incorrectly terminated yellow line or coming before the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and raising concerns over their independence can request that their case be 'stayed' sine die pending the outcome of Dickinson.

Gizza Job ... Parking Investigation Officer for a London Borough

At least one London Borough is realising that there may be a little problem on the horizon ... so they are looking for someone to spot their illegal signs. My questions to this council (and every other one) is:

Once you identify that a bay is unlawul or non-compliant do you intend to suspend enforcement until it is made lawful?

Has this been council policy to date or has each motorist had to be 'personally fully aware' of your legal requirements to use lawful signs before a PCN would be cancelled?

Do you intend to refund motorists fined in bays that you find are not lawfully marked?

MP gives backing to Polish road signs

IC Cheshire Online

Feb 21 2007
By Jamie Oliver, Crewe Chronicle

CREWE and Nantwich MP Gwyneth Dunwoody has backed the decision to put up Polish road signs to help migrant drivers in South Cheshire.

And she says Cheshire County Council is fully within its rights to erect them.

Highways bosses have spent hundreds of pounds putting up eight diversion signs on the A534 at Faddiley and the A49 to Ridley to help bemused Polish drivers.
Labour MP Mrs Dunwoody, also chair of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee, said: 'Cheshire County Council is showing a commendable sense of responsibility and I just cannot see why people are getting their knickers in a twist over this simple matter.
'There was a clear and urgent need for these temporary signs to deal with a situation before someone was involved in an accident - and not after.

'The county council has a responsibility to ensure the safety of motorists and I am grateful we have an authority in Cheshire with the common sense to put safety before bureaucracy.'
She added:
'It is highly unlikely that the signs are illegal because of the juxtaposition of the two languages and I am perfectly willing to take up the matter with the Department of Transport immediately.
'Until we can be sure of the nationality of every driver on our road network, it is far better to take direct action that to wait for someone else to add to our accident statistics.'

But the signs have been criticised by some road users and councillors. Crewe and Nantwich borough council-lor Stan Davies, whose ward covers Faddiley, said: 'It is barmy that these signs have been put up, and it puzzles me why the Polish have been singled out on this.
The county council deny the Polish road signs are the result of 'political correctness'.

The county says many of the 3,000 Poles living in the Crewe area work at local companies but cannot yet read English and the situation has not been helped by many Polish lorry drivers using Cheshire's A-roads as a shortcut from the M6.

The county has consulted with the Government office for the North West which clarified it is principally a matter for the county council as the local highways authority to determine.
County engineer Steve Kent said:
'They have agreed on our behalf to look into the issue of formal authorisation for the signs.
'As the authority responsible for the A49, it is our duty to make a judgement having balanced a particular safety issue against strict adherence to national guidelines.
'We are of the firm opinion that in this instance the safety benefits take precedence.
'Furthermore, while the signs do not strictly follow national guidelines in terms of metric measurements, we do not believe they are un-lawful.'