PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

How the right wing press distorts LTNs
stamfordman
post Sat, 23 Oct 2021 - 20:18
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



This article in the Telegraph on Croydon's LTN cameras and PCNs shows the way the right wing press feeds its base with deceitful reporting.

Of course initially LTN restrictions generate PCNs - and all Croydon is doing here is what it should be doing - budgeting for the expected revenue, which it has to do. So someone raises the point of what if drivers comply more than they think and the revenue is less - a fair point but not evidence that the council is stiffing drivers.

Needless to say, the comments by readers are all on the lines of greedy councils and money making.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/23...traffic-cameras



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 23 Oct 2021 - 20:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 11:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,925
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Right wing press my arse.

Surely any Council should have it's feet held to the proverbial fire if it's actions are either accidentally or consciously ignored by those in its area? Other than the occasional dimwit or non-English speaker (understander) if they're generating that much income they must know full well it's either unpopular or poorly signed...........and/or a complete shite idea. Or indeed all three.

Nothing to do with deceit....at least not by the newspaper
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 13:07
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The Telegraph is indisputably right wing and hard right mostly to an hysterical extent.

What you're suggesting is that councils have set up LTNs as money making schemes through short term collection of PCN revenue. This implies that LTNs will be surplus to requirements when drivers stop contravening Highway Code signs in significant numbers.

Is that right?

By the way, I'm not disputing that various locations have been poorly signed but that goes for any restriction anywhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 14:17
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,925
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 14:07) *
The Telegraph is indisputably right wing and hard right mostly to an hysterical extent.

What you're suggesting is that councils have set up LTNs as money making schemes through short term collection of PCN revenue. This implies that LTNs will be surplus to requirements when drivers stop contravening Highway Code signs in significant numbers.

Is that right?

By the way, I'm not disputing that various locations have been poorly signed but that goes for any restriction anywhere.


OK, maybe semantics? Right of centre - yes. You imply by your choice of expression that's it's some sort of voicepiece for the EDL and that's utter crap.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort - my view is that it's some quasi-political, fashionable B.S. that has no basis in truth and that it's not actually popular or a good thing (discussed elsewhere so let's not restart that debate). The reason for poor signage etc is either incompetence or its a money-making scheme (although the two are bedfellows!).

As soon as the media are villified for holding any 'authority' to account we're doomed. If The Guardian (Left-Wing in some folks' parlance, left of centre in mine) wants to call out (say) Boris or GBNews etc, fair enough IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 16:17
Post #5


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 22,095
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



I definitely see some distortion going on...


--------------------
Andy

"Whatever the intention of Parliament was, or was not, the law is quite clear." - The Rookie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 17:22
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 15:17) *
my view is that it's some quasi-political, fashionable B.S.


What is 'it'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 17:34
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,925
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 18:22) *
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 15:17) *
my view is that it's some quasi-political, fashionable B.S.


What is 'it'?


The introduction of LTNs
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slapdash
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 18:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



Bath introduced a CAZ.

When they started charging by their stats about 15% of chargeable vehicles had not paid.

I happen to think it os reasonably well signed. But when non compliance is that high it indicates a deep problem.

I hate driving in london. All I have to do is miss one sign.

Give everybody 1 life for each zone. Then you are on notice.

This post has been edited by Slapdash: Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 18:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 18:47
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 18:34) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 18:22) *
QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 15:17) *
my view is that it's some quasi-political, fashionable B.S.


What is 'it'?


The introduction of LTNs


LTNs are quasi-political, fashionable B.S.?

There are 1000s of schemes that curb traffic around the country and I live near an LTN that's been around since the 1970s. I call BS on you and anyway it's beside the point about the news item.


QUOTE (Slapdash @ Sun, 24 Oct 2021 - 19:07) *
But when non compliance is that high it indicates a deep problem.

Give everybody 1 life for each zone. Then you are on notice.


A warning PCN is often sent in the first few weeks of some schemes and maybe that period could be extended. One PCN is not the end of the world but some people rack up multiple PCNs before they get the first - authorities often will use discretion.

If say a properly signed speed limit was changed and multiple drivers got caught is this a 'deep problem'?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slapdash
post Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 08:40
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



It seems that Croydon's budget is predicated of 500 penalties a day.

That does seem quite a lot to me. There does seem to be a potential conflict of interest.

Perhaps signage is problematic in some respects. Given the part time nature of many absorbing a no vehicle sign, a timeplate and processing that may be tricky for many.

Certainly people who don't habitually drive in area with LTNs and the like may be a bit disadvantaged. Though they should of course be aware of the ever changing nature of motoring. Perhaps more education is required.

There is one restriction I came across some time ago when there was a pair of flying motorbike signs with a timeplate half way down a street. No turnings or any other street furniture or markings. I have no idea whether that would be compliant with an ltn scheme but would be fairly easy to miss.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 09:14
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Slapdash @ Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 09:40) *
It seems that Croydon's budget is predicated of 500 penalties a day.

That does seem quite a lot to me. There does seem to be a potential conflict of interest.

Perhaps signage is problematic in some respects



The volume of PCNs is more indicative of the huge volume of traffic, which is what the LTNs are designed to reduce. I don't have much sympathy for commuters getting caught using rat runs.

You are right that a lot of people don't know what certain road signs mean partly because they rarely encountered them before. Good advance signs are certainly needed to enforce some of these new restrictions as the tribunal has found.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slapdash
post Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 10:14
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



I do wonder whether LTNs achieve their aim of reducing overall traffic.

Certainly it will improve things for those within the LTN. At least some of that will move onto the major routes (making it worse for those living on those).

I guess the assumption is that those using the rat runs will find an alternative form of transport rather than merely an alternative route.

I expect that will he true to a fairly limited extent. But maybe enough to make an appreciable difference to air and living quality.

I woul be happier if those implementing schemes were not allowed any more than cost recovery. I suspect that would kead to better implemented schemes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 10:41
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Slapdash @ Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 11:14) *
I do wonder whether LTNs achieve their aim of reducing overall traffic.

Certainly it will improve things for those within the LTN. At least some of that will move onto the major routes (making it worse for those living on those).

I guess the assumption is that those using the rat runs will find an alternative form of transport rather than merely an alternative route.

I expect that will he true to a fairly limited extent. But maybe enough to make an appreciable difference to air and living quality.

I woul be happier if those implementing schemes were not allowed any more than cost recovery. I suspect that would kead to better implemented schemes.


Major routes are where the traffic is supposed to be and in any case traffic using rat runs goes between major routes. I have no doubt that in the inner city at least the various measures combined will lead to a lower volume of less polluting vehicles. Bear in mind that less than 30% of households in islington have cars anyway.

By law, PCN and parking permit revenue can only be used to cover costs of schemes and any surplus must be used on traffic and environmental projects. As I said, it would be negligent if a council did not plan what it will do with surplus from a new scheme. Restrictions must be enforced otherwise they are worthless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Slapdash
post Mon, 25 Oct 2021 - 10:57
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 721
Joined: 2 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,040



I think there may be some creativity in how much the surplus is. :-) I clearly have different views on what the surplus should be used for (though mine would reduce decentralisation which is an issue).

I suppose if Croydon suddenly fails to be able to undertake commited environmental projects because motorists don't get fined that's not the end of the world.

I remember years ago when Oxford St became bus and taxi only it rapidly became a more pleasant place (or at least less unpleasant). Some surrounding areas got a bit worse. The CC has helped a fair bit.

I moved out of central london late 80s and only travel for treatment every few week. It is better place now than then so I think the initiatives do to some extent work.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 07:10
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,925
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



Rat run = public road for use by public.

Can you point us to the law where road users should by default use main roads? We'll wait................
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 09:38
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (TMC Towcester @ Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 08:10) *
Rat run = public road for use by public.

Can you point us to the law where road users should by default use main roads? We'll wait................


Drivers will seek out shot cuts obviously. Councils all over the country have shut many roads to through traffic where it creates rat runs. This isn't new.

So why do they do that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ahelpinggand
post Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 10:54
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 426
Joined: 30 Oct 2020
From: West Mids
Member No.: 110,385



I think TWCs point is that in those instances the roads are PHYSICALLY blocked, road becomes a dead end etc.

In (London) LTNs however camera enforcement is used as it makes additional revenue. Indeed there are some residents who actively campaign for them as they " want the road to be private"

Let's be realistic. There aren't many people in London who use a vehicle unless they have too as there is a reasonably reliable public transport system in place (compared to the rest of the UK)

To try and claim however that the consideration of LTNs and especially the ULEZ are purely for emissions purposes is utter tosh. SK has already been caught on a hot mike admitting the ULEZ is a matter of "Social Justice" more than emissions.

It will also force costs up for anyone in the area. As an example I work in refrigeration, any call outs to areas inside the ULEZ will incur a surcharge (our vans are compliant but the additional admin etc and costs of updating vehicles every 3-4 years has to be taken into account)

This will eventually feed through into even higher prices for consumers. This will hit the poorest hardest and fastest. And this is just a single example.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 11:14
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,629
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Ahelpinggand @ Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 11:54) *
I think TWCs point is that in those instances the roads are PHYSICALLY blocked, road becomes a dead end etc.

In (London) LTNs however camera enforcement is used as it makes additional revenue. Indeed there are some residents who actively campaign for them as they " want the road to be private"

Let's be realistic. There aren't many people in London who use a vehicle unless they have too as there is a reasonably reliable public transport system in place (compared to the rest of the UK)

To try and claim however that the consideration of LTNs and especially the ULEZ are purely for emissions purposes is utter tosh. SK has already been caught on a hot mike admitting the ULEZ is a matter of "Social Justice" more than emissions.

It will also force costs up for anyone in the area. As an example I work in refrigeration, any call outs to areas inside the ULEZ will incur a surcharge (our vans are compliant but the additional admin etc and costs of updating vehicles every 3-4 years has to be taken into account)

This will eventually feed through into even higher prices for consumers. This will hit the poorest hardest and fastest. And this is just a single example.


Have to say that this is almost all garbage - sorry to be blunt if you post rubbish it's going to get called out. Why don't you think about why this is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ahelpinggand
post Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 13:54
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 426
Joined: 30 Oct 2020
From: West Mids
Member No.: 110,385



Break down what you think is garbage and enlighten me?

I made a simple point ref increased costs being passed on. That is fact.

I have pointed out that emissions is not the ONLY consideration. I didn't say there is NO consideration.

Im not saying that I disagree with traffic management, indeed I strongly support school zones IMO that should be country wide with increased enforcement.

Where I disagree is political posturing ( left and right ) show me proof that LTNs reduce pollution WITHOUT just moving it elsewhere and I will support it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TMC Towcester
post Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 16:59
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,925
Joined: 17 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,686



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 26 Oct 2021 - 10:38) *
So why do they do that?


Politics? Votes? Pseudo-science? Imbecility? The list is endless and variable............
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 20th January 2022 - 13:50
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.