Driving Into Tram Only Section Of City Centre

[Planner1 438]

2 hours ago, Bigal1 said:

I am a believer in enforcement cameras when they are applied with brain and not simply to raise revenue although I have yet to hear if SCC have adopted this simple concept

Installing camera enforcement just to raise money is not lawful.

 

All SCC’s Bus lane enforcement cameras are  at sites with demonstrable contravention issues. There are surveys carried out to establish contravention levels before a camera is installed.

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, dave_the_m said:

I attended a tribunal over a bus lane penalty a few years ago, where the assessor said that technically she couldn't find in my favour, but since it was clear I hadn't done anything wrong, she recommended to the SCC rep that they waive the penalty. The rep refused. So she then suggested that they reinstate the early payment discount. Again the rep refused. At this point it was pretty clear to me that it is all about the money.

You’d clearly contravened the restriction, or the tribunal would have found in your favour. 
 

In such circumstances why should the Council reduce the amount payable. You know very well that when you go to tribunal, if you lose, you pay the full amount. You had the chance to pay at the lower level, but decided to appeal.
 

The council have to put in quite a bit of additional officer time into tribunal cases. Preparing the evidence pack and attending the meeting. So, their costs are higher because you appealed to tribunal, so, again  why would they accept the lower fee.

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, Bigal1 said:

I am a believer in enforcement cameras when they are applied with brain and not simply to raise revenue although I have yet to hear if SCC have adopted this simple concept

 

 

Like most fixed penalty cameras they are basically a stupidity tax, .get caught pay up and feel embarrassed if your ego lets you.

[dave_the_m 61]

1 hour ago, Planner1 said:

You’d clearly contravened the restriction, or the tribunal would have found in your favour. 
 

In such circumstances why should the Council reduce the amount payable.

Because the whole point about a that bus lane was give buses etc priority - effectively to queue jump. When I briefly partially entered the bus lane to give more space for a cyclist coming in the other direction, I was not impeding buses, nor obtaining unfair advantage over fellow motorists. I was just making the road slightly safer for cyclists. However, SCC are operating a strict liability policy - if you don't have a legal reason to enter the bus lane, pay up. If all other laws were enforced as literally, every single one of us would be arrested and fined several times per day.

[Planner1 438]

54 minutes ago, dave_the_m said:

Because the whole point about a that bus lane was give buses etc priority - effectively to queue jump. When I briefly partially entered the bus lane to give more space for a cyclist coming in the other direction, I was not impeding buses, nor obtaining unfair advantage over fellow motorists. I was just making the road slightly safer for cyclists. However, SCC are operating a strict liability policy - if you don't have a legal reason to enter the bus lane, pay up. If all other laws were enforced as literally, every single one of us would be arrested and fined several times per day.

So why did you feel it necessary to give the cyclist more space? Were they on your side of the road, or uncomfortably close for some reason?
 

Did the recorded video clip show this?

 

The way the legal orders work for bus lanes is the contravention is being in it. So unless you can prove you went into it for a reason they would accept, like to avoid a collision, or the road was blocked and you had to go in the bus lane, you’ve contravened the restriction and can expect a penalty.  This way, motorists should know the parameters and there are very few “grey areas”.

 

A video clip of the contravention is recorded, so the motorist can see what the council is basing their decision on. The technology isn’t perfect and sometimes doesn’t show the incident fully, so all the council officer sees, is the motorist in the bus lane and only has the motorists word to say why they were in there. Quite rightly, that isn’t enough for them to cancel the penalty. 
 

The adjudicators tend to want to err on the side of “fairness“, despite the fact that all they should be deciding is whether or not there was a contravention and has due process been followed. It’s on occasions like that, when they can see that strictly a contravention occurred, but they feel some sympathy for the motorist, they offer the council the “opportunity” to cancel the penalty or reduce it back to the original amount. Councils tend to try to have a consistent approach on this ( there can be different people who attend the tribunal for the council, so it is best to have a corporate line on it) so they normally decline. 
 

Although there are odd occasions when someone’s ticket is upheld in circumstances the driver might feel are unjust, you have to balance that against the fact that many people will do absolutely anything to get off with a penalty, so having a convincing sounding story can’t be enough to get you off. There has to be hard evidence.

1 hour ago, dave_the_m said:

Because the whole point about a that bus lane was give buses etc priority - effectively to queue jump. 

Bus lanes are also legitimately used by cyclists and motorcyclists, so having motorists suddenly move into the bus lane for no good reason can be unsafe for them. It isn’t just about not impeding a bus or seeking advantage.

[dave_the_m 61]

18 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

So why did you feel it necessary to give the cyclist more space? Were they on your side of the road, or uncomfortably close for some reason?
...

 

Although there are odd occasions when someone’s ticket is upheld in circumstances the driver might feel are unjust, you have to balance that against the fact that many people will do absolutely anything to get off with a penalty, so having a convincing sounding story can’t be enough to get you off. There has to be hard evidence.

 

The cyclist was coming in the other direction, with cars overtaking him/her. By giving the oncoming cars a wide berth, I allowed those cars to also give the cyclist a wider berth. Basic civility. There were no other vehicles or bikes near me travelling in my direction, otherwise obviously I wouldn't have moved into the bus lane. (This is Bolsover road, with 1 lane in each direction plus a bus lane into town.)

 

The camera faced in the opposite direction to travel - i.e. it picked up the front of my car, but couldn't show what was happening ahead of me - cyclist etc. SCC's position was that since no one could be sure what what was happening ahead of me (although there was one witness - me - who could tell tell them), they could, on balance of probabilities, assume that there was no cyclist etc. I also had evidence that I had turned right at the roundabout a few hundred yards later, so on a mostly empty road (in my direction), there was no other reason for me to have entered the bus lane.

 

The adjudicator's position was that legally I wasn't allowed to move into the bus lane, even though was the sensible thing to do.

 

Please re-read your second paragraph which I have quoted above. You appear to be saying that the burden of proof is on the defendant : i.e. you are guilty unless you have hard evidence of your innocence. Do see anything wrong with that?

 

Again, this is SCC enforcing every technical breach of the TRO, which doesn't happen in other aspect of law enforcement. Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, I would technically be guilty of an offence if, outside of my dwelling (but with no-one else in earshot), I muttered to to my wife that I [expletive] hated her and wanted a divorce. Fortunately the police (except sometimes when it suits them) don't prosecute every technical breach of Section 5.

[BigAl1 143]

I have often wondered if they have cameras on the shortest bus lane in the world as you turn out of Morrisons onto Penistone Road as it looks as if it is especially designed to catch unwary motorists

[Planner1 438]

47 minutes ago, Bigal1 said:

I have often wondered if they have cameras on the shortest bus lane in the world as you turn out of Morrisons onto Penistone Road as it looks as if it is especially designed to catch unwary motorists

Why would you need to wonder?

 

The locations of all the bus lane / gate cameras are published and have been for years. See this page: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/travel-transport/bus-lanes-gates

Enforced ones are in red.

[BigAl1 143]

28 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Why would you need to wonder?

 

The locations of all the bus lane / gate cameras are published and have been for years. See this page: https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/home/travel-transport/bus-lanes-gates

Enforced ones are in red.

for the reason stated

 

 

"it looks as if it is especially designed to catch unwary motorists "

[Annie Bynnol 612]

32 minutes ago, Bigal1 said:

I have often wondered if they have cameras on the shortest bus lane in the world as you turn out of Morrisons onto Penistone Road as it looks as if it is especially designed to catch unwary motorists

The "shortest bus lane in the world" is part of a much longer Bus Lane which begins at the traffic lights one up from Hillfoot, where the  'new' A61 Penistone and the 'old' Penistone Road join and ends at the bus stop outside B&Q.  It's purpose is to enable all vehicles clear with the minor road  that serves McDonald's, B&Q and Morrison's to allow Junction and manoeuvre into the correct lane when approaching critically important Bradfield Road Junction.

If you want to avoid this problem, from Morrison's turn right onto Langsett Road, right onto Bamforth Street, which is a two lane junction not a minor junction misused by many using it as a through route.

[Planner1 438]

1 hour ago, Bigal1 said:

for the reason stated

 

 

"it looks as if it is especially designed to catch unwary motorists "

The point was that you don’t need to “wonder” whether it’s enforced, you can easily check.

 

As Annie correctly points out, what you are referring to is in fact a fairly long bus lane, which, as per normal bus lane design, has gaps in it at junctions, so drivers turning in or out of the junction aren’t contravening the restriction. 

[BigAl1 143]

On 01/09/2020 at 14:10, Planner1 said:

The point was that you don’t need to “wonder” whether it’s enforced, you can easily check.

 

As Annie correctly points out, what you are referring to is in fact a fairly long bus lane, which, as per normal bus lane design, has gaps in it at junctions, so drivers turning in or out of the junction aren’t contravening the restriction. 

So what is the point of continuing the bus lane about 2 or 3 meters on the other side of the junction into Morrisons