Motorists One

[oily oaf]

Revenue raising, motorised vehicle hating, bureaucratic gits, Nil :D

http://www.bbc.co.uk

Today the wheel clamp, tomorrow, traffic "calming" measures and the speed camera.
(launches into peal of maniacal laughter)

[oily oaf]

Sorry about the rather all encompassing link folks but if you click on the "News" section you'll see what I'm gloating about :)

[Daniel]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6948886.stm

I don't think it goes far. I've always been of the belief that anyone parking in a Clearway should have their car rolled over on it's side or roof onto the sidewalk :) Similar treatment for people who use the short stay bays in Sainsburys so they can do their weekly shop. Great thing about our local Sainsburys is that the toilets are broken so they've got temporary toilets where the short stay parking was so everyone has to park in the car park. Long may it stay that way :D

[oily oaf]

Don't misunderstand me, if people park in disabled bays, block access to emergency services or in front of my garage then I'm all in favour of punitive measures being taken. However can anyone tell me what purpose is served by clamping a vehicle which is causing an obstruction and by so doing rendering it immovable for hours on end even after the owner has returned?
I wonder if it could be something to do with the one billion pounds raised in fines last year by wheel clamping councils and the private firms of little Hitlers that do their bidding.
Nah, surely not :)

[Brown, Jon Brow]

t anyone parking in a Clearway should have their car rolled over on it's side or roof onto the sidewalk

Onto the what? :p

[Mark]

It's a pity we don't have the translator tool any more :mark:

[jim mcglinchey]

Fortunately in our line of work we often drive around in a van equipped with a petrol generator and a 9" angle grinder but we've only had to cut off a wheel clamp once. We had to pay the fine for the road tax being expired but we just denied all knowledge of ever having seen a wheel clamp, but strangely enough, anyone looking in the scrap bin the next day would've seen a brightly painted yellow steel frame in several pieces therein.

[oily oaf]

Fortunately in our line of work we often drive around in a van equipped with a petrol generator and a 9" angle grinder but we've only had to cut off a wheel clamp once. We had to pay the fine for the road tax being expired but we just denied all knowledge of ever having seen a wheel clamp, but strangely enough, anyone looking in the scrap bin the next day would've seen a brightly painted yellow steel frame in several pieces therein.

A crisp £5 note and a "Services To The Community" medal will be with you within the next 24 hours.

[Dave B]

However can anyone tell me what purpose is served by clamping a vehicle which is causing an obstruction and by so doing rendering it immovable for hours on end even after the owner has returned?
Case in point, this is what I saw t'other day in London:

A van had parked on double-yellows outside a pub to make a delivery. A traffic warden stood out of the driver's view and wrote a ticket out before walking over and handing it to him.

Now, he's got a ticket. Perhaps you could argue that it's his own fault for parking illegally. But he can only receive one ticket for this, so there's no incentive on him to move. Sure enough, he continued to make his delivery and disrupt the flow of traffic.

If the warden was remotely concerned about congestion she'd have gone over to him and had a friendly word in his shell-like: move the van within a couple of minutes or I'll ticket you. But no, clearly generating revenue was the priority :rolleyes:

I can see the point of clamping on private land where a penalty wouldn't be legally enforcable, but on public roads it just aggrivates the situation.

On that note, the OFT test case about bank charge refunds will have interesting implications for private clampers if they're found to be applying a penalty rather than a contractural charge for their services....

[Hazell B]

If the warden was remotely concerned about congestion she'd have gone over to him and had a friendly word in his shell-like.....

And perhaps been punched in the face for her consideration? Can't say I for one minute blame any warden for standing out of sight writing tickets these days - there's people out there who'll kick you to death for simply asking they keep the noise down, never mind slapping them with a ticket.

Years ago Willie Carson, the then Champion jockey and employee of the Queen, ran over a traffic warden in York. Broke his leg quite badly and got off with it as blame couldn't be proven :mark: The warden was a large, older man and Willie Carson's obviously a wee thing, but imagine 'white van man' v a woman. The fact they're breaking the law doesn't bother them, they just smack wardens openly these days. I wouldn't risk confrontation if I were her.

[Mark]

NCP dude was on the news talking about how wardens do not receive commission or have targets. But admitted the number of cars ticketed was recorded. Now I've heard that although wardens don't get paid per car they ticket, if they don't ticket enough cars then it can become a disciplinary matter and they end up losing their jobs.. so it really is all about revenue raising and not keeping things moving.

The best way to stop that is to remove the financial incentive, i.e. local authorities get a block grant from government for traffic enforcement and their sucess is measured on something other than tickets issued e.g. they get less money if cars are illegally parked more often (or somesuch)

[LotusElise]

NCP dude was on the news talking about how wardens do not receive commission or have targets. But admitted the number of cars ticketed was recorded. Now I've heard that although wardens don't get paid per car they ticket, if they don't ticket enough cars then it can become a disciplinary matter and they end up losing their jobs.. so it really is all about revenue raising and not keeping things moving.

The best way to stop that is to remove the financial incentive, i.e. local authorities get a block grant from government for traffic enforcement and their sucess is measured on something other than tickets issued e.g. they get less money if cars are illegally parked more often (or somesuch)

That is a very daft situation to be in. Surely, the best wardens would have "beats" with very few illegally-parked cars on them. Their reputation would precede them and people would think twice about doing it. Under this system, they would be penalised for being good at their job.
I try and have sympathy for traffic wardens as they really are just doing their job, but they are so hamstrung by this cockeyed system that they can't really work effectively. The council round here are more concerned with having their employees hovering round cars that have multistorey tickets about to expire than keeping the roads clear. We seem to be having an epidemic of dangerously-parked lorries and some of the streets are really hard to drive through because of double-parking.

[Mark]

As mentioned in the government report, staying late on a ticket should not be a priority. After all it's a designated parking space, therefore by definition should not cause any obstruction to through traffic.

[Hondo]

NCP dude was on the news talking about how wardens do not receive commission or have targets. But admitted the number of cars ticketed was recorded. Now I've heard that although wardens don't get paid per car they ticket, if they don't ticket enough cars then it can become a disciplinary matter and they end up losing their jobs.. so it really is all about revenue raising and not keeping things moving.

The best way to stop that is to remove the financial incentive, i.e. local authorities get a block grant from government for traffic enforcement and their sucess is measured on something other than tickets issued e.g. they get less money if cars are illegally parked more often (or somesuch)

Back in my deputy days, if you were assigned to a patrol unit (marked car), you were "required" to write at least 2 "hard tickets" and at least 4 warning tickets per shift. A hard ticket meaning there was a fine involved. In effect, a quota system although there was no official written policy. Traffic enforcement is about generating revenue for the government, not public safety. To have a written quota system would expose the whole thing as a means of generating revenue, after all, I was never required to end my shift with a list of lives I'd saved or people that I had kept safe, or had even assisted.

Like most things in this world.....it's the money.

[Hazell B]

Why shouldn't it be about the money, though? It's not like they can invent an illegally parked car each time.

The excuse has often been that 'targets' are checked to ensure the officer is actually on their beat rather than sneaking home/pubbing it/reading the newspaper all day. I don't expect the targets are high, anyway.

[Mark]

Why shouldn't it be about the money, though?

Because offenders (those illegally parked) are not a source of revenue!

There is only one legitimate source of revenue from parking and that is charging for parking there. Fines may be levied for overstaying but should only be a deterrent for not paying the correct fee in the first place. The fines themselves should not be part of the business model.

As for double yellows, ideally nobody should park on them ever, and thusly there would be no revenue at all, however the fact that councils make money out of people illegally parking means it's actually not in their interests to keep the roads clear.. which is exactly the wrong way to go about things.

[Dave B]

As for double yellows, ideally nobody should park on them ever, and thusly there would be no revenue at all, however the fact that councils make money out of people illegally parking means it's actually not in their interests to keep the roads clear.. which is exactly the wrong way to go about things.
:up: That's the same as speed cameras: the perfect camera should raise no revenue as it would deter 100% of people from breaking the law.

A double-yellow means it's dangerous to park for whatever reason, or would cause congestion; so anybody doing so should be moved on as quickly as possible. Once you've ticketed them, they might as well stay there for the rest of the day.

[Flat.tyres]

:up: That's the same as speed cameras: the perfect camera should raise no revenue as it would deter 100% of people from breaking the law.

A double-yellow means it's dangerous to park for whatever reason, or would cause congestion; so anybody doing so should be moved on as quickly as possible. Once you've ticketed them, they might as well stay there for the rest of the day.

down my way, I can think of places that double yellows have been turned into parking bays because they can charge for them now. :(

I dont really mind wardens unless they are uncooperative. Ive only ever been ticketed twice, once purely my fault and once by some jumped up little prick in London that couldnt speak english and was lucky not to get a smack in the gob. he saw me get out and go into a shop to get change for the meter. when i returened from the meter which was 50 yards down the road, he was smileing as he slapped the ticket on my motor.

I complained and was told that he was quite right as I shouldnt have pulled up without the correct change to pay for the space in the first place.

now, that really is taking the mick. :(

[Hazell B]

Because offenders (those illegally parked) are not a source of revenue!



Why shouldn't they be, though?

As somebody who sees a profit in almost anything, I'm all for those who feel they're more important than the rest of us getting a ticket and helping fund a service. If they can't be bothered walking or paying, they should be ticketed.

I thought once ticketed, a vehicle was simply issued with more if they stayed much longer? Having never had one for being some place too long, I don't know for sure, but I've seen two tickets on a van in York in the past.

[oily oaf]

Why shouldn't they be, though?

As somebody who sees a profit in almost anything, I'm all for those who feel they're more important than the rest of us getting a ticket and helping fund a service. If they can't be bothered walking or paying, they should be ticketed.

I thought once ticketed, a vehicle was simply issued with more if they stayed much longer? Having never had one for being some place too long, I don't know for sure, but I've seen two tickets on a van in York in the past.

Rank profiteering at the expense of the already beleaguered motorist should NOT be within the remit of our local authorities.
The entire raison d d'etre of parking restrictions should surely be to reduce congestion and allow access to service and goods vehicles among other things not to line the pockets of a greedy bureaucracy.
Already our cities and towns are being inundated with inappropriate no parking zones which coupled with congestion charging is leading to the unedifying spectacle of many small family run businesses who have served the community for generations being forced to close down due to ridiculous profit driven parking restrictions being implemented in their area and killing off the passing trade upon which they relied so heavily in order to flourish.
If we want to see our high streets dominated by the likes of Walmart, Tescos et al who are the only people with the funds to build huge car parks to accommodate shoppers then hey let's give councils the green light and say to them loud and clear "There's the motorist, he's your quarry go get him".
Profit driven parking restrictions will also lead to the incentivising of wardens to increase their already spurious quota driven activities, and anyone who says they are not subject to pressure to meet certain targets needs to have their bumps felt, and will surely lead to even more totally inappropriate tickets being handed out like confetti as we witness even more of them going on duty armed with tape measures and cameras hell bent on keeping their boss sweet and their job intact by punishing some poor bleeder for parking half an inch further from the kerb than is designated by the parking gestapo.
This of course will also give rise to an increase on violent attacks on wardens whose standing in the eyes of the general public will plummet even further and end up on a par with journalists and estate agents.
Yes let's have parking restrictions for without them our towns and cities would become impassable with the resultant disastrous effect on commerce and casual travel alike but lets have SENSIBLE AND EQUITABLE guidelines in place under which the urban motorist can get at least a modicum of value for his Road Fund Licence fee and be able to park in an unobtrusive manner without fear of being penalised every time he stops for 2 minutes outside his local store for a pint of milk and a copy of The Times. :mad:

[Hondo]

Why shouldn't it be about the money, though? It's not like they can invent an illegally parked car each time.

The excuse has often been that 'targets' are checked to ensure the officer is actually on their beat rather than sneaking home/pubbing it/reading the newspaper all day. I don't expect the targets are high, anyway.

I have nothing against it being for the money, but I'd like them to come out and admit it instead of loudly declaring it to be in the interest of public safety. I grow weary of government stealing ever incresing amounts of money in the promise of furthering some "noble cause". Just once I'd like to see them say we are increasing this fee and introducing this new tax to help finance our ever growing organization and there isn't anything you can do about it...ah ha ha ha ha ha...now, back to work and bring us revenue!

[oily oaf]

I have nothing against it being for the money, but I'd like them to come out and admit it instead of loudly declaring it to be in the interest of public safety. I grow weary of government stealing ever incresing amounts of money in the promise of furthering some "noble cause". Just once I'd like to see them say we are increasing this fee and introducing this new tax to help finance our ever growing organization and there isn't anything you can do about it...ah ha ha ha ha ha...now, back to work and bring us revenue!

Like I say I'm against parking fines as an out and out revenue raiser for the reasons outlined above but I hear you when you talk about the mealy mouthed downright lies that the bureaucrats expect us to swallow.
For sure I'd have much more respect for 'em if they just came out with it and told us unequivocally that any fines raised from illegal parking is going straight in their coffers and that motorists are just gonna have to swallow it.
Last week a local authority spokesman admitted that he and his brethren had made over a billion big ones last year but bashfully declined to say where the money had been spent.
Later on, and on the same radio station, a councillor from one of the London boroughs stated quite categorically that no revenue was raised from clamping or ticketing and that all monies raised went on the cost of implementing illegal parking measures.
Yeah right and I'm a ******* Chinaman.