CCTV crackdown on rogue drivers in York

CCTV crackdown on rogue drivers in York

CCTV crackdown on rogue drivers in York

First published in News
Last updated
York Press: Photograph of the Author by , Political Reporter

A CCTV crackdown on York’s city-centre streets could lead to £100,000 in driver fines over the next two years.

City of York Council is set to introduce a “controlled zone” covering Coppergate, Piccadilly and Stonebow, which will see cameras catch motorists who flout traffic laws, use bus lanes and ignore bus and taxi-only restrictions.

The authority’s budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which will be debated next week, say the enforcement measures could bring in fines totalling £100,000 during this time, based on traffic surveys.

The Coppergate CCTV is due to come into operation in May or June, and the council said the system is likely to be extended to Piccadilly and Stonebow, although there are no plans to widen it to other parts of the city.

Restrictions have been in place on Coppergate since the 1960s, but the council said they have been enforced “infrequently” and an August 2011 study found more than 600 motorists illegally used it during restricted times.

From this year, the authority will have joint responsibility for enforcement action with North Yorkshire Police, and the hours when only buses, taxis and cyclists can use Coppergate are being extended.

“The plan is to introduce a controlled zone in the city centre encompassing Coppergate, Stonebow and Piccadilly,” said a council spokeswoman.

“The modelling involved [to estimate the level of fines] has been based on traffic surveys which identified the number of vehicles contravening the existing traffic restriction on Coppergate during the hours the CCTV enforcement will be in operation.

This has been projected forward to give a likely level of penalty notice-issuing, with a reduction of 80 per cent between years one and two to account for drop-off in offender rates.”

She said this drop-off figure was a “likely worst case”, as other cities had seen the number of fines fall by 50 per cent after the first year of similar CCTV enforcement schemes, and the cameras were “a more efficient tool for enforcing basic traffic restrictions already in place”.

Osbaldwick councillor Mark Warters said he would oppose any moves to extend the bus-lane enforcement system to areas such as Hull Road, saying this would lead to drivers using residential side streets instead.

Coun Ian Gillies, who leads the Conservative group, said he supported using CCTV to enforce road rules but questioned the “assumption” in the budget proposals over the likely income from fines before the measures had been introduced.

Comments (47)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:30am Tue 19 Feb 13

maybejustmaybe says...

Add Goodramgate to that list with the new hours and they could make a bit more revenue, probably enough to reconstruct Goodramgate itself.
Add Goodramgate to that list with the new hours and they could make a bit more revenue, probably enough to reconstruct Goodramgate itself. maybejustmaybe
  • Score: 0

10:38am Tue 19 Feb 13

Pete the Brickie says...

Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?
Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue? Pete the Brickie
  • Score: 0

10:40am Tue 19 Feb 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?
And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237? Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

10:54am Tue 19 Feb 13

DEKKA says...

"who the hell is bothered"..I would say all public transport users who are held up by inconsiderate motorists.
"who the hell is bothered"..I would say all public transport users who are held up by inconsiderate motorists. DEKKA
  • Score: 0

10:57am Tue 19 Feb 13

GooseTrackLane says...

I cut through Coppergate at about 8:15am every morning. There is very little traffic on it at that time and never more than 3 or 4 cars waiting at the lights. I'm not doing any harm to anyone and there are never any checks being done at that time of day...even if I were to get caught, the petrol i've saved over the years would cover the cost of any fine 100's of times over.

If they put ANPR cameras on the road, i'll avoid it, as will most others. Those using it KNOW it is restricted, but they also know it is not policed. If they think they will catch 600 motorists a day after the cameras are introduced (and are budgeting for that many), they will be very disappointed.
I cut through Coppergate at about 8:15am every morning. There is very little traffic on it at that time and never more than 3 or 4 cars waiting at the lights. I'm not doing any harm to anyone and there are never any checks being done at that time of day...even if I were to get caught, the petrol i've saved over the years would cover the cost of any fine 100's of times over. If they put ANPR cameras on the road, i'll avoid it, as will most others. Those using it KNOW it is restricted, but they also know it is not policed. If they think they will catch 600 motorists a day after the cameras are introduced (and are budgeting for that many), they will be very disappointed. GooseTrackLane
  • Score: 0

11:18am Tue 19 Feb 13

inthesticks says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?
Absolutely spot on.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?[/p][/quote]Absolutely spot on. inthesticks
  • Score: 0

11:21am Tue 19 Feb 13

snugglebunny says...

I assume as I cyclist this will mean I am excempt and still free to roam as I please.
I assume as I cyclist this will mean I am excempt and still free to roam as I please. snugglebunny
  • Score: 0

11:22am Tue 19 Feb 13

Capt. Dobie says...

£100k over 2 fiscal years. How much is each fine- £30 or £60? How many 'criminals' need processing to make the alleged amount?

Is that extra revenue generated or is it taking into account CCTV control room manning, fine processing, capitaion figures etc?

I know it is annoying seeing cars nip through restricted zones, but as the ring-road moves at a glacial pace, the drivers who apply their nouse to save time by going cross-city are trying to do their best with a bad-lot. How much harm is truly done by this?

I can see it is merely 'enforcing the law/ highway code', but it's a psuedo-congestion charging scheme.
£100k over 2 fiscal years. How much is each fine- £30 or £60? How many 'criminals' need processing to make the alleged amount? Is that extra revenue generated or is it taking into account CCTV control room manning, fine processing, capitaion figures etc? I know it is annoying seeing cars nip through restricted zones, but as the ring-road moves at a glacial pace, the drivers who apply their nouse to save time by going cross-city are trying to do their best with a bad-lot. How much harm is truly done by this? I can see it is merely 'enforcing the law/ highway code', but it's a psuedo-congestion charging scheme. Capt. Dobie
  • Score: 0

11:27am Tue 19 Feb 13

Oncebitten says...

snugglebunny wrote:
I assume as I cyclist this will mean I am excempt and still free to roam as I please.
As a cyclist you should not roam as you please but should observe road regulations like the rest of us....maybe a fine for unsafe cyclists who jump red lights or decide to ride on pavements to avoid traffic lights all together...surely CCTV can catch these two wheeled little devils too.
[quote][p][bold]snugglebunny[/bold] wrote: I assume as I cyclist this will mean I am excempt and still free to roam as I please.[/p][/quote]As a cyclist you should not roam as you please but should observe road regulations like the rest of us....maybe a fine for unsafe cyclists who jump red lights or decide to ride on pavements to avoid traffic lights all together...surely CCTV can catch these two wheeled little devils too. Oncebitten
  • Score: 0

12:09pm Tue 19 Feb 13

BioLogic says...

First they would have to put an enforceable restriction on Piccadilly, as this is simply marked as "Access Only". As a traffic restriction this has no teeth as it only requires you to need access. This means that you do not commit an offence if you travel along Piccadilly to get to Pavement and Stonebow which has no restriction in force from the Pavement end.

As the traffic restrictions themselves are a farce, there would seem little point in actually trying to enforce any but the Coppergate restriction. In this case the cost seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
First they would have to put an enforceable restriction on Piccadilly, as this is simply marked as "Access Only". As a traffic restriction this has no teeth as it only requires you to need access. This means that you do not commit an offence if you travel along Piccadilly to get to Pavement and Stonebow which has no restriction in force from the Pavement end. As the traffic restrictions themselves are a farce, there would seem little point in actually trying to enforce any but the Coppergate restriction. In this case the cost seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

the original Homer says...

isn't it a bit strange that they expect 50% reduction in offenders and say an 80% reduction is "worst case" - rather thab "best case"?
In other words, admitting this is purely aimed at raising money, and nothing to do with safety etc.
Unlike speed cameras of course, which are purely to increase safety.
isn't it a bit strange that they expect 50% reduction in offenders and say an 80% reduction is "worst case" - rather thab "best case"? In other words, admitting this is purely aimed at raising money, and nothing to do with safety etc. Unlike speed cameras of course, which are purely to increase safety. the original Homer
  • Score: 0

12:29pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Jackanory2 says...

Why don't they just pedestrianise the said areas and also stop buses using particularly Coppergate, how there hasn't been more deaths due to buses on Coppergate is a wonder.
Why don't they just pedestrianise the said areas and also stop buses using particularly Coppergate, how there hasn't been more deaths due to buses on Coppergate is a wonder. Jackanory2
  • Score: 0

12:31pm Tue 19 Feb 13

pedalling paul says...

Hmmm......I wonder how the informal bollard "bypass" via St Saviourgate will be managed?
I recall reading in a recent CoYC Report that these enforcement cameras will useully be ANPR-enabled.
The City Square area of Leeds has been made into a public transport & cycle only zone, and that brings much greater reliabilty and safety to sustainable travel. Time to follow their lead!
Hmmm......I wonder how the informal bollard "bypass" via St Saviourgate will be managed? I recall reading in a recent CoYC Report that these enforcement cameras will useully be ANPR-enabled. The City Square area of Leeds has been made into a public transport & cycle only zone, and that brings much greater reliabilty and safety to sustainable travel. Time to follow their lead! pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Guy Fawkes says...

The authority’s budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which will be debated next week, say the enforcement measures could bring in fines totalling £100,000 during this time,


So there you have it: CoYC freely admit that this has nothing to do with promoting safer or more efficient road use, and everything to do with raising money. What will they do when everyone starts obeying the rules and they aren't making any fine money anymore? I know: they'll introduce new and pointless rules to extract more money from us.

surely CCTV can catch these two wheeled little devils too.


Unless you have number plates on bikes, no it can't. Therefore, IMO, there should be number plates on bikes.
[quote]The authority’s budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which will be debated next week, say the enforcement measures could bring in fines totalling £100,000 during this time,[/quote] So there you have it: CoYC freely admit that this has nothing to do with promoting safer or more efficient road use, and everything to do with raising money. What will they do when everyone starts obeying the rules and they aren't making any fine money anymore? I know: they'll introduce new and pointless rules to extract more money from us. [quote]surely CCTV can catch these two wheeled little devils too.[/quote] Unless you have number plates on bikes, no it can't. Therefore, IMO, there should be number plates on bikes. Guy Fawkes
  • Score: 0

12:47pm Tue 19 Feb 13

the original Homer says...

BioLogic wrote:
First they would have to put an enforceable restriction on Piccadilly, as this is simply marked as "Access Only". As a traffic restriction this has no teeth as it only requires you to need access. This means that you do not commit an offence if you travel along Piccadilly to get to Pavement and Stonebow which has no restriction in force from the Pavement end. As the traffic restrictions themselves are a farce, there would seem little point in actually trying to enforce any but the Coppergate restriction. In this case the cost seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Needing access to another street beyond isn't a legitimate reason to pass an "Access Only" sign, unless that is the only way to get there.
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: First they would have to put an enforceable restriction on Piccadilly, as this is simply marked as "Access Only". As a traffic restriction this has no teeth as it only requires you to need access. This means that you do not commit an offence if you travel along Piccadilly to get to Pavement and Stonebow which has no restriction in force from the Pavement end. As the traffic restrictions themselves are a farce, there would seem little point in actually trying to enforce any but the Coppergate restriction. In this case the cost seems like a sledgehammer to crack a nut.[/p][/quote]Needing access to another street beyond isn't a legitimate reason to pass an "Access Only" sign, unless that is the only way to get there. the original Homer
  • Score: 0

12:50pm Tue 19 Feb 13

BioLogic says...

Alas Legally it is legitimate and sufficient, and not withs standing that point in the case of Pavement, it is the only way to get there without going through another restriction, i.e Colliergate or Coppergate.
Alas Legally it is legitimate and sufficient, and not withs standing that point in the case of Pavement, it is the only way to get there without going through another restriction, i.e Colliergate or Coppergate. BioLogic
  • Score: 0

12:56pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Imposter says...

It would be nice to know what the hours of operation are to be and also whether the restriction will be applied to taxis. 07.30 to 19.30 seems reasonable to me.
It would be nice to know what the hours of operation are to be and also whether the restriction will be applied to taxis. 07.30 to 19.30 seems reasonable to me. Imposter
  • Score: 0

1:03pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Haywire says...

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?
Well, Peter, for a man who keeps his ear to the ground, you seem well behind the times on this one.

These cameras will provide Automatic Number Plate Recognition, similar to those which have been such a success in Leeds.

I suspect that this measure alone will have a significant and positive impact on public transport in that area.
[quote][p][bold]Pete the Brickie[/bold] wrote: Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?[/p][/quote]Well, Peter, for a man who keeps his ear to the ground, you seem well behind the times on this one. These cameras will provide Automatic Number Plate Recognition, similar to those which have been such a success in Leeds. I suspect that this measure alone will have a significant and positive impact on public transport in that area. Haywire
  • Score: 0

1:32pm Tue 19 Feb 13

BioLogic says...

Pete the Brickie wrote:
Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?
One would assume that this will be new fixed position cameras. However with greater enforcement comes an even greater responsibility on CYC (if that is possible) to get it right first time every time. I just don't think that CYC can demonstrate the organisational competence to ensure that all of the traffic regulation orders are in place, with proper, legal and legible signage (Fossgate is a prime example of them getting it wrong) and that it is evenly enforced, for example making sure private hire car drivers are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

Can anyone hand on heart say they have the confidence in CYC to not muck it up at the first opportunity?
[quote][p][bold]Pete the Brickie[/bold] wrote: Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?[/p][/quote]One would assume that this will be new fixed position cameras. However with greater enforcement comes an even greater responsibility on CYC (if that is possible) to get it right first time every time. I just don't think that CYC can demonstrate the organisational competence to ensure that all of the traffic regulation orders are in place, with proper, legal and legible signage (Fossgate is a prime example of them getting it wrong) and that it is evenly enforced, for example making sure private hire car drivers are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Can anyone hand on heart say they have the confidence in CYC to not muck it up at the first opportunity? BioLogic
  • Score: 0

1:34pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Pete the Brickie says...

Haywire wrote:
Pete the Brickie wrote:
Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?
Well, Peter, for a man who keeps his ear to the ground, you seem well behind the times on this one.

These cameras will provide Automatic Number Plate Recognition, similar to those which have been such a success in Leeds.

I suspect that this measure alone will have a significant and positive impact on public transport in that area.
Quite, my point was they were rubbish as a public safety and crime prevention measure but will be improved in order to raise revenue from motorists. I never use Coppergate during the restrictions but then neither does a taxi with any passengers in it.
[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pete the Brickie[/bold] wrote: Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?[/p][/quote]Well, Peter, for a man who keeps his ear to the ground, you seem well behind the times on this one. These cameras will provide Automatic Number Plate Recognition, similar to those which have been such a success in Leeds. I suspect that this measure alone will have a significant and positive impact on public transport in that area.[/p][/quote]Quite, my point was they were rubbish as a public safety and crime prevention measure but will be improved in order to raise revenue from motorists. I never use Coppergate during the restrictions but then neither does a taxi with any passengers in it. Pete the Brickie
  • Score: 0

3:53pm Tue 19 Feb 13

johnwill says...

And they wonder why the City centre retail shops are failing! To collect something from say the M&S area ,coming in from Ousegate involves driving along Clifford street over the Foss and down Piccadilly and return but then around the Fawcett street one way system to get back to Ousegate. The 200m run through Coppergate would save all that time and congestion.
I go to Clifton Moor or Monks Cross.
And they wonder why the City centre retail shops are failing! To collect something from say the M&S area ,coming in from Ousegate involves driving along Clifford street over the Foss and down Piccadilly and return but then around the Fawcett street one way system to get back to Ousegate. The 200m run through Coppergate would save all that time and congestion. I go to Clifton Moor or Monks Cross. johnwill
  • Score: 0

4:52pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Stevie D says...

Drivers illegally using Coppergate during the daytime do cause considerable congestion for buses, delaying hundreds of people so that the selfish few can save a few minutes. And yes, I have seen this day in, day out. Likewise drivers illegally turning right from Nessgate onto Spurriergate – it's illegal, it's dangerous to other traffic and pedestrians, and it blocks the traffic. And it's very easy to stop them doing it – it's illegal, so we just need to enforce the laws that are already in place and they will very quickly stop doing it.

That's got nothing at all to do with congestion on the A1237 and the main arterial roads, which would cost millions of pounds to fix and needs new schemes put in place (which are unaffordable and unlikely to be effective in the long term).

Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another!
Drivers illegally using Coppergate during the daytime [italic]do[/italic] cause considerable congestion for buses, delaying hundreds of people so that the selfish few can save a few minutes. And yes, I have seen this day in, day out. Likewise drivers illegally turning right from Nessgate onto Spurriergate – it's illegal, it's dangerous to other traffic and pedestrians, and it blocks the traffic. And it's very easy to stop them doing it – it's illegal, so we just need to enforce the laws that are already in place and they will very quickly stop doing it. That's got nothing at all to do with congestion on the A1237 and the main arterial roads, which would cost millions of pounds to fix and needs new schemes put in place (which are unaffordable and unlikely to be effective in the long term). Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another! Stevie D
  • Score: 0

5:12pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Caecilius says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?
It's gridlocked because there's only so much space on the road and, as you say,thousands of vehicles on it. If you get stuck on it for two hours, that's a consequence of your own decision to drive one of them. It's as simple as that.

In the city centre, however, some motorists are breaking the law for their own convenience and are currently allowed to offload the consequences of that decision onto people who use public transport. Everyone who's delayed by their self-centred antics is "bothered", and they need stopping. The fact that there's more traffic on the A1237 than the road can cope with has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?[/p][/quote]It's gridlocked because there's only so much space on the road and, as you say,thousands of vehicles on it. If you get stuck on it for two hours, that's a consequence of your own decision to drive one of them. It's as simple as that. In the city centre, however, some motorists are breaking the law for their own convenience and are currently allowed to offload the consequences of that decision onto people who use public transport. Everyone who's delayed by their self-centred antics is "bothered", and they need stopping. The fact that there's more traffic on the A1237 than the road can cope with has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Caecilius
  • Score: 0

5:18pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Back and Beyond says...

"Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another!"

I agree, how about a level playing field and enforcing fines for dangerous cyclists.
"Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another!" I agree, how about a level playing field and enforcing fines for dangerous cyclists. Back and Beyond
  • Score: 0

5:19pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Paul Meoff says...

johnwill wrote:
And they wonder why the City centre retail shops are failing! To collect something from say the M&S area ,coming in from Ousegate involves driving along Clifford street over the Foss and down Piccadilly and return but then around the Fawcett street one way system to get back to Ousegate. The 200m run through Coppergate would save all that time and congestion.
I go to Clifton Moor or Monks Cross.
I'm not going on a 1/2 mile detour. I'll take a 5 mile round trip the Clifton Moor or Monks Cross instead.

That's told them hasn't it.
[quote][p][bold]johnwill[/bold] wrote: And they wonder why the City centre retail shops are failing! To collect something from say the M&S area ,coming in from Ousegate involves driving along Clifford street over the Foss and down Piccadilly and return but then around the Fawcett street one way system to get back to Ousegate. The 200m run through Coppergate would save all that time and congestion. I go to Clifton Moor or Monks Cross.[/p][/quote]I'm not going on a 1/2 mile detour. I'll take a 5 mile round trip the Clifton Moor or Monks Cross instead. That's told them hasn't it. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

5:30pm Tue 19 Feb 13

muckybutt says...

GooseTrackLane wrote:
I cut through Coppergate at about 8:15am every morning. There is very little traffic on it at that time and never more than 3 or 4 cars waiting at the lights. I'm not doing any harm to anyone and there are never any checks being done at that time of day...even if I were to get caught, the petrol i've saved over the years would cover the cost of any fine 100's of times over. If they put ANPR cameras on the road, i'll avoid it, as will most others. Those using it KNOW it is restricted, but they also know it is not policed. If they think they will catch 600 motorists a day after the cameras are introduced (and are budgeting for that many), they will be very disappointed.
So you openly admit to breaking the law....well done you....just shows what a complete pratt you really are, my guess is you also park on double yellow lines and nip throught he odd red light as well just for good measure... thing is its never your fault is it when you cause an accident.

Back to York CC, I hope they do a better job than a case I was recently involved with from Avon and Bath council, a Bus Gate which is effectively what this will become, was signed incorrectly which caught 1000's of motorists unaware that they were entering a bus only stretch of road. Eventually at appeal and after several more months waiting it was deemed the signage was incorrect and that all fines would be cancelled and refunded.

So YCC being the numpties that they are will probably co ck it up to begin with. Nice little money earner though if they get it right, Bradford cc did one similar a few years ago, they netted 2.3 million quid in two and a half years.
[quote][p][bold]GooseTrackLane[/bold] wrote: I cut through Coppergate at about 8:15am every morning. There is very little traffic on it at that time and never more than 3 or 4 cars waiting at the lights. I'm not doing any harm to anyone and there are never any checks being done at that time of day...even if I were to get caught, the petrol i've saved over the years would cover the cost of any fine 100's of times over. If they put ANPR cameras on the road, i'll avoid it, as will most others. Those using it KNOW it is restricted, but they also know it is not policed. If they think they will catch 600 motorists a day after the cameras are introduced (and are budgeting for that many), they will be very disappointed.[/p][/quote]So you openly admit to breaking the law....well done you....just shows what a complete pratt you really are, my guess is you also park on double yellow lines and nip throught he odd red light as well just for good measure... thing is its never your fault is it when you cause an accident. Back to York CC, I hope they do a better job than a case I was recently involved with from Avon and Bath council, a Bus Gate which is effectively what this will become, was signed incorrectly which caught 1000's of motorists unaware that they were entering a bus only stretch of road. Eventually at appeal and after several more months waiting it was deemed the signage was incorrect and that all fines would be cancelled and refunded. So YCC being the numpties that they are will probably co ck it up to begin with. Nice little money earner though if they get it right, Bradford cc did one similar a few years ago, they netted 2.3 million quid in two and a half years. muckybutt
  • Score: 0

5:51pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Stevie D wrote:
Drivers illegally using Coppergate during the daytime do cause considerable congestion for buses, delaying hundreds of people so that the selfish few can save a few minutes. And yes, I have seen this day in, day out. Likewise drivers illegally turning right from Nessgate onto Spurriergate – it's illegal, it's dangerous to other traffic and pedestrians, and it blocks the traffic. And it's very easy to stop them doing it – it's illegal, so we just need to enforce the laws that are already in place and they will very quickly stop doing it.

That's got nothing at all to do with congestion on the A1237 and the main arterial roads, which would cost millions of pounds to fix and needs new schemes put in place (which are unaffordable and unlikely to be effective in the long term).

Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another!
Coppergate, Stonebow and the other places you mention are NOT a problem. The cameras are just gonna be cash cows accruing money from the odd naughty driver.

The A1237 gridlock problem is a megabollox fiasco that is York's priority in fixing.
[quote][p][bold]Stevie D[/bold] wrote: Drivers illegally using Coppergate during the daytime [italic]do[/italic] cause considerable congestion for buses, delaying hundreds of people so that the selfish few can save a few minutes. And yes, I have seen this day in, day out. Likewise drivers illegally turning right from Nessgate onto Spurriergate – it's illegal, it's dangerous to other traffic and pedestrians, and it blocks the traffic. And it's very easy to stop them doing it – it's illegal, so we just need to enforce the laws that are already in place and they will very quickly stop doing it. That's got nothing at all to do with congestion on the A1237 and the main arterial roads, which would cost millions of pounds to fix and needs new schemes put in place (which are unaffordable and unlikely to be effective in the long term). Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another![/p][/quote]Coppergate, Stonebow and the other places you mention are NOT a problem. The cameras are just gonna be cash cows accruing money from the odd naughty driver. The A1237 gridlock problem is a megabollox fiasco that is York's priority in fixing. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

6:15pm Tue 19 Feb 13

york_chap says...

Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic.

Unfortunately, the leading lights at the council still genuinely believe that everyone either does, or should live within 1 mile of the city centre and that there is no reason whatsoever that cars should be owned or allowed anywhere within the city.

Also, it isn't much fun as a cyclist trying to squeeze past the snake of stationary buses that runs the length of Coppergate in both directions at busy times. It's either sit behind them breathing in the clouds of fumes or get squashed up the kerb. Great fun.
Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic. Unfortunately, the leading lights at the council still genuinely believe that everyone either does, or should live within 1 mile of the city centre and that there is no reason whatsoever that cars should be owned or allowed anywhere within the city. Also, it isn't much fun as a cyclist trying to squeeze past the snake of stationary buses that runs the length of Coppergate in both directions at busy times. It's either sit behind them breathing in the clouds of fumes or get squashed up the kerb. Great fun. york_chap
  • Score: 0

6:19pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Garrowby Turnoff says...

Caecilius wrote:
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?
It's gridlocked because there's only so much space on the road and, as you say,thousands of vehicles on it. If you get stuck on it for two hours, that's a consequence of your own decision to drive one of them. It's as simple as that.

In the city centre, however, some motorists are breaking the law for their own convenience and are currently allowed to offload the consequences of that decision onto people who use public transport. Everyone who's delayed by their self-centred antics is "bothered", and they need stopping. The fact that there's more traffic on the A1237 than the road can cope with has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.
I take your point, but if you cure the A1237 gridlock drivers wouldn't need to use rat-runs and inner city shortcuts. Drivers rushing about at work are tempted to break the rules because York's arterial road system is totally inadequate.

How can the City claim with any justification to be an important Northern business hub when it takes the patience of 'Job' to drive a few miles round town. It must have cost the city zillions in lost infrastructure and business investment because our local transport system is a comical failure. There's no wonder some of the West and South Yorkshire alternatives for investment, and resultant jobs, are becoming business "hotspots." Whilst gridlocked York stagnates in roads that are memorable of the 1970s, with its traffic jams, speed bumps, Bendy buses, expensive parking and barmy surveillance cameras. Chuck in the odd "rising bollard" that 'legally' totally wrecks a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and you can see that CoYC has Dick Turpin's "Stand and Deliver" policy towards the travelers on its roads.
[quote][p][bold]Caecilius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?[/p][/quote]It's gridlocked because there's only so much space on the road and, as you say,thousands of vehicles on it. If you get stuck on it for two hours, that's a consequence of your own decision to drive one of them. It's as simple as that. In the city centre, however, some motorists are breaking the law for their own convenience and are currently allowed to offload the consequences of that decision onto people who use public transport. Everyone who's delayed by their self-centred antics is "bothered", and they need stopping. The fact that there's more traffic on the A1237 than the road can cope with has absolutely nothing to do with this issue.[/p][/quote]I take your point, but if you cure the A1237 gridlock drivers wouldn't need to use rat-runs and inner city shortcuts. Drivers rushing about at work are tempted to break the rules because York's arterial road system is totally inadequate. How can the City claim with any justification to be an important Northern business hub when it takes the patience of 'Job' to drive a few miles round town. It must have cost the city zillions in lost infrastructure and business investment because our local transport system is a comical failure. There's no wonder some of the West and South Yorkshire alternatives for investment, and resultant jobs, are becoming business "hotspots." Whilst gridlocked York stagnates in roads that are memorable of the 1970s, with its traffic jams, speed bumps, Bendy buses, expensive parking and barmy surveillance cameras. Chuck in the odd "rising bollard" that 'legally' totally wrecks a vehicle for a minor traffic violation and you can see that CoYC has Dick Turpin's "Stand and Deliver" policy towards the travelers on its roads. Garrowby Turnoff
  • Score: 0

6:38pm Tue 19 Feb 13

yawn.. says...

If you don't make illegal use of Coppergate then you have no reason to sound off.. :)
If you don't make illegal use of Coppergate then you have no reason to sound off.. :) yawn..
  • Score: 0

7:03pm Tue 19 Feb 13

snugglebunny says...

Back and Beyond wrote:
"Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another!"

I agree, how about a level playing field and enforcing fines for dangerous cyclists.
Good news then.I can carry on roaming free while you motorists find a LEGAL route through the town centre or get stuck in the jams on the outer ring road and i'll be home before you.
[quote][p][bold]Back and Beyond[/bold] wrote: "Just because you can't solve one problem doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to solve another!" I agree, how about a level playing field and enforcing fines for dangerous cyclists.[/p][/quote]Good news then.I can carry on roaming free while you motorists find a LEGAL route through the town centre or get stuck in the jams on the outer ring road and i'll be home before you. snugglebunny
  • Score: 0

8:24pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Paul Meoff says...

Sounds like a good move all round.

Discouraging traffic from the centre makes it more pleasant for those who walk or cycle encouraging more to do the same.

This makes more room for those who must drive to make deliveries and those who are genuinely disabled. Should also mean public transport flows better encouraging its use..

The stupid tax on those who can't understand or choose to ignore restriction signs can be treated as a toll. Hopefully this would be reinvested in similar measures thus extending the improved environment beyond the city centre.
Sounds like a good move all round. Discouraging traffic from the centre makes it more pleasant for those who walk or cycle encouraging more to do the same. This makes more room for those who must drive to make deliveries and those who are genuinely disabled. Should also mean public transport flows better encouraging its use.. The stupid tax on those who can't understand or choose to ignore restriction signs can be treated as a toll. Hopefully this would be reinvested in similar measures thus extending the improved environment beyond the city centre. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

9:27pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Torkie says...

You enforce laws because there's a problem if you don't, absolutely not for making cash.
You enforce laws because there's a problem if you don't, absolutely not for making cash. Torkie
  • Score: 0

9:44pm Tue 19 Feb 13

Buzz Light-year says...

Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic.

This is spot on.
[quote]Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic.[/quote] This is spot on. Buzz Light-year
  • Score: 0

10:56pm Tue 19 Feb 13

baldiebiker says...

why not shut york for good, there's nothing worth going into the centre for anyway?
why not shut york for good, there's nothing worth going into the centre for anyway? baldiebiker
  • Score: 0

11:13pm Tue 19 Feb 13

yorkborn66 says...

york_chap wrote:
Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic.

Unfortunately, the leading lights at the council still genuinely believe that everyone either does, or should live within 1 mile of the city centre and that there is no reason whatsoever that cars should be owned or allowed anywhere within the city.

Also, it isn't much fun as a cyclist trying to squeeze past the snake of stationary buses that runs the length of Coppergate in both directions at busy times. It's either sit behind them breathing in the clouds of fumes or get squashed up the kerb. Great fun.
Well for a start you are not supposed to undertake as a cyclist anyway. If you wish to do so, you will probably get injured in the process.
Coppergate is the main route for buses, always was and always will be.
Private cars should not use this route during restriction times, and the majority of drivers know it.
For those whining about taxis using Coppergate, they are classed as a public service, so get over it.
Coppergate is a cut through for buses and cyclists , Taxi and private hire, buses do not speed down Coppergate, and I cannot remember an accident that involved a bus on this road.
For those that use public transport, Coppergate must be private car free during the restriction times, to try and provide a reliable service.
York Chap, I do not know how long you have lived in York, but I remember the early 70’s when cars could drive down nearly all the streets in the centre and around the Minster. And it was gridlocked then, so what would it be like now?
The majority of our historic streets were not designed to cope with the amount of traffic we have today.
I am all in favor of the cameras but the ring round must be addressed because it is not fit for purpose.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic. Unfortunately, the leading lights at the council still genuinely believe that everyone either does, or should live within 1 mile of the city centre and that there is no reason whatsoever that cars should be owned or allowed anywhere within the city. Also, it isn't much fun as a cyclist trying to squeeze past the snake of stationary buses that runs the length of Coppergate in both directions at busy times. It's either sit behind them breathing in the clouds of fumes or get squashed up the kerb. Great fun.[/p][/quote]Well for a start you are not supposed to undertake as a cyclist anyway. If you wish to do so, you will probably get injured in the process. Coppergate is the main route for buses, always was and always will be. Private cars should not use this route during restriction times, and the majority of drivers know it. For those whining about taxis using Coppergate, they are classed as a public service, so get over it. Coppergate is a cut through for buses and cyclists , Taxi and private hire, buses do not speed down Coppergate, and I cannot remember an accident that involved a bus on this road. For those that use public transport, Coppergate must be private car free during the restriction times, to try and provide a reliable service. York Chap, I do not know how long you have lived in York, but I remember the early 70’s when cars could drive down nearly all the streets in the centre and around the Minster. And it was gridlocked then, so what would it be like now? The majority of our historic streets were not designed to cope with the amount of traffic we have today. I am all in favor of the cameras but the ring round must be addressed because it is not fit for purpose. yorkborn66
  • Score: 0

6:36am Wed 20 Feb 13

ouseswimmer says...

I find it far quicker to drive through the city centre than try to use the ring road.
I find it far quicker to drive through the city centre than try to use the ring road. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 0

7:21am Wed 20 Feb 13

Paul Meoff says...

Guy Fawkes wrote:
The authority’s budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which will be debated next week, say the enforcement measures could bring in fines totalling £100,000 during this time,


So there you have it: CoYC freely admit that this has nothing to do with promoting safer or more efficient road use, and everything to do with raising money. What will they do when everyone starts obeying the rules and they aren't making any fine money anymore? I know: they'll introduce new and pointless rules to extract more money from us.

surely CCTV can catch these two wheeled little devils too.


Unless you have number plates on bikes, no it can't. Therefore, IMO, there should be number plates on bikes.
Number plates on bikes can only be suggested as a wind up. How big should they be, how should they be fitted and how would a scheme be enforced? I can just see plod pulling over that 5 year old with stabilisers for having a toy obscuring it's number plate.
[quote][p][bold]Guy Fawkes[/bold] wrote: [quote]The authority’s budget proposals for 2013/14 and 2014/15, which will be debated next week, say the enforcement measures could bring in fines totalling £100,000 during this time,[/quote] So there you have it: CoYC freely admit that this has nothing to do with promoting safer or more efficient road use, and everything to do with raising money. What will they do when everyone starts obeying the rules and they aren't making any fine money anymore? I know: they'll introduce new and pointless rules to extract more money from us. [quote]surely CCTV can catch these two wheeled little devils too.[/quote] Unless you have number plates on bikes, no it can't. Therefore, IMO, there should be number plates on bikes.[/p][/quote]Number plates on bikes can only be suggested as a wind up. How big should they be, how should they be fitted and how would a scheme be enforced? I can just see plod pulling over that 5 year old with stabilisers for having a toy obscuring it's number plate. Paul Meoff
  • Score: 0

7:23am Wed 20 Feb 13

pedalling paul says...

There were moves afoot at one time to create a one way public transport loop via Piccadilly & Coppergate (with cyclist contraflows). I wonder if that would make better use of capacity. Coppergate 2 would have created a developer-funded cyclist bridge across the Foss, linking riverside paths via Tower Gardens &Cliffords Tower direct into Piccadilly. Hope that can somehow be revived.
There were moves afoot at one time to create a one way public transport loop via Piccadilly & Coppergate (with cyclist contraflows). I wonder if that would make better use of capacity. Coppergate 2 would have created a developer-funded cyclist bridge across the Foss, linking riverside paths via Tower Gardens &Cliffords Tower direct into Piccadilly. Hope that can somehow be revived. pedalling paul
  • Score: 0

12:08pm Wed 20 Feb 13

GooseTrackLane says...

muckybutt wrote:
GooseTrackLane wrote:
I cut through Coppergate at about 8:15am every morning. There is very little traffic on it at that time and never more than 3 or 4 cars waiting at the lights. I'm not doing any harm to anyone and there are never any checks being done at that time of day...even if I were to get caught, the petrol i've saved over the years would cover the cost of any fine 100's of times over. If they put ANPR cameras on the road, i'll avoid it, as will most others. Those using it KNOW it is restricted, but they also know it is not policed. If they think they will catch 600 motorists a day after the cameras are introduced (and are budgeting for that many), they will be very disappointed.
So you openly admit to breaking the law....well done you....just shows what a complete pratt you really are, my guess is you also park on double yellow lines and nip throught he odd red light as well just for good measure... thing is its never your fault is it when you cause an accident.

Back to York CC, I hope they do a better job than a case I was recently involved with from Avon and Bath council, a Bus Gate which is effectively what this will become, was signed incorrectly which caught 1000's of motorists unaware that they were entering a bus only stretch of road. Eventually at appeal and after several more months waiting it was deemed the signage was incorrect and that all fines would be cancelled and refunded.

So YCC being the numpties that they are will probably co ck it up to begin with. Nice little money earner though if they get it right, Bradford cc did one similar a few years ago, they netted 2.3 million quid in two and a half years.
Why would I cause an accident by driving down an almost deserted street in the morning?

Have you ever driven at 75-80 miles per hour on a motorway? Have you driven at 25 miles per hour in a 20 zone late at night?

Of course you have.

Both of those are 'against the law', but most people who are guilty of that offence do it because they don't see it as a danger and don't believe they are causing problems by ignoring the law.

The same goes for those using Coppergate.

I use Coppergate in the morning as it makes no difference to anyone at that time of day. I don't use it any other times of day, when it is busy and when you would cause problems for the buses.

PS. I may be a complete prat, but not for this reason. Coppergate saves me time and money, with no consequence to anyone. Until the ANPR cameras arrive, it will remain my route to work.
[quote][p][bold]muckybutt[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GooseTrackLane[/bold] wrote: I cut through Coppergate at about 8:15am every morning. There is very little traffic on it at that time and never more than 3 or 4 cars waiting at the lights. I'm not doing any harm to anyone and there are never any checks being done at that time of day...even if I were to get caught, the petrol i've saved over the years would cover the cost of any fine 100's of times over. If they put ANPR cameras on the road, i'll avoid it, as will most others. Those using it KNOW it is restricted, but they also know it is not policed. If they think they will catch 600 motorists a day after the cameras are introduced (and are budgeting for that many), they will be very disappointed.[/p][/quote]So you openly admit to breaking the law....well done you....just shows what a complete pratt you really are, my guess is you also park on double yellow lines and nip throught he odd red light as well just for good measure... thing is its never your fault is it when you cause an accident. Back to York CC, I hope they do a better job than a case I was recently involved with from Avon and Bath council, a Bus Gate which is effectively what this will become, was signed incorrectly which caught 1000's of motorists unaware that they were entering a bus only stretch of road. Eventually at appeal and after several more months waiting it was deemed the signage was incorrect and that all fines would be cancelled and refunded. So YCC being the numpties that they are will probably co ck it up to begin with. Nice little money earner though if they get it right, Bradford cc did one similar a few years ago, they netted 2.3 million quid in two and a half years.[/p][/quote]Why would I cause an accident by driving down an almost deserted street in the morning? Have you ever driven at 75-80 miles per hour on a motorway? Have you driven at 25 miles per hour in a 20 zone late at night? Of course you have. Both of those are 'against the law', but most people who are guilty of that offence do it because they don't see it as a danger and don't believe they are causing problems by ignoring the law. The same goes for those using Coppergate. I use Coppergate in the morning as it makes no difference to anyone at that time of day. I don't use it any other times of day, when it is busy and when you would cause problems for the buses. PS. I may be a complete prat, but not for this reason. Coppergate saves me time and money, with no consequence to anyone. Until the ANPR cameras arrive, it will remain my route to work. GooseTrackLane
  • Score: 0

2:16pm Wed 20 Feb 13

xtc says...

BioLogic wrote:
Pete the Brickie wrote:
Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?
One would assume that this will be new fixed position cameras. However with greater enforcement comes an even greater responsibility on CYC (if that is possible) to get it right first time every time. I just don't think that CYC can demonstrate the organisational competence to ensure that all of the traffic regulation orders are in place, with proper, legal and legible signage (Fossgate is a prime example of them getting it wrong) and that it is evenly enforced, for example making sure private hire car drivers are subject to the same rules as the rest of us.

Can anyone hand on heart say they have the confidence in CYC to not muck it up at the first opportunity?
We have a or on fulford road never hear of speeders being caught though I actually had to point it out to cabbie who was clueless about it being there!
[quote][p][bold]BioLogic[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Pete the Brickie[/bold] wrote: Would this be the same CCTV which is either blurred, unmanned, its operators are watching DVDs or is pointing the wrong way whenever the police call upon it to help solve a real crime? It will no doubt be improved now its main focus is trivial motoring offences able to create revenue?[/p][/quote]One would assume that this will be new fixed position cameras. However with greater enforcement comes an even greater responsibility on CYC (if that is possible) to get it right first time every time. I just don't think that CYC can demonstrate the organisational competence to ensure that all of the traffic regulation orders are in place, with proper, legal and legible signage (Fossgate is a prime example of them getting it wrong) and that it is evenly enforced, for example making sure private hire car drivers are subject to the same rules as the rest of us. Can anyone hand on heart say they have the confidence in CYC to not muck it up at the first opportunity?[/p][/quote]We have a or on fulford road never hear of speeders being caught though I actually had to point it out to cabbie who was clueless about it being there! xtc
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Wed 20 Feb 13

yorkshirelad says...

I can't really see the problem. When you have people (see above) bragging about how they will do as they please because it's not enforced then it's obvious we need a new way of enforcing things.

So long as it's clear and everyone knows what they are doing when they break the law, what exactly is wrong with fines being used for council income? I'd rather it was law-breakers forking out than law abiding citizens paying more council tax.
I can't really see the problem. When you have people (see above) bragging about how they will do as they please because it's not enforced then it's obvious we need a new way of enforcing things. So long as it's clear and everyone knows what they are doing when they break the law, what exactly is wrong with fines being used for council income? I'd rather it was law-breakers forking out than law abiding citizens paying more council tax. yorkshirelad
  • Score: 0

1:57am Thu 21 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:
And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?
Because this clogs up certain junctions which only really have the capacity for 3 buses per sequence of the lights on each set... you add in 5 cars on each set and you soon get a tailback which then delays the buses.

As for the ring road... if I was in power I'd have the A1237 dualled first, then new priority measures from Blossom street via Nunnery Lane and Castle Mills to Foss Islands/James Street (with a roundabout across Layerthorpe to a roundabout on Heworth green) so that all the traffic goes that way and then roads including Queen Street, Micklegate, Rougier Street, Museum Street, Piccadilly, Stonebow and Tower Street all get covered by ANPR on a system where cars can enter the 'central zone' but must leave the same way they entered or the drivers dealt a £60 penalty - this would allow people to go in to pick up shopping, pick up mail, drop somebody off at the train station, etc, but not to cross the city as a shortcut.
[quote][p][bold]Garrowby Turnoff[/bold] wrote: And still it takes 2 hours to negotiate the ring road between the A59 and A64 on any morning and evening. Why is the City centre a priority? Especially where no-one does business anymore except a few gift shops and tourist eateries. If York wants to improve its accessibility it ought to get its main arterial routes to the out-of-town shops and businesses that keeps the city afloat sorted out. Who the hell is bothered if the odd rogue car drives up the Stonebow or sneaks down Coppergate in comparison with thousands of vehicles gridlocked for hours on the A1237?[/p][/quote]Because this clogs up certain junctions which only really have the capacity for 3 buses per sequence of the lights on each set... you add in 5 cars on each set and you soon get a tailback which then delays the buses. As for the ring road... if I was in power I'd have the A1237 dualled first, then new priority measures from Blossom street via Nunnery Lane and Castle Mills to Foss Islands/James Street (with a roundabout across Layerthorpe to a roundabout on Heworth green) so that all the traffic goes that way and then roads including Queen Street, Micklegate, Rougier Street, Museum Street, Piccadilly, Stonebow and Tower Street all get covered by ANPR on a system where cars can enter the 'central zone' but must leave the same way they entered or the drivers dealt a £60 penalty - this would allow people to go in to pick up shopping, pick up mail, drop somebody off at the train station, etc, but not to cross the city as a shortcut. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:07am Thu 21 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

Jackanory2 wrote:
Why don't they just pedestrianise the said areas and also stop buses using particularly Coppergate, how there hasn't been more deaths due to buses on Coppergate is a wonder.
Errrrrmmmmm, take a look at how many buses use coppergate. If coppergate was pedestrianised that would require about 80% of the city's bus services to be diverted... ranging from short distance ones like the 12/13/24/26 and 44 through interurban routes like the 42, 415, 142, 412, right up to the biggest route that goes through york: the Coastliner. In the example of the Coastliner heading westbound, the diversion would be along Piccadilly, Paragon Street, Fawcett Street, Fishergate, Castle Mills, and Tower Street. In peak times when paragon Street is backed up with traffic and cars coming the other way are driven by people without any manners and so refuse to let cars enter Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford direction, you're looking at adding on 20-30 minutes to the route (8-10 minutes off peak).... It would be an utterly stupid idea that would take a bunch of brainless monkeys to actually put it forward. A better idea for pedestrian safety there is to remove the under-used section of pavement that runs adjacent to the church up to the first crossing point, move traffic over to where the pavement used to be, and then use the space gained to widen the pavement outside the shops like Duttons.
[quote][p][bold]Jackanory2[/bold] wrote: Why don't they just pedestrianise the said areas and also stop buses using particularly Coppergate, how there hasn't been more deaths due to buses on Coppergate is a wonder.[/p][/quote]Errrrrmmmmm, take a look at how many buses use coppergate. If coppergate was pedestrianised that would require about 80% of the city's bus services to be diverted... ranging from short distance ones like the 12/13/24/26 and 44 through interurban routes like the 42, 415, 142, 412, right up to the biggest route that goes through york: the Coastliner. In the example of the Coastliner heading westbound, the diversion would be along Piccadilly, Paragon Street, Fawcett Street, Fishergate, Castle Mills, and Tower Street. In peak times when paragon Street is backed up with traffic and cars coming the other way are driven by people without any manners and so refuse to let cars enter Fawcett Street to head towards Fulford direction, you're looking at adding on 20-30 minutes to the route (8-10 minutes off peak).... It would be an utterly stupid idea that would take a bunch of brainless monkeys to actually put it forward. A better idea for pedestrian safety there is to remove the under-used section of pavement that runs adjacent to the church up to the first crossing point, move traffic over to where the pavement used to be, and then use the space gained to widen the pavement outside the shops like Duttons. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:16am Thu 21 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

york_chap wrote:
Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic.

Unfortunately, the leading lights at the council still genuinely believe that everyone either does, or should live within 1 mile of the city centre and that there is no reason whatsoever that cars should be owned or allowed anywhere within the city.

Also, it isn't much fun as a cyclist trying to squeeze past the snake of stationary buses that runs the length of Coppergate in both directions at busy times. It's either sit behind them breathing in the clouds of fumes or get squashed up the kerb. Great fun.
And why is there a queue of buses in both directions? because there's too many cars in the central are using junctions at either end blocking the buses from getting out. If cars were not allowed along Tower Street and over Ouse Bridge (ie by my ANPR "exit the same way you entered" system) then there'd be nothing there to block the buses leaving the top end of coppergate, and because coppergate would be out of bounds to cars from Pavement there wouldn't be anywhere near as much traffic to block buses trying to turn into Piccadilly. If you watch the junction, when there's a bus waiting to turn and a bus coming from Pavement, 9 out of 10 times the bus from Pavement will flash the other bus to turn across their path (and this is regardless of whether one bus is a First and the other is a Transdev one, or a Transedev and an East Yorkshire one) - car's don't do that, they're more likely to rush across the junction when coppergate is blocked and try to fill the juction 2 or 3 abrest just so they're not sat at a red light on Pavement.
[quote][p][bold]york_chap[/bold] wrote: Coppergate's far better suited to private cars than buses anyway. At least cars can actually fit past each other safely, don't have huge mirrors overhanging the pavement at pedestrians' head height and don't routinely force their way out of Coppergate, either by blocking Nessgate or by pulling into the path of approaching traffic. Unfortunately, the leading lights at the council still genuinely believe that everyone either does, or should live within 1 mile of the city centre and that there is no reason whatsoever that cars should be owned or allowed anywhere within the city. Also, it isn't much fun as a cyclist trying to squeeze past the snake of stationary buses that runs the length of Coppergate in both directions at busy times. It's either sit behind them breathing in the clouds of fumes or get squashed up the kerb. Great fun.[/p][/quote]And why is there a queue of buses in both directions? because there's too many cars in the central are using junctions at either end blocking the buses from getting out. If cars were not allowed along Tower Street and over Ouse Bridge (ie by my ANPR "exit the same way you entered" system) then there'd be nothing there to block the buses leaving the top end of coppergate, and because coppergate would be out of bounds to cars from Pavement there wouldn't be anywhere near as much traffic to block buses trying to turn into Piccadilly. If you watch the junction, when there's a bus waiting to turn and a bus coming from Pavement, 9 out of 10 times the bus from Pavement will flash the other bus to turn across their path (and this is regardless of whether one bus is a First and the other is a Transdev one, or a Transedev and an East Yorkshire one) - car's don't do that, they're more likely to rush across the junction when coppergate is blocked and try to fill the juction 2 or 3 abrest just so they're not sat at a red light on Pavement. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

2:28am Thu 21 Feb 13

Magicman! says...

And as for signage of coppergate, the current Variable Message Sign shows the 'no motor vehicles' prohibition roundel during times of restriction, with an exemption description below for buses and taxi's... ANPR enforcement of this is perfectly fine and the signage would be nice and watertight. Bus lane fines and rising bollards in themselves are fine for those on the roads who can read signs and follow them - they are a punishment against those who are stupid. There are videos on the internet of motorists in central Manchester trying to tailgate metroshuttle buses into the city centre beyond the rising bollard - every car gets speared and damaged as a result. Those of us who know why the bollard is there will know they were morons, but the morons would argue that for some special reason they should be allowed through and the rising bollard is somehow illegal.... it's because of the morons that Manchester city council had to invest in LED signs that are lit up to read 'buses only', because normal signs weren't enough for stupid people.

--

Osbaldwick councillor Mark Warters said he would oppose any moves to extend the bus-lane enforcement system to areas such as Hull Road, saying this would lead to drivers using residential side streets instead.

I haven't had much respect for Osbaldwick councillors... and now I have none. The bus lane on Hull Road goes along the inbound traffic carriageway where the road is wide enough to support two lanes, and ends where the road narrows. There is enough capacity for cars to stay in their own lane, so quite how bus lane cameras there would cause cars to use side streets is unknown.
And as for signage of coppergate, the current Variable Message Sign shows the 'no motor vehicles' prohibition roundel during times of restriction, with an exemption description below for buses and taxi's... ANPR enforcement of this is perfectly fine and the signage would be nice and watertight. Bus lane fines and rising bollards in themselves are fine for those on the roads who can read signs and follow them - they are a punishment against those who are stupid. There are videos on the internet of motorists in central Manchester trying to tailgate metroshuttle buses into the city centre beyond the rising bollard - every car gets speared and damaged as a result. Those of us who know why the bollard is there will know they were morons, but the morons would argue that for some special reason they should be allowed through and the rising bollard is somehow illegal.... it's because of the morons that Manchester city council had to invest in LED signs that are lit up to read 'buses only', because normal signs weren't enough for stupid people. -- [quote]Osbaldwick councillor Mark Warters said he would oppose any moves to extend the bus-lane enforcement system to areas such as Hull Road, saying this would lead to drivers using residential side streets instead.[/quote] I haven't had much respect for Osbaldwick councillors... and now I have none. The bus lane on Hull Road goes along the inbound traffic carriageway where the road is wide enough to support two lanes, and ends where the road narrows. There is enough capacity for cars to stay in their own lane, so quite how bus lane cameras there would cause cars to use side streets is unknown. Magicman!
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Mon 25 Feb 13

stevey54 says...

As a bus driver in York if the police or council could use our front/rear facing cameras to prosecute the illegal motorists using the area then life around town for us would be alot simpler and not have passengers nagging at us for being late through ignorant car drivers blocking where they arent supposed to be.
In a shift ive counted over a 150 villegal vehicles using Coppergate alone.
The camera is the best idea the council has come up for a while. The sooner its installed the better Watch the difference !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As a bus driver in York if the police or council could use our front/rear facing cameras to prosecute the illegal motorists using the area then life around town for us would be alot simpler and not have passengers nagging at us for being late through ignorant car drivers blocking where they arent supposed to be. In a shift ive counted over a 150 villegal vehicles using Coppergate alone. The camera is the best idea the council has come up for a while. The sooner its installed the better Watch the difference !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! stevey54
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree