CCTV cameras in Coppergate only work six hours a day

York Press: CCTV cameras in Coppergate only work six hours a day CCTV cameras in Coppergate only work six hours a day

CCTV cameras installed to enforce new traffic rules on one of York’s busiest streets have only been operating half the time, it has emerged.

Tougher restrictions on cars and motorbikes using Coppergate were brought in by City of York Council in July, with the times when they are banned being extended to 7am to 7pm, instead of 8am to 6pm.

However, the £75,000 camera enforcement system has, until now, only operated from 7am to 10am and 4pm to 7pm, outside the times when delivery vehicles can load and unload on Coppergate.

The restrictions now apply on Sundays, unlike previously, and Coun Ian Gillies, leader of the council’s Conservative group, said the authority risked being seen as “money-grabbing”.

The council said the cameras were only part of the enforcement process, with drivers using Coppergate at any time between 7am and 7pm liable to face £60 fines.

It said the rules were designed to reduce congestion and ease bus and taxi journeys, and were supported by North Yorkshire Police, York Retail Forum and the city’s Quality Bus Partnership. The street was previously closed to cars between 8am and 6pm.

Coun Gillies said pensioners, disabled residents and members of city-centre choirs and churches had criticised the Sunday restriction, questioning why it was needed on a day when few deliveries were made to businesses.

He said: “I fully support enforcement of appropriate traffic regulations and action in Coppergate is long overdue, while I also accept it is still an offence when the cameras are not working.

"I fervently believe the Sunday restriction is unnecessary and unfair, has resulted in the council being accused of generating income at best and being money-grabbing at worst, and there was little consultation. I have asked officers to remove the Sunday restriction and restore some goodwill.”

Richard Wood, the council’s assistant director of highways and transport, said: “The purpose of extending the traffic restrictions on Coppergate, in place since the 1960s, was to tackle those illegitimately driving and parking on this narrow road at any time, seven days a week.

“Using Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology is an additional tool which, together with police enforcement, will tackle this problem. Regardless of when cameras are monitoring vehicles or not, this does not mean drivers can ignore restrictions during 7am and 7pm and commit an offence.”

Comments (18)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:49am Fri 1 Nov 13

Mulgrave says...

Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution
, but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators.

It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi. Mulgrave

11:46am Fri 1 Nov 13

Tkmax says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution

, but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators.

It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Other than taxis been able to pick up when hailed down could you pls explain the differences between a private hire vehicle and a taxi, because you seem to have support for taxis but not private hire when infact they do nearly the exact same job of moving people round so pls explain
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.[/p][/quote]Other than taxis been able to pick up when hailed down could you pls explain the differences between a private hire vehicle and a taxi, because you seem to have support for taxis but not private hire when infact they do nearly the exact same job of moving people round so pls explain Tkmax

12:29pm Fri 1 Nov 13

Jackanory2 says...

Stop messing about and pedestrianise coppergate, the fact there hasn't been a death associated with buses using it is amazing.
Stop messing about and pedestrianise coppergate, the fact there hasn't been a death associated with buses using it is amazing. Jackanory2

12:34pm Fri 1 Nov 13

Mulgrave says...

Tkmax wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution


, but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators.

It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Other than taxis been able to pick up when hailed down could you pls explain the differences between a private hire vehicle and a taxi, because you seem to have support for taxis but not private hire when infact they do nearly the exact same job of moving people round so pls explain
They all come under the general word "taxi", and I have nothing against either. It is just the case of a private hire vehicle, which has to drive empty past potential passengers on its way to a pick up in a suburb is not really my idea of public transport, and when it can use priority routes and stop a line of private cars, I will not just accept Coun Merrett or anyone elses word that it is doing a wonderful job of reducing congestion, I would like some evidence. The evidence would also have the benefit of enlightening everyone, as it would ideally give a different breakdown for each type, and it could also be compared to patterns of private car usage, which of course also do nearly the exact same job of moving people around.

What started out a good few years ago now as the odd bit of bus lane that taxis could use and nobody really took any notice of is now a central plank of traffic management with more and more bus priorities and the Lendal restrictions, and the case needs justification. Ultimately it is the public, not the taxi proprietors, that are affected, as the question is should passengers have to bear the cost of sitting in traffic with the other cars as all have opted not to use the bus, bike or walk.
[quote][p][bold]Tkmax[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.[/p][/quote]Other than taxis been able to pick up when hailed down could you pls explain the differences between a private hire vehicle and a taxi, because you seem to have support for taxis but not private hire when infact they do nearly the exact same job of moving people round so pls explain[/p][/quote]They all come under the general word "taxi", and I have nothing against either. It is just the case of a private hire vehicle, which has to drive empty past potential passengers on its way to a pick up in a suburb is not really my idea of public transport, and when it can use priority routes and stop a line of private cars, I will not just accept Coun Merrett or anyone elses word that it is doing a wonderful job of reducing congestion, I would like some evidence. The evidence would also have the benefit of enlightening everyone, as it would ideally give a different breakdown for each type, and it could also be compared to patterns of private car usage, which of course also do nearly the exact same job of moving people around. What started out a good few years ago now as the odd bit of bus lane that taxis could use and nobody really took any notice of is now a central plank of traffic management with more and more bus priorities and the Lendal restrictions, and the case needs justification. Ultimately it is the public, not the taxi proprietors, that are affected, as the question is should passengers have to bear the cost of sitting in traffic with the other cars as all have opted not to use the bus, bike or walk. Mulgrave

1:50pm Fri 1 Nov 13

YorkPatrol says...

only work six hours a day ...

More than most council workers then
only work six hours a day ... More than most council workers then YorkPatrol

3:09pm Fri 1 Nov 13

Eric el Rojo says...

1:50pm Fri 1 Nov 13
YorkPatrol says...

only work six hours a day ...

More than most council workers then


OBVIOUSLY NEVER SEEN THE HIGHWAY'S LADS AT IT!
1:50pm Fri 1 Nov 13 YorkPatrol says... only work six hours a day ... More than most council workers then OBVIOUSLY NEVER SEEN THE HIGHWAY'S LADS AT IT! Eric el Rojo

3:57pm Fri 1 Nov 13

greenmonkey says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.[/p][/quote]Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it. greenmonkey

3:57pm Fri 1 Nov 13

greenmonkey says...

Mulgrave wrote:
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it.
[quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.[/p][/quote]Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it. greenmonkey

5:03pm Fri 1 Nov 13

roadwars says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it.
Taxis and private hire vehicles create unnecessary journeys and add to congestion, the only way they would make as few journeys as required by a private car is if every pick-up was at exactly the same point as the last drop-off.
Agreed, shuttle taxis could reduce congestion but they don't exist, probably never will and even so, very few people would chose to use them except on a drunken journey home in the early hours when any form of transport will do.
Adding extra lanes and control traffic lights to existing roads, allowing taxis to undertake free flowing traffic (at speed) and then causing it all to stop whilst the lights sequence through is the mouldy cherry on a very poorly decorated cake...
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.[/p][/quote]Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it.[/p][/quote]Taxis and private hire vehicles create unnecessary journeys and add to congestion, the only way they would make as few journeys as required by a private car is if every pick-up was at exactly the same point as the last drop-off. Agreed, shuttle taxis could reduce congestion but they don't exist, probably never will and even so, very few people would chose to use them except on a drunken journey home in the early hours when any form of transport will do. Adding extra lanes and control traffic lights to existing roads, allowing taxis to undertake free flowing traffic (at speed) and then causing it all to stop whilst the lights sequence through is the mouldy cherry on a very poorly decorated cake... roadwars

5:04pm Fri 1 Nov 13

bloodaxe says...

This wouldn't be the same Cr. Gillies who last year was demanding tighter enforcement of traffic regulations in the centre would it ?
This wouldn't be the same Cr. Gillies who last year was demanding tighter enforcement of traffic regulations in the centre would it ? bloodaxe

5:07pm Fri 1 Nov 13

Mulgrave says...

greenmonkey wrote:
Mulgrave wrote:
Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.
Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it.
It is a virtual certainty that the cars in the car park next to the station will clock up less mileage in taking their occupants to/from the start/end of the rail journeys they have made than those train passengers using two taxis. Also private cars may be medium/large vehicles but taxis must be - what is the advantage of leaving the Fiesta at home and getting a Mondeo to take you to the station? I get the convenience bit, I am certainly not anti taxi, but someone going to work in their car and dropping a relative at the station is also doing a good multi-journey, whilst me calling for a taxi for the less than one mile journey to the station is something I have never done as I have two good legs, and would not merit in any way "holding all the traffic" and whisking me along priority routes. There is also an awful lot of taxi use that is not part of any onward journey - these are all the reasons why I say a study with some figures would be enlightening.

You have hit the nail on the head with the last part of your post, but what a wasted opportunity not to get something involving shuttle taxis/minibuses off the ground to tie in with Lendal, instead of just giving "chauffeured" cars the green light, our council could have been an innovator here, and even pp has not suggested a few cycle rickshaws based at the station for the shorter tourist journeys (as far as I am aware).
[quote][p][bold]greenmonkey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mulgrave[/bold] wrote: Please would someone from the council explain how using a private hire vehicle instead of a private car reduces congestion. and why this so called shift justifies so much vilification of the latter in favour of the former. Taxis are very useful, and I believe are well used by certain councillors, but it is spouted as a given that they reduce congestion/pollution , but no evidence, nor for that matter have I ever been able to find a MPG/CO2 figure per passenger for the bus services. Perhaps someone did calculate it and it wasn't very flattering? I would like to see this as a mandatory requirement for all bus operators. It would make more sense to concentrate on occupancy, not private vs public, and of course the driver doesn't count in a taxi.[/p][/quote]Taxis generally work on basis of multi journey movements to minimise empty running, are regulated (in terms of minimum standard of vehicle above legal minimum) and cater for those who use buses and trains but need a personalised car journey for part of their route. They are part of an integrated public transport strategy, providing a convenient alternative to private car ownership. Pollution and CO2 emissions from them could be reduced further by enforcing speed limits for taxi drivers (when was last time you saw at taxi travelling at less than 30mph on an open road in York??) The idea of shuttle taxis/ minibuses taking more than one fare to the same destination from York station would also cut pollution and congestion - I believe this was suggested by an operator a few years ago but nothing came of it.[/p][/quote]It is a virtual certainty that the cars in the car park next to the station will clock up less mileage in taking their occupants to/from the start/end of the rail journeys they have made than those train passengers using two taxis. Also private cars may be medium/large vehicles but taxis must be - what is the advantage of leaving the Fiesta at home and getting a Mondeo to take you to the station? I get the convenience bit, I am certainly not anti taxi, but someone going to work in their car and dropping a relative at the station is also doing a good multi-journey, whilst me calling for a taxi for the less than one mile journey to the station is something I have never done as I have two good legs, and would not merit in any way "holding all the traffic" and whisking me along priority routes. There is also an awful lot of taxi use that is not part of any onward journey - these are all the reasons why I say a study with some figures would be enlightening. You have hit the nail on the head with the last part of your post, but what a wasted opportunity not to get something involving shuttle taxis/minibuses off the ground to tie in with Lendal, instead of just giving "chauffeured" cars the green light, our council could have been an innovator here, and even pp has not suggested a few cycle rickshaws based at the station for the shorter tourist journeys (as far as I am aware). Mulgrave

5:15pm Fri 1 Nov 13

MorkofYork says...

I'd rather have 30 cars pass by me than one of those buses belching out black smoke.
I'd rather have 30 cars pass by me than one of those buses belching out black smoke. MorkofYork

6:49pm Fri 1 Nov 13

VINNIE J says...

What is so hard to understand that by restricting the amount of vehicles travelling in a certain area reduces the amount of pollution in that area? Not rocket science is it.
What is so hard to understand that by restricting the amount of vehicles travelling in a certain area reduces the amount of pollution in that area? Not rocket science is it. VINNIE J

7:08pm Fri 1 Nov 13

Mulgrave says...

VINNIE J wrote:
What is so hard to understand that by restricting the amount of vehicles travelling in a certain area reduces the amount of pollution in that area? Not rocket science is it.
Neither is allowing the aged tour buses that pre-date any euro emission standards to have unfettered access to any area of the city, including those with high NOx levels, which the euro standards have reduced dramatically along with particulates.
[quote][p][bold]VINNIE J[/bold] wrote: What is so hard to understand that by restricting the amount of vehicles travelling in a certain area reduces the amount of pollution in that area? Not rocket science is it.[/p][/quote]Neither is allowing the aged tour buses that pre-date any euro emission standards to have unfettered access to any area of the city, including those with high NOx levels, which the euro standards have reduced dramatically along with particulates. Mulgrave

10:57pm Fri 1 Nov 13

PKH says...

VINNIE J wrote:
What is so hard to understand that by restricting the amount of vehicles travelling in a certain area reduces the amount of pollution in that area? Not rocket science is it.
It is also not rocket science that it moves the pollution to the alternative routes!!!!!
[quote][p][bold]VINNIE J[/bold] wrote: What is so hard to understand that by restricting the amount of vehicles travelling in a certain area reduces the amount of pollution in that area? Not rocket science is it.[/p][/quote]It is also not rocket science that it moves the pollution to the alternative routes!!!!! PKH

3:01am Sat 2 Nov 13

Magicman! says...

Jackanory2 wrote:
Stop messing about and pedestrianise coppergate, the fact there hasn't been a death associated with buses using it is amazing.
And where will the buses go then? around the Fishergate Gyratory along with all the Fulford Road congestion?? oh yeah, real smart idea that.
[quote][p][bold]Jackanory2[/bold] wrote: Stop messing about and pedestrianise coppergate, the fact there hasn't been a death associated with buses using it is amazing.[/p][/quote]And where will the buses go then? around the Fishergate Gyratory along with all the Fulford Road congestion?? oh yeah, real smart idea that. Magicman!

3:09am Sat 2 Nov 13

Magicman! says...

I was stood at the Piccadilly junction today watching what was going on... mainly because the half term holidays has completely choked Fulford Road for pretty much all of the afternoon (if not all day), this then reciprocating back along Castle Mills Bridge, Skeldergate Bridge and Nunnery Lane - with feeder roads such as Tower Street and Piccadilly getting affected (Piccadilly not being helped by the lack of cars on the main flow that will let a vehicle out of piccadilly 'in front of them' so to speak)... and the traffic had backed right up Tower Street which then meant buses were having trouble getting in and out of Coppergate; then I noticed that on average between each bus in Coppergate was at least 1 unauthorised vehicle, and 3 cars in the queue (each with only 1 occupant) were taking up space illegally which meant buses with 6 or more people on were getting stuck at Pavement and Piccadilly as they couldn't turn into Coppergate.... and this also made me wonder: how do the ANPR cameras get the numberplates of unauthorised vehicles if they are right up the bumper of the vehicle in front, as they are in a queue??

--

also, as regards the tour buses, one of them is going to be converted to electric power.
I was stood at the Piccadilly junction today watching what was going on... mainly because the half term holidays has completely choked Fulford Road for pretty much all of the afternoon (if not all day), this then reciprocating back along Castle Mills Bridge, Skeldergate Bridge and Nunnery Lane - with feeder roads such as Tower Street and Piccadilly getting affected (Piccadilly not being helped by the lack of cars on the main flow that will let a vehicle out of piccadilly 'in front of them' so to speak)... and the traffic had backed right up Tower Street which then meant buses were having trouble getting in and out of Coppergate; then I noticed that on average between each bus in Coppergate was at least 1 unauthorised vehicle, and 3 cars in the queue (each with only 1 occupant) were taking up space illegally which meant buses with 6 or more people on were getting stuck at Pavement and Piccadilly as they couldn't turn into Coppergate.... and this also made me wonder: how do the ANPR cameras get the numberplates of unauthorised vehicles if they are right up the bumper of the vehicle in front, as they are in a queue?? -- also, as regards the tour buses, one of them is going to be converted to electric power. Magicman!

9:19am Sat 2 Nov 13

Mulgrave says...

Magicman! wrote:
I was stood at the Piccadilly junction today watching what was going on... mainly because the half term holidays has completely choked Fulford Road for pretty much all of the afternoon (if not all day), this then reciprocating back along Castle Mills Bridge, Skeldergate Bridge and Nunnery Lane - with feeder roads such as Tower Street and Piccadilly getting affected (Piccadilly not being helped by the lack of cars on the main flow that will let a vehicle out of piccadilly 'in front of them' so to speak)... and the traffic had backed right up Tower Street which then meant buses were having trouble getting in and out of Coppergate; then I noticed that on average between each bus in Coppergate was at least 1 unauthorised vehicle, and 3 cars in the queue (each with only 1 occupant) were taking up space illegally which meant buses with 6 or more people on were getting stuck at Pavement and Piccadilly as they couldn't turn into Coppergate.... and this also made me wonder: how do the ANPR cameras get the numberplates of unauthorised vehicles if they are right up the bumper of the vehicle in front, as they are in a queue??

--

also, as regards the tour buses, one of them is going to be converted to electric power.
I think the answer re how do ANPR cameras read plates in a bumper to bumper queue is - they don't. They are not in themselves the be all and end all of traffic control and enforcement, just as certain speed detection equipment won't work in poor weather conditions, ie just when speeding is most dangerous.

Good news re the tour bus, even better when it is times five, or however many there are of them.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: I was stood at the Piccadilly junction today watching what was going on... mainly because the half term holidays has completely choked Fulford Road for pretty much all of the afternoon (if not all day), this then reciprocating back along Castle Mills Bridge, Skeldergate Bridge and Nunnery Lane - with feeder roads such as Tower Street and Piccadilly getting affected (Piccadilly not being helped by the lack of cars on the main flow that will let a vehicle out of piccadilly 'in front of them' so to speak)... and the traffic had backed right up Tower Street which then meant buses were having trouble getting in and out of Coppergate; then I noticed that on average between each bus in Coppergate was at least 1 unauthorised vehicle, and 3 cars in the queue (each with only 1 occupant) were taking up space illegally which meant buses with 6 or more people on were getting stuck at Pavement and Piccadilly as they couldn't turn into Coppergate.... and this also made me wonder: how do the ANPR cameras get the numberplates of unauthorised vehicles if they are right up the bumper of the vehicle in front, as they are in a queue?? -- also, as regards the tour buses, one of them is going to be converted to electric power.[/p][/quote]I think the answer re how do ANPR cameras read plates in a bumper to bumper queue is - they don't. They are not in themselves the be all and end all of traffic control and enforcement, just as certain speed detection equipment won't work in poor weather conditions, ie just when speeding is most dangerous. Good news re the tour bus, even better when it is times five, or however many there are of them. Mulgrave

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

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