Almost 1,700 motorists have Lendal Bridge fines waived

York Press: Lendal Bridge pictured recently without cars Lendal Bridge pictured recently without cars

ALMOST 1,700 motorists have had their fines for crossing York’s Lendal Bridge waived by City of York Council.

The figure equates to about five per cent of the penalty charge notices (PCN) issued since restrictions banning cars between 10.30am and 5pm were introduced in the summer.

Another 1,259 drivers who were issued with pcns for driving along Coppergate at times when cars are banned have also had them waived – equating to approximately 13 per cent of all fines issued.

The statistics were provided to The Press after one motorist, Allan Harvey, from near Hull, contacted the newspaper to say his fine for crossing the bridge during a shopping trip to York last month had been waived by the authority as a “goodwill gesture”.

Mr Harvey said he suspected it had been scrapped because he had written to the council, claiming the signs warning of the traffic restrictions did not meet national standards, but the authority had refused to comment on the reasons. He argued that if his fine was being waived, so should everyone else’s.

Tony Clarke, head of transport at the council, said the bridge scheme was fully compliant with the Department for Transport and all signage on and leading to Lendal Bridge was designed to the appropriate legal standards.

He said: “On some occasions we have cancelled PCNs at our discretion where there has been a genuine exceptional circumstance.

“However, as with any traffic enforcement matter the council is not obliged to pursue every penalty and can, at it’s discretion, choose to cancel, waive or not pursue certain ones.

“In all cases when PCNs are issued they are valid and should be paid. However, we would advise motorists to continue to avoid using Lendal Bridge during the restricted hours so that they don’t receive a PCN.”

The Press reported earlier this week that 16 motorists had had their fines for crossing York’s Lendal Bridge waived by the council after they had appealed to the independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Another 13 had fines for driving through Coppergate scrapped.

 

Comments (45)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:45am Thu 12 Dec 13

Wrong Planet says...

This should be a fun one to watch
Shame we can't comment on the Kings Square article as well :-)
This should be a fun one to watch Shame we can't comment on the Kings Square article as well :-) Wrong Planet

12:06pm Thu 12 Dec 13

yorkandproud says...

Heads should roll . You stupid inadequate fools. Scrap the trial now, in the cause of common sense. Alexander and your cronies, you are embarrassing yourselves. You are showing this fine City of York up.
Heads should roll . You stupid inadequate fools. Scrap the trial now, in the cause of common sense. Alexander and your cronies, you are embarrassing yourselves. You are showing this fine City of York up. yorkandproud

12:30pm Thu 12 Dec 13

york_chap says...

It's been commented on before when this photo was used - but those kids on scooters in the carriageway are playing directly in the path of speeding buses, taxis, council vehicles, the road train, bicycles, royal mail trucks, ambulances, police vehicles, fire engines and 26,000 (at the last count) confused drivers. As such, I fail to see how this scheme creates a safer environment for pedestrians; the picture simply illustrates the false sense of security it gives them; surely this is more dangerous than when the bridge was obviously an open road and pedestrians knew to stay on the pavement?
It's been commented on before when this photo was used - but those kids on scooters in the carriageway are playing directly in the path of speeding buses, taxis, council vehicles, the road train, bicycles, royal mail trucks, ambulances, police vehicles, fire engines and 26,000 (at the last count) confused drivers. As such, I fail to see how this scheme creates a safer environment for pedestrians; the picture simply illustrates the false sense of security it gives them; surely this is more dangerous than when the bridge was obviously an open road and pedestrians knew to stay on the pavement? york_chap

12:39pm Thu 12 Dec 13

bolero says...

With a bit of nous and sensible planning; which unfortunately York is sadly lacking; this street and bridge could form part of a one way giratory system around the city. Widen the footpaths over the bridge, reopen Coppergate ,again with wider footpaths and it would not be too difficult to create a safe system for both road users and pedestrians. Oh, and don't forget a bus station.
With a bit of nous and sensible planning; which unfortunately York is sadly lacking; this street and bridge could form part of a one way giratory system around the city. Widen the footpaths over the bridge, reopen Coppergate ,again with wider footpaths and it would not be too difficult to create a safe system for both road users and pedestrians. Oh, and don't forget a bus station. bolero

12:44pm Thu 12 Dec 13

vax2002 says...

No penalty charges have been waived.
1700 motorists wrote in with a valid appeal point and the council do not want the advice issued on motoring forums about incorrect signs challenged by the adjudicator.

Or they might just have to give everyone their money back.
No penalty charges have been waived. 1700 motorists wrote in with a valid appeal point and the council do not want the advice issued on motoring forums about incorrect signs challenged by the adjudicator. Or they might just have to give everyone their money back. vax2002

12:55pm Thu 12 Dec 13

JasBro says...

How can the trial be seen as a fair representation, when 26,000 cars have still used the bridge, 1,700 fines have been waived, and the times of the closure are not what's eventually intended.

I guess it was never intended to be a fair trial?
How can the trial be seen as a fair representation, when 26,000 cars have still used the bridge, 1,700 fines have been waived, and the times of the closure are not what's eventually intended. I guess it was never intended to be a fair trial? JasBro

1:00pm Thu 12 Dec 13

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

JasBro wrote:
How can the trial be seen as a fair representation, when 26,000 cars have still used the bridge, 1,700 fines have been waived, and the times of the closure are not what's eventually intended.

I guess it was never intended to be a fair trial?
This was never a trial, it is a series of steps to a pre-determined outcome.

Make sure you use this link:

https://submissions.
epetitions.direct.go
v.uk/petitions/56674
/signature/new
[quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: How can the trial be seen as a fair representation, when 26,000 cars have still used the bridge, 1,700 fines have been waived, and the times of the closure are not what's eventually intended. I guess it was never intended to be a fair trial?[/p][/quote]This was never a trial, it is a series of steps to a pre-determined outcome. Make sure you use this link: https://submissions. epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/56674 /signature/new YOUWILLDOASISAY

1:31pm Thu 12 Dec 13

What's Up, Doc? says...

Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time. What's Up, Doc?

2:08pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Paul Hepworth says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
So what exactly would you do, to disguise yourself as me..........?
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.[/p][/quote]So what exactly would you do, to disguise yourself as me..........? Paul Hepworth

2:14pm Thu 12 Dec 13

kidology says...

whats up doc do you know what you are saying? motor vehicles are allowed between set times,is a taxi not a motor vehicle and while on that matter how many taxi drivers using this bridge are actually working.
who is policing these individuals to see they are actually at work like the rest of us are trying to do.
whats up doc do you know what you are saying? motor vehicles are allowed between set times,is a taxi not a motor vehicle and while on that matter how many taxi drivers using this bridge are actually working. who is policing these individuals to see they are actually at work like the rest of us are trying to do. kidology

2:51pm Thu 12 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

"1. Law Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges or claims.
2.
a. The act or process of testing, trying, or putting to the proof: a trial of one's faith.
b. An instance of such testing, especially as part of a series of tests or experiments: a clinical trial of a drug.
3. An effort or attempt: succeeded on the third trial.
4. A state of pain or anguish that tests patience, endurance, or belief: "the fiery trial through which we pass" (Abraham Lincoln).
5. A trying, troublesome, or annoying person or thing: The child was a trial to his parents.
6. A preliminary competition or test to determine qualifications, as in a sport."

Check out number 4 lol.
"1. Law Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges or claims. 2. a. The act or process of testing, trying, or putting to the proof: a trial of one's faith. b. An instance of such testing, especially as part of a series of tests or experiments: a clinical trial of a drug. 3. An effort or attempt: succeeded on the third trial. 4. A state of pain or anguish that tests patience, endurance, or belief: "the fiery trial through which we pass" (Abraham Lincoln). 5. A trying, troublesome, or annoying person or thing: The child was a trial to his parents. 6. A preliminary competition or test to determine qualifications, as in a sport." Check out number 4 lol. MorkofYork

2:55pm Thu 12 Dec 13

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
So if it's not hard or rocket science, and the sign means no motor vehicles as you stated, how do you explain the buses, police, ambulances, fire engines, council vans, taxi's, private hire vehicles, road trains and Royal Mail vehicles that cross the bridge daily?

Help us out What's Up Doc as we are a little confused here.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.[/p][/quote]So if it's not hard or rocket science, and the sign means no motor vehicles as you stated, how do you explain the buses, police, ambulances, fire engines, council vans, taxi's, private hire vehicles, road trains and Royal Mail vehicles that cross the bridge daily? Help us out What's Up Doc as we are a little confused here. NoNewsIsGoodNews

3:00pm Thu 12 Dec 13

yorkonafork says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
If there wasn't a problem they wouldn't be refunding fines would they?

Not rocket science, as you would say.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.[/p][/quote]If there wasn't a problem they wouldn't be refunding fines would they? Not rocket science, as you would say. yorkonafork

3:24pm Thu 12 Dec 13

What's Up, Doc? says...

Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory.

Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles.

When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.
Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory. Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles. When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned. What's Up, Doc?

3:32pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Budgie says...

What a cockup it all is.
What a cockup it all is. Budgie

4:12pm Thu 12 Dec 13

eeoodares says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory.

Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles.

When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.
You claim to have drive further than most people will in their lifetime, yet you are struggling to explain road signage. Either the signs are confusing or you probably should retake your test.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory. Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles. When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.[/p][/quote]You claim to have drive further than most people will in their lifetime, yet you are struggling to explain road signage. Either the signs are confusing or you probably should retake your test. eeoodares

4:13pm Thu 12 Dec 13

eeoodares says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory.

Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles.

When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.
You claim to have drive further than most people will in their lifetime, yet you are struggling to explain road signage. Either the signs are confusing or you probably should retake your test.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory. Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles. When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.[/p][/quote]You claim to have drive further than most people will in their lifetime, yet you are struggling to explain road signage. Either the signs are confusing or you probably should retake your test. eeoodares

5:21pm Thu 12 Dec 13

hrmspaul says...

Mine has been waived. Why? Because we were in Tadcaster Road Tesco at the time, and the car was parked outside. We went home, which is in Holgate. Yes, a dark car very similar to ours did go across the bridge, but it wasn't ours, the number plate is not readable on the film that is linked to the PCN and registrations are issued to dealers in numerical blocks.

It has taken five weeks to respond to our appeal, which I believe is weeks longer than the response procedure they should be following. I shouldn't have had to do this, and the letter from Richard Wood in Northampton doesn't even apologise.

I rarely use this bridge in a car, but frequently as a pedestrian; the only destination that it is useful to get to for us is the hospital, but it does mean that Water End and Fosse Islands Road are at a standstill at times.

But most importantly, the buses, permitted taxis, European cars and large European delivery lorries, etc. are now moving very rapidly along a road that was previously safer to use as a pedestrian. There is no proper pedestrian crossing from Lendal to the Museum gardens (and the bus stops) and that is now a much more dangerous crossing than when the bridge was a slow creep by road vehicles.

I have no idea what improvement was expected by this closure, but it hasn't worked.
Mine has been waived. Why? Because we were in Tadcaster Road Tesco at the time, and the car was parked outside. We went home, which is in Holgate. Yes, a dark car very similar to ours did go across the bridge, but it wasn't ours, the number plate is not readable on the film that is linked to the PCN and registrations are issued to dealers in numerical blocks. It has taken five weeks to respond to our appeal, which I believe is weeks longer than the response procedure they should be following. I shouldn't have had to do this, and the letter from Richard Wood in Northampton doesn't even apologise. I rarely use this bridge in a car, but frequently as a pedestrian; the only destination that it is useful to get to for us is the hospital, but it does mean that Water End and Fosse Islands Road are at a standstill at times. But most importantly, the buses, permitted taxis, European cars and large European delivery lorries, etc. are now moving very rapidly along a road that was previously safer to use as a pedestrian. There is no proper pedestrian crossing from Lendal to the Museum gardens (and the bus stops) and that is now a much more dangerous crossing than when the bridge was a slow creep by road vehicles. I have no idea what improvement was expected by this closure, but it hasn't worked. hrmspaul

5:32pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Ignatius Lumpopo says...

eeoodares wrote:
What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory.

Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles.

When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.
You claim to have drive further than most people will in their lifetime, yet you are struggling to explain road signage. Either the signs are confusing or you probably should retake your test.
Yes, right. Blue signs mean 'do' , as in do keep right, do take priority in this direction, do travel at 30 mph or more (as if) and white ones with a red ring around them mean 'don't', as in don't be over a certain weight, don't carry explosives, don't travel more than 30 mph (that's more familiar)...
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Sorry, I'll rephrase it..."No motor vehicles except for access". It's the blue signs that are compulsory. Personally, I don't think private hire vehicles should be allowed through (taxis are there for public hire) and certainly not Royal Mail or council vehicles. When all is said and done, though, road signs are there to be obeyed and the council are obviously too lazy to appeal against those who have had fines overturned.[/p][/quote]You claim to have drive further than most people will in their lifetime, yet you are struggling to explain road signage. Either the signs are confusing or you probably should retake your test.[/p][/quote]Yes, right. Blue signs mean 'do' , as in do keep right, do take priority in this direction, do travel at 30 mph or more (as if) and white ones with a red ring around them mean 'don't', as in don't be over a certain weight, don't carry explosives, don't travel more than 30 mph (that's more familiar)... Ignatius Lumpopo

6:28pm Thu 12 Dec 13

bjb says...

“In all cases when PCNs are issued they are valid and should be paid."

Mine was definitely not valid. Wrong location and wrong photo to match the location and PCN cancelled because of a technical error with the CCTV system.
“In all cases when PCNs are issued they are valid and should be paid." Mine was definitely not valid. Wrong location and wrong photo to match the location and PCN cancelled because of a technical error with the CCTV system. bjb

6:55pm Thu 12 Dec 13

The Analyst says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
JasBro wrote:
How can the trial be seen as a fair representation, when 26,000 cars have still used the bridge, 1,700 fines have been waived, and the times of the closure are not what's eventually intended.

I guess it was never intended to be a fair trial?
This was never a trial, it is a series of steps to a pre-determined outcome.

Make sure you use this link:

https://submissions.

epetitions.direct.go

v.uk/petitions/56674

/signature/new
Done with pleasure!
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JasBro[/bold] wrote: How can the trial be seen as a fair representation, when 26,000 cars have still used the bridge, 1,700 fines have been waived, and the times of the closure are not what's eventually intended. I guess it was never intended to be a fair trial?[/p][/quote]This was never a trial, it is a series of steps to a pre-determined outcome. Make sure you use this link: https://submissions. epetitions.direct.go v.uk/petitions/56674 /signature/new[/p][/quote]Done with pleasure! The Analyst

7:38pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Dave Ruddock says...

Re the Kimgs Square, NICE PAVING (NOT) an like the tarmac strip at the alter side the Kings Square or that not part on the square and it so only a half haerted appempt on the square, As for Lendal and coppergate, the question is "Is any part of the 2 sites Legal in a BRITISH COURT OF LAW of just in the YCC mind" Its been a mess from start and still MERRETT hides , How much do the signs that have been made actually cost, nope he personnally paying for them.
Re the Kimgs Square, NICE PAVING (NOT) an like the tarmac strip at the alter side the Kings Square or that not part on the square and it so only a half haerted appempt on the square, As for Lendal and coppergate, the question is "Is any part of the 2 sites Legal in a BRITISH COURT OF LAW of just in the YCC mind" Its been a mess from start and still MERRETT hides , How much do the signs that have been made actually cost, nope he personnally paying for them. Dave Ruddock

9:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

long distance depressive says...

yorkandproud wrote:
Heads should roll . You stupid inadequate fools. Scrap the trial now, in the cause of common sense. Alexander and your cronies, you are embarrassing yourselves. You are showing this fine City of York up.
Couldn't have put it better myself...bunch of oafs who should never be allowed in any position of 'power' again...anywhere.
[quote][p][bold]yorkandproud[/bold] wrote: Heads should roll . You stupid inadequate fools. Scrap the trial now, in the cause of common sense. Alexander and your cronies, you are embarrassing yourselves. You are showing this fine City of York up.[/p][/quote]Couldn't have put it better myself...bunch of oafs who should never be allowed in any position of 'power' again...anywhere. long distance depressive

9:34pm Thu 12 Dec 13

jenkil2001 says...

I was fined on a Sunday during the first week, I appealed and got half of my money back. I would like the other half now. Thankyou
I was fined on a Sunday during the first week, I appealed and got half of my money back. I would like the other half now. Thankyou jenkil2001

10:02pm Thu 12 Dec 13

PKH says...

Is there any wonder so many are being waived when the dummies are issuing penalty notices to permitted vehicles eg taxies, even when the taxi sign is clearly visible on the vehicle in photo on the notice they send out.
Is there any wonder so many are being waived when the dummies are issuing penalty notices to permitted vehicles eg taxies, even when the taxi sign is clearly visible on the vehicle in photo on the notice they send out. PKH

10:52pm Thu 12 Dec 13

topumpire1 says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
Whilst you are right in principle, other signage on approaches ARE inadequate! On many counts, 1/ whilst "we", as Yorkies, KNOW Lendal bridge, those from away (tourists, etc.) do not & to say a certain road/ bridge is closed means nothing to them,. until they are ON the bridge. 2/ the signs contain too much irrelevant information & no mention of charge notices,
I also wonder how many PCNs have been issued to drivers blindly following "Sat Nav" equipment that is yet to have this programmed in (&/ or will never get updated). To those I have no sympathy, you drive by looking AT the road & signage about it, NOT blindly following machine directions.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.[/p][/quote]Whilst you are right in principle, other signage on approaches ARE inadequate! On many counts, 1/ whilst "we", as Yorkies, KNOW Lendal bridge, those from away (tourists, etc.) do not & to say a certain road/ bridge is closed means nothing to them,. until they are ON the bridge. 2/ the signs contain too much irrelevant information & no mention of charge notices, I also wonder how many PCNs have been issued to drivers blindly following "Sat Nav" equipment that is yet to have this programmed in (&/ or will never get updated). To those I have no sympathy, you drive by looking AT the road & signage about it, NOT blindly following machine directions. topumpire1

10:52pm Thu 12 Dec 13

topumpire1 says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
Whilst you are right in principle, other signage on approaches ARE inadequate! On many counts, 1/ whilst "we", as Yorkies, KNOW Lendal bridge, those from away (tourists, etc.) do not & to say a certain road/ bridge is closed means nothing to them,. until they are ON the bridge. 2/ the signs contain too much irrelevant information & no mention of charge notices,
I also wonder how many PCNs have been issued to drivers blindly following "Sat Nav" equipment that is yet to have this programmed in (&/ or will never get updated). To those I have no sympathy, you drive by looking AT the road & signage about it, NOT blindly following machine directions.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.[/p][/quote]Whilst you are right in principle, other signage on approaches ARE inadequate! On many counts, 1/ whilst "we", as Yorkies, KNOW Lendal bridge, those from away (tourists, etc.) do not & to say a certain road/ bridge is closed means nothing to them,. until they are ON the bridge. 2/ the signs contain too much irrelevant information & no mention of charge notices, I also wonder how many PCNs have been issued to drivers blindly following "Sat Nav" equipment that is yet to have this programmed in (&/ or will never get updated). To those I have no sympathy, you drive by looking AT the road & signage about it, NOT blindly following machine directions. topumpire1

11:01pm Thu 12 Dec 13

topumpire1 says...

Wrong Planet wrote:
This should be a fun one to watch
Shame we can't comment on the Kings Square article as well :-)
I agree,WHY can we not comment on the Kings Square revamp!
The revamp COULD have retained the "cobbles & cart track" in principle, whilst making the square more pedestrian/ disabled (wheel chair) friendly.. Yes, it is now far easier to cross the square, but now looks aesthetically wrong! There could have been a flat surface laid IN the pattern of the existing cobbles. Indeed, there may have been a chance to make large slabs with the pattern! (which could then be extended down the Shambles & into the market, without changing the view
[quote][p][bold]Wrong Planet[/bold] wrote: This should be a fun one to watch Shame we can't comment on the Kings Square article as well :-)[/p][/quote]I agree,WHY can we not comment on the Kings Square revamp! The revamp COULD have retained the "cobbles & cart track" in principle, whilst making the square more pedestrian/ disabled (wheel chair) friendly.. Yes, it is now far easier to cross the square, but now looks aesthetically wrong! There could have been a flat surface laid IN the pattern of the existing cobbles. Indeed, there may have been a chance to make large slabs with the pattern! (which could then be extended down the Shambles & into the market, without changing the view topumpire1

12:04am Fri 13 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

There's not long left now. I'm genuinely interested to see what they do. I think if there's real problems they'll be impossible to wash over without causing a riot.
I notice traffic down Gillygate does stink, i'd hate to live down there. So if there's any real reductions this is a good thing.

But what's the damage ? Should we consider their mistakes when we're evaluating the trial or should we try and look around them ?

I want to know what the business's think. How the council are going to produce this accurately i don't know. They can and have been selective in what they present in the past.

I still haven't seen these new signs, if there's still loads of tourists going through then maybe it should be abandoned because it's never going to get any better, well, not until they've chased them all off.
There's not long left now. I'm genuinely interested to see what they do. I think if there's real problems they'll be impossible to wash over without causing a riot. I notice traffic down Gillygate does stink, i'd hate to live down there. So if there's any real reductions this is a good thing. But what's the damage ? Should we consider their mistakes when we're evaluating the trial or should we try and look around them ? I want to know what the business's think. How the council are going to produce this accurately i don't know. They can and have been selective in what they present in the past. I still haven't seen these new signs, if there's still loads of tourists going through then maybe it should be abandoned because it's never going to get any better, well, not until they've chased them all off. MorkofYork

12:21am Fri 13 Dec 13

MorkofYork says...

They should switch the cameras off at the end of the trial. I don't think it's right to carry on fining people.
They should switch the cameras off at the end of the trial. I don't think it's right to carry on fining people. MorkofYork

12:44am Fri 13 Dec 13

henleazeyorkie says...

Someone mentioned it earlier in the thread. A one way gyratory (ring road). Way to go.......
Someone mentioned it earlier in the thread. A one way gyratory (ring road). Way to go....... henleazeyorkie

4:52am Fri 13 Dec 13

Magicman! says...

bolero wrote:
With a bit of nous and sensible planning; which unfortunately York is sadly lacking; this street and bridge could form part of a one way giratory system around the city. Widen the footpaths over the bridge, reopen Coppergate ,again with wider footpaths and it would not be too difficult to create a safe system for both road users and pedestrians. Oh, and don't forget a bus station.
In a way yes, but unless traffic was allowed past York Minster or Coney Street then what would be the difference between a city centre gyratory and the current inner ring road? The gyratory would need to be anti-clockwise so that the junctions are left-turns, but the loop small enough (or with physically seperate, ie not just with white lines, cycle lanes) so that those cycling don't have to divert for a mile or two to go the right way around the loop.... and likewise if the loop was too big then bus reliability would suffer.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: With a bit of nous and sensible planning; which unfortunately York is sadly lacking; this street and bridge could form part of a one way giratory system around the city. Widen the footpaths over the bridge, reopen Coppergate ,again with wider footpaths and it would not be too difficult to create a safe system for both road users and pedestrians. Oh, and don't forget a bus station.[/p][/quote]In a way yes, but unless traffic was allowed past York Minster or Coney Street then what would be the difference between a city centre gyratory and the current inner ring road? The gyratory would need to be anti-clockwise so that the junctions are left-turns, but the loop small enough (or with physically seperate, ie not just with white lines, cycle lanes) so that those cycling don't have to divert for a mile or two to go the right way around the loop.... and likewise if the loop was too big then bus reliability would suffer. Magicman!

9:58am Fri 13 Dec 13

hrmspaul says...

Magicman! wrote:
bolero wrote:
With a bit of nous and sensible planning; which unfortunately York is sadly lacking; this street and bridge could form part of a one way giratory system around the city. Widen the footpaths over the bridge, reopen Coppergate ,again with wider footpaths and it would not be too difficult to create a safe system for both road users and pedestrians. Oh, and don't forget a bus station.
In a way yes, but unless traffic was allowed past York Minster or Coney Street then what would be the difference between a city centre gyratory and the current inner ring road? The gyratory would need to be anti-clockwise so that the junctions are left-turns, but the loop small enough (or with physically seperate, ie not just with white lines, cycle lanes) so that those cycling don't have to divert for a mile or two to go the right way around the loop.... and likewise if the loop was too big then bus reliability would suffer.
We lived near St. Albans when they did exactly this, about 25 years ago - a smaller simpler cathedral city. It seemed like a good idea, but it was a disaster and was soon abandoned (the council there listened!) .

Admittedly the computer systems it relied on where primitive compared to what could be available now. But it would need very careful planning. One aspect I suspect would be unacceptable to the council here is that the road traffic would have to have priority - no random stopping for bikes and pedestrians to cross the roads as we have with our inner ring road. The St. Albans system had the effect that there was far more on road parking immediately outside the inner ring as users quickly learnt to avoid having to go around the system to get out the way they came in. Perhaps not so much of a problem in York, most parking being outside of the inner ring. But, short journeys which now only go a small way around the inner ring road become a full 360 journey. Factoring in these extra wasted journeys is very wasteful of time and fuel.

Unfortunately, on present evidence - including the computerised inner ring road - our council would not commit the planning time, or have the nous to implement such a system.
What has been urgently needed for years is a bus station on the country side of the railway station, as so many longer distant buses don't want to have to go anywhere near the inner ring road, simply connect into York and out again.
[quote][p][bold]Magicman![/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: With a bit of nous and sensible planning; which unfortunately York is sadly lacking; this street and bridge could form part of a one way giratory system around the city. Widen the footpaths over the bridge, reopen Coppergate ,again with wider footpaths and it would not be too difficult to create a safe system for both road users and pedestrians. Oh, and don't forget a bus station.[/p][/quote]In a way yes, but unless traffic was allowed past York Minster or Coney Street then what would be the difference between a city centre gyratory and the current inner ring road? The gyratory would need to be anti-clockwise so that the junctions are left-turns, but the loop small enough (or with physically seperate, ie not just with white lines, cycle lanes) so that those cycling don't have to divert for a mile or two to go the right way around the loop.... and likewise if the loop was too big then bus reliability would suffer.[/p][/quote]We lived near St. Albans when they did exactly this, about 25 years ago - a smaller simpler cathedral city. It seemed like a good idea, but it was a disaster and was soon abandoned (the council there listened!) . Admittedly the computer systems it relied on where primitive compared to what could be available now. But it would need very careful planning. One aspect I suspect would be unacceptable to the council here is that the road traffic would have to have priority - no random stopping for bikes and pedestrians to cross the roads as we have with our inner ring road. The St. Albans system had the effect that there was far more on road parking immediately outside the inner ring as users quickly learnt to avoid having to go around the system to get out the way they came in. Perhaps not so much of a problem in York, most parking being outside of the inner ring. But, short journeys which now only go a small way around the inner ring road become a full 360 journey. Factoring in these extra wasted journeys is very wasteful of time and fuel. Unfortunately, on present evidence - including the computerised inner ring road - our council would not commit the planning time, or have the nous to implement such a system. What has been urgently needed for years is a bus station on the country side of the railway station, as so many longer distant buses don't want to have to go anywhere near the inner ring road, simply connect into York and out again. hrmspaul

12:51pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Osbaldwick Lad says...

If the comments of hrmspaul are correct I find this somewhat disconcerting. Have they looked at CCTV elsewhere in York to find a vehicle on the road which matches the description of the vehicle on the bridge?
If the comments of hrmspaul are correct I find this somewhat disconcerting. Have they looked at CCTV elsewhere in York to find a vehicle on the road which matches the description of the vehicle on the bridge? Osbaldwick Lad

2:14pm Fri 13 Dec 13

YorkshireYeti says...

What's Up, Doc? wrote:
Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law).

A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles".

It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle!

Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.
As mentioned, this sign does mean no motor vehicles. That's pretty clear. And the words beneath say 'Except buses, taxis and permitted vehicles 10.30am - 5.30pm'
So, and I can't believe no one else has picked up on this, the literal meaning of this sign is 'No motor vehicles allowed past this sign, except for buses, taxis and permitted vehicles between 10.30am and 5.30pm'
The literal, and legal, interpretation of this sign means that only buses, taxis and permitted vehicles can cross the bridge between 10.30am and 5.30pm. All other traffic is banned at all times.
I'm amazed that we haven't all had tickets - technically they would be accurate!
For the words to be right in the context of the bridge closure, the time needs to come before the vehicle exceptions. Words are very important in law, especially the order of them.
[quote][p][bold]What's Up, Doc?[/bold] wrote: Personally, I can't see a problem with signage. Do you motorists that are complaining about the signs recall your Highway Code? (Which, by the way, is itself not law). A round circular sign, white background and red border, displaying, in black, a picture of a motorcycle over a car, means "no motor vehicles". It's not hard, it's not rocket science. Obey the rules of the road for a change, instead of bemoaning the fact that you are too blooming lazy to take a detour, or use park and ride, or walk, or cycle! Before I get accused of being a vegan car-hating cyclist, or Paul Hepworth in disguise, I am a driver. I have been a driver for 30 years, of cars, buses, coaches, vans and wagons. so will have covered more miles in this time than some will cover in a life time.[/p][/quote]As mentioned, this sign does mean no motor vehicles. That's pretty clear. And the words beneath say 'Except buses, taxis and permitted vehicles 10.30am - 5.30pm' So, and I can't believe no one else has picked up on this, the literal meaning of this sign is 'No motor vehicles allowed past this sign, except for buses, taxis and permitted vehicles between 10.30am and 5.30pm' The literal, and legal, interpretation of this sign means that only buses, taxis and permitted vehicles can cross the bridge between 10.30am and 5.30pm. All other traffic is banned at all times. I'm amazed that we haven't all had tickets - technically they would be accurate! For the words to be right in the context of the bridge closure, the time needs to come before the vehicle exceptions. Words are very important in law, especially the order of them. YorkshireYeti

4:21pm Fri 13 Dec 13

Bo Jolly says...

COYC, just re-open the dratted bridge and have the decency to admit that your social engineering project is a flop. You've alienated tourists and visitors by fining them and alienated your own voters by forcing them into pointless detours that themselves suffer extra knock-on congestion as a result.
COYC, just re-open the dratted bridge and have the decency to admit that your social engineering project is a flop. You've alienated tourists and visitors by fining them and alienated your own voters by forcing them into pointless detours that themselves suffer extra knock-on congestion as a result. Bo Jolly

7:29pm Fri 13 Dec 13

long distance depressive says...

Bo Jolly wrote:
COYC, just re-open the dratted bridge and have the decency to admit that your social engineering project is a flop. You've alienated tourists and visitors by fining them and alienated your own voters by forcing them into pointless detours that themselves suffer extra knock-on congestion as a result.
Admit fallibility?? as if they would stoop so low! Most juntas tend to go under via the sword or internal strife. Don't mind which as long as it's quick.
[quote][p][bold]Bo Jolly[/bold] wrote: COYC, just re-open the dratted bridge and have the decency to admit that your social engineering project is a flop. You've alienated tourists and visitors by fining them and alienated your own voters by forcing them into pointless detours that themselves suffer extra knock-on congestion as a result.[/p][/quote]Admit fallibility?? as if they would stoop so low! Most juntas tend to go under via the sword or internal strife. Don't mind which as long as it's quick. long distance depressive

11:44am Sat 14 Dec 13

Cheeky face says...

Yorkshire Yeti is right, the signs are not compliant with regs. I raised it with the council in the firsty week; when a Leeds PCN defence barrister was seen to ring his in hands in glee. If he tells the council then his opportunities to earn £200 an hour lessen!

I questioned the council why I had never had a ticket, asking them to read the sign properly. They did not understand.
Yorkshire Yeti is right, the signs are not compliant with regs. I raised it with the council in the firsty week; when a Leeds PCN defence barrister was seen to ring his in hands in glee. If he tells the council then his opportunities to earn £200 an hour lessen! I questioned the council why I had never had a ticket, asking them to read the sign properly. They did not understand. Cheeky face

12:20pm Sun 15 Dec 13

JBYork says...

MorkofYork wrote:
There's not long left now. I'm genuinely interested to see what they do. I think if there's real problems they'll be impossible to wash over without causing a riot.
I notice traffic down Gillygate does stink, i'd hate to live down there. So if there's any real reductions this is a good thing.

But what's the damage ? Should we consider their mistakes when we're evaluating the trial or should we try and look around them ?

I want to know what the business's think. How the council are going to produce this accurately i don't know. They can and have been selective in what they present in the past.

I still haven't seen these new signs, if there's still loads of tourists going through then maybe it should be abandoned because it's never going to get any better, well, not until they've chased them all off.
I heard on good authority that this whole issue is all about one thing and one thing only: a means for reducing emissions to enable planning permission to succeed so that the old council offices might be turned into a new hotel but this doesn't seem to be getting reported on.....
[quote][p][bold]MorkofYork[/bold] wrote: There's not long left now. I'm genuinely interested to see what they do. I think if there's real problems they'll be impossible to wash over without causing a riot. I notice traffic down Gillygate does stink, i'd hate to live down there. So if there's any real reductions this is a good thing. But what's the damage ? Should we consider their mistakes when we're evaluating the trial or should we try and look around them ? I want to know what the business's think. How the council are going to produce this accurately i don't know. They can and have been selective in what they present in the past. I still haven't seen these new signs, if there's still loads of tourists going through then maybe it should be abandoned because it's never going to get any better, well, not until they've chased them all off.[/p][/quote]I heard on good authority that this whole issue is all about one thing and one thing only: a means for reducing emissions to enable planning permission to succeed so that the old council offices might be turned into a new hotel but this doesn't seem to be getting reported on..... JBYork

12:20pm Sun 15 Dec 13

JBYork says...

Seems to me that if the Council had submitted their evidence to the national tribunal and it was not then upheld by that body then they would not only be waiving fines for these few here but also setting a precedent for the other 26.000 odd cases that have been reported about in the recent press. I think the council should have to present their evidence when contested because otherwise it's just to easy for them to walk away from this.... And one more thing, why aren't these questions being raised by the newspaper?
Seems to me that if the Council had submitted their evidence to the national tribunal and it was not then upheld by that body then they would not only be waiving fines for these few here but also setting a precedent for the other 26.000 odd cases that have been reported about in the recent press. I think the council should have to present their evidence when contested because otherwise it's just to easy for them to walk away from this.... And one more thing, why aren't these questions being raised by the newspaper? JBYork

3:00pm Sun 15 Dec 13

Cheeky face says...

Good comments from JBYork. My unanswered questions are with DfT and the council. If the council saying it is not for the money then why act like they are. I now live in Scarborough because I hate congestion and poor air quality.
When I periodically return I hear many rumours about hotel option etc for the old Council premises. Also the council's advisory signs are inconsistent with the regulatory signs; the latter being good fodder for PCN defence barristers.
The times on the signs should really be BEFORE the exceptions.

I think council comments consistently saying signs are ok despite tribunals, ex traffic police etc saying otherwise strongly suggest the council are aiming for a factoid situation. Certainly we should not accept council quoting facts because cameras catch instances of driver transgressions, and that will be a higher figure than drivers. Also council's know ANPR machines are not always on.
They appear NOT to question or go to/challenge appeals because of possible repurcussions. Only 80% of houseowners were sent details of Lendal Bridge by Cof Y council. When Coppergate times changed I do not think anyone was advised!

Visual message signs could be better. What will visitiors of Tour De France make of it all?
Good comments from JBYork. My unanswered questions are with DfT and the council. If the council saying it is not for the money then why act like they are. I now live in Scarborough because I hate congestion and poor air quality. When I periodically return I hear many rumours about hotel option etc for the old Council premises. Also the council's advisory signs are inconsistent with the regulatory signs; the latter being good fodder for PCN defence barristers. The times on the signs should really be BEFORE the exceptions. I think council comments consistently saying signs are ok despite tribunals, ex traffic police etc saying otherwise strongly suggest the council are aiming for a factoid situation. Certainly we should not accept council quoting facts because cameras catch instances of driver transgressions, and that will be a higher figure than drivers. Also council's know ANPR machines are not always on. They appear NOT to question or go to/challenge appeals because of possible repurcussions. Only 80% of houseowners were sent details of Lendal Bridge by Cof Y council. When Coppergate times changed I do not think anyone was advised! Visual message signs could be better. What will visitiors of Tour De France make of it all? Cheeky face

5:40pm Sun 15 Dec 13

nicebaz says...

Why don't the good Citizens of York organise a mass protest, and kick out this money grabbing Council.?
Why don't the good Citizens of York organise a mass protest, and kick out this money grabbing Council.? nicebaz

8:26pm Tue 17 Dec 13

CaroleBaines says...

Good point re taxis - why are they exempt? Not exactly green, not exactly buses reducing car journeys. Taxis should pay and whilst we are at it, keep them out of the bus lanes too.
Good point re taxis - why are they exempt? Not exactly green, not exactly buses reducing car journeys. Taxis should pay and whilst we are at it, keep them out of the bus lanes too. CaroleBaines

11:50am Wed 18 Dec 13

Cheeky face says...

It is probably the concessions for local buses and taxis which led to the main signs on Lendal Bridge being against regs (and the top-down legalese); which are inconsistent with the advisory signs using AA laminated plates!

One could argue that "local buses" is not needed on these signs; as they are not prohibited on the circular sign; and untimetabled coaches have been exempt from city centre by the signs approaching the city.
It is probably the concessions for local buses and taxis which led to the main signs on Lendal Bridge being against regs (and the top-down legalese); which are inconsistent with the advisory signs using AA laminated plates! One could argue that "local buses" is not needed on these signs; as they are not prohibited on the circular sign; and untimetabled coaches have been exempt from city centre by the signs approaching the city. Cheeky face

8:41am Sat 21 Dec 13

Dontfleecethetourists says...

JBYork wrote:
Seems to me that if the Council had submitted their evidence to the national tribunal and it was not then upheld by that body then they would not only be waiving fines for these few here but also setting a precedent for the other 26.000 odd cases that have been reported about in the recent press. I think the council should have to present their evidence when contested because otherwise it's just to easy for them to walk away from this.... And one more thing, why aren't these questions being raised by the newspaper?
An excellent comment JBYork.

Have you put it to York Press? They definitely need to be made aware and ask the right questions because as it stands the whole scenario just stinks!

The council need to have their feet held to the fire!!!

I dread to think how many people will be fined this weekend , the biggest and busiest shopping day of the year.
[quote][p][bold]JBYork[/bold] wrote: Seems to me that if the Council had submitted their evidence to the national tribunal and it was not then upheld by that body then they would not only be waiving fines for these few here but also setting a precedent for the other 26.000 odd cases that have been reported about in the recent press. I think the council should have to present their evidence when contested because otherwise it's just to easy for them to walk away from this.... And one more thing, why aren't these questions being raised by the newspaper?[/p][/quote]An excellent comment JBYork. Have you put it to York Press? They definitely need to be made aware and ask the right questions because as it stands the whole scenario just stinks! The council need to have their feet held to the fire!!! I dread to think how many people will be fined this weekend , the biggest and busiest shopping day of the year. Dontfleecethetourists

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