New storm over use of parking camera-car in York

CCTV cars have been used by many councils to enforce parking restrictions

CCTV cars have been used by many councils to enforce parking restrictions

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by

YORK'S transport bosses have come under fresh fire, over the use of their controversial camera-car.

The CCTV car, launched to tackle irresponsible parking outside schools, is also being used to crack down on other motorists nowhere near schools, it has emerged.

Traders have also accused the car's driver of "lying in wait" and claim fines have been issued for offences lasting as little as a minute.

The council defended the broader use of the car but a privacy campaign group called it "cynical surveillance" and council opposition leader Chris Steward said it risked needlessly antagonising people.

When it launched the CCTV car in February, the council said it was to catch parents and guardians parking dangerously near schools following concerns from head teachers, and made no mention of enforcement not linked to the school run.

But traders in Murton Lane contacted The Press last week to say visitors to their businesses had been fined for stopping for only a minute.

A taxi driver picking up a fare, a wagon turning right across traffic and a lorry driver waiting for a safe moment to reverse into a yard have all been fined £35 each on Murton Lane in recent weeks, they claimed.

L Clancey and Sons scrap metal merchants said one of its lorries was fined because the driver pulled on the verge for less than five minutes, waiting for a safe moment to reverse into the yard.

Richard Clancey from the firm, which is a mile and a half from the nearest primary school, said: "The lorry would have been there for about five minutes, and the driver was in the cab. The driver of the CCTV van didn't stop or check anything, just drove past and took the photograph."

On another occasion, a HGV arriving at neighbouring Thompson's grain mill was fined as it waited for less than a minute to turn right into the yard, it is claimed.

Transport manager Paul Hewiston said: "We couldn't believe it. If the CCTV van driver had looked at the yard he would have seen the lorry couldn't get in at that moment so had to wait."

He said trackers fitted to the lorry show only the lorry was stationary for less than a minute.

A third business, Craven's garage, said customers had been fined for parking on the verge outside, and a taxi driver was fined while waiting to pick up a customer who had dropped his own car at the garage.

The three traders said they have seen the CCTV van pass up and down their road as many as three times a day, and once spotted it parked nearby with the camera pointed directly at the businesses, seemingly "lying in wait".

Gus Hosein of campaign group Privacy International said: “These CCTV spy vans are deployed under the guise of protecting children but instead are used to generate income. It is one of the most cynical types of surveillance we’ve seen to date. Its purpose is not to make people safer; it is to pad the council’s coffers.”

Chris Steward, leader of the council's Conservative opposition, said: “When the CCTV van was brought in it was for schools to improve safety for children being dropped off and those who walk to school. If it is now being used for other things, not least after the farce of Lendal Bridge and Coppergate, it’s going to antagonise people needlessly.

“The van should be used for schools, nothing more, nothing less, but here it looks like it’s being used to raise revenues and you get a situation where it breeds contempt for the rules.”

A City of York Council officer said the car was launched following calls from head teachers and was supported by police, and said using it to cover other ‘no waiting / stopping restrictions areas’ was in line with normal practice nationally.

She said: "To deploy a camera car for only two-hours of the day, during pick-up and drop-off school times only, would not be feasible, therefore the car patrols other times of the day to ensure restrictions are enforced.

"The camera car is not used to discourage driving or to drive away customers from businesses in the targeted areas, but to enforce legal and safe parking. If drivers adhere to these restrictions they will not risk being fined.”

She said the broader use of the car was covered by a "frequently asked questions" section on its website.

Comments (112)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:14am Wed 30 Apr 14

NoNewsIsGoodNews says...

A few of us said this would happen when the original story came out, but we were shouted down by the "will somebody think of the children" commentators on here.
You reap what you sow people.
A few of us said this would happen when the original story came out, but we were shouted down by the "will somebody think of the children" commentators on here. You reap what you sow people. NoNewsIsGoodNews
  • Score: 32

8:17am Wed 30 Apr 14

betty swollox says...

Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.
Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long. betty swollox
  • Score: 53

8:23am Wed 30 Apr 14

vax2002 says...

The vast majority of all tickets given out by this car are illegal, they are just "trying it on"
The law states what constitutes parking and dropping off passengers is exempt from parking fines as is maneuvering, many yellow lines are single and allow waiting as well and many schools zig zags are only recommend restrictions.
Get up, fight back and UPHOLD the law by overturning illegal parking tickets.
York loses most cases at adjudication.
Free advice for victims of unlawful fines available at http://forums.pepipo
o.com/
The vast majority of all tickets given out by this car are illegal, they are just "trying it on" The law states what constitutes parking and dropping off passengers is exempt from parking fines as is maneuvering, many yellow lines are single and allow waiting as well and many schools zig zags are only recommend restrictions. Get up, fight back and UPHOLD the law by overturning illegal parking tickets. York loses most cases at adjudication. Free advice for victims of unlawful fines available at http://forums.pepipo o.com/ vax2002
  • Score: 63

8:40am Wed 30 Apr 14

Fat Harry says...

I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK. Fat Harry
  • Score: 15

8:41am Wed 30 Apr 14

Caecilius says...

vax2002 wrote:
The vast majority of all tickets given out by this car are illegal, they are just "trying it on"
The law states what constitutes parking and dropping off passengers is exempt from parking fines as is maneuvering, many yellow lines are single and allow waiting as well and many schools zig zags are only recommend restrictions.
Get up, fight back and UPHOLD the law by overturning illegal parking tickets.
York loses most cases at adjudication.
Free advice for victims of unlawful fines available at http://forums.pepipo

o.com/
The people who are 'trying it on' are the ones who think they can dump their vehicle anywhere they please, and to hell with everyone else. Now the Londis on the corner of Clifton Road and Burton Stone Lane has closed, one prime venue for this behaviour has been lost. Might be worth the car making an occasional sweep past the Sainsburys Local on Bootham, though, and as betty swollox says, the sorting office on Leeman Road is a must.
[quote][p][bold]vax2002[/bold] wrote: The vast majority of all tickets given out by this car are illegal, they are just "trying it on" The law states what constitutes parking and dropping off passengers is exempt from parking fines as is maneuvering, many yellow lines are single and allow waiting as well and many schools zig zags are only recommend restrictions. Get up, fight back and UPHOLD the law by overturning illegal parking tickets. York loses most cases at adjudication. Free advice for victims of unlawful fines available at http://forums.pepipo o.com/[/p][/quote]The people who are 'trying it on' are the ones who think they can dump their vehicle anywhere they please, and to hell with everyone else. Now the Londis on the corner of Clifton Road and Burton Stone Lane has closed, one prime venue for this behaviour has been lost. Might be worth the car making an occasional sweep past the Sainsburys Local on Bootham, though, and as betty swollox says, the sorting office on Leeman Road is a must. Caecilius
  • Score: 25

8:47am Wed 30 Apr 14

bolero says...

These are the people who consider themselves above the law. Hard lines.
These are the people who consider themselves above the law. Hard lines. bolero
  • Score: 19

9:04am Wed 30 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety).

Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions.

Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage.

Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 25

9:26am Wed 30 Apr 14

letsanityprevail says...

If York council make loads of money from Pratt's who don't care where they park, that's totally fine with me and absolutely the right thing for York council to be doing. My council bill will be better for it. Well done York council. Keep up the good work.
If York council make loads of money from Pratt's who don't care where they park, that's totally fine with me and absolutely the right thing for York council to be doing. My council bill will be better for it. Well done York council. Keep up the good work. letsanityprevail
  • Score: 28

9:38am Wed 30 Apr 14

sniper 9964 says...

Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done sniper 9964
  • Score: 381

9:41am Wed 30 Apr 14

dudbertman says...

Goodness me. Here we go again. Kids have to be picked up so they can be safely transported to their homes. Of course the area directly outside the school should have time restrictions. Most parents are very responsible people so take this sneaky money making racket away.
Sounds par for the course from Labour and especially Mr Merritt the anti motorist tzar of YCC, who as we have been informed is a non driver.
Goodness me. Here we go again. Kids have to be picked up so they can be safely transported to their homes. Of course the area directly outside the school should have time restrictions. Most parents are very responsible people so take this sneaky money making racket away. Sounds par for the course from Labour and especially Mr Merritt the anti motorist tzar of YCC, who as we have been informed is a non driver. dudbertman
  • Score: 28

9:43am Wed 30 Apr 14

Just zis guy, you know? says...

Feature creep, gotta love it.

Clearly Jim Jong Un and his mates are desperate to claw back some of the money they'll invariably lose as a result of refunding the illegal 'fines' issued during the Lendal Bridge clusterfail.
Feature creep, gotta love it. Clearly Jim Jong Un and his mates are desperate to claw back some of the money they'll invariably lose as a result of refunding the illegal 'fines' issued during the Lendal Bridge clusterfail. Just zis guy, you know?
  • Score: 30

9:54am Wed 30 Apr 14

bolero says...

It's quite simple really. Is there a law against what I am/was doing? Was I aware of it? Am I or Have I broken it? Have I been caught? Can I appeal? Yes, I have been caught breaking a motoring law and was fined. Tough, no one to blame but myself.
It's quite simple really. Is there a law against what I am/was doing? Was I aware of it? Am I or Have I broken it? Have I been caught? Can I appeal? Yes, I have been caught breaking a motoring law and was fined. Tough, no one to blame but myself. bolero
  • Score: 26

10:00am Wed 30 Apr 14

courier46 says...

If you don't park wrong you wont get a fine!
If the camera car is been used immorally ie fining a driver waiting to reverse, then it will come out through the press.
If you don't park wrong you wont get a fine! If the camera car is been used immorally ie fining a driver waiting to reverse, then it will come out through the press. courier46
  • Score: 25

10:16am Wed 30 Apr 14

York2000 says...

Another day at the Press.
Another day at the Press. York2000
  • Score: 17

10:32am Wed 30 Apr 14

Old_Man says...

It would be better utilised on Goodramgate nabbing the countless blue badge abusers. I'm sick to death of having to move out of the way on a pedestrianised street for these arrogant and lazy drivers.
It would be better utilised on Goodramgate nabbing the countless blue badge abusers. I'm sick to death of having to move out of the way on a pedestrianised street for these arrogant and lazy drivers. Old_Man
  • Score: 34

10:34am Wed 30 Apr 14

Micklegate says...

Fat Harry wrote:
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.[/p][/quote]It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished Micklegate
  • Score: 27

10:35am Wed 30 Apr 14

again says...

More misery for the pore 'ard werkin motorist, innit?

Let them drive where they like at whatever speed they like and park where they like. If it's good for the economy that's all that matters innit?
More misery for the pore 'ard werkin motorist, innit? Let them drive where they like at whatever speed they like and park where they like. If it's good for the economy that's all that matters innit? again
  • Score: 46

10:46am Wed 30 Apr 14

BL2 says...

I see the comment are over run by council loving loonies again... These have nothing to do with illegal parking! Would you rather have the road blocked or the lorry moving onto the verge until it was clear for him to turn?
I see the comment are over run by council loving loonies again... These have nothing to do with illegal parking! Would you rather have the road blocked or the lorry moving onto the verge until it was clear for him to turn? BL2
  • Score: 23

10:57am Wed 30 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

If the council follow the Traffic Management Act 2004 and allow parking for up to 5 minutes whilst waiting to unload etc then themotorist/driver should not be given fines. Judgement is needed by enforcers. The council must be clear that they use these cameras responsibly and observe all the rules regulating their use.

Wait until the council can afford the Zengrab Lanewatch cameras which are 24/7 and do not need an operator; they merely need admin staff to process the images collected via 3g network. Two images are taken and the manufacturers say they are foolproof! Currently used in London. Video via www.driving.co.uk. The government's LGA secretary. and the government transport minister are at difference on their use!

Selfish and reckless motoring transgressions are the ones to be targetted. These problems, at Murton, need a meeting with the council and local traders!

In Swindon parking enforcers have been told to look for motorists before issueing tickets!
If the council follow the Traffic Management Act 2004 and allow parking for up to 5 minutes whilst waiting to unload etc then themotorist/driver should not be given fines. Judgement is needed by enforcers. The council must be clear that they use these cameras responsibly and observe all the rules regulating their use. Wait until the council can afford the Zengrab Lanewatch cameras which are 24/7 and do not need an operator; they merely need admin staff to process the images collected via 3g network. Two images are taken and the manufacturers say they are foolproof! Currently used in London. Video via www.driving.co.uk. The government's LGA secretary. and the government transport minister are at difference on their use! Selfish and reckless motoring transgressions are the ones to be targetted. These problems, at Murton, need a meeting with the council and local traders! In Swindon parking enforcers have been told to look for motorists before issueing tickets! Cheeky face
  • Score: 85

11:04am Wed 30 Apr 14

Pitbull Terry says...

Roll on the Council Elections......Bye bye Labour!
Roll on the Council Elections......Bye bye Labour! Pitbull Terry
  • Score: 60

11:09am Wed 30 Apr 14

Saywhat says...

betty swollox wrote:
Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.
"dedicated car park".. Where is that?? Have I missed something. I had to pick up a parcel a couple of weeks ago and had to pay £2 to park in the car park at the rear, for literally five minutes!! Has a new car park popped up somewhere next to the new collection office?
[quote][p][bold]betty swollox[/bold] wrote: Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.[/p][/quote]"dedicated car park".. Where is that?? Have I missed something. I had to pick up a parcel a couple of weeks ago and had to pay £2 to park in the car park at the rear, for literally five minutes!! Has a new car park popped up somewhere next to the new collection office? Saywhat
  • Score: 22

11:16am Wed 30 Apr 14

NickPheas says...

Can't we just raze the whole area within the walls and us the area as a car park? That sounds like the only credible way of delivering enough space.
Can't we just raze the whole area within the walls and us the area as a car park? That sounds like the only credible way of delivering enough space. NickPheas
  • Score: 59

11:18am Wed 30 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

No surprises here. They love to persecute drivers. That's all this is.
No surprises here. They love to persecute drivers. That's all this is. MorkofYork
  • Score: 22

11:39am Wed 30 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

I don't know the area well, but the crux of the matter seems to be exactly what restrictions apply there.

I know the stretch of the A166 near there is a clearway, but I'm not sure about Murton Lane.

The Council have said they use it to enforce "no waiting / stopping restriction areas" (notice they didn't say they use it to enforce "no parking areas").

If that area is double yellow, no parking, then the camera car shouldn't be there.

If the area is a clearway, no stopping or waiting, then the vehicles shouldn't be there and the "fines" may well be valid. You should only stop on a clearway if that is the only way to avoid an accident. If there is a safe way of keeping moving (even if it's not your intended course) then you shouldn't stop.

Incidentally, the camera car isn't allowed to stop on a clearway either, nor are buses, bin wagons or a host of other vehicles who think they are immune.

That said, the Council will have to prove that those vehicles were not moving, and that there wasn't an obstruction stopping them moving. I'm not sure they will be collecting evidence sufficient to prove that.
I don't know the area well, but the crux of the matter seems to be exactly what restrictions apply there. I know the stretch of the A166 near there is a clearway, but I'm not sure about Murton Lane. The Council have said they use it to enforce "no waiting / stopping restriction areas" (notice they didn't say they use it to enforce "no parking areas"). If that area is double yellow, no parking, then the camera car shouldn't be there. If the area is a clearway, no stopping or waiting, then the vehicles shouldn't be there and the "fines" may well be valid. You should only stop on a clearway if that is the only way to avoid an accident. If there is a safe way of keeping moving (even if it's not your intended course) then you shouldn't stop. Incidentally, the camera car isn't allowed to stop on a clearway either, nor are buses, bin wagons or a host of other vehicles who think they are immune. That said, the Council will have to prove that those vehicles were not moving, and that there wasn't an obstruction stopping them moving. I'm not sure they will be collecting evidence sufficient to prove that. the original Homer
  • Score: 21

12:18pm Wed 30 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done.

Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it"

Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done. Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it" Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie. AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 90

12:23pm Wed 30 Apr 14

JHardacre says...

Is it just me or has CYC totally lost the plot?
Is it just me or has CYC totally lost the plot? JHardacre
  • Score: 32

12:23pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

The government's High St minister is seeking changes to all motoring transgressions! This was in an article in the Times or the Telegraph last weekend.

Cllr Devene has returned an e-mail to me and I hope to air current concerns
with him soon.

Many drivers deserve such fines but we do not, yet, have a workable system to catch the worst culprits! Misuse of mobiles is still a concern.

How many tailgaters, middle lane hoggers were caught in the last 6months.. Yet approx. 26m other motoring/parking fines were issued nationallyin the same period! In London they are as much as £135 a time!
The government's High St minister is seeking changes to all motoring transgressions! This was in an article in the Times or the Telegraph last weekend. Cllr Devene has returned an e-mail to me and I hope to air current concerns with him soon. Many drivers deserve such fines but we do not, yet, have a workable system to catch the worst culprits! Misuse of mobiles is still a concern. How many tailgaters, middle lane hoggers were caught in the last 6months.. Yet approx. 26m other motoring/parking fines were issued nationallyin the same period! In London they are as much as £135 a time! Cheeky face
  • Score: 30

12:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

yorviktone says...

It must be due to this new money making scam that the company I work for has been hit with 2 PCN's as we were doing emergency works up a Monks Cross , we were working on behalf of a major retailer and if we hadn't done the works the store would have shut done.The vehicles were parked up in the correct manner under chapter 8 signage and guarding but hey ho YCC wont listen
It must be due to this new money making scam that the company I work for has been hit with 2 PCN's as we were doing emergency works up a Monks Cross , we were working on behalf of a major retailer and if we hadn't done the works the store would have shut done.The vehicles were parked up in the correct manner under chapter 8 signage and guarding but hey ho YCC wont listen yorviktone
  • Score: 23

12:38pm Wed 30 Apr 14

HoofHearteds says...

My heart goes out to these irresponsible vehicle owners. Why can't we just turn a blind eye and forget about road safety and the reasons for no parking areas on the highways. Come on; give these poor drivers a break and ignore the rules & laws of the road
My heart goes out to these irresponsible vehicle owners. Why can't we just turn a blind eye and forget about road safety and the reasons for no parking areas on the highways. Come on; give these poor drivers a break and ignore the rules & laws of the road HoofHearteds
  • Score: 52

12:52pm Wed 30 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

Yet if we recall the recent advice given to the council. These cameras are not legal for such fines.
Yet if we recall the recent advice given to the council. These cameras are not legal for such fines. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 17

12:52pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Buzzz Light-year says...

On Monday this week at about 4.45pm this camera car was on Goodramgate near the National Trust shop where all the motley convoy of market jalopies park to wait to go into town.

The camera car was being driven by a female and she stopped to talk to one of the market drivers, blocking both directions for at least five minutes.
She could have parked up somewhere suitable and walked over to advise the driver but she chose to block the road and hold up many drivers who were waiting to get on.

Double standards.

Where's her fine?
On Monday this week at about 4.45pm this camera car was on Goodramgate near the National Trust shop where all the motley convoy of market jalopies park to wait to go into town. The camera car was being driven by a female and she stopped to talk to one of the market drivers, blocking both directions for at least five minutes. She could have parked up somewhere suitable and walked over to advise the driver but she chose to block the road and hold up many drivers who were waiting to get on. Double standards. Where's her fine? Buzzz Light-year
  • Score: 28

1:00pm Wed 30 Apr 14

ouseswimmer says...

Buzzz Light-year wrote:
On Monday this week at about 4.45pm this camera car was on Goodramgate near the National Trust shop where all the motley convoy of market jalopies park to wait to go into town.

The camera car was being driven by a female and she stopped to talk to one of the market drivers, blocking both directions for at least five minutes.
She could have parked up somewhere suitable and walked over to advise the driver but she chose to block the road and hold up many drivers who were waiting to get on.

Double standards.

Where's her fine?
It is illegal to collect evidence whilst commiting an illegal act.
[quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: On Monday this week at about 4.45pm this camera car was on Goodramgate near the National Trust shop where all the motley convoy of market jalopies park to wait to go into town. The camera car was being driven by a female and she stopped to talk to one of the market drivers, blocking both directions for at least five minutes. She could have parked up somewhere suitable and walked over to advise the driver but she chose to block the road and hold up many drivers who were waiting to get on. Double standards. Where's her fine?[/p][/quote]It is illegal to collect evidence whilst commiting an illegal act. ouseswimmer
  • Score: 25

1:05pm Wed 30 Apr 14

joelwithatleast6characters says...

When they say "new storm", presumably the guardians our civil liberties at The Press are referring to the exchanges on this message board?
I wasn't aware that being fined for parking somewhere you shouldn't was so newsworthy.
Thank goodness that plucky band of 'traders' get so easily upset or this crisis made never have been exposed.
When they say "new storm", presumably the guardians our civil liberties at The Press are referring to the exchanges on this message board? I wasn't aware that being fined for parking somewhere you shouldn't was so newsworthy. Thank goodness that plucky band of 'traders' get so easily upset or this crisis made never have been exposed. joelwithatleast6characters
  • Score: 26

1:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

chunkyyorkie says...

What's they saying? Don't bite the hand that feeds you.
It's laughable. The Councillors target and victimize motorist, then at election time come knocking on all our doors with false smiles asking for our votes; and most voters have cars!
What's they saying? Don't bite the hand that feeds you. It's laughable. The Councillors target and victimize motorist, then at election time come knocking on all our doors with false smiles asking for our votes; and most voters have cars! chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 22

1:39pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Yet if we recall the recent advice given to the council. These cameras are not legal for such fines.
They are legal.
The recent advice related specifically to moving traffic offences and the use of automated CCTV.
This article relates to stationary traffic, and the camera is manned(/womaned/pers
oned)
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: Yet if we recall the recent advice given to the council. These cameras are not legal for such fines.[/p][/quote]They are legal. The recent advice related specifically to moving traffic offences and the use of automated CCTV. This article relates to stationary traffic, and the camera is manned(/womaned/pers oned) the original Homer
  • Score: 20

2:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Pedro says...

If you drive or park illegally then you might get caught. My advice is don't.
If you drive or park illegally then you might get caught. My advice is don't. Pedro
  • Score: 21

2:15pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

ouseswimmer wrote:
Buzzz Light-year wrote:
On Monday this week at about 4.45pm this camera car was on Goodramgate near the National Trust shop where all the motley convoy of market jalopies park to wait to go into town.

The camera car was being driven by a female and she stopped to talk to one of the market drivers, blocking both directions for at least five minutes.
She could have parked up somewhere suitable and walked over to advise the driver but she chose to block the road and hold up many drivers who were waiting to get on.

Double standards.

Where's her fine?
It is illegal to collect evidence whilst commiting an illegal act.
Well, it's not illegal as such - the camera car driver could be prosecuted for causing an obstruction but not for specifically "collecting evidence whilst causing an obstruction".

I suppose the market trader could claim the camera car was there first, and they only stopped to avoid hitting the camera car. Other than that the market trader's offence (if there was one) would stand and evidence from the camera car could be used, even if the camera was in a place it shouldn't have been.

There are some circumstances where evidence becomes inadmissible, such as Police breaking in without a warrant and finding something incriminating, but that doesn't always apply.

If your assumption about the evidence always being inadmissible was right then anyone observing any offence would have an amnesty to do anything they wanted. For example you could shoot someone for dropping litter or allowing their dog to foul the pavement. If they survived they couldn't be a witness, and if they died their body couldn't be used to prove they had died.
[quote][p][bold]ouseswimmer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Buzzz Light-year[/bold] wrote: On Monday this week at about 4.45pm this camera car was on Goodramgate near the National Trust shop where all the motley convoy of market jalopies park to wait to go into town. The camera car was being driven by a female and she stopped to talk to one of the market drivers, blocking both directions for at least five minutes. She could have parked up somewhere suitable and walked over to advise the driver but she chose to block the road and hold up many drivers who were waiting to get on. Double standards. Where's her fine?[/p][/quote]It is illegal to collect evidence whilst commiting an illegal act.[/p][/quote]Well, it's not illegal as such - the camera car driver could be prosecuted for causing an obstruction but not for specifically "collecting evidence whilst causing an obstruction". I suppose the market trader could claim the camera car was there first, and they only stopped to avoid hitting the camera car. Other than that the market trader's offence (if there was one) would stand and evidence from the camera car could be used, even if the camera was in a place it shouldn't have been. There are some circumstances where evidence becomes inadmissible, such as Police breaking in without a warrant and finding something incriminating, but that doesn't always apply. If your assumption about the evidence always being inadmissible was right then anyone observing any offence would have an amnesty to do anything they wanted. For example you could shoot someone for dropping litter or allowing their dog to foul the pavement. If they survived they couldn't be a witness, and if they died their body couldn't be used to prove they had died. the original Homer
  • Score: 24

2:24pm Wed 30 Apr 14

mjgyork says...

If the police do not have enough resources to enforce the laws to encourage inconsiderate drivers to change their behaviour, the the council must. Legal/not legal? A clue in the phrase By-law. Make it legal. They will not make "loadsa money" on fines if you obey the law,
If the police do not have enough resources to enforce the laws to encourage inconsiderate drivers to change their behaviour, the the council must. Legal/not legal? A clue in the phrase By-law. Make it legal. They will not make "loadsa money" on fines if you obey the law, mjgyork
  • Score: 20

2:37pm Wed 30 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

I don't care if it's legal or not. They could use the law to do some awful things, like enforcing 20mph limits. It doesn't make what they're doing right.
I don't care if it's legal or not. They could use the law to do some awful things, like enforcing 20mph limits. It doesn't make what they're doing right. MorkofYork
  • Score: 19

2:50pm Wed 30 Apr 14

piaggio1 says...

Who is this council officer? ??. Whats his/her name .nameless nonentity. Who
No doubt is on a stunnin salary. N pension.paid for by us.why do they (press) never name them.?......there again I can prob see why.
Who is this council officer? ??. Whats his/her name .nameless nonentity. Who No doubt is on a stunnin salary. N pension.paid for by us.why do they (press) never name them.?......there again I can prob see why. piaggio1
  • Score: 23

2:51pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

Fat Harry wrote:
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
Hahaha, do you really think that the Government are anti-law? hahaha

I think it is the inappropriate application of the law, abusing powers and harassing a population that people object to.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.[/p][/quote]Hahaha, do you really think that the Government are anti-law? hahaha I think it is the inappropriate application of the law, abusing powers and harassing a population that people object to. eeoodares
  • Score: 23

2:53pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

letsanityprevail wrote:
If York council make loads of money from Pratt's who don't care where they park, that's totally fine with me and absolutely the right thing for York council to be doing. My council bill will be better for it. Well done York council. Keep up the good work.
Have you read the article? I did not think so!
[quote][p][bold]letsanityprevail[/bold] wrote: If York council make loads of money from Pratt's who don't care where they park, that's totally fine with me and absolutely the right thing for York council to be doing. My council bill will be better for it. Well done York council. Keep up the good work.[/p][/quote]Have you read the article? I did not think so! eeoodares
  • Score: 24

2:55pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
Ooo sniper, get your rule book out.
[quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]Ooo sniper, get your rule book out. eeoodares
  • Score: 28

2:58pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

bolero wrote:
It's quite simple really. Is there a law against what I am/was doing? Was I aware of it? Am I or Have I broken it? Have I been caught? Can I appeal? Yes, I have been caught breaking a motoring law and was fined. Tough, no one to blame but myself.
Quite simple, read the article. Individuals and businesses going about their business and not breaking the law. Hit with an inappropriate and unfair fine, either pay the fine or incur more costs through the appeal process.
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote: It's quite simple really. Is there a law against what I am/was doing? Was I aware of it? Am I or Have I broken it? Have I been caught? Can I appeal? Yes, I have been caught breaking a motoring law and was fined. Tough, no one to blame but myself.[/p][/quote]Quite simple, read the article. Individuals and businesses going about their business and not breaking the law. Hit with an inappropriate and unfair fine, either pay the fine or incur more costs through the appeal process. eeoodares
  • Score: 26

3:00pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

courier46 wrote:
If you don't park wrong you wont get a fine!
If the camera car is been used immorally ie fining a driver waiting to reverse, then it will come out through the press.
And who pays that drivers fine or for his time fighting the fine, you?
[quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: If you don't park wrong you wont get a fine! If the camera car is been used immorally ie fining a driver waiting to reverse, then it will come out through the press.[/p][/quote]And who pays that drivers fine or for his time fighting the fine, you? eeoodares
  • Score: 22

3:01pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

again wrote:
More misery for the pore 'ard werkin motorist, innit?

Let them drive where they like at whatever speed they like and park where they like. If it's good for the economy that's all that matters innit?
If these people were not working, who would pay your benefits?
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: More misery for the pore 'ard werkin motorist, innit? Let them drive where they like at whatever speed they like and park where they like. If it's good for the economy that's all that matters innit?[/p][/quote]If these people were not working, who would pay your benefits? eeoodares
  • Score: 30

3:06pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
My heart goes out to these irresponsible vehicle owners. Why can't we just turn a blind eye and forget about road safety and the reasons for no parking areas on the highways. Come on; give these poor drivers a break and ignore the rules & laws of the road
Did you read the article?
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: My heart goes out to these irresponsible vehicle owners. Why can't we just turn a blind eye and forget about road safety and the reasons for no parking areas on the highways. Come on; give these poor drivers a break and ignore the rules & laws of the road[/p][/quote]Did you read the article? eeoodares
  • Score: 29

3:07pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Sillybillies says...

Take the camera car around the housing estates and do those parking on grass verges.
Take the camera car around the housing estates and do those parking on grass verges. Sillybillies
  • Score: 25

3:09pm Wed 30 Apr 14

eeoodares says...

joelwithatleast6char
acters
wrote:
When they say "new storm", presumably the guardians our civil liberties at The Press are referring to the exchanges on this message board?
I wasn't aware that being fined for parking somewhere you shouldn't was so newsworthy.
Thank goodness that plucky band of 'traders' get so easily upset or this crisis made never have been exposed.
Have you read the article?
[quote][p][bold]joelwithatleast6char acters[/bold] wrote: When they say "new storm", presumably the guardians our civil liberties at The Press are referring to the exchanges on this message board? I wasn't aware that being fined for parking somewhere you shouldn't was so newsworthy. Thank goodness that plucky band of 'traders' get so easily upset or this crisis made never have been exposed.[/p][/quote]Have you read the article? eeoodares
  • Score: 24

3:14pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Kevin Turvey says...

See story above!
This council keeps giving us ammunition doesn’t it!
Now a data breach whilst attempting to stop refunds!
See story above! This council keeps giving us ammunition doesn’t it! Now a data breach whilst attempting to stop refunds! Kevin Turvey
  • Score: 21

3:17pm Wed 30 Apr 14

andy fowler says...

Desperate actions of a desperate and doomed council full of half wits who are playing with people's lives!!!!!!!
Desperate actions of a desperate and doomed council full of half wits who are playing with people's lives!!!!!!! andy fowler
  • Score: 22

3:24pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the original Homer says...

Can anyone with local knowledge let us all know what the restriction on Murton Lane is? There is a big difference between yellow lines and clearways.

If we are talking about double yellow lines then I'm totally against the camera car being used and I think the people who have had "fines" should get refunds.There are lots of yellow lines in inappropriate places, and lots of reasons why a vehicle can be stopped on them legitimately (I differentiate stopped from parked). Using a camera car to enforce them is inappropriate.

On the other hand, if it's a clearway then I support the camera car being there and I think most of those drivers would be in the wrong. It doesn't sound like any of them were avoiding an accident, but they were maybe risking causing an accident, for nothing more than commercial reasons. I know abandoning a fare, missing a delivery, or having to go a longer route to turn round may seem important, but they aren't life or death.
Can anyone with local knowledge let us all know what the restriction on Murton Lane is? There is a big difference between yellow lines and clearways. If we are talking about double yellow lines then I'm totally against the camera car being used and I think the people who have had "fines" should get refunds.There are lots of yellow lines in inappropriate places, and lots of reasons why a vehicle can be stopped on them legitimately (I differentiate stopped from parked). Using a camera car to enforce them is inappropriate. On the other hand, if it's a clearway then I support the camera car being there and I think most of those drivers would be in the wrong. It doesn't sound like any of them were avoiding an accident, but they were maybe risking causing an accident, for nothing more than commercial reasons. I know abandoning a fare, missing a delivery, or having to go a longer route to turn round may seem important, but they aren't life or death. the original Homer
  • Score: 41

3:31pm Wed 30 Apr 14

bolero says...

Why didn't the council just send a global email to them all? Sorry I don't think I'm supposed to comment on that. JA has ruled "Thou shalt not invite comments in The Press when CoYC has c***** it up again".
Why didn't the council just send a global email to them all? Sorry I don't think I'm supposed to comment on that. JA has ruled "Thou shalt not invite comments in The Press when CoYC has c***** it up again". bolero
  • Score: 17

4:12pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Fabius the Delayer says...

JHardacre wrote:
Is it just me or has CYC totally lost the plot?
Toyota 1Q £12,000
Paint work (killing resale value) £2,000
Camera equipment £10,000
Idiot to drive it about £30,000 (PA)
Fuel, tax, insurance, Tyres etc £6,000
not adding all the admin office staff and managers wages leagal costs (that will double this estimate)
I make that a cool £60,000 = 2,000 parking tickets at £30 a pop, or 40 tickets a week, 8 tickets per working day. OR Two extra Teachers inside the BL**dy Schools there so worried about !!!
still think this is money well spent?
[quote][p][bold]JHardacre[/bold] wrote: Is it just me or has CYC totally lost the plot?[/p][/quote]Toyota 1Q £12,000 Paint work (killing resale value) £2,000 Camera equipment £10,000 Idiot to drive it about £30,000 (PA) Fuel, tax, insurance, Tyres etc £6,000 not adding all the admin office staff and managers wages leagal costs (that will double this estimate) I make that a cool £60,000 = 2,000 parking tickets at £30 a pop, or 40 tickets a week, 8 tickets per working day. OR Two extra Teachers inside the BL**dy Schools there so worried about !!! still think this is money well spent? Fabius the Delayer
  • Score: 73

4:36pm Wed 30 Apr 14

joelwithatleast6characters says...

eeoodares wrote:
joelwithatleast6char

acters
wrote:
When they say "new storm", presumably the guardians our civil liberties at The Press are referring to the exchanges on this message board?
I wasn't aware that being fined for parking somewhere you shouldn't was so newsworthy.
Thank goodness that plucky band of 'traders' get so easily upset or this crisis made never have been exposed.
Have you read the article?
I tried my best but there were some awfully lon words and I was on double yellows at the time.
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joelwithatleast6char acters[/bold] wrote: When they say "new storm", presumably the guardians our civil liberties at The Press are referring to the exchanges on this message board? I wasn't aware that being fined for parking somewhere you shouldn't was so newsworthy. Thank goodness that plucky band of 'traders' get so easily upset or this crisis made never have been exposed.[/p][/quote]Have you read the article?[/p][/quote]I tried my best but there were some awfully lon words and I was on double yellows at the time. joelwithatleast6characters
  • Score: 20

5:03pm Wed 30 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

Park where you like; on pavements, on double yellows, next to pedestrian crossings, on corners, opposite parked vehicles. Just don't whinge when you get caught. It's unlikely to happen but you never know. Welcome to pirate Britain.
Park where you like; on pavements, on double yellows, next to pedestrian crossings, on corners, opposite parked vehicles. Just don't whinge when you get caught. It's unlikely to happen but you never know. Welcome to pirate Britain. bloodaxe
  • Score: 20

5:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

bloodaxe says...

Pitbull Terry wrote:
Roll on the Council Elections......Bye bye Labour!
...and welcome, er, LibDems, again ?
[quote][p][bold]Pitbull Terry[/bold] wrote: Roll on the Council Elections......Bye bye Labour![/p][/quote]...and welcome, er, LibDems, again ? bloodaxe
  • Score: 16

7:02pm Wed 30 Apr 14

pedalling paul says...

If a Council Officer has boobed re the emails, then it's up to the Chief Executive to deal with it. Hardly a political matter.

Can't see the sense in pouncing on drivers waiting to enter business premises. But plenty of other illegal parking that needs to be dealt with.
If a Council Officer has boobed re the emails, then it's up to the Chief Executive to deal with it. Hardly a political matter. Can't see the sense in pouncing on drivers waiting to enter business premises. But plenty of other illegal parking that needs to be dealt with. pedalling paul
  • Score: 22

7:08pm Wed 30 Apr 14

courier46 says...

eeoodares wrote:
courier46 wrote:
If you don't park wrong you wont get a fine!
If the camera car is been used immorally ie fining a driver waiting to reverse, then it will come out through the press.
And who pays that drivers fine or for his time fighting the fine, you?
Dont park in places that your not supposed to park and you wont have to pay a fine or spend time fighting it.It`s not rocket science!!
[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]courier46[/bold] wrote: If you don't park wrong you wont get a fine! If the camera car is been used immorally ie fining a driver waiting to reverse, then it will come out through the press.[/p][/quote]And who pays that drivers fine or for his time fighting the fine, you?[/p][/quote]Dont park in places that your not supposed to park and you wont have to pay a fine or spend time fighting it.It`s not rocket science!! courier46
  • Score: 20

7:21pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Cheeky face says...

Pedalling Paul exactly right this time. But some cyclists are jn neerd of safety lessons.
Pedalling Paul exactly right this time. But some cyclists are jn neerd of safety lessons. Cheeky face
  • Score: 21

7:51pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

Saywhat wrote:
betty swollox wrote:
Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.
"dedicated car park".. Where is that?? Have I missed something. I had to pick up a parcel a couple of weeks ago and had to pay £2 to park in the car park at the rear, for literally five minutes!! Has a new car park popped up somewhere next to the new collection office?
That office is closing anyway, so no more parking problems.
[quote][p][bold]Saywhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]betty swollox[/bold] wrote: Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.[/p][/quote]"dedicated car park".. Where is that?? Have I missed something. I had to pick up a parcel a couple of weeks ago and had to pay £2 to park in the car park at the rear, for literally five minutes!! Has a new car park popped up somewhere next to the new collection office?[/p][/quote]That office is closing anyway, so no more parking problems. the equalizer squad
  • Score: 29

7:59pm Wed 30 Apr 14

the equalizer squad says...

Sillybillies wrote:
Take the camera car around the housing estates and do those parking on grass verges.
Well said, i got that problem sorted where i live, lazy sods could not be bothered to use a drive that they had, using them now and if they churn the verge up again they have to pay the cost to put it right.
[quote][p][bold]Sillybillies[/bold] wrote: Take the camera car around the housing estates and do those parking on grass verges.[/p][/quote]Well said, i got that problem sorted where i live, lazy sods could not be bothered to use a drive that they had, using them now and if they churn the verge up again they have to pay the cost to put it right. the equalizer squad
  • Score: 19

8:19pm Wed 30 Apr 14

YOUWILLDOASISAY says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety).

Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions.

Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage.

Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Don't forget to mark this one down Mark-Down Mongrels, it says exactly what my post above says.

Just a little over a year and you will have all day to mark down comments, saves waiting until getting home after another day of disasters.

Crack on, Woof, Woof.
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Don't forget to mark this one down Mark-Down Mongrels, it says exactly what my post above says. Just a little over a year and you will have all day to mark down comments, saves waiting until getting home after another day of disasters. Crack on, Woof, Woof. YOUWILLDOASISAY
  • Score: 29

8:33pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Silver says...

http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/motoring/news
/9214210/Landmark-ru
ling-for-drivers-ove
r-council-spy-cars.h
tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?
http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /9214210/Landmark-ru ling-for-drivers-ove r-council-spy-cars.h tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden? Silver
  • Score: 22

8:45pm Wed 30 Apr 14

chunkyyorkie says...

The biggest problem with any of these sort of idea is they are all fundamentally flawd. Because they are always only ever going to penalise a tiny minority while the vast majority will carry on doing it and not get a fine. While the camera car films and fines one car another car within a few feet may be doing 40 in a 30 or a bike goes through a red light or 6 drivers are on their phones. The idea doesn’t make even a dent in the tip of the iceberg in just the same way as the police having a 2 hour purge during one day out of 365 and ticket drivers going up Coppergate. Fifty people get fined in that tiny window and the rest of the year thousands are seen to get away with it.
If people are doing anything illegal they should be addressed about it, but by the very nature of this, all it does is catch the very unlucky ones while the other people all around doing other equally illegal things driving on phone/jumping red lights/ speeding/ bikes with no light etc etc all go unpunished at the very same time in the very same place.
These general policy’s causes a huge amount of annoyance but does very little as far as the purpose of the original idea. It is why ‘the law is an ****’ and justice is never quite just.
The biggest problem with any of these sort of idea is they are all fundamentally flawd. Because they are always only ever going to penalise a tiny minority while the vast majority will carry on doing it and not get a fine. While the camera car films and fines one car another car within a few feet may be doing 40 in a 30 or a bike goes through a red light or 6 drivers are on their phones. The idea doesn’t make even a dent in the tip of the iceberg in just the same way as the police having a 2 hour purge during one day out of 365 and ticket drivers going up Coppergate. Fifty people get fined in that tiny window and the rest of the year thousands are seen to get away with it. If people are doing anything illegal they should be addressed about it, but by the very nature of this, all it does is catch the very unlucky ones while the other people all around doing other equally illegal things driving on phone/jumping red lights/ speeding/ bikes with no light etc etc all go unpunished at the very same time in the very same place. These general policy’s causes a huge amount of annoyance but does very little as far as the purpose of the original idea. It is why ‘the law is an ****’ and justice is never quite just. chunkyyorkie
  • Score: 26

9:09pm Wed 30 Apr 14

AnotherPointofView says...

Silver wrote:
http://www.telegraph

.co.uk/motoring/news

/9214210/Landmark-ru

ling-for-drivers-ove

r-council-spy-cars.h

tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?
Interesting article which is so similar to York Council. The car was bought by Southend Council to monitor the areas around schools (which most right minded people don't mind) which then ended with "mission creep" ie who else can we screw for a few bob to replace the cash we won't get from the Lendal Bridge scam?
[quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /9214210/Landmark-ru ling-for-drivers-ove r-council-spy-cars.h tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?[/p][/quote]Interesting article which is so similar to York Council. The car was bought by Southend Council to monitor the areas around schools (which most right minded people don't mind) which then ended with "mission creep" ie who else can we screw for a few bob to replace the cash we won't get from the Lendal Bridge scam? AnotherPointofView
  • Score: 25

9:12pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Silver says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Silver wrote:
http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/motoring/news


/9214210/Landmark-ru


ling-for-drivers-ove


r-council-spy-cars.h


tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?
Interesting article which is so similar to York Council. The car was bought by Southend Council to monitor the areas around schools (which most right minded people don't mind) which then ended with "mission creep" ie who else can we screw for a few bob to replace the cash we won't get from the Lendal Bridge scam?
Thank I'm expecting a lot of negative votes for that comment.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /9214210/Landmark-ru ling-for-drivers-ove r-council-spy-cars.h tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?[/p][/quote]Interesting article which is so similar to York Council. The car was bought by Southend Council to monitor the areas around schools (which most right minded people don't mind) which then ended with "mission creep" ie who else can we screw for a few bob to replace the cash we won't get from the Lendal Bridge scam?[/p][/quote]Thank I'm expecting a lot of negative votes for that comment. Silver
  • Score: 23

9:26pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Silver says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
Silver wrote:
http://www.telegraph


.co.uk/motoring/news


/9214210/Landmark-ru


ling-for-drivers-ove


r-council-spy-cars.h


tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?
Interesting article which is so similar to York Council. The car was bought by Southend Council to monitor the areas around schools (which most right minded people don't mind) which then ended with "mission creep" ie who else can we screw for a few bob to replace the cash we won't get from the Lendal Bridge scam?
Although I think the loophole is if they step out of their car then it's not a legal method for fining. But I'm not a lawyer
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Silver[/bold] wrote: http://www.telegraph .co.uk/motoring/news /9214210/Landmark-ru ling-for-drivers-ove r-council-spy-cars.h tml So umm shouldn't they have just sent out a warden?[/p][/quote]Interesting article which is so similar to York Council. The car was bought by Southend Council to monitor the areas around schools (which most right minded people don't mind) which then ended with "mission creep" ie who else can we screw for a few bob to replace the cash we won't get from the Lendal Bridge scam?[/p][/quote]Although I think the loophole is if they step out of their car then it's not a legal method for fining. But I'm not a lawyer Silver
  • Score: 36

9:29pm Wed 30 Apr 14

courier46 says...

chunkyyorkie wrote:
The biggest problem with any of these sort of idea is they are all fundamentally flawd. Because they are always only ever going to penalise a tiny minority while the vast majority will carry on doing it and not get a fine. While the camera car films and fines one car another car within a few feet may be doing 40 in a 30 or a bike goes through a red light or 6 drivers are on their phones. The idea doesn’t make even a dent in the tip of the iceberg in just the same way as the police having a 2 hour purge during one day out of 365 and ticket drivers going up Coppergate. Fifty people get fined in that tiny window and the rest of the year thousands are seen to get away with it.
If people are doing anything illegal they should be addressed about it, but by the very nature of this, all it does is catch the very unlucky ones while the other people all around doing other equally illegal things driving on phone/jumping red lights/ speeding/ bikes with no light etc etc all go unpunished at the very same time in the very same place.
These general policy’s causes a huge amount of annoyance but does very little as far as the purpose of the original idea. It is why ‘the law is an ****’ and justice is never quite just.
No one is afraid of our justice because it has no detterant to it.
[quote][p][bold]chunkyyorkie[/bold] wrote: The biggest problem with any of these sort of idea is they are all fundamentally flawd. Because they are always only ever going to penalise a tiny minority while the vast majority will carry on doing it and not get a fine. While the camera car films and fines one car another car within a few feet may be doing 40 in a 30 or a bike goes through a red light or 6 drivers are on their phones. The idea doesn’t make even a dent in the tip of the iceberg in just the same way as the police having a 2 hour purge during one day out of 365 and ticket drivers going up Coppergate. Fifty people get fined in that tiny window and the rest of the year thousands are seen to get away with it. If people are doing anything illegal they should be addressed about it, but by the very nature of this, all it does is catch the very unlucky ones while the other people all around doing other equally illegal things driving on phone/jumping red lights/ speeding/ bikes with no light etc etc all go unpunished at the very same time in the very same place. These general policy’s causes a huge amount of annoyance but does very little as far as the purpose of the original idea. It is why ‘the law is an ****’ and justice is never quite just.[/p][/quote]No one is afraid of our justice because it has no detterant to it. courier46
  • Score: 18

9:31pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety).

Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions.

Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage.

Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
[quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows, jake777
  • Score: 19

9:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

dudbertman wrote:
Goodness me. Here we go again. Kids have to be picked up so they can be safely transported to their homes. Of course the area directly outside the school should have time restrictions. Most parents are very responsible people so take this sneaky money making racket away.
Sounds par for the course from Labour and especially Mr Merritt the anti motorist tzar of YCC, who as we have been informed is a non driver.
Bet you would change your mind if your child was knocked over outside a school. you want to get out and take a look around these schools might open your eyes.
[quote][p][bold]dudbertman[/bold] wrote: Goodness me. Here we go again. Kids have to be picked up so they can be safely transported to their homes. Of course the area directly outside the school should have time restrictions. Most parents are very responsible people so take this sneaky money making racket away. Sounds par for the course from Labour and especially Mr Merritt the anti motorist tzar of YCC, who as we have been informed is a non driver.[/p][/quote]Bet you would change your mind if your child was knocked over outside a school. you want to get out and take a look around these schools might open your eyes. jake777
  • Score: 20

9:38pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Micklegate wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished
its a case of you break the rules you pay the fine simple.
[quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.[/p][/quote]It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished[/p][/quote]its a case of you break the rules you pay the fine simple. jake777
  • Score: 18

9:42pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

Saywhat wrote:
betty swollox wrote:
Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.
"dedicated car park".. Where is that?? Have I missed something. I had to pick up a parcel a couple of weeks ago and had to pay £2 to park in the car park at the rear, for literally five minutes!! Has a new car park popped up somewhere next to the new collection office?
You cant miss it it is next to the tunnel.
[quote][p][bold]Saywhat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]betty swollox[/bold] wrote: Put it near the sorting office on Leeman Road. The post office have just spent thousands on a new parcel pick up office and a dedicated car park yet ignorant people are still parking on the path blocking access for pushchairs and wheelchairs and creating a hazard for other road users . They could play "fine top trumps" and see if they can beat the Lendal Bridge figures! I guess it wouldn't take them long.[/p][/quote]"dedicated car park".. Where is that?? Have I missed something. I had to pick up a parcel a couple of weeks ago and had to pay £2 to park in the car park at the rear, for literally five minutes!! Has a new car park popped up somewhere next to the new collection office?[/p][/quote]You cant miss it it is next to the tunnel. jake777
  • Score: 23

9:46pm Wed 30 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

I pass people on yellows regularly, causing no problem what so ever. I left space for a woman at the spar the other day. She smiled, gave me a wave, i smiled back and we went on our merry way.

The traffic nazi's know what they can go and do to themselves.
I pass people on yellows regularly, causing no problem what so ever. I left space for a woman at the spar the other day. She smiled, gave me a wave, i smiled back and we went on our merry way. The traffic nazi's know what they can go and do to themselves. MorkofYork
  • Score: 23

9:52pm Wed 30 Apr 14

jake777 says...

AnotherPointofView wrote:
sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done.

Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it"

Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.
No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.
[quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done. Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it" Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.[/p][/quote]No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country. jake777
  • Score: 32

10:25pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety).

Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions.

Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage.

Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless.

Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations.

You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,[/p][/quote]Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: 510

10:35pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

jake777 wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done.

Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it"

Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.
No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.
Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.

Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess.

By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done. Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it" Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.[/p][/quote]No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.[/p][/quote]Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country. Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess. By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: 416

10:37pm Wed 30 Apr 14

Lance Corporal Jones says...

jake777 wrote:
Micklegate wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished
its a case of you break the rules you pay the fine simple.
A bit rich coming from you suggesting Micklegate is simple.
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.[/p][/quote]It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished[/p][/quote]its a case of you break the rules you pay the fine simple.[/p][/quote]A bit rich coming from you suggesting Micklegate is simple. Lance Corporal Jones
  • Score: 24

11:48pm Wed 30 Apr 14

MorkofYork says...

Has anyone noticed what a considerate bunch motorists really are in this city ?
I remember driving past the works on Melrosegate recently, in the line of traffic at the temporary lights every side street had a gap left for people to pull in and out. No one was required to do this, there's no markings on the road, they just did it. I see this attitude every time i go out driving, considerate and thoughtful people all working together.

The discrimination here is very one sided, we don't deserve it really.
Has anyone noticed what a considerate bunch motorists really are in this city ? I remember driving past the works on Melrosegate recently, in the line of traffic at the temporary lights every side street had a gap left for people to pull in and out. No one was required to do this, there's no markings on the road, they just did it. I see this attitude every time i go out driving, considerate and thoughtful people all working together. The discrimination here is very one sided, we don't deserve it really. MorkofYork
  • Score: 389

12:28am Thu 1 May 14

Dave Ruddock says...

wish this One Car and i understand its one driver, knows the city goes further than Melrosegate area. and dont the schools concerned have lunch times, so thats one hour morning, one hour Lunch and one hour afternoon . in the other times use it ti fine delivery drivers who obscure traffic lights, use double yellow lines in the city center. .
wish this One Car and i understand its one driver, knows the city goes further than Melrosegate area. and dont the schools concerned have lunch times, so thats one hour morning, one hour Lunch and one hour afternoon . in the other times use it ti fine delivery drivers who obscure traffic lights, use double yellow lines in the city center. . Dave Ruddock
  • Score: 19

4:38am Thu 1 May 14

Magicman! says...

Fat Harry wrote:
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
It worked with Lendal bridge though didn't it?! some bloke drove down coppergate, got a fine, didn't like it and so drove down there again to get another fine and then got an overpaid solicitor on his side to force the council to turn off the cameras.
[quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.[/p][/quote]It worked with Lendal bridge though didn't it?! some bloke drove down coppergate, got a fine, didn't like it and so drove down there again to get another fine and then got an overpaid solicitor on his side to force the council to turn off the cameras. Magicman!
  • Score: 21

8:36am Thu 1 May 14

the original Homer says...

The Press article was all about each driver thinking they had a good enough reason why they should be allowed to stop. Had it been yellow lines we were talking about I would agree. However, I drove down Murton lane last night, to see for myself and I now know it's a clearway (blue and red sign with diagonal cross).

From the comments in the article, it seems that the drivers and businesses either haven't realised it's a clearway, or they think a clearway is similar to yellow lines.

On a clearway, it's not about why you are there or how long you stop for, it's about not stopping in the first place. The only time you can come to a standstill on a clearway is if you absolutely have to stop as the only way to avoid an immediate accident.
The Press article was all about each driver thinking they had a good enough reason why they should be allowed to stop. Had it been yellow lines we were talking about I would agree. However, I drove down Murton lane last night, to see for myself and I now know it's a clearway (blue and red sign with diagonal cross). From the comments in the article, it seems that the drivers and businesses either haven't realised it's a clearway, or they think a clearway is similar to yellow lines. On a clearway, it's not about why you are there or how long you stop for, it's about not stopping in the first place. The only time you can come to a standstill on a clearway is if you absolutely have to stop as the only way to avoid an immediate accident. the original Homer
  • Score: 19

9:25am Thu 1 May 14

jake777 says...

Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote:
All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety).

Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions.

Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage.

Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless.

Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations.

You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.
Go play on the motorway muppet.
[quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,[/p][/quote]Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.[/p][/quote]Go play on the motorway muppet. jake777
  • Score: 19

9:30am Thu 1 May 14

jake777 says...

Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done.

Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it"

Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.
No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.
Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.

Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess.

By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.
The proof of North Yorkshire Driving standards are the worst in the country are at fulford police station if you would like to come and check them out, so save your stupid comments to yourself.
[quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done. Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it" Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.[/p][/quote]No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.[/p][/quote]Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country. Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess. By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.[/p][/quote]The proof of North Yorkshire Driving standards are the worst in the country are at fulford police station if you would like to come and check them out, so save your stupid comments to yourself. jake777
  • Score: 29

9:34am Thu 1 May 14

jake777 says...

Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Micklegate wrote:
Fat Harry wrote:
I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims".

Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.
It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished
its a case of you break the rules you pay the fine simple.
A bit rich coming from you suggesting Micklegate is simple.
Here we go again Mr no brains jog on sunshine.
[quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Micklegate[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Fat Harry[/bold] wrote: I love this "doublethink" idea that people who disregard the law by driving and/or parking dangerously in the vicinity of schools are somehow "victims". Seems to me that the Tories are arguing if you don't like a law, rule, or regulation, it's OK to ignore it and go crying to the media if the police or council tell you that, actually, it isn't OK.[/p][/quote]It seems they're using it as another cash cow, perhaps the money raising has been stepped up after the Lendal Bridge tax was abolished[/p][/quote]its a case of you break the rules you pay the fine simple.[/p][/quote]A bit rich coming from you suggesting Micklegate is simple.[/p][/quote]Here we go again Mr no brains jog on sunshine. jake777
  • Score: 18

9:41am Thu 1 May 14

jake777 says...

the original Homer wrote:
The Press article was all about each driver thinking they had a good enough reason why they should be allowed to stop. Had it been yellow lines we were talking about I would agree. However, I drove down Murton lane last night, to see for myself and I now know it's a clearway (blue and red sign with diagonal cross).

From the comments in the article, it seems that the drivers and businesses either haven't realised it's a clearway, or they think a clearway is similar to yellow lines.

On a clearway, it's not about why you are there or how long you stop for, it's about not stopping in the first place. The only time you can come to a standstill on a clearway is if you absolutely have to stop as the only way to avoid an immediate accident.
well said at last someone with common sence.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: The Press article was all about each driver thinking they had a good enough reason why they should be allowed to stop. Had it been yellow lines we were talking about I would agree. However, I drove down Murton lane last night, to see for myself and I now know it's a clearway (blue and red sign with diagonal cross). From the comments in the article, it seems that the drivers and businesses either haven't realised it's a clearway, or they think a clearway is similar to yellow lines. On a clearway, it's not about why you are there or how long you stop for, it's about not stopping in the first place. The only time you can come to a standstill on a clearway is if you absolutely have to stop as the only way to avoid an immediate accident.[/p][/quote]well said at last someone with common sence. jake777
  • Score: 20

10:02am Thu 1 May 14

the original Homer says...

jake777 wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done.

Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it"

Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.
No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.
Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.

Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess.

By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.
The proof of North Yorkshire Driving standards are the worst in the country are at fulford police station if you would like to come and check them out, so save your stupid comments to yourself.
I notice you say "come" (not "go") to Fulford Police Station.

Maybe just a slip, but it sort of implies you are there.

Many of your comments have been taken as pro-council, which has led some to believe you are a council employee and defending them blindly. That in turn has (in my opinion) led to some of the abuse you get (a bit like PP gets) and maybe that's why you sometimes give abuse back.

Now I'm not so sure. If you are only defending council actions from the standpoint of the law being upheld then that is different from defending the policies themselves.

Maybe you could clarify that?
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done. Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it" Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.[/p][/quote]No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.[/p][/quote]Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country. Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess. By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.[/p][/quote]The proof of North Yorkshire Driving standards are the worst in the country are at fulford police station if you would like to come and check them out, so save your stupid comments to yourself.[/p][/quote]I notice you say "come" (not "go") to Fulford Police Station. Maybe just a slip, but it sort of implies you are there. Many of your comments have been taken as pro-council, which has led some to believe you are a council employee and defending them blindly. That in turn has (in my opinion) led to some of the abuse you get (a bit like PP gets) and maybe that's why you sometimes give abuse back. Now I'm not so sure. If you are only defending council actions from the standpoint of the law being upheld then that is different from defending the policies themselves. Maybe you could clarify that? the original Homer
  • Score: 21

10:22am Thu 1 May 14

Cheeky face says...

The Murton businesses need to collectively meet with the council. It is a clearway area for a reason. Double yellows are a different ball game.
Stopping to take phone calls/messages are often in stupid positions and those stupidly "parked up " vehicles are an annoyance to other road users.

These cameras with sensible operators, if within the regs, should sort out the worst instances first. If they appear to be used as cash cows then that is different!
The Murton businesses need to collectively meet with the council. It is a clearway area for a reason. Double yellows are a different ball game. Stopping to take phone calls/messages are often in stupid positions and those stupidly "parked up " vehicles are an annoyance to other road users. These cameras with sensible operators, if within the regs, should sort out the worst instances first. If they appear to be used as cash cows then that is different! Cheeky face
  • Score: 23

11:14am Thu 1 May 14

the original Homer says...

Cheeky face wrote:
The Murton businesses need to collectively meet with the council. It is a clearway area for a reason. Double yellows are a different ball game.
Stopping to take phone calls/messages are often in stupid positions and those stupidly "parked up " vehicles are an annoyance to other road users.

These cameras with sensible operators, if within the regs, should sort out the worst instances first. If they appear to be used as cash cows then that is different!
Yes, it does seem to be a case of dialogue being needed.

Some of the businesses obviously think that a degree of stopping and waiting should be acceptable, and maybe they are right.

As it stands (as a clearway) there is no valid debate about what you can and can't do. I don't see a case for any degree of tolerance so long as it remains a clearway. Any discussion needs to be around whether it should or shouldn't in fact be a clearway. The businesses would probably be looking for it to made into a double yellow area, which would then allow that degree of tolerance (and would also exclude the area from the camera car's jurisdiction).

I suspect the comments to date have opened a few people's eyes about clearways, as they aren't generally understood properly. Most drivers simply had to be able to identify the sign for their test, and have since then not had to worry about it.

The clearway signage isn't really up to the job these days and I hope all clearways will eventually be replaced with red lines, as I think they are a bit more "in your face" and signify their importance.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: The Murton businesses need to collectively meet with the council. It is a clearway area for a reason. Double yellows are a different ball game. Stopping to take phone calls/messages are often in stupid positions and those stupidly "parked up " vehicles are an annoyance to other road users. These cameras with sensible operators, if within the regs, should sort out the worst instances first. If they appear to be used as cash cows then that is different![/p][/quote]Yes, it does seem to be a case of dialogue being needed. Some of the businesses obviously think that a degree of stopping and waiting should be acceptable, and maybe they are right. As it stands (as a clearway) there is no valid debate about what you can and can't do. I don't see a case for any degree of tolerance so long as it remains a clearway. Any discussion needs to be around whether it should or shouldn't in fact be a clearway. The businesses would probably be looking for it to made into a double yellow area, which would then allow that degree of tolerance (and would also exclude the area from the camera car's jurisdiction). I suspect the comments to date have opened a few people's eyes about clearways, as they aren't generally understood properly. Most drivers simply had to be able to identify the sign for their test, and have since then not had to worry about it. The clearway signage isn't really up to the job these days and I hope all clearways will eventually be replaced with red lines, as I think they are a bit more "in your face" and signify their importance. the original Homer
  • Score: 21

12:42pm Thu 1 May 14

Cheeky face says...

The original homer. thanks for that. The situation is still vague in some circumstances; which is whylocalism was introduced; taking central government away from possible legal issues.

In Scarborough a motor cycle is used by a traffic enforcer of the council, who was "directed" to my address when I was unloading at 6am. He said " I cannot say why I am here?". No charge as I was obviously loading and unloading, and had straddled a double yellow as directed by the police. Each case on its merit's.

In York police and the council have suggested cars are park straddling pavements; or they would otherwise go for permits!
The original homer. thanks for that. The situation is still vague in some circumstances; which is whylocalism was introduced; taking central government away from possible legal issues. In Scarborough a motor cycle is used by a traffic enforcer of the council, who was "directed" to my address when I was unloading at 6am. He said " I cannot say why I am here?". No charge as I was obviously loading and unloading, and had straddled a double yellow as directed by the police. Each case on its merit's. In York police and the council have suggested cars are park straddling pavements; or they would otherwise go for permits! Cheeky face
  • Score: 22

1:10pm Thu 1 May 14

HoofHearteds says...

We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls !
We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls ! HoofHearteds
  • Score: 22

2:03pm Thu 1 May 14

the original Homer says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls !
I already have a life - I'm just hoping it isn't taken away by some driver who thinks road safety regulations and laws are futile or trivial.

If our "bickering and nitpicking" (I call it debate) leads to even a few more drivers understanding what a clearway means then it is worthwhile.

I totally agree that many regulations are futile and many laws are based on triviality, but I don't see clearways in that category.

As stated earlier, I think there is a separate debate about whether or not Murton Lane should be a clearway or double yellow lines. However, for as long as it is marked as a clearway, it should be respected.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls ![/p][/quote]I already have a life - I'm just hoping it isn't taken away by some driver who thinks road safety regulations and laws are futile or trivial. If our "bickering and nitpicking" (I call it debate) leads to even a few more drivers understanding what a clearway means then it is worthwhile. I totally agree that many regulations are futile and many laws are based on triviality, but I don't see clearways in that category. As stated earlier, I think there is a separate debate about whether or not Murton Lane should be a clearway or double yellow lines. However, for as long as it is marked as a clearway, it should be respected. the original Homer
  • Score: 23

3:30pm Thu 1 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Original Homer, Quite right. This is a conduit area for comments. So many people treat it in a different way.

What we know is that interpretation and actions on regs/laws are more often than not against the intention of their meaning.

I am a private landlord and have to abide by over 100 regs/laws; many are contradictory to each other; and without debate/brainstorming they will never be changed for the better.

These traffic cameras MUST be used sensibly and if the laws/regs are silly then those laws must be changed. The stupid or complicated laws/regs are well loved? ( mainly )by the solicitors and barristers!

The local businesses in Murton should, and are due I believe, talk to the council and find a solution to that specific location. The van will be better employed elsewhere.

If the council worked with residents/tourists and not occasionally against them we would be much better off.
Original Homer, Quite right. This is a conduit area for comments. So many people treat it in a different way. What we know is that interpretation and actions on regs/laws are more often than not against the intention of their meaning. I am a private landlord and have to abide by over 100 regs/laws; many are contradictory to each other; and without debate/brainstorming they will never be changed for the better. These traffic cameras MUST be used sensibly and if the laws/regs are silly then those laws must be changed. The stupid or complicated laws/regs are well loved? ( mainly )by the solicitors and barristers! The local businesses in Murton should, and are due I believe, talk to the council and find a solution to that specific location. The van will be better employed elsewhere. If the council worked with residents/tourists and not occasionally against them we would be much better off. Cheeky face
  • Score: 53

12:26am Fri 2 May 14

jake777 says...

the original Homer wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
AnotherPointofView wrote:
sniper 9964 wrote:
Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done
That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done.

Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it"

Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.
No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.
Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.

Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess.

By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.
The proof of North Yorkshire Driving standards are the worst in the country are at fulford police station if you would like to come and check them out, so save your stupid comments to yourself.
I notice you say "come" (not "go") to Fulford Police Station.

Maybe just a slip, but it sort of implies you are there.

Many of your comments have been taken as pro-council, which has led some to believe you are a council employee and defending them blindly. That in turn has (in my opinion) led to some of the abuse you get (a bit like PP gets) and maybe that's why you sometimes give abuse back.

Now I'm not so sure. If you are only defending council actions from the standpoint of the law being upheld then that is different from defending the policies themselves.

Maybe you could clarify that?
I don't work for the council and have no connection with York City Council.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]AnotherPointofView[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]sniper 9964[/bold] wrote: Why is it not used in the city centre to enforce the loading ban. ? Countless vehicles are parked on yellow lines or restrictions in the city centre. Yet nothing is ever done[/p][/quote]That's because people have jobs to do in delivering to the shops in town. The council has just made permanent the restrictions which mean that many drivers have insufficient time to get deliveries done. Next time you shop in town and ask for something consider beind told "sorry it's out of stock, the delivery driver hadn't got time to stop and deliver it" Many shops don't open until 10.00 and other places close at 17.00. That leaves very little time to deliver to places, particularly if as a delivery driver you have lots of deliveries elsewhere. I know where my priorities lie.[/p][/quote]No again its a case of it does not mean me so I will do it, if you look there is plates telling you when you can deliver, Lots of shops have staff in earlier than 10.00 take a look at all the mini supermarkets all round town they open at 6am yet delivery lorries still park outside when they should not be there, people are taking the attitude of it does not mean me, and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country.[/p][/quote]Joke777. and driving standards in north yorkshire are the worst in the country. Any proof of that, facts might be useful, maybe evidence or just a Mr Thickie guess. By the way, funny how your posts are marked up just after they are posted.[/p][/quote]The proof of North Yorkshire Driving standards are the worst in the country are at fulford police station if you would like to come and check them out, so save your stupid comments to yourself.[/p][/quote]I notice you say "come" (not "go") to Fulford Police Station. Maybe just a slip, but it sort of implies you are there. Many of your comments have been taken as pro-council, which has led some to believe you are a council employee and defending them blindly. That in turn has (in my opinion) led to some of the abuse you get (a bit like PP gets) and maybe that's why you sometimes give abuse back. Now I'm not so sure. If you are only defending council actions from the standpoint of the law being upheld then that is different from defending the policies themselves. Maybe you could clarify that?[/p][/quote]I don't work for the council and have no connection with York City Council. jake777
  • Score: 48

12:31am Fri 2 May 14

jake777 says...

the original Homer wrote:
Cheeky face wrote:
The Murton businesses need to collectively meet with the council. It is a clearway area for a reason. Double yellows are a different ball game.
Stopping to take phone calls/messages are often in stupid positions and those stupidly "parked up " vehicles are an annoyance to other road users.

These cameras with sensible operators, if within the regs, should sort out the worst instances first. If they appear to be used as cash cows then that is different!
Yes, it does seem to be a case of dialogue being needed.

Some of the businesses obviously think that a degree of stopping and waiting should be acceptable, and maybe they are right.

As it stands (as a clearway) there is no valid debate about what you can and can't do. I don't see a case for any degree of tolerance so long as it remains a clearway. Any discussion needs to be around whether it should or shouldn't in fact be a clearway. The businesses would probably be looking for it to made into a double yellow area, which would then allow that degree of tolerance (and would also exclude the area from the camera car's jurisdiction).

I suspect the comments to date have opened a few people's eyes about clearways, as they aren't generally understood properly. Most drivers simply had to be able to identify the sign for their test, and have since then not had to worry about it.

The clearway signage isn't really up to the job these days and I hope all clearways will eventually be replaced with red lines, as I think they are a bit more "in your face" and signify their importance.
I agree well said.
[quote][p][bold]the original Homer[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: The Murton businesses need to collectively meet with the council. It is a clearway area for a reason. Double yellows are a different ball game. Stopping to take phone calls/messages are often in stupid positions and those stupidly "parked up " vehicles are an annoyance to other road users. These cameras with sensible operators, if within the regs, should sort out the worst instances first. If they appear to be used as cash cows then that is different![/p][/quote]Yes, it does seem to be a case of dialogue being needed. Some of the businesses obviously think that a degree of stopping and waiting should be acceptable, and maybe they are right. As it stands (as a clearway) there is no valid debate about what you can and can't do. I don't see a case for any degree of tolerance so long as it remains a clearway. Any discussion needs to be around whether it should or shouldn't in fact be a clearway. The businesses would probably be looking for it to made into a double yellow area, which would then allow that degree of tolerance (and would also exclude the area from the camera car's jurisdiction). I suspect the comments to date have opened a few people's eyes about clearways, as they aren't generally understood properly. Most drivers simply had to be able to identify the sign for their test, and have since then not had to worry about it. The clearway signage isn't really up to the job these days and I hope all clearways will eventually be replaced with red lines, as I think they are a bit more "in your face" and signify their importance.[/p][/quote]I agree well said. jake777
  • Score: 17

12:06pm Fri 2 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Jake/The original Homer,

Quite right. Some of the A64 is a clearway but is not recognized as such.

Some parts of the country where clearways ate more evident have separate lay-bys or refuge areas. Legislation is always complicated, and new laws are not fully tested until a judicial review is sought. More money for barristers/lawyers; often the from the same schooling as those that compiled the laws in the first place. Those fees/costs are in reality from the public purse!

Litter, ASB is being looked at by some councils as another use for these camera vans!

Common sense should always prevail.
Jake/The original Homer, Quite right. Some of the A64 is a clearway but is not recognized as such. Some parts of the country where clearways ate more evident have separate lay-bys or refuge areas. Legislation is always complicated, and new laws are not fully tested until a judicial review is sought. More money for barristers/lawyers; often the from the same schooling as those that compiled the laws in the first place. Those fees/costs are in reality from the public purse! Litter, ASB is being looked at by some councils as another use for these camera vans! Common sense should always prevail. Cheeky face
  • Score: 21

7:45pm Fri 2 May 14

jay, york says...

piaggio1 wrote:
Who is this council officer? ??. Whats his/her name .nameless nonentity. Who No doubt is on a stunnin salary. N pension.paid for by us.why do they (press) never name them.?......there again I can prob see why.
It is probably one of them who posts the arrogant, attacking and ignorant posts on this site (we know who you are) - yet are more than happy to have their quotes and photos of themselves in the press. Two faced so and sos......
[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote: Who is this council officer? ??. Whats his/her name .nameless nonentity. Who No doubt is on a stunnin salary. N pension.paid for by us.why do they (press) never name them.?......there again I can prob see why.[/p][/quote]It is probably one of them who posts the arrogant, attacking and ignorant posts on this site (we know who you are) - yet are more than happy to have their quotes and photos of themselves in the press. Two faced so and sos...... jay, york
  • Score: 3

8:06pm Fri 2 May 14

jay, york says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls !
It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls ![/p][/quote]It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor jay, york
  • Score: 2

6:57am Sat 3 May 14

HoofHearteds says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls !
It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor
It's even wiser to not post paranoid baseless assumptions. Do you really think im on the council LOL .. Fools read gossip and think it's true
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls ![/p][/quote]It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor[/p][/quote]It's even wiser to not post paranoid baseless assumptions. Do you really think im on the council LOL .. Fools read gossip and think it's true HoofHearteds
  • Score: -1

8:44pm Sat 3 May 14

phreaky pete says...

Anyone notice a whole load of things missing from here today ? So much for freedom of speech this paper is truly a joke, they seem happy to write articles that provoke but then wimp out when the conversation gets serious and meaningful (and I presume friends in high places lean on them to stop it).

By the way, seriously think you're all barking up the wrong tree about those two, I think they're just a pair of wrong minded fools/trolls it's hard to tell difference, that goes for the score changer too don't think he's directly affiliated either just an idiot geek who figured out a script or code or whatever to automate vote changing, and finds himself very amusing . I've
been monitoring the antics here closely over last few days and my conclusion is that coyc come on here when they can stomach it, but don't post just pull press' strings instead. That is unless that silly lass from selby is JA having a bit of a release after bottle of gin.

Anyway, shame on you press and council. And three cheers to all us good people of York ,may we continue to flourish yet faster next year when the circus is over !!!

Peace,

Paddling Phillip (deceased)
Anyone notice a whole load of things missing from here today ? So much for freedom of speech this paper is truly a joke, they seem happy to write articles that provoke but then wimp out when the conversation gets serious and meaningful (and I presume friends in high places lean on them to stop it). By the way, seriously think you're all barking up the wrong tree about those two, I think they're just a pair of wrong minded fools/trolls it's hard to tell difference, that goes for the score changer too don't think he's directly affiliated either just an idiot geek who figured out a script or code or whatever to automate vote changing, and finds himself very amusing . I've been monitoring the antics here closely over last few days and my conclusion is that coyc come on here when they can stomach it, but don't post just pull press' strings instead. That is unless that silly lass from selby is JA having a bit of a release after bottle of gin. Anyway, shame on you press and council. And three cheers to all us good people of York ,may we continue to flourish yet faster next year when the circus is over !!! Peace, Paddling Phillip (deceased) phreaky pete
  • Score: 2

9:04pm Sat 3 May 14

jay, york says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls !
It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor
It's even wiser to not post paranoid baseless assumptions. Do you really think im on the council LOL .. Fools read gossip and think it's true
And people read and listen to what is said by coyc dictators and do NOT believe a single word they say.
In the past hoofy, you have said that you are a councillor and even gave your name - you seemed quite proud of it actually. So you were either lying then or are lying now.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls ![/p][/quote]It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor[/p][/quote]It's even wiser to not post paranoid baseless assumptions. Do you really think im on the council LOL .. Fools read gossip and think it's true[/p][/quote]And people read and listen to what is said by coyc dictators and do NOT believe a single word they say. In the past hoofy, you have said that you are a councillor and even gave your name - you seemed quite proud of it actually. So you were either lying then or are lying now. jay, york
  • Score: 4

4:37pm Sun 4 May 14

LindaNess says...

letsanityprevail wrote:
If York council make loads of money from Pratt's who don't care where they park, that's totally fine with me and absolutely the right thing for York council to be doing. My council bill will be better for it. Well done York council. Keep up the good work.
I agree. Will the council's car come and fine the people who park, blocking the footpaths on New Lane, for parents and children en route to the Huntington junior school. Drivers, including parents, are also parking around the school, on busy road junctions causing chaos. There is entitlement to park, but please have consideration. There are several wheelchair users in the area, why should they have to leave the footpath and negotiate the busy road.
[quote][p][bold]letsanityprevail[/bold] wrote: If York council make loads of money from Pratt's who don't care where they park, that's totally fine with me and absolutely the right thing for York council to be doing. My council bill will be better for it. Well done York council. Keep up the good work.[/p][/quote]I agree. Will the council's car come and fine the people who park, blocking the footpaths on New Lane, for parents and children en route to the Huntington junior school. Drivers, including parents, are also parking around the school, on busy road junctions causing chaos. There is entitlement to park, but please have consideration. There are several wheelchair users in the area, why should they have to leave the footpath and negotiate the busy road. LindaNess
  • Score: 0

9:31pm Sun 4 May 14

jay, york says...

jake777 wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.
Go play on the motorway muppet.
Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!!
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,[/p][/quote]Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.[/p][/quote]Go play on the motorway muppet.[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!! jay, york
  • Score: -2

6:06am Mon 5 May 14

HoofHearteds says...

jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote:
jay, york wrote:
HoofHearteds wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls !
It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor
It's even wiser to not post paranoid baseless assumptions. Do you really think im on the council LOL .. Fools read gossip and think it's true
And people read and listen to what is said by coyc dictators and do NOT believe a single word they say.
In the past hoofy, you have said that you are a councillor and even gave your name - you seemed quite proud of it actually. So you were either lying then or are lying now.
Now your paranoia is inventing fictitious events. I have never typed or claimed on this forum that I am somebody i am not. But a few paranoids like yourself have thought and typed that they think i am. I have to confess, I do find forum ranters hilarious and I have never denied their paranoid accusations. But that's because I think Forum Paranoia is fascinating and funny to watch. Chill out for god sake and try and bring back some meaning to your reality perspective, instead of over reacting and showing to the York Press readers how Forum Paranoia is becoming the new mental illness diagnostic criteria for "In need of a lifeism"
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: We have but a short time on this planet. Is it wise to spend most of that precious time bickering and nitpicking over futile regulations and laws around triviality ? Get a life you poor lost souls ![/p][/quote]It is probably wiser not to post comments such as this when you are a coyc councillor[/p][/quote]It's even wiser to not post paranoid baseless assumptions. Do you really think im on the council LOL .. Fools read gossip and think it's true[/p][/quote]And people read and listen to what is said by coyc dictators and do NOT believe a single word they say. In the past hoofy, you have said that you are a councillor and even gave your name - you seemed quite proud of it actually. So you were either lying then or are lying now.[/p][/quote]Now your paranoia is inventing fictitious events. I have never typed or claimed on this forum that I am somebody i am not. But a few paranoids like yourself have thought and typed that they think i am. I have to confess, I do find forum ranters hilarious and I have never denied their paranoid accusations. But that's because I think Forum Paranoia is fascinating and funny to watch. Chill out for god sake and try and bring back some meaning to your reality perspective, instead of over reacting and showing to the York Press readers how Forum Paranoia is becoming the new mental illness diagnostic criteria for "In need of a lifeism" HoofHearteds
  • Score: 2

4:49pm Mon 5 May 14

Cheeky face says...

I think we need to comment on the use of cameras; which is the subject!. Now I note in this weekend's papers that horses are being fitted with cameras. It seems like a disease at the moment, that everyone needs to spy on others!.

What council's can do with cameras is, I understand, difficult for the transport executives to understand. Very annoying, when you realise it is our money they are "spending". Even if that money goes in and out of separate financial cost centres locally and in central government; it must be noted that it is the taxpayers who eventually pay.

.
I think we need to comment on the use of cameras; which is the subject!. Now I note in this weekend's papers that horses are being fitted with cameras. It seems like a disease at the moment, that everyone needs to spy on others!. What council's can do with cameras is, I understand, difficult for the transport executives to understand. Very annoying, when you realise it is our money they are "spending". Even if that money goes in and out of separate financial cost centres locally and in central government; it must be noted that it is the taxpayers who eventually pay. . Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

9:02pm Mon 5 May 14

jake777 says...

jay, york wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.
Go play on the motorway muppet.
Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!!
utter rubbish, and again I have got nothing to do with york council, what part of that do you not undestand!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!.
[quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,[/p][/quote]Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.[/p][/quote]Go play on the motorway muppet.[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!![/p][/quote]utter rubbish, and again I have got nothing to do with york council, what part of that do you not undestand!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!. jake777
  • Score: 0

9:05pm Mon 5 May 14

HoofHearteds says...

jake777 wrote:
jay, york wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.
Go play on the motorway muppet.
Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!!
utter rubbish, and again I have got nothing to do with york council, what part of that do you not undestand!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!.
She's clearly paranoid Jake. I can only imagine, she has a very extensive collection of paper cuttings from the press on council related issues and pictures of all council members ;=)
[quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,[/p][/quote]Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.[/p][/quote]Go play on the motorway muppet.[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!![/p][/quote]utter rubbish, and again I have got nothing to do with york council, what part of that do you not undestand!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!.[/p][/quote]She's clearly paranoid Jake. I can only imagine, she has a very extensive collection of paper cuttings from the press on council related issues and pictures of all council members ;=) HoofHearteds
  • Score: 2

9:11pm Mon 5 May 14

jake777 says...

Cheeky face wrote:
I think we need to comment on the use of cameras; which is the subject!. Now I note in this weekend's papers that horses are being fitted with cameras. It seems like a disease at the moment, that everyone needs to spy on others!.

What council's can do with cameras is, I understand, difficult for the transport executives to understand. Very annoying, when you realise it is our money they are "spending". Even if that money goes in and out of separate financial cost centres locally and in central government; it must be noted that it is the taxpayers who eventually pay.

.
If you are not doing anything that you should not be doing, then you have nothing to worry about, on the other hand those that complain about them have things to hide.
[quote][p][bold]Cheeky face[/bold] wrote: I think we need to comment on the use of cameras; which is the subject!. Now I note in this weekend's papers that horses are being fitted with cameras. It seems like a disease at the moment, that everyone needs to spy on others!. What council's can do with cameras is, I understand, difficult for the transport executives to understand. Very annoying, when you realise it is our money they are "spending". Even if that money goes in and out of separate financial cost centres locally and in central government; it must be noted that it is the taxpayers who eventually pay. .[/p][/quote]If you are not doing anything that you should not be doing, then you have nothing to worry about, on the other hand those that complain about them have things to hide. jake777
  • Score: 1

9:15pm Mon 5 May 14

jake777 says...

HoofHearteds wrote:
jake777 wrote:
jay, york wrote:
jake777 wrote:
Lance Corporal Jones wrote:
jake777 wrote:
YOUWILLDOASISAY wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.
Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,
Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.
Go play on the motorway muppet.
Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!!
utter rubbish, and again I have got nothing to do with york council, what part of that do you not undestand!!!!!!!!!!!


!!!!!!!!.
She's clearly paranoid Jake. I can only imagine, she has a very extensive collection of paper cuttings from the press on council related issues and pictures of all council members ;=)
Bet she is the councillor.
[quote][p][bold]HoofHearteds[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jay, york[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Lance Corporal Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jake777[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]YOUWILLDOASISAY[/bold] wrote: All predicted at the time of the original story (School Safety). Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations, however there is everything wrong with being dishonest about your intentions. Introducing this via the back door is gutless, slimy and just another example of how low Labour has sunk because they lack courage. Labour should have just been open and honest, qualities unfortunately lacking within its leadership.[/p][/quote]Dont want a fine then dont park on yellows,[/p][/quote]Having read the posters comment (it seems clear you didn't) your comment is pointless. Line 2 of the comment by YOUWILLDOASISAY, Nothing wrong with enforcing parking regulations. You do seem to excel in the arena of being thick, try reading the comments before making your reply Mr Thickie.[/p][/quote]Go play on the motorway muppet.[/p][/quote]Disgraceful comment!. Your remarks are on a par with and the language is very similar to Hoofshearted, who has also now denied beinbg a councillor. That is despite the fact that she admitted it before and evern gave her name. Dont be fooled by any of them!!![/p][/quote]utter rubbish, and again I have got nothing to do with york council, what part of that do you not undestand!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!.[/p][/quote]She's clearly paranoid Jake. I can only imagine, she has a very extensive collection of paper cuttings from the press on council related issues and pictures of all council members ;=)[/p][/quote]Bet she is the councillor. jake777
  • Score: 2

11:55am Tue 6 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

i love this.... i said it ages ago on the first article and you all said parking at schools needs sorting out... i argued that proactive h&s is better then reactive and that this would simply be used to make money.. Despite that the majority said what an idea it will solve all the traffic problems at schools....

Well mmmmmmmmwwwwwwwwwwaa
aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh
hh it is a cash cow after all? who'd have thought it!!!

oh and i also saw this thing jump lanes illegally on blossom street... pot kettle black...
i love this.... i said it ages ago on the first article and you all said parking at schools needs sorting out... i argued that proactive h&s is better then reactive and that this would simply be used to make money.. Despite that the majority said what an idea it will solve all the traffic problems at schools.... Well mmmmmmmmwwwwwwwwwwaa aaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh hh it is a cash cow after all? who'd have thought it!!! oh and i also saw this thing jump lanes illegally on blossom street... pot kettle black... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 2

1:45pm Tue 6 May 14

long distance depressive says...

The problem is that a photo of somebody static is just a 'moment in time' and doesn't really show whether there is any attempt to park as such. At this rate anybody waiting to turn at a junction will be deemed to be 'parked' in the middle of the road. Commo9n sense needs to prevail here..I realise it's a big ask of the current junta of course but why not just stick a warden at known hotspots and let him do his business!? Word will soon get through.
The problem is that a photo of somebody static is just a 'moment in time' and doesn't really show whether there is any attempt to park as such. At this rate anybody waiting to turn at a junction will be deemed to be 'parked' in the middle of the road. Commo9n sense needs to prevail here..I realise it's a big ask of the current junta of course but why not just stick a warden at known hotspots and let him do his business!? Word will soon get through. long distance depressive
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Tue 6 May 14

Cheeky face says...

Long Distance Depressive.

Quite right. In fact some councils, definitely Camden, explain the camera-car actions and the tolerances they allow. A useful web-site is Camden Council.

They say you can use bus lanes to collect/drop off friends by using bus lanes!
Quite right if a friend is collecting you at 184 ??? St at 7pm for a dinner date then your driver is ok to use the bus lane if that is your collection point!

The government regs need looking. And, Jake I know I am not doing wrong, merely commenting using this site!
Long Distance Depressive. Quite right. In fact some councils, definitely Camden, explain the camera-car actions and the tolerances they allow. A useful web-site is Camden Council. They say you can use bus lanes to collect/drop off friends by using bus lanes! Quite right if a friend is collecting you at 184 ??? St at 7pm for a dinner date then your driver is ok to use the bus lane if that is your collection point! The government regs need looking. And, Jake I know I am not doing wrong, merely commenting using this site! Cheeky face
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

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

I agree