Two box junctions net Kingston Council £250,000 in fines in just eight weeks

Surrey Comet: Don't stop: Being caught on a box junction could land you a hefty fine Don't stop: Being caught on a box junction could land you a hefty fine

Kingston Council raked in a quarter of a million pounds in box junction fines in just two months from drivers breaking the rules.

Enforcement at two boxes netted the council a total of £254,037.50 in October and November.

It only took on enforcing box junctions in September.

Drivers were caught 1,101 times in October at the junction of Wheatfield Way and Clarence Street – by the iconic red phone boxes – handing over £62,851 to the council, and another £37,352 last month.

But the real cash cow was the junction of Ewell Road and Elgar Avenue in Tolworth, where motorists paid £153,835, a Freedom of Information request revealed.

Law teacher David Mark, of Berrylands, was handed a fine on October 16.

He said: “It is very disturbing and I think it shows the council is not being proportionate.

“The word that I would use is ‘predatory’. I do really feel the council is just seeing drivers as targets.”

In September, the council took over responsibility for enforcing moving traffic violations, like cars using a bus lane, or driving the wrong way down a one-way street, from the police.

A Kingston Council spokesman said: “We always take any mitigation submitted into account when reviewing a case.”

Surbiton neighbourhood committee chairman Councillor Malcolm Self said: “I’m surprised that it’s as much as that.

“The idea is to get the roads moving. In my opinion it isn’t to raise revenue.

“The dodgy lights phasing [in Ewell Road, fixed last month] meant the traffic was tailing back. But that is not a reason why people should enter the box junction when the exit isn’t clear.”

By law, money from fines must be put back into road maintenance or public transport, after being used to pay for the cost of enforcement. The council admits the list of moving traffic enforcement locations on its website is not “exhaustive”.

 

TODAY'S HEADLINES IN KINGSTON UPON THAMES

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:16am Fri 6 Dec 13

DB says...

It is not often that I side with the council, but Malcolm Self has got it spot on here.

Badly managed traffic flow is frustrating, but if you stop in a yellow box, you have been caught bang to rights and I can't see any justification for not being fined.
It is not often that I side with the council, but Malcolm Self has got it spot on here. Badly managed traffic flow is frustrating, but if you stop in a yellow box, you have been caught bang to rights and I can't see any justification for not being fined. DB

11:43am Fri 6 Dec 13

concernedofkingston says...

I hope that they make some more money (to reduce the council tax) by enforcing the £500 fine on the procession of cyclists who ride through the pedestrianised parts of the shopping centre.
I hope that they make some more money (to reduce the council tax) by enforcing the £500 fine on the procession of cyclists who ride through the pedestrianised parts of the shopping centre. concernedofkingston

12:49pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Mind the gap says...

Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists? Mind the gap

12:52pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Beverly RA says...

I suppose there will be applications by the council to have more boxes place around the Borough, we need to watch this closely .
I suppose there will be applications by the council to have more boxes place around the Borough, we need to watch this closely . Beverly RA

1:44pm Fri 6 Dec 13

kingstonpaul says...

Kerching! Another nice little pot of gold for the parking company that pretends it's a local authority.
Kerching! Another nice little pot of gold for the parking company that pretends it's a local authority. kingstonpaul

2:10pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Ilovekingston says...

I would question these fines as the Yellow Box junction shown in the photograph not go right up to the kerb as is required by law.

In addition, the IOC CCTV code of conduct states that warning signs should be placed where CCTV is in use and no such signs were in place in this location (only speed camera signs are sparcely placed ahead of the junction). This point has been confirmed at Adjudicator by the case of Rachel Johnson v Wirral. Quote form the code of conduct: "You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area.

Further, Section 48 of the The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions states "The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical". Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance. I understand that Wheatfield Way Junction with Clarence Street does not fall under this description.

On this basis the enforcement notices are invalid and should be challenged.
I would question these fines as the Yellow Box junction shown in the photograph not go right up to the kerb as is required by law. In addition, the IOC CCTV code of conduct states that warning signs should be placed where CCTV is in use and no such signs were in place in this location (only speed camera signs are sparcely placed ahead of the junction). This point has been confirmed at Adjudicator by the case of Rachel Johnson v Wirral. Quote form the code of conduct: "You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. Further, Section 48 of the The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions states "The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical". Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance. I understand that Wheatfield Way Junction with Clarence Street does not fall under this description. On this basis the enforcement notices are invalid and should be challenged. Ilovekingston

3:24pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Abstract View says...

Maybe the council could use the money to create other box junctions to generate even more revenue. Glad to see Dick Turpin working legit now for the council.
Maybe the council could use the money to create other box junctions to generate even more revenue. Glad to see Dick Turpin working legit now for the council. Abstract View

3:43pm Fri 6 Dec 13

concernedofkingston says...

Mind the gap wrote:
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law.

At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
[quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash. concernedofkingston

4:22pm Fri 6 Dec 13

DB says...

concernedofkingston wrote:
Mind the gap wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
I am totally in favour of that. My main target would be motorists jumping red lights and zebra crossings as this is the most dangerous thing for other oad users.

Stopping cyclists riding in pedestrian areas and along the riverside path would be a lower priority for me, but still a good way to re-inforce the correct behaviour and generate revenue at the same time.

I can see how people would see this as 'just another tax' etc, but in reality if no rule is broken then no fine is issued.
[quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.[/p][/quote]I am totally in favour of that. My main target would be motorists jumping red lights and zebra crossings as this is the most dangerous thing for other oad users. Stopping cyclists riding in pedestrian areas and along the riverside path would be a lower priority for me, but still a good way to re-inforce the correct behaviour and generate revenue at the same time. I can see how people would see this as 'just another tax' etc, but in reality if no rule is broken then no fine is issued. DB

4:48pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Ricademus says...

I think that this is a great idea, it might teach these drivers a lesson, Rules are there to be followed not broken. Some drivers on the road are the worse I have ever seen.
I think that this is a great idea, it might teach these drivers a lesson, Rules are there to be followed not broken. Some drivers on the road are the worse I have ever seen. Ricademus

11:58pm Fri 6 Dec 13

Fish_with_a_bicycle says...

If the main point of the yellow box junctions is to help with traffic flow, then repainting the yellow lines nice and bright and posting prominent warning signs would be a sensible approach

If, on the other hand, the main purpose is to raise money then the current implementation seems to work well, if somewhat underhand.
If the main point of the yellow box junctions is to help with traffic flow, then repainting the yellow lines nice and bright and posting prominent warning signs would be a sensible approach If, on the other hand, the main purpose is to raise money then the current implementation seems to work well, if somewhat underhand. Fish_with_a_bicycle

5:58am Sat 7 Dec 13

Beverly RA says...

Cyclists do not have registration numbers so get away with it. I would like to see a change in the Law that all cyclist MUST wear HIGH VISIBILITY JACKETS at all times and safety helmets plus no earphones . Most cyclist who use their bikes would agree that this is a sensible idea. But we need to make it Law like seat belts and mobile phones are.
Cyclists do not have registration numbers so get away with it. I would like to see a change in the Law that all cyclist MUST wear HIGH VISIBILITY JACKETS at all times and safety helmets plus no earphones . Most cyclist who use their bikes would agree that this is a sensible idea. But we need to make it Law like seat belts and mobile phones are. Beverly RA

6:07am Sat 7 Dec 13

Beverly RA says...

concernedofkingston wrote:
Mind the gap wrote:
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law.

At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.
[quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.[/p][/quote]The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc. Beverly RA

6:48am Sat 7 Dec 13

concernedofkingston says...

Beverly RA wrote:
concernedofkingston wrote:
Mind the gap wrote:
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law.

At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.
You are absolutely right about the ring fence but having had some experience elsewhere I know that the definitions are pretty wide and usually the relevant services are also funded but unts of council tax as well. Accordingly it is a fairly simple matter to cut the amount of council tax you use on the ring fenced services by the extra revenue generated by fines and as council tax can be used for other non ringfenced servcies you can spend more or cut the tax by the amount of the fines without violating the ring fence. If we were given a breakdown of what the fines were spent on it should therefore be accompanied by an analysis of the council tax support to the ring fenced services (but any reduction won't show up at least before the budget is set for 2014 or even after that as it can be changed again during the accounts closure for 2014/15 (published in September 2015) - i.e. the council have ample opportunity to quite legitimately delay disclosure..
[quote][p][bold]Beverly RA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.[/p][/quote]The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely right about the ring fence but having had some experience elsewhere I know that the definitions are pretty wide and usually the relevant services are also funded but unts of council tax as well. Accordingly it is a fairly simple matter to cut the amount of council tax you use on the ring fenced services by the extra revenue generated by fines and as council tax can be used for other non ringfenced servcies you can spend more or cut the tax by the amount of the fines without violating the ring fence. If we were given a breakdown of what the fines were spent on it should therefore be accompanied by an analysis of the council tax support to the ring fenced services (but any reduction won't show up at least before the budget is set for 2014 or even after that as it can be changed again during the accounts closure for 2014/15 (published in September 2015) - i.e. the council have ample opportunity to quite legitimately delay disclosure.. concernedofkingston

8:26am Sat 7 Dec 13

captain_shamrock says...

Beverly RA wrote:
concernedofkingston wrote:
Mind the gap wrote:
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law.

At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.
If you'd read the story, and were of sound mind and reasonable intelligence, you'd know by now that the council were only granted these powers 8 weeks ago.

So you can't link these fines to previous spend on roads. Going forward, I'd expect the repairs budget to be enhanced by this windfall. I'd also expect this revenue stream to quickly peak and then decline as selfish or inattentive drivers hopefully change their behaviour, allowing traffic to flow better on our roads.
[quote][p][bold]Beverly RA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.[/p][/quote]The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.[/p][/quote]If you'd read the story, and were of sound mind and reasonable intelligence, you'd know by now that the council were only granted these powers 8 weeks ago. So you can't link these fines to previous spend on roads. Going forward, I'd expect the repairs budget to be enhanced by this windfall. I'd also expect this revenue stream to quickly peak and then decline as selfish or inattentive drivers hopefully change their behaviour, allowing traffic to flow better on our roads. captain_shamrock

9:57am Sat 7 Dec 13

OhThisBloodyPC says...

What a horrible town Kingston has become

The Council Leader in jail

Shops being put out of business as the market square is turned into a building site to keep the council's favourite partner in work

Cynical exploitation of traffic laws so they can rob motorists
What a horrible town Kingston has become The Council Leader in jail Shops being put out of business as the market square is turned into a building site to keep the council's favourite partner in work Cynical exploitation of traffic laws so they can rob motorists OhThisBloodyPC

10:12am Sat 7 Dec 13

OhThisBloodyPC says...

What if we fined councils every time one of their lorries stopped in the middle of the road when it could have pulled over

Rules are rules.
What if we fined councils every time one of their lorries stopped in the middle of the road when it could have pulled over Rules are rules. OhThisBloodyPC

3:38pm Sat 7 Dec 13

helen59 says...

I WENT INTO KINGSTON ON THURSDAY MORNING AND THERE WAS A QUEUE OF BUSES CREATING A TRAFFIC JAM AND ONE HAD STOPPED IN THE YELLOW SQUARE - DID HE GET A PENTLY NOTICE !!!
I WENT INTO KINGSTON ON THURSDAY MORNING AND THERE WAS A QUEUE OF BUSES CREATING A TRAFFIC JAM AND ONE HAD STOPPED IN THE YELLOW SQUARE - DID HE GET A PENTLY NOTICE !!! helen59

5:51pm Sat 7 Dec 13

alphabeti says...

If only the council would put as much effort into cleaning up dog poo!
If only the council would put as much effort into cleaning up dog poo! alphabeti

7:52pm Sat 7 Dec 13

Beverly RA says...

concernedofkingston wrote:
Beverly RA wrote:
concernedofkingston wrote:
Mind the gap wrote:
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law.

At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.
You are absolutely right about the ring fence but having had some experience elsewhere I know that the definitions are pretty wide and usually the relevant services are also funded but unts of council tax as well. Accordingly it is a fairly simple matter to cut the amount of council tax you use on the ring fenced services by the extra revenue generated by fines and as council tax can be used for other non ringfenced servcies you can spend more or cut the tax by the amount of the fines without violating the ring fence. If we were given a breakdown of what the fines were spent on it should therefore be accompanied by an analysis of the council tax support to the ring fenced services (but any reduction won't show up at least before the budget is set for 2014 or even after that as it can be changed again during the accounts closure for 2014/15 (published in September 2015) - i.e. the council have ample opportunity to quite legitimately delay disclosure..
I agree with your comments, we must ask more questions of the ruling administration
[quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Beverly RA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.[/p][/quote]The money from highway infringements can only be used to traffic related issues. It is ring fenced by law. The council now makes millions from fines yet our roads are still littered with Pot holes our pavements are in some cases dangerous to walk along especially for the elderly. So the question should be what are they really doing with the fines ? A breakdown of how the fines are spent would be a start. How much of it goes in salaries etc.[/p][/quote]You are absolutely right about the ring fence but having had some experience elsewhere I know that the definitions are pretty wide and usually the relevant services are also funded but unts of council tax as well. Accordingly it is a fairly simple matter to cut the amount of council tax you use on the ring fenced services by the extra revenue generated by fines and as council tax can be used for other non ringfenced servcies you can spend more or cut the tax by the amount of the fines without violating the ring fence. If we were given a breakdown of what the fines were spent on it should therefore be accompanied by an analysis of the council tax support to the ring fenced services (but any reduction won't show up at least before the budget is set for 2014 or even after that as it can be changed again during the accounts closure for 2014/15 (published in September 2015) - i.e. the council have ample opportunity to quite legitimately delay disclosure..[/p][/quote]I agree with your comments, we must ask more questions of the ruling administration Beverly RA

9:08am Mon 9 Dec 13

Beverly RA says...

It would seem from looking at the so called Score system that there are those who use the system to always support the Administration , Now I cant think who they could be ?
It would seem from looking at the so called Score system that there are those who use the system to always support the Administration , Now I cant think who they could be ? Beverly RA

10:15am Mon 9 Dec 13

Mind the gap says...

concernedofkingston wrote:
Mind the gap wrote:
Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?
I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law.

At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.
Again, what has this article got to do with cyclists? absolutley nothing. Where in the article does it talk about cylists? It doesn't Does it make you feel better so you can have your little rant? Try staying on topic.
[quote][p][bold]concernedofkingston[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mind the gap[/bold] wrote: Why can't motorists obey simple rules. And as for concerned of kingston, what has this article got to do with Cyclists?[/p][/quote]I'm sorry for any confusion but I thought I made it very clear that we could perhaps have lower council taxes if the council sought to fine all vehicle users breaking the law. At £500 a time (the maximum penalty referred to on the very clear signs in the pedestrian areas of the town centre) I'm sure they generate at least £250,000 per annum without any great effort. Cyclists could of course thwart this idea by the simple rule and dismounting to negotiate the pedestrianised zones but I still believe the council would generate shed loads of cash.[/p][/quote]Again, what has this article got to do with cyclists? absolutley nothing. Where in the article does it talk about cylists? It doesn't Does it make you feel better so you can have your little rant? Try staying on topic. Mind the gap

3:43pm Mon 9 Dec 13

surboSam says...

Where are the council going to waste this money, or is it already assigned to propping up the Rose theatre? Honestly just put that theatre and the residents out of their misery and close it!
Where are the council going to waste this money, or is it already assigned to propping up the Rose theatre? Honestly just put that theatre and the residents out of their misery and close it! surboSam

7:22pm Mon 9 Dec 13

concernedofkingston says...

Mind the Gap mildly chastises me for mentioning cyclists and asks what they have to do with the article. I would refer him to the various contributions regarding dog poo, the jailed council Leader and the Rose Theatre. I find them relevant and very interesting, and they do give cause for thought even though they weren't referred to in the original article either.
Mind the Gap mildly chastises me for mentioning cyclists and asks what they have to do with the article. I would refer him to the various contributions regarding dog poo, the jailed council Leader and the Rose Theatre. I find them relevant and very interesting, and they do give cause for thought even though they weren't referred to in the original article either. concernedofkingston

10:33pm Mon 9 Dec 13

captain_shamrock says...

Beverly RA and her council bashing Tory trolls obviously struggle with the concept of traffic management, road safety and law & order in general.

Their last foray into the road safety debate was when they were apologists for the selfish drink driving antics of the New Malden Conservative Councillor Lynne Finnerty.

Responding to criticism of Conservative Councillor Gin Finnerty, Beverley downplayed drink driving as merely "sailing a bit close to the wind", saying that anyone who hadn't selfishly drank and driven was a bore.

Other Tory trolls, desperately trying to defend the indefensible behaviour of Counciilor Gin Finnerty came up other various excuses that betrayed a complete and utter contempt for the laws that us mere plebs have to obey.

Click here for a recap: http://goo.gl/7u5gC5


We're seeing the same thing here. These Tory trolls really do think that the laws of the land should apply to others and not themselves. They really underline the Tories as the selfish party, void of any decency, morality or sense of civic responsibility.
Beverly RA and her council bashing Tory trolls obviously struggle with the concept of traffic management, road safety and law & order in general. Their last foray into the road safety debate was when they were apologists for the selfish drink driving antics of the New Malden Conservative Councillor Lynne Finnerty. Responding to criticism of Conservative Councillor Gin Finnerty, Beverley downplayed drink driving as merely "sailing a bit close to the wind", saying that anyone who hadn't selfishly drank and driven was a bore. Other Tory trolls, desperately trying to defend the indefensible behaviour of Counciilor Gin Finnerty came up other various excuses that betrayed a complete and utter contempt for the laws that us mere plebs have to obey. Click here for a recap: http://goo.gl/7u5gC5 We're seeing the same thing here. These Tory trolls really do think that the laws of the land should apply to others and not themselves. They really underline the Tories as the selfish party, void of any decency, morality or sense of civic responsibility. captain_shamrock

10:44pm Mon 9 Dec 13

captain_shamrock says...

Competition Time!!!!

Complete in 100 words or less*:

I think that motorists should be allowed to stop in yellow boxes at any time without ever getting a fine because.............







* Standard Tory trolls rules apply. Maximum IQ 11. In the event of any entries, a tiebreaker will be the invention of a new excuse for Gin Finnerty's drink driving. Bonus points if you manage to pin the blame on the council.


.
Competition Time!!!! Complete in 100 words or less*: I think that motorists should be allowed to stop in yellow boxes at any time without ever getting a fine because............. * Standard Tory trolls rules apply. Maximum IQ 11. In the event of any entries, a tiebreaker will be the invention of a new excuse for Gin Finnerty's drink driving. Bonus points if you manage to pin the blame on the council. . captain_shamrock

5:43pm Tue 17 Dec 13

surboSam says...

Oh how fun, i'll try it:

I think that motorists should be allowed to stop in yellow boxes at any time without ever getting a fine because Barry O'Mahoney a poo poo head.

And I have loads of words left, what to choose... Rose Theatre, New Malden High Street, pot holes, highest council tax in London, Dave Strider aka Derek 'two years' Osbourne, oh and my new favourite white elephant - Tolworth Broadway
Oh how fun, i'll try it: I think that motorists should be allowed to stop in yellow boxes at any time without ever getting a fine because Barry O'Mahoney a poo poo head. And I have loads of words left, what to choose... Rose Theatre, New Malden High Street, pot holes, highest council tax in London, Dave Strider aka Derek 'two years' Osbourne, oh and my new favourite white elephant - Tolworth Broadway surboSam

3:55pm Sun 29 Dec 13

Anon81 says...

Hi I appealed my ticket and won the case on the grounds that this junction does not meet regulations. Does that mean they have to refund all the revenue?
Hi I appealed my ticket and won the case on the grounds that this junction does not meet regulations. Does that mean they have to refund all the revenue? Anon81

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree