Rushmoor Borough Council put profit in front of safety

[The Bald Eagle]

It would appear that rather than investing the £60k+ in more foot patrol CEOs who have actually been PROVEN to chase off motorists if they try to park dangerously, thereby ensuring safety at the school gates, Rushmoor Borough Council would rather invest the cash in a $car that does nothing for safety apart from possibly capturing an unfortunate incident on film that might be used in a future safety campaign.

And I can't believe they are using the excuse that it is difficult for CEOs to operate in certain areas because their presence means that they actually achieve their target of 100% COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PENALTIES.

What are these people on?!?!

Go on Rushmoor BC! Tell me its not about the money!! I double dare you.

Councils seem to have forgotten that CEOs are employed as a service in their area, NOT JUST TO GENERATE REVENUE FOR COUNCIL COFFERS. And these people wonder why Eric Pickles wants to ban them from turning drivers into cash cows.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCTV vehicle will record illegal parking outside schools

27 Nov 2013 11:33

Rushmoor Borough Council does not have enough parking enforcement officers to regularly cover all schools in the area

A new scheme to implement a touring CCTV vehicle around schools in Rushmoor to improve children's safety and prevent unlawful parking has been approved.

At a meeting of Rushmoor Borough Council's cabinet on Tuesday, councillors gave their support for the scheme, which will operate across schools in the borough where it has proved difficult for civil enforcement officers to operate.

The scheme is now subject to a review by the secretary of state, Eric Pickles, before it can be put into action.

It could cost the council around £62,000 to set up but is estimated to be able to generate around £65,000 a year, for the first five years, from parking fines issued.

Peter Amies, head of community for the council, said he regularly received complaints and concerns from schools, residents and the police about inconsiderate and unlawful parking around schools.

Despite there being adequate signs and painted lines on the roads to prevent it, a number of parents still park in prohibited areas to drop off and pick their children up.

Civil enforcement officers have previously patrolled schools to help prevent illegal parking, however, Mr Amies said this only provided a short-term effect as cars often moved on when approached and, with there being 38 schools and just eight officers in the borough, they were not able to provide sufficient coverage.

He said: “All the cabinet were very supportive of it and if it is something the schools need we should look to help them.”

The touring vehicle will be marked and will pass the schools on various days and times and record the number plates of cars parked unlawfully.

The proposal for the scheme stated: "It is important that we work with schools to reduce inconsiderate and illegal parking particularly on school zigzags and double yellow lines."

In June last year, civil enforcement officers visited 10 different schools in the borough over a period of 13 days and found 26 vehicles were unlawfully parked, either in a restricted street or on a clearway, but they were moved before officers could issue a penalty charge notice.

Councillors believe improved parking regulations will increase children's safety in the long term. Over the past five years there have been 24 injuries to children while travelling to Rushmoor schools, either as a pedestrian or cyclist, three of which were serious and more than 10 occurred within 250m of the school's entrance.

School staff and councillors have undertaken a number of methods to try to reduce illegal parking in the past, including sending letters home to parents and patrolling the school's entrances, but have found them to be ineffective.

The council recently wrote to the 38 schools in Rushmoor outlining the proposed scheme and, out of the 24 that responded, 22 were in favour of using the touring CCTV enforcement, however two believed it would not benefit them due to the adequacy of their current parking arrangements.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.gethampshire.co.uk/news/local-news/cctv-vehicle-record-illegal-parking-6346050

[DastardlyDick]

"The scheme is now subject to a review by the secretary of state, Eric Pickles, before it can be put into action."

Now we'll see how serious Mr Pickles is about ridding the Streets of $cars won't we?

[Ewan Hoosami]

$camera cars work from early in the morning 'til late at night so unless the school run lasts all day the purpose may not be about child safety. The wily urban weasel can usually be found stalking it's prey around bus stops, high streets and poorly signed restrictions for most of the day because in the real world the morning and afternoon school runs only account for about an hour, hour and a half, two hours being over generous. And what of Saturdays? No feckin' school on saturdays.

Allowing cars to stop unhindered and subsequently tax farmed is supposedly safer than a visible CEO moving cars on and probably preventing some cars from stopping in the first place. Then there is an assertion that one $camera car can service 38 schools. I don't know the geography around there but ten percent of the total schools covered in each run is probably ambitious at best leaving the rest with no cover at all.

The council spokesweasel quotes 24 injuries to children, more than 10 of which occurred within 250m from the school gates. How many of these were directly attributed to mummy stopping on the Zig-zags to drop little Johnny off? Around fourteen definitely weren't because they were more than 250m away from the school gates. The sneaky covert $camera weasel will have no effect whatsoever on what is happening two or three streets away or put another way every accident in town can be conveniently blamed on the cars nearest to the school gates or should that be $chool gate$? If the accident figures don't improve then it simply means more $camera cars and bigger fines are needed. The only thing that needs to occur more than ten times within 250m of the $chool gate$ is the number of PCNs per hour issued if the beleaguered $car operator knows what's good for him/her/it.

The council weasels recently tried to sell their latest money making scam to the schools but two of the 38 said it would not benefit them due to the adequacy of their current parking arrangements. Did someone at the council miss an obvious solution to the problem? $chool $afety car$ are to be the subject of a new documentary,

[Belplasca]

Is stopping on the zigzags something that the $car$ can enforce? I thought it was a serious driving offence that was enforced by the police???

At the big school that I pass on my way to work there are very few (if any) cars stopping/parking illegally.  But LOTS driving dangerously as they spot a space and stop without warning to acquire it. Or U-turn without warning. Or dart across the oncoming traffic to get into a space on the other side of the road. Or slow down to a crawl (without signals or warning, of course) to turn into a pub car park which is used as a drop off point.

NONE of these actions - all of which put the kids at danger - are enforceable by the $car$... So, how many of those ten injuries within 250m of the schools were actually caused by actions that the $car$ would issue a penalty for?

Very few, I'd guess.

But then, it really isn't about reducing injuries, is it? 

It's all about the money of course.

Bob

Bob

[Ewan Hoosami]

I should have elaborated there a bit more bob. The Zig-zags referred to are the yellow no stopping zones directly outside the $chool gate$. The Bullshit Purveyors Association regularly tell us that enforcement being used as an income stream is simply a misconception and many councils make no money from it.

In other news, Gatwick air traffic control are having to divert the planes due to the large number of flying unicorns in the skies of nearby Haywards Heath, farting rainbows as they go.

[DastardlyDick]

Stopping on the zig-zags can be enforced via CCTV where the Council has been Authorised to do so AND by Police, difference is that if the Police catch you it's 3 points plus £100 - none of which goes to the Council's coffers - strangely, no-one does if there's a copper about!

[Ewan Hoosami]

Forgive me if I'm talking like a BPA spokesweasel (polite euphemism for complete bollocks) but isn't it only the white zig-zags approaching a pedestrian crossing that attract police attention and 3 points? Isn't the school zone decriminalised? Shame the f cking enforcement isn't decriminalised. I have found a library picture of the $chool marking$ with an arrogant prick committing the exact offence we are talking about.

[DastardlyDick]

Apologies, getting my zig-zags mixed up!

Yellow ones are Civil, White ones are Criminal.

Memo to self - Don't do replies at 2am

[The Bald Eagle]

Hate to correct you Dick, but white zig zags can be enforced by an enforcement authority AND by the police.

See offence code 99 on the attached.