Author Topic: Motorist fined £70 by spycar for letting son out as he stopped to let kids cross  (Read 1359 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Web Admin

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
Pictured: The moment a motorist was fined £35 by council CCTV spy for letting out his son as he stopped at school zebra crossing to let kids cross

Graham Wilkinson's son Joel, 12, got out while stopped at the crossing
Southend Council insist Mr Wilkinson was 'parked' for seven seconds
Mr Wilkinson insists he had to stop to allow the children to cross the road
Southend's two spy cars have earned £500,000 over past two years


The image provided on the penalty notice shows Mr Wilkinson’s white van stopped at the crossing as children cross the road and his son Joel, a Year 8 pupil at the school, gets out.

Mr Wilkinson, from Shoebury, Essex, said: ‘I’ve been getting quite worked up about it. It’s a ludicrous decision – it’s not like I have parked up and got out.

‘I even spoke to a police officer to see if I was breaking some road traffic law but they said I wasn’t.

‘You can clearly see the kids walking across, I couldn’t have driven on even if I’d have wanted to.

‘My son got out at that point but only because we were already stopped at the zebra crossing.’

Mr Wilkinson received the fixed penalty notice from the council on Friday, March 7. It orders him to pay £35 within 21 days or face a £70 fine.

Zulfiqar Ali, the council’s strategic highways and traffic manager, said: ‘There is an appeals process if people wish to challenge a penalty charge notice they have been issued with.

‘We look at each case on its own merit based on the evidence and representations made.’

The council’s two spy cars have raked in almost half a million pounds in their first two years  in operation. The Toyota iQs, each equipped with a rotating CCTV camera on the roof, issued 15,256 tickets between July 2011 and March 2013, generating £485,950 for the local authority.

Bill Cook, of Cook’s Coaches which provides a school-run service in the area, says the fines are making jobs at nearby Chase High School and Lancaster School uneconomical.

It is believed some schools have even resorted to paying fines on behalf of the firms just to keep the coach service running. Mr Cook said: ‘There needs to be a little common sense coming into these decisions.

‘It is as simple as that, but those in power cannot see it. It is just a money game.’

Nick Pickles, director of civil liberties and privacy pressure group Big Brother Watch, said many councils ignored rules which say CCTV cars must be used only where it was dangerous for a traffic warden to work.

He added: ‘The huge numbers of tickets given out in error and later dropped highlights the risk to innocent people of these  spy cars.

‘When people see the multi-million-pound enterprise that CCTV cars have become they will rightly be asking if this is less about public safety and more about revenue raising.

‘Equally, the high revenues highlight what a lousy deterrent CCTV is – even when it is a blindingly obvious spy car.

‘Councils should be working to solve the underlying problems of congestion around schools and understand why so many children arrive by car.’

Last September, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles said he wanted to ban the controversial vehicles.

Mr Pickles said he wanted to ‘rein in over-zealous and unfair rules’, and that traffic wardens with cameras could do the job instead.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2578995/Council-CCTV-spy-car-nabs-motorist-allowing-children-cross-zebra-crossing.html








Offline The Bald Eagle

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 4364
  • THE lowest common denominator
And they wonder why they are about to be banned. :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:
WE ARE WATCHING YOU

Offline scalyback

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 315
There you see?

The driver was a silly man according to the evidence.

What the council, (backed up by CCTV evidence) seem to be suggesting is that the guy should not have 'parked' for seven seconds, but should have kept his son in the vehicle and also run the children down on the Zebra crossing!

Parked for seven seconds??? ARE YOU F :o :KING KIDDING ME? That vehicle was stationary for seven seconds.

Offline Pat Pending

  • Global Moderator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2505
Words fail me!   :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy: :bashy:
Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Beer in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up,  totally worn out and screaming "WOO-HOO, what a  ride!!"

Offline Overlord

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 193
This is an absolutely disgraceful case which I suggest is not far short of fraud. If this was an arrestable  offence, it would probably be considered as false arrest. Greed has been the downfall of many a criminal and local councils are about to fall into the same trap! They have been running a suicide mission for some time now and it has finally caught up with them. They are about to lose their nasty little spy $cars and the sooner the better. It is their own fault, they have brought it on themselves. What an evil bunch they are. I have no sympathy with them whatsoever!  >:( >:( >:(

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
"Bill Cook, of Cook’s Coaches which provides a school-run service in the area, says the fines are making jobs at nearby Chase High School and Lancaster School uneconomical.

It is believed some schools have even resorted to paying fines on behalf of the firms just to keep the coach service running."  :o

I do hope they are not the schools that weasels claim are constantly begging for $camera cars to be deployed. That would just be lunacy if that were the case.
Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

Offline DastardlyDick

  • Follower
  • **
  • Posts: 1697
Surely a halt of 7 seconds would be booted into touch by TPT as "de minimis"?

Offline Ewan Hoosami

  • Administrator
  • Follower
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • Veni, Vidi, $chunti. I came, I saw, I assisted.
Possibly it would but I would appeal on the grounds that the driver did not stop to let the passenger out but simply took advantage of being forced to stop. There is precedent for this which I have been unable to find and someone might help if they have the link. One of the filthy shitbag (possibly Bexley?) councils noticed that passengers were getting out of cars while they were stuck in stop-start traffic around the station in the morning so decided that a $camera car would be a good idea. One case went to PATAS and the appeal was allowed because the council's 'evidence' showed that the vehicle was part of a traffic jam so the driver did not stop specifically to let the passenger out. You do have to wonder how many people simply paid up.

While I was searching for the original story I did find this little gem from 2009,

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/archive/2009/04/27/4323184.LEYTONSTONE__Ruling_prompts_re_think_of_box_junction_policy/

You've got to love the little cherubs, haven't you?

Appealing to the council is like playing chess with a pigeon. You might be a chess grand master but the pigeon will always knock all the pieces over, shit on the board and then strut around triumphantly.

 


Supporters of the NoToMob

In order to view this object you need Flash Player 9+ support!

Get Adobe Flash player