Bexley parents parking illegally outside schools drops

[peperami gsxr]

This is good news, i wonder if the council PR department felt that they needed a story with a positive outcome as they have been bashed  for a few weeks in the local press. 

http://www.bexleytimes.co.uk/news/bexley_parents_parking_illegally_outside_schools_drops_1_907579

[Nigel W]

The inappropriate term 'MICE' (Mobile In Car Enforcement) seems to be a name that Bexley have coined themselves. The term is not used anywhere else. Bexley coined this term back in 2005 See: This will need to be copied and pasted into your browser as it will not post as a link.

http://democracy.bexley.gov.uk/Data/Cabinet%20Member%20Portfolio%207%20-%20Transport/20071102/Agenda/SubIndex$02.11.07%20Mobile%20in%20Car%20Camera%20Enforcement%20Project%20Review.htm

It is an inappropriate term because the main cameras that capture the contravention and therefore do the enforcement are not in the car. They are mounted on extending masts outside the vehicle.

Another more apt term could be for example be: Roving Armed Ticket System (RATS)!

Bexley have trotted out the usual excuse used for the deployment of these vehicles - 'schools.' Richmond resorted to this in my recent PaTS appeal stating wrongly that there was a school in the vicinity. The nearest school was over half a mile away with its entrance in a different road. Bexley have also recently used this excuse for their patrol outside Mr Peaples employers shop!

This article is obviously an attempted PR exercise by Bexley. It shows one thing - Bexley are on the back foot. Keep up the good work. They will soon be serving underarm.

[news shopper martin]

Nigel there cameras are fixed they only rotate and zoom in they have no mast unlike many others

[Staps]

Its all B*ll*x, As i have said before, use the words "School children" "danger"  in the same sentence and Local authorities think that justifies their use of ANYTHING to rob the motorist, We were never Knee deep in bodies before the $cars, and we wouldn't be if they never appeared. Just because some Knobhead makes up an offence doesn't make it right,  the trivial offences i have seen, make the LA a bunch of thieves. they talk utter F*&Kin bulls**t.

[news shopper martin]

What Straps said   

[Pat Pending]

Words of wisdom Staps.

[Nigel W]

I do not think that anyone would have any problem with the deployment of these vehicles outside schools for the contravention of parking on Zig-Zags.

According to the article a total of 234 PCNs were issued for "school fines" in the last financial year. This is probably an average of approx. one a day through school days. It is unclear from the article if this number relates solely to Zig Zags or includes DYL parking some way away from a school (up to half a mile according to Richmond)

This spread over two vehicles (if this is what they have) means that each car issues 0.5 PCNs a day or a penalty worth £25 to Bexley. If they operate outside schools for say 3 hours a day in total this equates to £8.33 per hour.

My point is this: Would Bexley or any other LA consider it was worth it to deploy these vehicle solely for this purpose? The answer to that is obvious.

Why do they only ever mention this type of enforcement when they are defending the use of these vehicles? The percentage of PCNs issued for this type of contravention is minuscule compared with the main use of these vehicles.

Therefore what is the reason that the PCN numbers have dropped for this type of contravention. Could it be because Bexley have not been deploying them outside schools as much as they were previously. The reason for this is simple. At a revenue of £8.33 an hour they are not cost effective.

I am grateful for Pep's response below. This means that their revenue is £4.16 per hour per car for enforcement outside schools.  Less than the minimum wage.

[peperami gsxr]

This spread over two vehicles (if this is what they have) means that each car issues 0.5 PCNs a day or a penalty worth £25 to Bexley. If they operate outside schools for say 3 hours a day in total this equates to £8.33 per hour.

 

@ Nigel, Bexley have 4 scars

[DastardlyDick]

[quote author=Nigel W link=topic=955.msg8292#msg8292 date=1306939464
Why do they only ever mention this type of enforcement when they are defending the use of these vehicles?

 
Probably because in their (the Councils) uber PC eyes, you can get away with anything provided you can trumpet a benefit to (in no order) women, children, BME groups and, of course, 'elf n safety.

[peperami gsxr]

This is not the only article that has been in the local press this week, (posted on another thread).  This one may of been spun by the council as a good news story, which is great.

But it will also have an effect of anyone thinking about stopping, even for a few seconds outside schools. Which will help the number of PCN's drop even more , and will also aid safety  . 

[Esinem]

I seem to recall the adjudicator at Nigel's PATAS hearing saying anything under 59 secs was 'de minimis', i.e. the law does not concern itself with trifles (or any other type of dessert) 

PS I assume we have an FOI in to request the number of hours enforcing outside schools by month? It might be telling to compare this with the PCNs issued outside schools as that would reveal whether the fall is due to 'educating' parents or less enforcement. Simples!

[Bonkers]

I seem to recall the adjudicator at Nigel's PATAS hearing saying anything under 59 secs was 'de minimis', i.e. the law does not concern itself with trifles (or any other type of dessert) 

My daughter is on first name terms with the chief adjudicator of the England & Wales Traffic Penalty Tribunal (not the same as PATAS) and has had lots of conversations with her on this topic.

I think the most interesting one relayed to me is that if someone stopped on a single red line, got out to read the notice, realised that it prohibited stopping at that time, got back in and drove off, then no offence has been committed.

But Bexley and councillor Craske are in it for the money as you know,

[Nigel W]

Esinem and Bonkers,
The PaTAS Adjudicator at my appeal was bending over backwards not to be forced to adjudicate on the issue of non-certification.

What he actually said after reviewing the DVD evidence several times was as follows:

The vehicle was only shown on the film as being there for 59 seconds. Doesn't that amount to waiting and not parking? It was only after my interjection that the film indicated that there was nobody in the vehicle that he reluctantly accepted that he would have to proceed with the appeal.

It is of course the fact that parking on a pavement as I did is an instant offence. I believe that this also applies to Bus Stops, & Zig- Zags Etc. However the point about getting out to read the sign is very relevant.

[Nigel W]

Here is a case that unveils the fact that MEV enforcement outside schools can and does risk the lives of children. If this type of enforcement was carried out by patrolling CEO's this would not be the case.

I Quote:

"In May 2010, while the council was still under the control of the Lib Dem's, I was issued with six PCN's totaling £600.00 from a spy camera car which was parked for two weeks running in Cobbet Road, Whitton. My offence was dropping my children off outside their junior school. Not parking, just pausing for 7 seconds outside the school gates to ensure their safe arrival.

I paid the first fine within time (£50.00) and appealed the other five. These were sanctimoniously rejected by the head of parking services Mr. Terry Powell, a man who later told me to my face that every fine his department issued was considered a failure for his department! I ended up paying the remaining £250.00 following the council's bullying letters that threatened me with fines totaling thousands and all of the court costs and so forth."

These PCN's were delivered by post effectively en-bloc. Had the person been issued with one PCN by a CEO he would have paid it and then complied. This would have possibly saved the lives of schoolchildren. Instead of doing this Richmond saw fit to maximise revenue and disregard any attempt at gaining compliance by allowing this motorist to continue to put children's lives at risk 5 more times. The CEO's in the vehicle were content to sit back and watch this happen 6 times in a row.

Richmond chose this course as it would derive more income at the expense of the safety of children. This proves conclusively that the main falsely purported reason for the use of these vehicles is wholly without merit.

[Nigel W]

Details of the man who received the 6 PCN,s

http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslow-news/2010/07/15/council-s-cctv-cars-milk-motorists-for-cash-109642-26861257/