Surge in Driving Fines

Posted on by
1

The London Evening Standard have reported that there has been a big surge in driving fines fuelled by the increase in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs). Some 7.4 million PCNs were issued in London last year – an increase of 41% on the prior year.

There are only 2.6 million cars registered in London so you can see that the number of PCNs issued per vehicle is very high even allowing for some PCNs being issued to drivers from outside the London area. These enormous numbers of PCNs are of course now being caused by the desire of some local councils to raise money from fines by installing camera systems to monitor LTNs and School Streets.

Boroughs such as Islington, Hackney and Lambeth are the leaders in this unethical practice but Transport for London (TfL) themselves issued 329,000 fines for infringement of bus lanes, yellow box junctions and other moving traffic offences.

The Covid epidemic was used as an excuse to implement LTNs without prior public consultation as temporary measures but have been made permanent as councils realised how much money they could extract from motorists using camera systems.

Standard report: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/driving-parking-tickets-penalty-fines-increase-low-traffic-zones-ltn-b1032725.html

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Park Lane Consultation

Posted on by
2

Transport for London (TfL) have launched a public consultation on the changes made to Park Lane. This road has always been a key road through central London to avoid more congested areas. But the introduction of bus and cycle lanes has reduced the road space for all other vehicles and caused congestion as a result (see photo above). What used to be a three-lane highway is now only one.

A cycle lane is also unnecessary as there is a cycle path in parallel in the Park itself which would be both more convenient and more pleasant for cyclists. There is no benefit to pedestrians in these changes.

This is another example of the prejudice against cars and vans while cyclists and buses get priority

Please go here to respond to the consultation and make sure you object: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/park-lane

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

H&F and Lambeth LTNs Expanding

Posted on by
3

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham are planning many more traffic restrictions all over the borough. See: http://democracy.lbhf.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=7296 (details in item 4).

It’s in the name of creating “Clean Air Neighbourhoods”, but it includes such nonsense as “It will repurpose street space to be used by the community for play streets, community theatre and resident-led events such as street parties”. Roads are for transporting people and goods, not for playing in.

The report claims that “Long term exposure to man-made air pollution in the UK has an estimated annual effect equivalent to 28,000-36,000 deaths”. This is simply a lie. In addition decisions are being delegated on this to council officers so there will be no democratic input on the details or prior consultation before they are imposed.  The crucial words “traffic access restrictions” are buried in a list of measures under the totally misleading title of “Clean Air Neighbourhoods Programme”. It is gridlock by stealth and every ward is affected.

The good people of south Fulham have been, quite justifiably, protesting and have approaching 5,000 signatures on a petition which is here: https://www.change.org/p/stop-the-traffic-camera-exclusion-zone-spreading-across-fulham-without-consultation/ . PLEASE SIGN IT!

London Borough of Lambeth

Lambeth Council will make an investment of over £16 million to encourage residents to give up their cars and make sustainable travel choices. This is part of an “Air Quality Action Plan” (see https://love.lambeth.gov.uk/draft-aqap-consultation/ ).

It includes a comment that “Each year in Lambeth air pollution kills more than 100 Lambeth residents and causes hundreds of hospital admissions”. How do they know? There is no link between deaths from respiratory diseases or hospital admissions and background air pollution from man-made sources or any others.  

The plans include protected cycle lanes, more bike storage facilities, new walking routes, more electric vehicle charge points and implementation of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (LTNs).

Make sure you respond to the above consultation and oppose LTNs.

Islington has already implemented similar policies to the anger of many locals. It is reported that someone who lives there and had a simple journey to take her elderly mother to regular medical treatment now takes an hour, when it used to take 10 minutes! After school activities are rendered impossible. Cab drivers won’t go there and established local businesses have been forced to close.

It’s worth pointing out that all these LTN schemes typically enable the local councils to generate cash from fines on infringements. They are mainly about profit generation and hence the incredible claims made about the impacts of air pollution.

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Judicial Reviews and How to Pursue Them

Posted on by
Reply

A Judicial Review is a legal process that enables you to challenge decisions by central or local Government bodies or where the law may have been applied incorrectly by tribunals or other courts. It has been widely used of late by environmental lobbyists to challenge planning decisions but it can also be helpful on motoring issues. For example applications for judicial reviews have been made over Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes claiming they are in breach of the Equality Act, breach other legislation or failed to apply the Regulations correctly. There can also be challenges over the failure to consult fairly when consultation is legally required on proposals before implementation. See this blog post written last year for some examples and possible legal grounds over LTNs: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/01/27/legal-actions-against-ltns-escalating/

But they are not always easy cases to pursue because they are not judged on moral principles but simply on the legal technicalities. Cases can be thrown out before they are even heard by judges if they are not handled correctly and do not meet certain criteria. For example cases need to be raised as soon as possible after the issue comes to the attention of litigants or at least within 3 months.

A recent publication by the Courts and Judicial Tribunal entitled “Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide” is exceedingly helpful in explaining what is required and the process that must be followed – see link below. It even explains how “litigants in person” are supported if you do not wish to pay for professional legal representation yourself. And it covers the issue of costs which must be taken into account which litigants may need to pay (and the defendants costs if you lose the case).

Costs can vary wildly. For example this writer has been involved in two judicial reviews. The first was a challenge to the suspension of a hearing in a magistrate’s court on an alleged motoring offence when a key prosecution witness failed to turn up. This cost me less than £2,000 in court fees and my own solicitor’s fees. The case was referred back to the magistrate’s court when the witness again failed to appear so the case was abandoned.

The other was the challenge to the Government’s nationalisation of Northern Rock where legal costs of both sides were several million pounds. The court refused to overturn the decision in parliament by Labour MPs to force nil compensation to shareholders.

One can apply for a “cost cap” to stop the defendants running up enormous bills which Government bodies and Councils can otherwise easily do. And note that if a claim is over an environmental issue then the Arhaus Convention can be invoked to limit costs further. See the Guide in Section 25 for more details.

Although it is possible to pursue a judicial review without legal representation I would recommend that people contemplating a judicial review do take some advice from solicitors familiar with the process. It is particularly worth noting this statement in the Guide: “In judicial review proceedings, the Court’s function is to determine whether the decision or conduct challenged was a lawful exercise of a public function, not to assess the merits of the decision or conduct under challenge. It is therefore seldom necessary or appropriate to consider any evidence going beyond what was before the decision-maker and evidence about the process by which the decision was taken – let alone any expert evidence”.

In summary judicial reviews can be a useful tool for those challenging decisions of a public body but you need to adhere to the rules laid down by the courts including the timescales. The Guide is very helpful in that regard.

Administrative Court Judicial Review Guide 2022: https://tinyurl.com/2sfw4d7p

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Fines for Speeding Rising Rapidly

Posted on by
1

The Times have published an article headlined “Police veering wildly on 20 mph limit” which covers the variation in speed enforcement across the country. In London fines have been rising rapidly as the Metropolitan Police have doubled patrols in 20 mph zones and have a target to enforce against one million drivers. But in other parts of the country the number of 20 mph speeding offences in minimal.

London taxi drivers, known to be some of the safest drivers on the roads, have been badly hit particularly after the previous excess tolerance was reduced by 1 mph. The Licensed Taxi Drivers Association said they had been inundated with requests for legal assistance from drivers with previously clean licences, given penalty points for breaching a 20 mph limit.

Lilli Matson, who oversees the “Vision Zero” strategy for Transport for London (TfL), is quoted in the Times article as saying “the fines went to the Treasury and no profits were taken from speed awareness courses”. This is grossly misleading. Police forces generate surpluses from such courses which they spend on all sorts of things including more cameras. See our Ampow campaign for more evidence on this at: https://www.freedomfordrivers.org/speed-awareness-courses

Comment: Having a target for offences identified and prosecuted is wrong. It incentivises the police to find offences that may have no relevance to road safety while there is no evidence that taking a speed awareness course improves a driver’s safety. It’s just another perverse attack on motorists, particularly in London pursued by TfL, where 20 mph limits are now being installed on main roads. See link below on how Vision Zero is failing to achieve any improvement in road casualty statistics mainly because there is an irrational belief that cutting traffic speed will help.

Vision Zero failing: https://freedomfordrivers.blog/2021/11/20/vision-zero-failing-but-the-mayor-thinks-otherwise/

Times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2edd85a6-41a6-11ed-bf78-197f09550dd1?

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

ULEZ Consultation Results Leaked

Posted on by
4

The Daily Telegraph has obtained a report on the consultation results on expansion of the ULEZ to outer London. It revealed that two thirds of the respondents oppose the expansion.

This was leaked in advance of a formal report on the results. The Telegraph article suggests that the figures are being “massaged” by excluding some responses.

London Assembly Member Nick Rogers, transport spokesman for the Conservatives, said: “Sadiq Khan’s Ulez expansion would have had a negligible effect on air quality, but would have been devastating for small businesses and low income families.

I am not surprised that an overwhelming 66pc voted against his cost of living charge, which will force him to drop the policy. Londoners will be shocked by the Telegraph’s revelations on the Ulez expansion consultation.

Sadiq Khan must reassure them by confirming he will now scrap the Ulez expansion and address the serious integrity concerns raised by the investigation.”

Comment: This is a consultation not a poll so Sadiq Khan can ignore the result if he does not like it. As a dictator he is very likely to do that.

Telegraph article here: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/09/30/leak-reveals-two-thirds-londoners-oppose-expansion-ultra-low/

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

15 MPH Limits in London Blocked

Posted on by
1

A proposal from the City of London Corporation for 15 mph speed limits in the City have been blocked by central Government. The Department for Transport (DfT)  said it would be hard to enforce such a limit as not all cars have speedometers marked with 5 mph markings and speedometers are not accurate enough.

The City Corporation is still planning to put up 15 mph limit signs but they can legally be ignored.

Comment: This is an enormous waste of money as traffic in the City rarely exceeds 15 mph. At least someone in the DfT has some common sense. Putting up signs would not have made any difference to road safety figures.     But we still have Transport for London (TfL) imposing 20 mph speed limits on main roads in London which is slowing traffic and is totally unnecessary plus widely ignored. Driving even at 20 mph consistently is not at all easy in modern cars so it’s just another imposition on drivers by the cycling fanatics in TfL who seem to wish everyone slowed down to their speed.

There is no evidence that putting up 20 mph speed limit signs has any road safety benefit.

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Sadiq Khan’s Book and Tower Hamlets Legal Action over LTN

Posted on by
Reply

Sadiq Khan is publishing a book he has written. It’s called “Breathe: Tackling the Climate Emergency” and links air pollution to climate change. Khan was diagnosed with asthma a few years ago at the age of 51 – in other words he suffers from “adult-onset asthma” which is moderately rare and can be caused by a number of different things – but not usually background air pollution. Since then he has been promoting restrictions on vehicles to improve air quality and to raise taxes to support TfL such as the ULEZ scheme. But there is no evidence that the ULEZ scheme has reduced the incidence of asthma which is rising from other causes.

Without reading it (it’s not yet available) the book seems to be a manifesto for climate activists. One wonders how the Mayor found time to write this book as he has so many other problems to deal with. Perhaps it was ghost written.

One can sympathise with anyone who has asthma, but this book already looks like a political manifesto to justify the Mayor’s actions rather than a scientific analysis of air pollution or climate change issues.

Tower Hamlets

Another item of recent news is the threat of legal action over plans to remove road closures in Tower Hamlets after the election of Mayor Lutfur Rahman who had it as a manifesto promise. A group called “Save our Safer Streets in Tower Hamlets” is raising money for a legal challenge via a judicial review and has raised over £13,000 so far.

A particular focus is on the closure of Old Bethnal Green Road under the “Liveable Streets” programme (see photo above). This was a “B” road and carried as many as 8,000 vehicles per day it is claimed – that surely demonstrates how important it was as part of the local road distribution network!

Comment: The grounds for a judicial review seem poor and the groups budget for it totally inadequate even if it is permitted. Councillors have wide discretion on decision making so long as it is not perverse. The basis of the challenge is poor public consultation but even if the case was permitted and won it might just result in more money being wasted on more consultation. This attempt to overturn the will of voters should not be allowed.

Roger Lawson

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

Queens Death, New Transport Ministers and Oxford Traffic Filters

Posted on by
1

The sad death of Queen Elizabeth reminds me of my own mother’s death at the age of 100. They looked similar in later life. Both managed to die in their own home which is the best place from which to leave. Will Charles III make a good king? We will have to wait and see but his name is not propitious bearing in mind the track record of the previous two. As I am not a monarchist I will say no more.

It was interesting to see an open coal fire in use in the photographs of Liz Truss with the Queen. Balmoral does not have central heating apparently while Buckingham Palace does have a CHP plant. But the bill to run the later was about half a million pounds per annum before the projected price increases. So King Charles might welcome Truss’s announcement to cap the maximum price of gas and electricity.

This is a cap on prices, not on overall cost so people with big houses with large gas consumption will still pay more. But at least it will replace the OFGEM price cap which was an irrational policy. Fracking is also being permitted to boost local gas production.

Truss did not give in to calls for this largess to be funded through a windfall tax. She said this would undermine the national interest by discouraging the very investment we need to secure home-grown energy supplies. You can’t tax your way to growth she said. So it will be funded by more Government debt in essence.

Is this wise? I believe it is the lesser of evils as it will help to bring inflation under control which is essential to keep the economy healthy and avoid a severe recession. These decisions by Truss and her new cabinet are positive in my view. But she is still committed to net zero by 2050 which is simply an unrealistic and unachievable objective.

With a new Prime Minister we are getting a new Cabinet. Secretary of State for Transport Grant Shapps has gone, thank god, to be replaced by Anne-Marie Trevelyan. She might be pro road building as in 2007 she campaigned to dual the A1 in the North of England. Liz Truss also supports road building – in a recent speech she said “We will get spades in the ground to make sure people are not facing unaffordable energy bills and we will also make sure, that we are building hospitals, schools, roads, and broadband”.

Other new Ministers in the Department for Transport are Kevin Foster MP and Lucy Frazer MP.

This is all positive news. Other good news is that Andrew Gilligan, the transport advisor to Boris Johnson and a keen promoter of cycling, has gone.

But the attack on private cars continues. Oxfordshire County Council is proposing to restrict private cars from the City Centre altogether but permitting taxis, PHVs, LGVs, HGVs etc. Local residents will be given permits to use on 100 days per year. This draconian measure is subject to a public consultation – see https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/traffic-filters-2022 . Please respond to it before the 3rd October although this is a very biased survey with way too many questions. I added these comments however: “This survey is totally biased with preconceived answers to the questions imposed to get the answers you are looking for. A total disgrace!”.

I hope the new Transport Ministers will put a stop to such schemes which are inherently illogical.

Roger Lawson

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.

ULEZ Expansion Assessment – A Complete Fraud

Posted on by
2

I have now had time to read the “London-wide ULEZ Integrated Impact Assessment” report produced by Jacobs (see link below) which TfL commissioned on the expansion of the ULEZ scheme to the whole of London.

It makes for interesting reading and covers the likely impact on the environment, on health, on equality and on the economy. I’ll pick out some key points:

  • They forecast a reduction of 1.7% in total car trips across Greater London as a result, but there would be a big reduction in people driving into London from outside for shopping and other purposes of 14.2%. In effect the scheme would impact many people who don’t even live in London and have no vote on the Mayor. In the outer London suburbs and further out there are a lot of retired and poorer people who run vehicles that are non-compliant and cannot afford to buy new ones.
  • A scrappage scheme is proposed to help people move to compliant vehicles but that would only likely be targeted at a small minority of affected people.
  • They identify differential impacts (i.e. negative ones) on the disabled and people with restricted mobility who need to shop or visit health facilities but don’t propose any mitigation measures to tackle that problem.
  • They recognise the impact on tradespeople and small businesses that operate non-compliant LGVs.
  • The reduction in air pollution in Greater London would be miniscule – about 0.1% in the important PM2.5 emissions for example (see Page 48 of the Report). Nobody is going to notice this and it won’t have any significant impact on health outcomes.
  • The negligible impact on health is shown in tables 6.2 onwards and the report states that “health benefits from reductions in PM2.5 are relatively small”.
  • The problem of people visiting hospitals within the zone who are not able to use public transport for a variety of reasons (such as vulnerable to covid or other infections) is mentioned and there is a congestion/ULEZ refund scheme operated by hospitals but many people don’t know about it. It is also complex to make a claim as this writer knows from personal experience.
  • In reality there are numerous people that will be negatively impacted or incur substantial costs which the report effectively glosses over. Some of the impacts are ignored – such as the impact on retail businesses in outer London, while the suggested “mitigation” measures are unlikely to be very effective.
  • The report ignores the financial cost of expanding the scheme with thousands of new camera and road signs required.

In summary this report shows how damaging the expansion will be with many negative impacts and negligible positive ones, but will Mayor Sadiq Khan pay any attention? We will see soon no doubt.

Jacobs Report: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/44946/documents/27025

Roger Lawson

You can “follow” this blog by entering your email address in the box below.  You will then receive an email alerting you to new posts as they are added.