# "Unfair" Fine for using bus lane?



## Sheffield_Tiger (9 Jun 2011)

Is this a case of "Laws are for OTHER people, not for ME" or what?

The driver of this Ford Focus is outraged at the injustice of being fined for driving in the bus lane

[media]
]View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4HFhsy__CI&feature=youtu.be[/media]




> £60 PCN for using 20 feet of bus lane in order to avoid traffic turning right at traffic lights so I can go left towards St Marys Gate. Sheffield City Council Parking Services have got to be joking!!! I'm in the blue/green V reg Ford Focus



or

"A fine for illegally using the bus lane to beat the other queuing traffic - what a joke!!"

Despite there being umpteen warning signs that Bus Lane cameras are active, and a public information campaign in the Sheffield Star warning drivers of the new cameras before they were switched on

The driver obtained this footage to use in defence of the fine and seems to expect "the angle of the car at the beginning of the clip" to excuse it.

Nice to see the cameras ARE active and ARE being manned


----------



## HLaB (9 Jun 2011)

I don't get what their excuse was ? 'the car in front done it so I did too' ?


----------



## ufkacbln (9 Jun 2011)

Is it a bus lane?

Are you driving a bus?

If you are not driving a bus - you are in the wrong..... SIMPLES!


----------



## gambatte (9 Jun 2011)

nah, some people just hate the injustice of being caught bang to rights. Ignoring how many times they've got away with being over the speed limit, going through a light too late, treating a 'stop' as a giveway etc


----------



## StuartG (9 Jun 2011)

20ft?

I know high magnification photoshots can be deceptive but a Focus is over 14ft long and is well within the lane well before it ends. And unless it can travel sideways it would have taken at least a couple of lengths entering the lane. More like 60ft overall I guess.

But we mustn't let get facts get in the way of the WOTM can we?

The trouble is instead of a repentant driver who improves their driving - this guy is just going to get angrier that his behaviour is all somebody else's fault and he is just being picked on. Poor lad. Poor cyclist who inadvertently winds him up ...


----------



## martint235 (9 Jun 2011)

Our local paper is full of stuff like this. "I parked with two wheels on the pavement but I was only gone for 30 seconds and I got a £60 fine. Don't these people have better things to do?" Well no not when idiots make it easy for them to rake in money. I've actually emailed my council to say that if they stuck a camera car across the road from my house, it would pay for itself in about 3 months.

However the best one was the woman who parked on my driveway, not across it actually on it, and came back and said "but I was only gone a couple of minutes". My response is unrepeatable but it did have the words "there's a car park 50 yards away, use it" in it.


----------



## lit (9 Jun 2011)

Not a bus or bicycle or possibly motorbike, stay out the bus lane or suck it up.


----------



## davefb (9 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Our local paper is full of stuff like this. "I parked with two wheels on the pavement but I was only gone for 30 seconds and I got a £60 fine. Don't these people have better things to do?" Well no not when idiots make it easy for them to rake in money. I've actually emailed my council to say that if they stuck a camera car across the road from my house, it would pay for itself in about 3 months.
> 
> However the best one was the woman who parked on my driveway, not across it actually on it, and came back and said "but I was only gone a couple of minutes". My response is unrepeatable but it did have the words "there's a car park 50 yards away, use it" in it.



*really* used to wind me up when I saw manchester councils little 2seater with camera on the top which spots the 'poor motorists' perhaps driving down the bus lane..


mainly because it was always not there when some muppet decides to fly down the lane and thus gets away with it, grrrrr..


on your driveway ? think i'd have blocked her in... or maybe asked her for the 20quid charge... i mean, you do charge 20quid per day for parking dont you?


----------



## marinyork (9 Jun 2011)

The problem with Bus Lanes in Sheffield is there are a large number of bus lanes and virtually non-existent enforcement until recent years. People have had years and years of bad habits and getting away with it. To be fair to ultra angry motorists, enforcing the bus lane on queens road in that direction doesn't make quite as much sense having just spent a fortune putting in an extra lane on an adjacent bit of road!

A very similar thing happened with the bus gate on City Road which I regularly use and which vehicles routinely break. A while back the police decided to do the bi-centennial bit of enforcement for that and handed out some tickets to great surprise and some great tempers.


----------



## martint235 (9 Jun 2011)

davefb said:


> *really* used to wind me up when I saw manchester councils little 2seater with camera on the top which spots the 'poor motorists' perhaps driving down the bus lane..
> 
> 
> mainly because it was always not there when some muppet decides to fly down the lane and thus gets away with it, grrrrr..
> ...



Unfortunately I don't actually own a car and I was too livid to think of charging!


----------



## davefb (9 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Unfortunately I don't actually own a car and I was too livid to think of charging!



couple of wheelie bins 

mate used to have loads of trouble before the local football team moved its ground,,, and whilst they made parking difficult, nobody ever had the cheek to park on the actual drive!


----------



## downfader (9 Jun 2011)

Seems to be a load of these people who cant understand basic rules:

View: http://youtu.be/lnNgDKTglIk


Thing is, I've been on a bus where the driver couldnt get into the stop because of a plum like that. Times that by a factor of 5 and you get a typical couple of hours on a bus.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (10 Jun 2011)

Well, I happened to be going this way today and I calculate that in the space of my travelling down the 800 yard stretch of road, Sheffield Council issued around £420 in fines.

Clear signs all the way

Then a WVM on a bus gate with a camera later on. Clear signs. I even helpfully pointed at the sign for him whilst we were at the red light, he still had a chance to turn and avoid a fine. No doubt he'll complain that the council had a nerve to issue a fine because he is different to everyone else.


----------



## BentMikey (10 Jun 2011)

Hahahaha!


----------



## gambatte (10 Jun 2011)

Well it appears that my comments have caused him to reassess and he's going to pay up this morning. 
.
.
.
Why do I get the feeling his comment was sarcastic?....
.
If this guy appeals it, Sheffield taxpayers will now foot the bill for administering their side of the appeal process. Maybe he just figures he'll get the most out of his £60?


----------



## subaqua (10 Jun 2011)

davefb said:


> *really* used to wind me up when I saw manchester councils little 2seater with camera on the top which spots the 'poor motorists' perhaps driving down the bus lane..
> 
> 
> mainly because it was always not there when some muppet decides to fly down the lane and thus gets away with it, grrrrr..
> ...




what winds me up is the vehicles newham and Waltham forest have for the same purpose, being parked illegally whilst doing the job they are supposed to. esopecially when they park in the cycle lane ( mandatory no car use ) to do it


----------



## downfader (10 Jun 2011)

I managed to stop a driver getting a fine the other week... so to speak. He nearly turned into Porchester Road in Southampton at the wrong end (no entry to motorised vehicles). I saw him indicate and he looked lost, so I pointed at the sign and wagged the finger to get his attention. Thing is I have seen PCSOs down there recently as a LOT of drivers were trying it on and causing a stalemate when other cars came the correct way. 

Wonder how many have been caught?


----------



## abo (10 Jun 2011)

First time I drove in London I somehow wound up in a bus lane. Can't remember why now, it was years ago. The letter came with a picture of me in the bus lane, bang to rights. I just paid up and made sure I never did it again. Simples.


----------



## stowie (10 Jun 2011)

subaqua said:


> what winds me up is the vehicles newham and Waltham forest have for the same purpose, being parked illegally whilst doing the job they are supposed to. esopecially when they park in the cycle lane ( mandatory no car use ) to do it



Forest road by Blackhorse lane. They lurk at the other side of the lights to catch the motorists doing an illegal left turn.

Only problem is that they wait on the double yellows across the cycle lane. And if you are coming up from Tottenham Hale way then this is the point where the two lanes of traffic going across the junction have to merge. And I am left having to negotiate my way in past the camera car as well. And it is a bit uphill so I am not exactly traveling my fastest either.


----------



## davefb (10 Jun 2011)

abo said:


> First time I drove in London I somehow wound up in a bus lane. Can't remember why now, it was years ago. The letter came with a picture of me in the bus lane, bang to rights. I just paid up and made sure I never did it again. Simples.



my sister in law managed to get one,,,, mainly because she works shifts and is normally down a road where you can go in the lane when she goes to work..

except on this shift, it was 9am... 

hope she paid more attention at work, since shes a nurse!


----------



## Black Sheep (11 Jun 2011)

martint235 said:


> Our local paper is full of stuff like this. "I parked with two wheels on the pavement but I was only gone for 30 seconds and I got a £60 fine. Don't these people have better things to do?" Well no not when idiots make it easy for them to rake in money. I've actually emailed my council to say that if they stuck a camera car across the road from my house, it would pay for itself in about 3 months.
> 
> However the best one was the woman who parked on my driveway, not across it actually on it, and came back and said "but I was only gone a couple of minutes". My response is unrepeatable but it did have the words "there's a car park 50 yards away, use it" in it.



I'd have got some sort of tools out and started digging a ditch stopping the car from being removed

that or started stripping it and when she came back "oh, sorry, I thought you were my next customer who's come for the cambelt changing"


----------



## Spinney (11 Jun 2011)

Black Sheep said:


> I'd have got some sort of tools out and started digging a ditch stopping the car from being removed
> 
> that or started stripping it and when she came back "oh, sorry, I thought you were my next customer who's come for the cambelt changing"



Then tell her your hourly rate for the time you spent stripping it and the time you will now spend putting it back together! Or take the wheels off ('I thought you'd come for the wheel change...)


----------



## downfader (11 Jun 2011)

I reported a taxi driver for parking on our driveway. Heard a car reverse into the driveway, windows open as it was summer so assumed it was family. A couple of minutes went by and I thought "they're taking long!?" Go to the window and see a taxi parked there. He must have noticed me as he started the engine and drove off.


----------



## Black Sheep (11 Jun 2011)

Spinney said:


> Then tell her your hourly rate for the time you spent stripping it and the time you will now spend putting it back together! Or take the wheels off ('I thought you'd come for the wheel change...)



The effects of half the engine being out of the car would have been more amusing than just the wheels being off 

that or claim that you were sure it was your car (same make and model etc)


----------



## gambatte (11 Jun 2011)

Oringinal post, We've been chatting over there.....Looking like the lanes only upto 9am and the film runs from 09:00:30


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (11 Jun 2011)

The lane is operational until 09:30


----------



## gambatte (12 Jun 2011)

So his argument is that although the lane is operational till 9:30, they only informed people that it'd be enforced by camera till 9:00
The camera says after 9:00 so it shouldn't be used as evidence.....

Knowing Sheff Council and the drubbing they got with the Wicker bus gate, they'll probably fold on this one.


----------



## Bicycle (12 Jun 2011)

I remember my late father collecting a fine for putting his offside tyres across a solid line just before it ended, when overtaking.

He'd learned to drive in 1940 and it was his only ever fine. I guess it was the late seventies when he was fined.

His response was stoical and contrite.

"I was a bloody fool; there was plenty of room to pass; I ought to have waited."

That fine nagged at him for years. 

I have a slightly uncomfortable feeling about motorists who wriggle on the hook.


----------



## Alembicbassman (12 Jun 2011)

I rarely drive into Sheffield any more. Decathlon Sports once every couple of months

It's a real pain, the geography of the city is terrible for trying to establish an efficient transport network. The planners have tried to incorporate bus lanes into roads that are barely wide enough. Many of which operate 24 hours which causes congestion !!

It's such a hotch potch of bus lanes, no left turn, no right turn, tram gates, no entry - access only etc..

It's got progessively worse over the 20 years I've lived up here.

Luckily I work at Meadowhall which is a doddle to get to, and no bus lanes on the M1


----------



## Cubist (12 Jun 2011)

Bicycle said:


> I have a slightly uncomfortable feeling about motorists who wriggle on the hook.



Try this guy. The whole thing came to a head only last year....it's cost him thousands!
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/loca...8/speed-camera-fine-is-flawed-86081-20291820/


----------



## Angelfishsolo (12 Jun 2011)

I'm guessing that the government have a few scientists of their own and due consideration is given to where speed cameras are places. I drive and am not a fan of the yellow boxes but at the end of the day if I break the law and I get caught then I accept the punishment. My only speeding fine was on the M25 in the 1990's. I managed to do 59Mph though a 50Mph zone. At the time I was quite proud of it as usually 50Mph was an unachievable speed.



Cubist said:


> Try this guy. The whole thing came to a head only last year....it's cost him thousands!
> http://www.examiner....86081-20291820/


----------



## Walter Mitty (9 Aug 2011)

gambatte said:


> So his argument is that although the lane is operational till 9:30, they only informed people that it'd be enforced by camera till 9:00
> The camera says after 9:00 so it shouldn't be used as evidence.....
> 
> Knowing Sheff Council and the drubbing they got with the Wicker bus gate, they'll probably fold on this one.



Looking at the evidence objectively it is clear that Sheffield City Council's press release clearly states that the bus lane on Queens Road is operational in the morning between 7.*30* am & 9.00am, however, the Traffic Regulation Order states it is operational between *8*am & 9.*30*am. The press release states that the bus lane is operational in the evening between *4.*00pm & 6.30pm, however, the Traffic Regulation Order states that it is operational between 4*.30pm *& 6.30pm.
According to Streetview the signage on the bus lane states that it is operational *7.30*am - 9.30am & 4.30 - 6.30pm. The signage must reflect the times stipulated within the TRO (a legal document made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which, as I'm sure everyone will know, is a 'Statutory Instrument') in order to make enforcement of bus lane contraventions under The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations Act 2005 possible. The signage does not comply with the Traffic Signs and Regulations & General Directions 2002 as the stated times on the signs do not match the TR Order. Simples - to those with a modicum of intelligence that is


----------



## Jezston (9 Aug 2011)

This thread ended two months ago.


----------



## DrSquirrel (9 Aug 2011)

This thread reopened a few hours ago, live with it.


----------



## Rhythm Thief (9 Aug 2011)

This thread still hasn't ended.


----------



## Parrot of Doom (9 Aug 2011)

He's correct, the council cannot diverge from the TRO. I've fought several tickets and won every time.

If I'm to be expected to follow the letter of the law, then so must the council. They often make amateurish mistakes, for instance, look at the speed limit signage around Castle Donington:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=don...id=NA4TK2T2OiMmyZSu0Xrx6g&cbp=12,56.1,,0,3.05

Completely unenforceable.


----------



## Wankelschrauben (9 Aug 2011)

The Parrot Of Doom!!!!!

How did you claim against the X5 driver go???


----------



## PoliceMadAd (9 Aug 2011)

To add, along one side of a road near me, there are two signs stating parking restrictions, about 20ft apart. 8am-6pm i think, Mon-Sat. However, plonked in the middle, is another sign. No parking at any time. There are also double yellow lines. It looks as though the 8-6 are the originals, what would you say/do if you were challenged parking there, outside the 8am-6pm limit?


----------



## Mad at urage (9 Aug 2011)

PoliceMadAd said:


> To add, along one side of a road near me, there are two signs stating parking restrictions, about 20ft apart. 8am-6pm i think, Mon-Sat. However, plonked in the middle, is another sign. No parking at any time. There are also double yellow lines. It looks as though the 8-6 are the originals, what would you say/do if you were challenged parking there, outside the 8am-6pm limit?


Double yellow lines - no parking. I wouldn't park there, regardless.

Near me there are 30mph signs that were obviously either side of the road once. The original post is still there but one has migrated to the same side of the road as its mate, albeit 20 yards upstream. This very likely makes the limit unenforceable if anyone wanted to contest it, but I still slow down to 30 as I pass them.

What makes "I know I shouldn't be here but you can't enforce it" acceptable? It's like that prat 'Danny' in the vid so badly used by CTC. Is this the same sickening sense of entitlement that leads to looting "because you can't stop me" ?


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

Cubist said:


> Try this guy. The whole thing came to a head only last year....it's cost him thousands!
> http://www.examiner....86081-20291820/


http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/loca...bill-for-a-60-speeding-ticket-86081-21153477/ I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing is hilarious. 'Speed cameras don't work on curves because light travels in a straight line'. Go straight to court and pay £15,000


----------



## Tynan (9 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> http://www.examiner....86081-21153477/ I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing is hilarious. 'Speed cameras don't work on curves because light travels in a straight line'. Go straight to court and pay £15,000



His argument I imagine will be that the camera measures his speed coming directly towards it while the car is in fact traveling on a curve so covering more distance in the same period of time ...

hang on, now I type that it's an argument that he was going faster than the camera recorded isn't it? 

I like that even on his own best estimate he's still over the limit


----------



## PBancroft (9 Aug 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> He's correct, the council cannot diverge from the TRO. I've fought several tickets and won every time.
> 
> If I'm to be expected to follow the letter of the law, then so must the council. They often make amateurish mistakes, for instance, look at the speed limit signage around Castle Donington:
> 
> ...



Personally I think it should be reasonable to expect people to follow the _*intent*_ of the law.

If the council have diverged from the TRO then it needs to be addressed and corrected. If the driver is in breach of both the TRO and the signage (and I don't know if he was in this case), that should be addressed too.

In my opinion getting out of fines for technicality is a bit low, but maybe that's just me.


----------



## benb (9 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> http://www.examiner....86081-21153477/ I'm sorry, but I think the whole thing is hilarious. 'Speed cameras don't work on curves because light travels in a straight line'. Go straight to court and pay £15,000



That article is ridiculously sympathetic.



> Vikki and Iain Fielden were hit with the huge costs – 250 times their original fine – after their appeal was rejected at Bradford Crown Court.



The two costs are unrelated to each other.
The defendant chose to contest the conviction, as is their right.
They lost, so costs (substantially reduced, I might add, so still leaving the taxpayer with a hefty bill) were awarded.

So why the spurious attempt to paint the costs as "unfair" in relation to the original fine?

Maybe next time she'll:

think twice before breaking the speed limit
not waste everyone's time with a ridiculous defence

I'll just add that he must be a poor physicist to argue that a speed camera is not effective on a bend because light travels in a straight line!
You'd have be travelling extremely fast for that to make more than 0.00000000001% difference to the recorded speed (light travels at c. 186,000 miles/second)


----------



## Walter Mitty (9 Aug 2011)

PBancroft said:


> Personally I think it should be reasonable to expect people to follow the _*intent*_ of the law.
> 
> If the council have diverged from the TRO then it needs to be addressed and corrected. If the driver is in breach of both the TRO and the signage (and I don't know if he was in this case), that should be addressed too.
> 
> In my opinion getting out of fines for technicality is a bit low, but maybe that's just me.



According to what is written on a Sheffield forum discussing this subject the TRO was made in 1998 under the Experimental Traffic Scheme section of the RTR Act. If that is so the TRO expired 18 months later presumably in 2000 sometime. Therefore the driver could not have been in breach of a TRO as one didn't exist.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> That article is ridiculously sympathetic.



That is an absolute great example of someone[the physicist] who;

a) has a high IQ but no common sense, and

b) someone who has an over inflated opinion of oneself

Stick to lecturing.


----------



## the snail (9 Aug 2011)

400bhp said:


> That is an absolute great example of someone[the physicist] who;
> 
> a) has a high IQ but no common sense, and
> 
> ...



and c) doesn't seem to understand basic maths


----------



## abo (9 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> That article is ridiculously sympathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His arguement might have been flawed, but I was staggered at this statement from the camera people, it is just all kinds of wrong!

“However, the judge has ruled that in speeding cases it is the law of the land that matters, not the law of physics. “Maybe it is time that we left physics in the classroom and allowed cameras to get on with the job of reducing death and injuries on our roads.”

I'll go back to my holiday now, I've been surfing today


----------



## benb (9 Aug 2011)

abo said:


> His arguement might have been flawed, but I was staggered at this statement from the camera people, it is just all kinds of wrong!
> 
> “However, the judge has ruled that in speeding cases it is the law of the land that matters, not the law of physics. “Maybe it is time that we left physics in the classroom and allowed cameras to get on with the job of reducing death and injuries on our roads.”
> 
> I'll go back to my holiday now, I've been surfing today



Yes, that was utter drivel too.


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> His argument I imagine will be that the camera measures his speed coming directly towards it while the car is in fact traveling on a curve so covering more distance in the same period of time ...
> 
> *hang on, now I type that it's an argument that he was going faster than the camera recorded isn't it*?
> 
> I like that even on his own best estimate he's still over the limit


indeed!


----------



## dellzeqq (9 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> *According to what is written on a Sheffield forum* discussing this subject the TRO was made in 1998 under the Experimental Traffic Scheme section of the RTR Act. If that is so the TRO expired 18 months later presumably in 2000 sometime. Therefore the driver could not have been in breach of a TRO as one didn't exist.


ah! Pure gold!


----------



## PBancroft (9 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> According to what is written on a Sheffield forum discussing this subject the TRO was made in 1998 under the Experimental Traffic Scheme section of the RTR Act. If that is so the TRO expired 18 months later presumably in 2000 sometime. Therefore the driver could not have been in breach of a TRO as one didn't exist.


----------



## Walter Mitty (9 Aug 2011)

User said:


> And you call that a reliable source?



As reliable as any forum or do you know otherwise


----------



## PBancroft (10 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> As reliable as any forum or do you know otherwise



I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or if trolling and stupid.


----------



## Walter Mitty (10 Aug 2011)

PBancroft said:


> I'm not sure if you're just stupid, or if trolling and stupid.


Wow, fighting talk. Put your fists back in your pockets boy. Seriously though - I'm just stupid


----------



## Parrot of Doom (10 Aug 2011)

Wankelschrauben said:


> The Parrot Of Doom!!!!!
> 
> How did you claim against the X5 driver go???



I now have a helmet camera and will, if I encounter him again, have evidence of his misbehaviour. I also know his name and address, and the name of his company.

Unfortunately a few internet experts thought I was lying about the matter and that it was acceptable to be bullied by a large vehicle, verbally abused and physically assaulted, and that I was an idiot to phone the police, so I bade them farewell and left the site. No great loss, the last few years it's been populated by bigots.


----------



## Angelfishsolo (10 Aug 2011)

Tynan said:


> His argument I imagine will be that the camera measures his speed coming directly towards it while the car is in fact traveling on a curve so covering more distance in the same period of time ...
> 
> hang on, now I type that it's an argument that he was going faster than the camera recorded isn't it?
> 
> I like that even on his own best estimate he's still over the limit


----------



## Tynan (10 Aug 2011)

light travels really really really fast, 186,000 mph ish if I recall my Physics A level learning rightly

so it can probably go round the block a few times, get the drinks in and do LEJOG and back and still have no significant effect on the speed camera's accuracy

one would have thought, I do only have A level Physics though


----------



## Parrot of Doom (10 Aug 2011)

The speed of light is irrelevant, it is the accuracy of the timing of the camera and flash that is most important.


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2011)

Parrot of Doom said:


> The speed of light is irrelevant, it is the accuracy of the timing of the camera and flash that is most important.



The speed is primarily measured by radar, with the camera (two pictures 0.7s apart, and marks on the road a set distance apart) used to record the licence plate, and to serve as a cross check if the speed is disputed.


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (10 Aug 2011)

On the one time I drove though London I was caught in a bus lane. My excuse was basic ignorance. In this case I was in heavy travic, late at night, didnt really know where I was, stuck in slow moving traffic. Somewhere on my way out of London I must have followed traffic into a bus lane.

The first I heard about it was when I got a fine though the post 

While pissed off about the fine, I had no real complaint about paying it, but I can say with confidence we wont be traveling back to london by car, which means we wont be doing our christmas shopping there either.

I really understand the importance of maintaining this kind of law, but I would think most people who get fines for it are people who dont live or work in London.


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2011)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> On the one time I drove though London I was caught in a bus lane. My excuse was basic ignorance. In this case I was in heavy travic, late at night, didnt really know where I was, stuck in slow moving traffic. Somewhere on my way out of London I must have followed traffic into a bus lane.
> 
> The first I heard about it was when I got a fine though the post
> 
> ...



Did you not notice the big signs?


----------



## Mushroomgodmat (10 Aug 2011)

Nope... If I had I would have gotten out of the lane - that not to say they where not there (im sure, well I hope they are in plain sight), happy to admit I only have myself to blame btw. But I certanltly did nothing on purpose, or because I thought I could get away with it.

All it boils down to is being a tourist and being unfamiliar with London roads and traffic 

BTW, nice Flickr




benb said:


> Did you not notice the big signs?


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2011)

Mushroomgodmat said:


> Nope... If I had I would have gotten out of the lane - that not to say they where not there (im sure, well I hope they are in plain sight), happy to admit I only have myself to blame btw. But I certanltly did nothing on purpose, or because I thought I could get away with it.
> 
> All it boils down to is being a tourist and being unfamiliar with London roads and traffic
> 
> BTW, nice Flickr



Bummer, I'm sure plenty of people make the same mistake.

Cheers.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> The speed is primarily measured by radar, with the camera (two pictures 0.7s apart, and marks on the road a set distance apart) used to record the licence plate, and to serve as a cross check if the speed is disputed.


you know this stuff????? 

oh - shirt, Ben, shirt!!!!!


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> you know this stuff?????
> 
> oh - shirt, Ben, shirt!!!!!



I think I read it somewhere, so don't assume I'm right.

What does shirt mean?


----------



## marinyork (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Bummer, I'm sure plenty of people make the same mistake.
> 
> Cheers.



Not sure about tourists, but the OP in sheffield most of the ranters know perfectly well where the bus lanes are. Historically the only issue is that as someone in transport at the council remarked, the times on some of the lanes have been altered slightly the last few years to standardise. Sheffield is years behind London in enforcement, we've had the lanes for years most of the big and famous ones people know perfectly well they are there, have got used to years of bad habits and are angry they are now enforced. Many still aren't enforced. There's another bus gate I regularly use on the bike and usually 1-2 vehicles break it every time I go through. There was an angry rage a while back when some of them actually got caught out because te police turned up once in a blue moon to give out tickets.


----------



## marinyork (10 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> you know this stuff?????
> 
> oh - shirt, Ben, shirt!!!!!



There have been some rather amusing cases of speed disputes such as milk floats where the photographs have been used  and famously other things.


----------



## dellzeqq (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> I think I read it somewhere, so don't assume I'm right.
> 
> What does shirt mean?


I have one for you.............


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2011)

dellzeqq said:


> I have one for you.............



A FNRttC one?
I don't recall ordering one, but if you've got a spare.


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> The speed is primarily measured by radar, with the camera (two pictures 0.7s apart, and marks on the road a set distance apart) used to record the licence plate, and to serve as a cross check if the speed is disputed.




That's not quite right...


The radar measures a speed and above X speed takes two photographs, a trained police officer , using his expereince decides, using the evidence ( The pictures *) if he considers the vehicle to be travelling at above the speed limit. That's the official version , what really happens is that the camera goes flash flash and the fine is processed.

* in reality the radar going off is the "evidence" trigger.


----------



## Walter Mitty (10 Aug 2011)

When two traffic officers in Scotland were running speed checks, little did they know, they could have caused a major security incident. 

The two traffic officers - using a hand held radar speed checking device, were shocked to see a recorded speed of over 300 mph for an approaching vehicle. The radar device promptly stopped working and the traffic officers could not manage to re-set it.




*Radar Device Picks Up NATO Fighter Jet*
It turned out that the police radar "gun" had locked on to a NATO tornado fighter jet, which had been engaged in low flying exercises over the North Sea. The local Chief Constable immediately complained to the RAF liaison officials and received the following reply: 

"Thank you for your message, which allows us to complete our file on this incident. You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Tornado had automatically locked on to your 'hostile radar equipment' and sent a jamming signal back to it. Furthermore, the Sidewinder air-to-ground missiles aboard the fully-armed aircraft had also locked on to the target. Fortunately the Dutch pilot flying the Tornado responded to the missile status alert intelligently and was able to override the automatic protection system before the missile was launched."


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (10 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> When two traffic officers in Scotland were running speed checks, little did they know, they could have caused a major security incident.
> 
> The two traffic officers - using a hand held radar speed checking device, were shocked to see a recorded speed of over 300 mph for an approaching vehicle. The radar device promptly stopped working and the traffic officers could not manage to re-set it.
> 
> ...



The Dutch don't fly Tornados, the pilot of a Tornado is not responsible for the weapons system, and a Sidewinder is a heat seeking missile.


----------



## benb (10 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> When two traffic officers in Scotland were running speed checks, little did they know, they could have caused a major security incident.
> 
> The two traffic officers - using a hand held radar speed checking device, were shocked to see a recorded speed of over 300 mph for an approaching vehicle. The radar device promptly stopped working and the traffic officers could not manage to re-set it.
> 
> ...



That sounds like bollocks.


----------



## Origamist (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> That sounds like bollocks.



Hardy surprising - the chap who posts it goes by the name of Walter Mitty


----------



## BentMikey (10 Aug 2011)

Snopes innit:

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/radar.asp


----------



## abo (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> Bummer, I'm sure plenty of people make the same mistake.
> 
> Cheers.



I did. Only the one though lol, I got a right bollocking from the OH when the letter arrived at my northern home...


----------



## Little yellow Brompton (10 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> That sounds like bollocks.




http://www.snopes.com/horrors/techno/radar.asp


----------



## PBancroft (10 Aug 2011)

Origamist said:


> Hardy surprising - the chap who posts it goes by the name of Walter Mitty



I stand by my earlier statement.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (10 Aug 2011)

What a load of nonsense waffled by some as defence to passing over a clearly marked 6" wide white line with a load of blue and white signs giving clear and concise information.

Drivers that can't read those signs and see the clear notices, if they wish to avoid penalties in future and are incapable of taking onbopard the lesson learned by the penalty, need to pay for their own re-education.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (11 Aug 2011)

I’m looking forward to when that physicist gets fined for jumping a red light and mounts a defence based upon the Doppler Effect / red shift... mind you, he’d have to be speeding just a little


----------



## Walter Mitty (11 Aug 2011)

PBancroft said:


> I stand by my earlier statement.



Oh Peter  Where's your sense of humour.


----------



## Walter Mitty (11 Aug 2011)

Sheffield_Tiger said:


> What a load of nonsense waffled by some as defence to passing over a clearly marked 6" wide white line with a load of blue and white signs giving clear and concise information.
> 
> Drivers that can't read those signs and see the clear notices, if they wish to avoid penalties in future and are incapable of taking onbopard the lesson learned by the penalty, need to pay for their own re-education.


It looks as if he might have a point though. Unless the times for the bus lane have changed since the Google van drove down Queens Road in Sheffield the blue and white signs giving '_clear and concise information' _are wrong. If I've got the right bus lane the sign clearly states the bus lane operates between 7.30am and 9.30am in the morning and 4pm and 6.30pm in the evening. The times on the signs differ from those on the traffic regulation order which, if my memory serves me right (this is not my area of law), is a legal document. This document states the times as being between 8am and 9.30am and 4.30pm and 6.30pm. 
Legal document says 8am - sign says 7.30am
Legal document says 4.30pm - sign says 4pm
Is it a northern thing or is it just Sheffield_Tiger that believes this is _'clear and concise information'? 
_Perhaps some road users should learn to read these signs and associated legal documents, if they wish to avoid paying fines that haven't been issued in accordance with the law. These road users could then use the money to pay for their own re-education - especially their spelling  "Onbopard" what that mean ST?_ 
_


----------



## Dan B (11 Aug 2011)

I find it curious that when I ask forums such as this for advice on cycling along bus lanes which do not permit bikes, the general consensus is "that lane is stupid" and "go for it, nobody will mind", but when the discussion is of car drivers using bus lanes to which they are not entitled, the response is "stupid idiots get what they deserve".

Now I'm not saying that any individual poster is being inconsistent here, because chances are it's not the same people posting on both threads, but it is interesting - to me anyway - that the group consensus can be so different on what are quite similar questions.


----------



## marinyork (11 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I find it curious that when I ask forums such as this for advice on cycling along bus lanes which do not permit bikes, the general consensus is "that lane is stupid" and "go for it, nobody will mind", but when the discussion is of car drivers using bus lanes to which they are not entitled, the response is "stupid idiots get what they deserve".
> 
> Now I'm not saying that any individual poster is being inconsistent here, because chances are it's not the same people posting on both threads, but it is interesting - to me anyway - that the group consensus can be so different on what are quite similar questions.



I don't especially agree with the bus gate near me (it makes my rides more pleasant than it might be) or one other bus lane in Sheffield, but I don't think it's the huge deal people make out. Some of the other bus lanes are fairly practical and allow street parking throughout the day in an easy way. One reason people don't like cars in them is that they have the nasty habit of parking in them in bus lane hours.

In general Sheffield is not much like London in that enforcement is years and years behind what you have. If you drive or park in a bus lane round here you're very unlikely to get a fine as many are still unenforced. The few that are enforced are mostly relatively recent. Similarly bus lanes that exclude cyclists in south yorkshire are mostly oversights from councils that aren't very good on cycling, whereas in London it's a very major issue.


----------



## Sheffield_Tiger (11 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> It looks as if he might have a point though. Unless the times for the bus lane have changed since the Google van drove down Queens Road in Sheffield the blue and white signs giving '_clear and concise information' _are wrong. If I've got the right bus lane the sign clearly states the bus lane operates between 7.30am and 9.30am in the morning and 4pm and 6.30pm in the evening. The times on the signs differ from those on the traffic regulation order which, if my memory serves me right (this is not my area of law), is a legal document. This document states the times as being between 8am and 9.30am and 4.30pm and 6.30pm.
> Legal document says 8am - sign says 7.30am
> Legal document says 4.30pm - sign says 4pm
> Is it a northern thing or is it just Sheffield_Tiger that believes this is _'clear and concise information'?
> ...



If the driver was in the bus lane during the times clearly displayed on the signs AT THE TIME (regardless of what the signs on Streetview said when the google car passed) then all the rest of it is just waffle to get out of paying for an offence.

If the driver was captured OUTSIDE of the times displayed on the sign, then fair enough - anything else is loopholes to get out of being punished for commiting an offence. 

As for spelling, if you cannot tell the difference between a typographical error involving two adjacent keys and an inability to spell then I'm guessing that "Must try harder" was a regular comment on school reports.

What a mess we would be in if everyone wriggled out of offences as motorists love to do. "The law regarding looting was not clearly displayed outside London shops so the police are powerless to press charges"


----------



## Tynan (11 Aug 2011)

benb said:


> The speed is primarily measured by radar, with the camera (two pictures 0.7s apart, and marks on the road a set distance apart) used to record the licence plate, and to serve as a cross check if the speed is disputed.



that camera takes those pictures using what exactly?

And the physicist is using light as his argument, whatever exactly his argument is


----------



## Origamist (11 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I find it curious that when I ask forums such as this for advice on cycling along bus lanes which do not permit bikes, the general consensus is "that lane is stupid" and "go for it, nobody will mind", but when the discussion is of car drivers using bus lanes to which they are not entitled, the response is "stupid idiots get what they deserve".
> 
> Now I'm not saying that any individual poster is being inconsistent here, because chances are it's not the same people posting on both threads, but it is interesting - to me anyway - that the group consensus can be so different on what are quite similar questions.



If I was caught using a bus lane that I was not entitled to cycle in, I'd just suck up the punishment, regardless of whether I was willfully ignoring the signage or was just unaware.


----------



## clarion (11 Aug 2011)

If you break the law and get caught doing it, you should MTFU and pay the fine. A coupl eof years ago, I was late responding to a change in speed limit from NSL to 30mph on a bend with a camera just beyond. I passed the camera at 35mph. My fault, and I accept the penalty. I won't do it again.

Anyone who whinges about being fined for driving (or parking) like a selfish dick is as bad as a looter. You did wrong, now pay up, **** off and drive better in future.

I think the same about lawbreaking cyclists, btw. And the chap whose youtube video of a dumb Police Officer failing to book him for an alleged RLJ has been slammed on a number of fora. If he was guilty, he's the direct equivalent of all these lawbreaking sobstoryists in the press.


----------



## marinyork (11 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> It looks as if he might have a point though. Unless the times for the bus lane have changed since the Google van drove down Queens Road in Sheffield the blue and white signs giving '_clear and concise information' _are wrong. _
> _



Getting slightly tired of this.

It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. If you look at that area on streetview the imagery has actually changed! First there is the casino which was formerly a skating rink on Duchess Road. Move along one shot and the place is under scaffolding and a bus lane sign appears very close to the junction. Move one shot along from that and bob's your uncle the new sign has appeared. Sign 1 says 7:30-X:XX whereas sign 2 says 8:00:9:30.


----------



## TwickenhamCyclist (11 Aug 2011)

Origamist said:


> If I was caught using a bus lane that I was not entitled to cycle in, I'd just suck up the punishment, regardless of whether I was willfully ignoring the signage or was just unaware.



Origamist, I'm makingmy MA final project at the moment (in film editing) and Chris Marker rightly features in it a fair bit - everytime I get distracted and wonder online I keep seeing your avatar and it reminds me to get back to work!!


----------



## Origamist (11 Aug 2011)

TwickenhamCyclist said:


> Origamist, I'm makingmy MA final project at the moment (in film editing) and Chris Marker rightly features in it a fair bit - everytime I get distracted and wonder online I keep seeing your avatar and it reminds me to get back to work!!



I'm glad it's only my avatar and not the content of my posts that steer you away from this esteemed site!

I don't know much about cycling, but film history/archiving, that's a different matter...


----------



## Walter Mitty (11 Aug 2011)

Dan B said:


> I find it curious that when I ask forums such as this for advice on cycling along bus lanes which do not permit bikes, the general consensus is "that lane is stupid" and "go for it, nobody will mind", but when the discussion is of car drivers using bus lanes to which they are not entitled, the response is "stupid idiots get what they deserve".
> 
> Now I'm not saying that any individual poster is being inconsistent here, because chances are it's not the same people posting on both threads, but it is interesting - to me anyway - that the group consensus can be so different on what are quite similar questions.



That's a very good point. Drivers and pedestrians get upset when we ride on pavements, ignore red lights, use pedestrian crossings, ride the wrong way on one way streets, weave in and out of standing or slow moving traffic, cycle along bus lanes that don't permit bikes etc, etc. When drivers see cyclists lying in the road bruised and bloodied they probably think "stupid idiots get what they deserve". Next week I'm going to cycle to work 'legally' and see what a difference it makes to my journey  I wondered if anyone here has actually been fined for ignoring the law whilst cycling - I certainly haven't


----------



## Theseus (11 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> That's a very good point. Drivers and pedestrians get upset when we ride on pavements, ignore red lights, use pedestrian crossings, ride the wrong way on one way streets, weave in and out of standing or slow moving traffic, cycle along bus lanes that don't permit bikes etc, etc. When drivers see cyclists lying in the road bruised and bloodied they probably think "stupid idiots get what they deserve". Next week I'm going to cycle to work 'legally' and see what a difference it makes to my journey  I wondered if anyone here has actually been fined for ignoring the law whilst cycling - I certainly haven't




A few years ago a collegue was pulled over by the police after going through a red light. He was a bit late for work that morning as they had a little chat with him and took thier time making sure all the paperwork had been filled in correctly. I can't recall if he was ever charged, but the time spent listening to thier safety lecture and proving who he said he was, where he was coming from and where he was going was enough to remind him that the lights are there for all.


----------



## Jezston (11 Aug 2011)

Walter Mitty said:


> That's a very good point. Drivers and pedestrians get upset when we ride on pavements, ignore red lights, use pedestrian crossings, ride the wrong way on one way streets, weave in and out of standing or slow moving traffic, cycle along bus lanes that don't permit bikes etc, etc. When drivers see cyclists lying in the road bruised and bloodied they probably think "stupid idiots get what they deserve". Next week I'm going to cycle to work 'legally' and see what a difference it makes to my journey  I wondered if anyone here has actually been fined for ignoring the law whilst cycling - I certainly haven't




I certainly haven't, but then AFAIK I've never ignored the law whilst cycling.

Apart from that whole entering the ASL not from the feeder lane 'glitch', although I'm not sure any other cyclist has been ever given any trouble for that either.


----------



## gambatte (11 Aug 2011)

Jezston said:


> Apart from that whole entering the ASL not from the feeder lane 'glitch'



If you look on Bing* maps at Pleaseley Road, Whiston, Rotherham they've got round it (whether or not its legal road markings is another matter). They've basically broken the white line at the left hand of both lanes

*Googles an older version, when the road was being built


----------

