RANT
I have been driving into London on average twice a week now for about 5 years. Most of the time I take the same route, part of which takes me along Drayton Park Road, N5 from the junction of Benwell Road up to the Holloway Road. In that short distance of approximately 100 yards I have to negotiate a pedestrian crossing, a right turn from a minor road onto major road, 3 box junctions, a merge of two traffic lanes into one, parallel and crossing cycle lanes and a set of traffic lights.
Imagine my surprise and anger when I opened my mail recently to find a Penalty Change Notice (PCN) issued by Islington Council claiming that I had been caught on camera in this stretch of road “Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited”. I was required to pay a fine of £100 which would be reduced to £50 if settled within 14 days.
I checked, and yes I did go into London on that day, but there is no guarantee that I took that route. Even if I did, I don’t have any recollection of what happened at that particular junction on that particular day; who remembers every inch of every journey? Certainly the pictures on the PCN were no help; they show a car that looks like mine, but I can’t read the number plate.
OK, I am not perfect. I pay my parking fines even though I perceive some traffic wardens to be overzealous and I have been caught speeding on a GATSO camera. I have even been caught infringing a bus lane twice by another Islington Council CCTV camera; I paid those even though I considered the road markings and signs to be far from obvious.
But this is a step too far.
My research shows me that Islington Council introduced moving traffic offences in October 2005 saying they would “issue £100 fines to motorists who disobey traffic signs and pose a threat to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other motorists”. So far as I am aware only London Councils are using CCTV cameras, but there is talk of extending the monitoring of box junctions nationwide.
Without knowing it, we, the British People have allowed Parliament to set up a second tier, private traffic police force that has the combined powers of Enforcer, Judge, Jury and Executioner. There is a right of appeal within the system, but it is to a single parking adjudicator who has the full power of a court.
THE ISSUES
Once I had calmed down, undertaken some basic research and talked to a few people I became aware that I was not the only person with severe reservations about this radical change in traffic policing.
For a fixed penalty system to be acceptable the organisation that administers it has to be seen to be independent and unbiased. Furthermore, the organisation should be fully funded and devoid of profit motive. The public should have confidence that when an allegation of an offence is made that it is based on sound evidence, and is in all probability correct. The alleged offender should be presented with clear and acceptable evidence that the offence has been committed. The system must acknowledge that mistakes can occur or that there may be mitigating circumstances. Alleged offenders must be fully informed of an appeals procedure on the same document that details the offence.
The current system fails on all of the criteria above.
THE QUESTIONS
The problem could be broken down and investigated further as follows:
The law – is it a fair and workable law? As written, the law is very precise and leaves no room for error. Could it be that this law requires further interpretation?
The siteing of box junctions – does the junction warrant a yellow box? Can drivers get advance warning of its presence? Is it clear of other potentially conflicting traffic control measures such as pedestrian crossings or traffic lights?
The collection of evidence – how is the vehicle judged to be stationary? Is it by human observation and judgement, or is the speed of the vehicle measured by some electronic or mechanical sensor? How is the evidence collected and stored so as to prevent tampering? Who has a right to access the evidence?
The burden of proof – the system seems to be slanted towards proof of innocence rather than proof of guilt. There does not appear to be a requirement for councils to provide any proof that the alleged offence actually occurred. Are we sacrificing the concept of “innocent until proven guilty”?
The Penalty Charge Notice – PCNs issued by Islington Council do not contain any evidence to indicate that an offence has been committed. They only contain the briefest description of the appeals procedure and even that is misleading. Most of the text relates to how to pay the fine. Their website does not contain any information that would assist in challenging a PCN. What have they got to hide? I have it on good authority that other enforcement agencies in London offer much more information about the right to appeal.
The other subtle factor at play here is the offer of a discount as an incentive to admit guilt. For a careful driver who did not intentionally commit an offence, and probably cannot remember exactly where s/he drove on the day in question there is a strong temptation to just pay up so as to appease the unpleasant feelings of uncertainty and guilt stirred up by the receipt of the PCN.
Sorry. Not this time. You picked on the wrong person.
Do you feel the same? Then let me know.
Posted by moneyboxjunction 
