Forum Topic

Have there really been £10mn in fines issued on Staveley and Hartington Roads?

The claim made at the area forum that £10 million in fines have been issued in six months by the cameras on Staveley and Hartington Road is astonishing if true. That must be the highest rate of issuance for any cameras in the UK.I haven't really worked out how to search on FoI requests which OneChiswick say this claim is based on and I remain sceptical until someone can actually produce a list.Also Katherine Dunne's claim that it is difficult to get an exact figure for the number of PCNs issued is transparent nonsense. If they don't know there is something deeply flawed in the council's internal accounting procedures.This is a bit of factual information, so it seems odd that people are arguing about it as the true number should be readily available.

Francis Rowe ● 1389d256 Comments

This was the outcome of an FOI request made last year (in November).https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/penalty_charge_notices_pcns_and_3Don't know if a more recent one on the same lines has been made.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

From the link: 4) A monthly total of the number of PCNs issued during the period 1st November 2020 to 31st October 2021.Month PCNs IssuedFebruary 868March 5410April 4826May 5293June 5308July 3631August 2533September 4360October 4025if we take Sept as a high point ( discounting March as it was still new), we get an annualised £3.2m (at £65 per ticket taking into account some non payment/ appeals /late payments of £130)Still, not a bad return for a couple of cameras - no wonder the council are so keen to cut off Grove Park

Ceinwen Mailvagnam ● 1389d

typo above, it's £3.4m

Ceinwen Mailvagnam ● 1389d

Not sure where the £10 million came from.  I looked at that FOI link, and it works out about 36000 PCNs for the year, or about 100 a day.  What is the fine £80?  That would work out about £2.8m.  I think the push back on LTNs came because a lot were introduced at the same time during the pandemic.  If they had been introduced on a more measured basis and kept as simple as possible, they may have generated less friction.  But then again, I guess if you want to reduce car numbers in an area complexity does help,  if you are not sure what the rules are you steer clear.  The only problem with that is commercial traffic that does not have a choice on entering the area.

Kieran Fox ● 1389d

Sorry, Ceinwen was posting the same thing at the same time :)

Kieran Fox ● 1389d

Thanks for the replies. These figures are ridiculously high so I don't understand why there was any reason to exaggerate.

Francis Rowe ● 1389d

FOI are very simple.  Just google FOI Hounslow Council and it should come up.  I'm a technophobe and have managed it a few times now. I have known a few people, both local and visiting, who follow other cars entering roads like Hartington, presumably with permits, which I think is where its likely you don't see it as a no entry and don't even look for signs.  I think that's a valid excuse personally.  Same with Fishers Lane, you see a bus turn down there and follow it. On the other local issue, bumped into a friend of a friend yesterday, in Surrey.  She remembered I lived in Chiswick and said quite jokingly, "oh  nearly got taken out by a cyclist on your High Road the other day".  Visitors to the area don't always know how the bi directional cycle works also, if they come from an area that doesn't have them.

Maggie Dodge ● 1389d

The fine is (AFAIK) £130. Reduced by 50% for early payment.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

Indeed Francis.Re: FOI requests, if these are submitted via the WhatDoTheyKnow website, the request, requestor and response are publicly available.  If they are submitted directly to Hounslow, they aren't.  I don't think Hounslow is any different from other councils in that regard.On Twitter, Jane O'Donnell, who I believe is associated with OneChiswick, claimed the figure came from 2 FOI requests to Hounslow.  It would be good if they provided the FOI reference numbers so it was clear exactly what information they were basing their claim on.  However I won't be holding my breath.Doing some back of the envelope sums, from the FOI request linked by Andrew Jones, between Feb and Oct 2021, there was an average of 113 a day at Hartington.From another FOI referenced in the article below, the average between dates in Jun and Sep 21 was 119 a day.https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/from-aberdeen-to-truro-foi-request-finds-the-biggest-group-of-drivers-fined-for-driving-in-grove-park-are-from-outside-london/Let's assume both Hartington and Staveley had 119 a day so for the first 6 months of 2022, that is 43k PCNs and at (I think) £130 maximum per PCN, that is £5.6M.  It won't be £130 per PCN as the fine is 50% for paying within a certain time period and there will be a proportion of fines that aren't paid.The Onesies claimed Hounslow should "Repay £10M The Carers, Nurses and Workers of Chiswick Ten Million pounds of PCNs on Staveley and Hartington Roads only" referencing Jan-Jun 2022.  So they aren't just claiming £10M fines, they are claiming £10M fines to people in Chiswick.The FOI cited in the Chiswick Calendar article showed that 7.6% of PCNs were issued to drivers with a registered address in W4.Given the Onesies deliberately misrepresented cyclist casuality numbers, we shouldn't be surprised with them playing fast and loose with this point as well.  That's what the Onesies do, along with spamming councillors with anonymous emails.On the volume of fines at Hartington, I have mentioned this before, but most of the time drivers are on autopilot and simply don't see signs, or maybe they see the sign but don't know what it means.  SatNav apps may not help as they can show a road as open because they see other vehicles using the road.  I suspect they aren't sophisticated enough for time-based restrictions either.To make the signage effective, the road layout needs to be changed so drivers are forced to slow down or stop and actually see the sign and make a decision.

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

Maggie, you often (rightly) criticise cyclists for jumping reds. I don't think you can justify drivers for not reading signs.Take, for instance, Fisher's Lane. If one is driving westbound, prior to reaching the roundabout there are at least two clearly visible signs saying not to turn left, then a pictogram of a camera. See Google Streetview below:https://goo.gl/maps/su3E9LSKWgPQALxk7If you think it's 'excusable' not to see them, then it's a bit worrying to think that there are other out there, driving vehicles weighing north of a tonne, capable of accelerating 0-60 in seconds, who can't see signs. Because if they can't see a sign then they might not see a pedestrian.

Francis Sheehan ● 1389d

In fact the High Road has regularly featured in the top ten rankings of PCNs. But I agree, it is odd to claim that this amounts to Chiswick car owners forking out on average the best part of a thousand pounds a year on PCNs. In fact as the vast majority of PCNs are paid by people outside of W4, the actual fines represent an external subsidy for travel passes that would otherwise be paid by Hounslow residents.  So rather than a bogus £10 m cheque from Chiswick residents, these PCNs represent overall a saving for each Chiswick household to provide travel support for our older residents.

Tom Pike ● 1389d

"These figures are ridiculously high so I don't understand why there was any reason to exaggerate."It's what they do. It's what they've always done. Histrionics.

Paul Campbell ● 1389d

I was in Tottenham last night. Haven't been there for a couple of years. It was immediately obvious to me that they have brought in some form of access restrictions to the side streets due to the presence of "No motor vehicle" signs. As I was parking on the main road, I was able afterwards to have a closer look and could see a plate which specified which vehicles did have access.I would always assume when I see a motor vehicles prohibited sign that I can't drive that way, regardless of whether I see other vehicles going that way.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

"To make the signage effective, the road layout needs to be changed so drivers are forced to slow down or stop and actually see the sign and make a decision."Agreed.Which ever way you cut it there was an average of just over 4000 drivers a month making a mistake which surely demonstrates the signage was failing to be fully effective. In the Area Forum this issue was raised and if I recall correctly the response from the Hounslow chap was that it complied to regulations.Is it a wonder unfortunately things got a little over heated?

Adrian Irving ● 1389d

It has been a characteristic of this entire issue that the people most engaged with it on both sides have misused data to boost their argument. It makes it very difficult to know exactly what the true position is.The £10 million claim seems to be one of the most preposterous so far and it is a daft one to have made as even the lowest level of fines verified by FoI are way above what they should be.One thing that has to be pointed out is that it is a very poor justification of the level of fines to say that they don't matter as much because most of the people getting them don't come from Chiswick. Although the data, is a bit flawed as a vehicle may not be registered at the drivers home address, I think we can assume it is correct that it is mainly people unfamiliar with local roads that are getting fined.A high proportion of these are going to be workers on relatively low incomes who need to do a lot of mileage such as delivery drivers, Uber drivers and people working in the social care industry who can't afford to live in Chiswick. A fine can wipe out a good proportion of their daily wage and you just need to talk to anyone working in these jobs to learn that PCNs have become an occupational hazard and often a crippling burden during the cost-of-living crisis. We shouldn't be celebrating that the expense is falling on them rather than the well upholstered residents of Grove Park.One of the consequences of our nation's current fiscal difficulties is that councils are becoming increasing dependent on revenue from fines to balance their budget. The claim that this all goes back into transport improvements is something that any public sector accountant can tell you is a fiction. These charges are effectively a regressive tax and so there is a fundamental truth in the OneChiswick claim which regrettably they have obscured by their hyperbole.

Francis Rowe ● 1389d

Without a breakdown of the demographics of the drivers who have been issued fines it is pure supposition to say it is a regressive tax. It would be just as easy to propose the opposite but in the absence of the data foolish. The roads do now need to be remodelled to make them more fit for purpose as quiet traffic routes and the point of the restriction should have more visual cues for drivers. The traffic islands should be removed on Hartington to take out the inch points that still cause conflict between cyclists and drivers. It is much easier for drivers to pass cyclists safely on the island-free stretch between Devonshire Gardens and Grove Park Rd.

Paul Campbell ● 1389d

Francis, to pick up on your claim "I think we can assume it is correct that it is mainly people unfamiliar with local roads that are getting fined."If you read the Chiswick Calendar article you can see a significant proportion of the drivers came from SW and TW postcodes on the S side of the river.I think you can assume they were very familiar with local roads as they used them as a shortcut between the A316 and A4.The irony is that the Grove Park Group want cameras on every single road accessing the Grove Park area so the number of fines would be even greater.This won't be going away as LBH&F are also rolling out their Low Traffic Neighbourhood programme with the S Fulham going live in the next week or so, and Ravenscourt Park and Brackenbury areas planned for 2023.

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

Although there are quite a few assumptions in what you say, you may be correct up to a point. The problem is that it is likely people only make this mistake once and therefore the level of fines cannot be explained by the Grove Park area being on the route of people living in certain areas south of the river.It is far more likely that a larger proportion of fines are accrued by people who are required to habitually drive in on roads which they are not familiar with, namely the aforementioned delivery drivers, social care workers, Uber drivers and you could add to that list quite a few other average or low pay jobs such as people working in the building trade.You may refuse to accept that these kind of drivers make up a significant proportion of fines given out because no specific figures exist on the occupation of the break down of fines. This to me would fly in the face of logic because drivers in these categories make up a significant proportion of vehicles on the road and run up much greater mileage than the rest of us.What is impossible to deny is that PCNs of this kind are a major issue for delivery drivers, Uber drivers, social care works and builders many of whom are really struggling financially at the moment. You really only need to talk to them to confirm this is the case. Even if you believe these measures are justifiable in terms of improving transport you should not close your eyes to the inherent social injustice of the way they are being implemented.It would be good to see the council, which is after all Labour, do a proper study of who is actually being penalised by these measures given the huge amount of money being raised so that they can determine what the social impact actually is but I anticipate they won't because they know what the answer will be.

Francis Rowe ● 1389d

From the Chiswick Calendar article, a third of drivers fined came from outside London, the largest area being SL postcode (Slough).  So also a short cut between the A316 and M4.If they aren't familiar with the roads, then why are they taking short cuts using minor roads going through a residential area rather than sticking to the signposted major road network?  Is this all because drivers are just doing what their SatNavs are telling them?

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

Or alternatively, it fits the textbook definition of regressive:https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regressivetax.asp

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

The claim that it is difficult to get exact numbers of PCN's issued is, whilst possibly very technically true, what is commonly referred to as a lie. And a blatant one at that.There is no way, at all, that the Council doesn't know how many PCN's it has issued, couldn't have clean accounts if it didn't, the total value of PCN's is too material for that. Equally, I'll give you a less than 1% chance that the team responsible couldn't, given a little time to run a report, tell you exactly how many tickets are issued from which camera and with a very high degree of certainty, at what times of day.Regardless of what Mr Nwokeoma suggests, the signage clearly isn't adequate despite meeting "every minimum standard" (really shooting for the moon there, meeting the bare minimum) if motorists in their thousands every month aren't seeing them. One would have thought that a consistently high level of fines would point to signage being inadequate and inspire a change in layout/signage, because as we've all been told, on repeat, by Council's across the capital and by the Mayor himself, it's not about raising revenue, it's about cleaning London's air up.I won't pass comment on the truthfulness of that assertion, but rather leave it to individuals to decide...

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

You have a naive belief in the ability of drivers to actually see and act upon signage.If the signage didn't meet requirements then a significant number of appeals would succeed, but they don't.  The vast majority are rejected with the adjudicator saying, the signage was visible, you drove through it, pay the fine.Nobody has actually said what the signage needs to be to be seen by drivers and acted upon.  Does there need to be signs every 10m for the 100m before the restriction? Maybe a large billboard-style sign like the advertising along the M4?Reality is, drivers are going along the road on autopilot, there is nothing to force the driver to look at a static sign.  Thats just a reflection of how humans operate.  A lot of human behaviour is habitual and subconscious because actually making decisions takes more brain power and more work.I don't see any prospect that a change in signage will work and what is really needed is a change of road layout to force drivers to actually look at the signage.

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

I wonder how many fines are issued to former residents who have moved further out and who are using roads that they have learnt and know avoid the congested main roads?

Philippa Bond ● 1389d

Wasn’t it Rob King of the Grove Park Group who stated £10M?“Speaking at the Chiswick Area Forum on Tuesday (22 November) Rob King, chair of the Grove Park Group, said, “The scheme is not working, this year so far over £10m worth of fines have been issued by Hounslow Council from just two streets in South Chiswick.“We think that that data points alone prove the need for the scheme to be modified in several areas.”

Russell Pearson ● 1389d

Of course you don't, because you have a seemingly unshakeable belief that drivers pay no attention any of the time.Where did I say that it didn't meet minimum requirements? It being inadequate for purpose (stopping drivers going through the area) and it meeting minimum standards are not the same thing at all.It's a nice effort to deflect, but a sadly futile one.The volume of fines indicates quite clearly that the signage is failing in its primary (allegedly) purpose, which is to stop drivers entering restricted areas, thus it is inadequate.Of course, if LB Hounslow are content with 4,000 or so fines for contraventions each month, it might just suggest that they don't care at all about air quality & traffic reduction, but are rather more interested in the minimum £3.2m per annum of bonus income.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

You've used this phrase 'auto-pilot' a few times and I don't think it is an accurate reflection of what is happening. Nobody driving a motor vehicle reads every sign that they pass and exiting a busy road like the A316 attention is likely to be focused on other vehicles nearby.The specific problem with Hartington and Staveley is that there are so many vehicles with exemption which means that drivers are not looking out for access restriction signs.Roadsigns should really be relied upon to convey very simple instructions - Stop, Yield, No Entry etc - rather than digest in seconds some complex information about restrictions that apply to some vehicles or not others. Even with improved signage, many drivers are not going to see them and, as that will be because they were focused on the road ahead rather than what is at the side, this does not mean they are bad drivers.The granting of access to some vehicles may also create some issues with SatNav systems that are use other vehicle movements to track routes and this problem will have been exacerbated by the recent on/off nature of the restrictions.A simple answer to the inherent unfairness  would be to allow one infraction per vehicle with a warning letter issued.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1389d

Well quite. It does undermine one of the specious points that was used as justification for bringing LTN's in, which was to suggest that only locals should have local knowledge to use "rat runs", or, "roads", as they're more commonly known and that people being diverted by satnavs were the whole problem. The only problem with that justification was that of course, that people move and don't instantly forget everything about the area they previously lived in and don't instantly stop travelling there forever

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

I agree the signage isn't doing what it is meant to do.The answer isn't to change the signage, it is change the road layout so drivers are forced to slow down or stop and actually look at signage before making a decision.

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

See Jeremy's point below.Trying to convey complex information in a roadside sign isn't a good plan.I'd rather a drivers eyes were on the road, rather than trying to take in complex information at the side of it.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

The trouble with this case Jeremy is that local councillors lobbied for more exemptions on the sign adding to the complexity (its Mon-Sat 8am-7pm).I don't know for sure but wouldn't be at all surprised if many SatNavs are incapable of dealing with time-based restrictions like this.  Do they use the time when the driver asks for the route, or need to continually recalculate the route based upon the time they predict the vehicle will arrive at the restriction?

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

See my answer to Jeremy.Riverside councillors lobbied to have even more information on the sign.And Rob King from GPG wants even more exemptions (also more cameras on every single road going into and out of the area).

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

"The claim that it is difficult to get exact numbers of PCN's issued is, whilst possibly very technically true, what is commonly referred to as a lie. And a blatant one at that."No such claim has been made, except by you: it's rather odd to make accusations of blatant lying when you are the sole source!Hounslow have already responded to a previous FOI giving the postcode distribution of fines paid, so obviously they can access the figures. After all if they don't have the numbers, where did the figure of £10m come from?However, there is certainly no truth in the claim that £10m has been paid in fines over 5 or 6 months by the residents of Chiswick, as claimed by One Chiswick.

Tom Pike ● 1389d

Thought it was the Grove Park Group. Another group fed up with all the fines and negative impact.

Russell Pearson ● 1389d

It is a bit harsh to get a ticket when you've followed 3 cars into the road and not realised they're all exempted!  The simplest way to stop people driving down a road is with a barrier / bollard with no exemptions, unless it is moveable for buses and emergency vehicles (Oxford has a few of those).  But the locals don't want that, so the fines are a consequence of not applying the same restrictions to every vehicle.  I'm sure Google / Waze will catch up with this in time.

Ed Saper ● 1389d

A bad idea to improve a bad idea doesn't make the original idea a good one.Broadly what changes to the road layout would you propose and why do you think they would be cheaper and fairer than my suggestion of a warning for a first offence?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1389d

... would be to allow one infraction per vehicle with a warning letter issued.A good idea. An even better idea (which should be technologically possible) would be to have ANPR linked to a data base and a warning sign flash up "You will receive a PCN if you pass this Restriction".

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

Original post, Tom:"Also Katherine Dunne's claim that it is difficult to get an exact figure for the number of PCNs issued is transparent nonsense. If they don't know there is something deeply flawed in the council's internal accounting procedures."If that is indeed what is said, it is a lie.Now, run along and learn to read would you.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

But...That would cut a valuable source of revenue

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

But is that actually what Katherine Dunne Claimed?On the front page it says:Addressing the claim that the council has made £10m in fines, Cllr Dunne told the Local Democracy Service: “As with all PCNs it is difficult to give an exact figure for the amount of income, because many motorists pay at the discounted rate and some will be going through the appeals process. However, any money collected from enforcement always goes back into the road network.I can well believe it is difficult to give an exact figure ... it's going to change every day, and PCNs can be settled weeks or months after they are issued.How many PCNs are issued on the other hand is a much easier question to answer, and one that Hounslow have answered previously in response to a FOI request.What is the source for the original post?

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

It would indeed.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

In all seriousness, there is an issue with this in terms of cost - to have an ANPR/database/sign link that would work quick enough to warn people in time would be prohibitively expensive unless the sign was 50m or so down the road.If it was laid out correctly though, it should, in theory, reduce fines to near zero.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

For that, you would have to ask Francis, as he is the OP

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

Well its quite likely members of the Grove Park Group are also Onesies so the source may be the same in both cases.Maybe Rob King can provide the FOI references the claim is based upon.The Grove Park Group want cameras on every single road into and out of the area.  It seems strange to complain about fines from two because if they had their way, there would be even more.

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

Any answer will only be correct at the point a report is run, that's true of all matters finance.However, to say that it's difficult to say what the income is, isn't true.They know:How many PCN's were issued, thus what the maximum bookable income is;How many have been paid within 14 days;How many have been paid within 28 days, thus how much income has been achieved.They also know how many are actively being disputed, and when they were disputed, so that figure is calculable tooAlso known is the number of PCN's issued, not paid or disputed.It's not difficult at all and any halfway competent LA accountant (with access to the relevant reports) can provide those numbers, albeit as a snapshot at a point in time.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

That's a good summary.I did choose my words carefully. Katherine Dunne didn't actually say that it was difficult to determine the number of PCNs issued but referred to the amount of fines collected. However, the Onesie claim of £10 million was based on fines issued not collected so she was effectively dodging giving a straight answer by saying a number that nobody had asked for was difficult to get.I don't like accusations of lying because they are bandied about too often with no justifiable cause and I don't think she was lying here. She is being guarded with information which should be in the public domain, that isn't as bad in my view in simply making up a number and claiming it as fact. No evidence has been provided for the £10million figure and all the FoI information gather so far suggests it is a fraction of that. Fabrication is worse than obfuscation and, until someone can provide evidence otherwise, that is what appears to have happened here.

Francis Rowe ● 1389d

A brand new thread, this time on LTNs/Fines etc, and another 7 posters get to reply before you bring in Cycling.And even then, the reference is only half way down your post.3/10 - Must do better!

Richard Cathcart ● 1389d

They know:How many PCN's were issued, thus what the maximum bookable income is;Yes they would know the number of PCNs issued, but what do you consider the maximum bookable income for a single PCN? Is it £130 or £195 (which is the cost of a PCN goes up to after 28 days) Would the additional £65 go to the council? I suspect it would.How many have been paid within 14/28 days? Again easy, but many PCNs are paid at discounted rates after 14 days if informal appeals are lodged and rejected, the discount can be re-offered.  And similarly many PCNs are still paid after 28 days at the full rate. So it should be possible to provide a very accurate figure for enforcement revenue for enforcement that took place more than 3-6 months ago, but the closer you get to the current date, the more error you will inevitably get.So an "exact" figure? Difficult in my opinion, whereas what you mentioned in your last post are easier to provide.I'm sure you'll stick to your guns though.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

Francis,You wrote in your last post:I did choose my words carefully. Katherine Dunne didn't actually say that it was difficult to determine the number of PCNs issued but referred to the amount of fines collected. And in your first post:Also Katherine Dunne's claim that it is difficult to get an exact figure for the number of PCNs issued is transparent nonsense.Taking those two together you've written that Katherine Dunne (made a) claim that it is difficult to get an exact figure for the number of PCNs issued and also Katherine Dunne didn't actually say that it was difficult to determine the number of PCNs issued.One of those two posts has to be wrong surely? They can't both reflect what happened (assuming we are talking about the same occasion).

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

There will also be PCNs that aren't paid at all. Dunno what happens in this case.

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

I suspect that if LBH posted any signs which didn't correspond exactly with the requisite regulations, then Mr. Loophole & Co.would immediately jump on this as a basis on which to appeal the fines.And the safest way for a Council to enusre they are compliant is to meet the minimum standards required, with no embellishment.

Richard Cathcart ● 1389d

Yes, fair point. I haven't made myself totally clear.She made no actual claim that it was difficult to get the exact figure for PCNs issued only that it was difficult to determine the amount collected. I think it is reasonable to take from that she was implying that the issuance number was also inaccessible. It's a bit like if you asked Boris Johnson how many children he has and he replied he couldn't be expected to know their current total weight.

Francis Rowe ● 1389d

Ha Ha, thanks for the clarification Francis.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

JP: "A simple answer to the inherent unfairness  would be to allow one infraction per vehicle with a warning letter issued"RC: Excellent suggestion (imo). Might I add that the warning letter should also note that a second infraction would not be able to benefit from the 50% reduction for paying within 14 days?

Richard Cathcart ● 1389d

The Fantasy Traffic Engineer splurts:>Well its quite likely members of the Grove Park Group are also Onesies so the source may be the same in both cases.Not sure what these mysterious Onesie Onesize fits all is. Unless you”re referring to the 3,100 locals who follow a Facebook group. Must be irksome to see so many, so fed up, at so few.

Russell Pearson ● 1389d

What a very strange post. Trying to argue something that I haven't said.Please identify, with quotes, where I have said that the signage doesn't meet the minimum requirement.What is abundantly clear is that the signage isn't adequate to prevent transgression.One could if they were so minded, draw the conclusion that LBH have no interest in correcting the signage as they rake in hundreds of thousands of pounds per month in fines.Of course, they could prove me wrong and demonstrate that they do indeed care about the environment by upgrading the signage and reducing the number of transgressions, but I have a shiny pound to wager that they won't.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

The maximum bookable income per PCN is £130, it is in no way consistent with the accounting principle of prudence to book £195 per PCN because someone might not pay it.The additional £65 would, I think, go to the Council and, like so many other sources of income, would not be budgeted or forecasted for, it would simply be bonus income if received.Income is booked daily from, for example ICES 360 & Civica ePay.At the end of each day it is wholly possible to know:How many PCN's issued - Total debt bookableHow many paid in 14 days - Cash receivedHow many paid in 15-28 days - Cash receivedHow many appealed within 14 days - Part of total debt bookableHow many appealed between 15-28 days - Part of total debt bookableHow many not appealed and not paid - Part of total debt bookableFrom the above, it is possible to, on a daily basis, know exactly what enforcement income you have received - that is wholly uncontroversial, as it is simply the cash amount received at any given date.It is also possible to identify clearly the outstanding debt (bookable debt less cash received), available discount and any amount that you need to make a Bad Debt Provision for.This isn't rocket science, nor in a proper control environment, is it something that shouldn't be done on a very regular basis (system recs between the feeders and main Agresso ledger should be performed daily to confirm complete processing) with a full reconciliation performed at least monthly, if not fortnightly on this type of account.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

MW: "Please identify, with quotes, where I have said that the signage doesn't meet the minimum requirement."RC: Read my post again. Nowhere in it did I say that you were claiming that the present signage doesn't meet the minimum requirements etc.Rather my post was in response to your observation that the signage is inadequate, i.e. suggestiog a reason why Councils may be reluctant to go beyond the strict, minimum requirement for signage.

Richard Cathcart ● 1389d

Don't like the second idea ... you may not have received the warning letter in time. I'd prefer something where if you pick up several PCNs within a week or 10 days of the warning being sent out, the most you can be fined is perhaps £65 or £130.Ok, you might get some motorists taking advantage, but most would appreciate the 'generosity' of the council.

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

You do sound like you know what you're talking about, I have to admit!

Andrew Jones ● 1389d

Policy varies Council to Council, but in any event PCN's that haven't been paid don't form part of enforcement (or any other) income, so it's reasonably irrelevant

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

so I was entirely right, it was a redundant post.Once minimum standards are met, everything over and above that isn't going to reduce compliance, unless you're into the territory occupied by Kingston (I think) who had around 15 signs on one junction of the A3.the singular reason that LBH aren't remedying inadequate signage is because they make a small fortune from it.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

Almost like I've spent 20 years working in Local Government accounting really...

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

Mr Brentford Taliban dribbles..."the 3,100 locals"'3100 locals'? OneChiswick FB group is a home for cyclist haters, right wing conspiracists and assorted other nut jobs from all over London and beyond.  You are also forgetting all the people who don't agree with them but have joined the group to have a giggle at the demented guff that gets posted there.Anyway, I see the Onesies are back to their usual tricks of spamming councillors with anonymous abusive emails.That will tell them, eh? Won't it Russ!

Michael Robinson ● 1389d

I’m rather surprised that with your experience you still called a councillor a liar when it was you that put words into her mouth rather different to her actual quote.

Tom Pike ● 1389d

Still not learned comprehension Tom? How sad for you, but you'll get there one day if you keep trying.I quoted the OP, I didn't put any words into her mouth. What I said stood correct based on the OP & frankly stands correct now.It is no way difficult, at all, to identify enforcement income, which you know, as I'm sure you've read how I've broken it down above. To say it is difficult, is either deliberately or unknowingly ignorant, which isn't really OK  for a Cabinet member, unknowingly incorrect, which isn't really OK for a Cabinet member or knowingly incorrect, also known as a... what?What's your call? Incompetent or untruthful?Why, btw, would it be surprising for someone who has seen up close & personal how dishonest politicians are, to call that? If anything, I should be doing it more frequently.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

I would have thought someone with your experience would have done a minimum of due diligence before accusing a councillor of being a blatant liar. I wasn’t aware you were simply repeating another person’s faulty claim, just that your claim was made without a basis. I’ve no idea why you want to stand by what is clearly a faulty claim on your part, as clearly the money eventually paid is quite different from the nominal value of the PCNs issued.

Tom Pike ● 1389d

Tom, stick what you're good at - dodgy statistics, because reading clearly isn't your forte.You were aware I was quoting the OP, as Is clearly said I was, the first time you incorrectly attributed a quote to me.Given that you quite plainly can't follow a simple accounting concept:At the end of any given day, it is, without question, 100% possible to tell how much enforcement income has been received. Using a system like ICES360, it is also 100% possible to tell which PCN's have/have not been paid and where they were issued, making it a straightforward job to identify how much, on any given day, has been realised from any given camera.This is wholly separate from the collectable debt, which had not yet been realised, so does not count as enforcement income collected.Now, at what must be the third or fourth of reading this for you, tell me again how it's not easy to run what will be a standard system report to tell how much has been raised in a given location.To say that it isn't easy is either:Knowingly ignorant;Unknowingly ignorant;Knowingly inaccurate;Which is it, incompetent or untruthful? I know where my judgement lies given her dubious past public statements.

Mark Warburton ● 1389d

You have explained, technically, how extracting the fines paid on any given day from a particular camera using a system like ICES 360 is straightforward, which I have no reason to disbelieve.However, I don’t know whether Hounslow employs such a system, and obviously you don’t either or you would have been specific.  If they don’t, I assume it is not so straightforward, or why did you make that a condition?So what you have actually said is that it might be straightforward to extract the required data, but you cannot be sure. And on those grounds you should hardly have confidently initially declared that the councillor was “blatantly lying” which implies that it is obvious she was knowingly lying. You’ve actually admitted as much by later suggesting it might be incompetence, though even with your technical knowledge you cannot be sure.In comparison we have what I’m sure you agree is a blatant lie, that residents of Chiswick have paid £10m in fines in six months for PCNs from the cameras at Hartington and Staveley Rd, as falsely claimed by One Chiswick in an anonymous personal attack on Councillor Dunne. But for  some reason you chose to turn a blind eye to that and instead make an unjustified attack yourself.

Tom Pike ● 1389d

I've been saying for some time that these restrictions need some simple changes to the road layouts to reinforce the intention of the signage. In the case of Hartington Road there are two chicanes, but for some reason, the restriction signs are positioned further on where the road is much wider. Also, when you're faced with these signs placed so far from the junction with the A316, there's nowhere else to go, which is an unusual and difficult position to be in. Similarly with Fishers Lane, the road layout is also unchanged, with a redundant mini-roundabout on the north side and the original 'give way' markings on the south side still suggesting that Fishers Lane is the priority route.  While this arrangement might generate extra income for the council, it also makes the underpass more dangerous because it doesn't provide the protection it promises to other road users.

Peter Evans ● 1389d

I think the reason, or one reason, why so many fines are incurred are that No Entry signs tend to be hard to miss.or misunderstand.  However roads like Hartington, where some locals have permits are a different story.  If you see a car ahead of you, maybe more than one, turning in to a road, you are not looking for signs, you just assume its a 'normal' road.  I don't see a way around this. However I do recall Fishers Lane, when it was first closed to cars, brought in a lot of fines.  The left turn from Belmont Terrace I think its called, just needed a simple No Left left turn sign.  It took a lot of persuasion before the Council finally put this up.  I remember also the new rules for Turnham Green, where the signs were 'hidden' behind bus stop signs and trees. Yes its not unlikely that the Council don't care how many people get this wrong and incur fines £££££££££££££

Maggie Dodge ● 1388d

The mini roundabout is not redundant. Cars and buses rely on this, but perhaps 'car brains' don't compute this?

John Hall ● 1388d

Bikes and busses I mean

John Hall ● 1388d

John is right. The mini-roundabout is still required particularly when turning right eastbound on South Parade for cyclists. However, Peter does highlight an issue with the layout which is still causing vehicles to use the underpass regularly or realise at the last minute there is a restriction and reverse back towards the roundabout over a zebra crossing.

Mark Evans ● 1388d

And Maggie needs to dig out her Highway Code before getting back in her car. A general no entry sign has a different meaning. If anyone doesn't know the meaning of a no entry to cars and motorcycles sign now in London it's just a tax on those not paying attention driving around the city. 

John Hall ● 1388d

"it's just a tax on those not paying attention driving around the city."That is why I think there is a credible counter-argument against the idea that these fines have a disproportionate effect on working class professional drivers. I think that demonstrates a lack of respect for their competency as drivers. Onesies claim that Uber drivers, delivery drivers, and tradesmen refuse to come to their houses because they want to avoid fines AND that these same people are being disproportionately affected by the fines. An alternative to this paradox is that it is middle-class inattentive drivers from East Sheen, Richmond and Twickenham who are providing the bulk of the additional funding of freedom passes for Hounslow pensioners ......

Paul Campbell ● 1388d

Well done Skidmark. You tap your keyboard and more nonsense appears on this thread. Nothing you say is ‘credible’. Just bully boy shouting! You must be a fun guy at the pub.There is very detailed guidance about road signage but it’s not always followed by those responsible for installing these things. Of paramount importance is locating signs so that all drivers have adequate time to read the information and act accordingly. Of course, being a cyclist you will ignore any signs that might apply to you.Here’s the document to read. Do keep up.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/771873/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-1.pdf

Simon Hayes ● 1388d

and John did you read the rest of my post , unable to accept that there's a valid point or two.

Maggie Dodge ● 1388d

I don't think it is unreasonable to be concerned about the social impact of these fines. Any flat charge will tend to be regressive and it is a fair assumption that people with jobs that require them to drive more will be more likely to get fines. To claim that this doesn't matter because other people who do get fined are well able to pay isn't really a very coherent argument.I cycle through Fishers Lane quite a lot and have stopped people going through mistakenly on a number of occasions. They are always grateful when the camera is pointed out to them. In every case where I have actually spoken to the driver, English has been their second language although there have been too few instances to make any firm conclusions from this.On far more occasions I am not in a position to stop the vehicle and I would say that easily over half of them over the last year have been vans or other commercial vehicles. I don't recall ever seeing a cab or an Uber as I think they use Waze which is updated to stop you using Fishers Lane.Council need to look more closely at the impact of getting an increased proportion of revenue from fines and charges before they become too dependent on them.

Mark Evans ● 1388d

Well put Mark and nice that you try and point the drivers right. I'm sure most of the people getting caught probably don't know the area very well?

Basil Finnis ● 1388d

I am reading with a degree of incredulity the excuses being made for motorists who apparently failed to see signs on Hartington Road.  Firstly how can you possible justify missing not 1, not 2 but 4 warning signs on entry into Hartington road from the A316 turnoff? Secondly cyclists are often (sometimes rightly so) for ignoring road signs, surely that same principle applies for motorists in this case?

Matthew Swain ● 1388d

From my recollection of the arrangement in Hartington Road, it would be far simpler and more effective to put the low-flying motorbike restriction signs on one of the existing road narrowing chicanes.  As it is, the restriction is in some indeterminate location further on where the road is much wider.  One problem might be that there are just too many signs along what we are told is a 320 yard stretch of road. So we have:1. '20 Zone'2. 'End of Clearway'3. 'Controlled Zone CS Mon-Fri 10-noon'4. 'Traffic Enforcement Camera' 5. 'Give way to Oncoming Vehicles' on first chicane6. 'Priority over Oncoming Vehicles' on second chicane..and finally on a wide open stretch of road and not at a junction..7. 'No motor vehicles' sign with 'Mon-Sat 8am - 7pm Except permit holders C1' and a picture of a camera. ..and a few yards further on there's a colourful 'Roundabout and Give Way' sign. Despite this visual overload (in addition to other signs for the various sports facilities, and not helped by some 'permitted' vehicles going straight through) drivers should be able to work it all out, but clearly many don't, which suggests it all needs to be improved.

Peter Evans ● 1388d

Matthew, there is no 'apparently' about it, thousands of people are missing these signs. It isn't really a question of justifying it, just trying to understand why it happens.I don't know whether you drive, but I think most people don't tend to check every sign as they pass. On a busy road like the A316 your concentration needs to be on the traffic around you. Also, even keeping within the speed limit, it is almost impossible to take in a more complex serious of instructions. The council may argue that it has adhered to at least the minimum requirements but it is clear these are not effective undermining the reason the restrictions were put in in the first place.With the widespread use of SatNavs people are relying on them rather than road signs and that works fine 99% of the time but there clearly are problems with updating some systems for changing restrictions.Given the difficult economic circumstances, it is inevitable that many of the drivers fined will have bad personal financial situation made worse. Even the prompt-pay £65 represents a considerable dent in some household incomes. You can quibble as to what proportion of the thousands fined are in this position but it will be a lot in absolute terms.It seems to me we have to accept that road signage doesn't operate effectively in situations like this and therefore there is a fundamental unfairness in dishing out fines to drivers who drive down these roads without exemption from the restrictions.A simple way to make the system fairer without compromising its effectiveness is to issue a warning for a first offence.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1388d

Peter, there is a sound logic for the positioning of the restriction on Hartington Road. It is after Ibis Lane which gives access to a boat club. The Council has deliberately ensured open access from the A316 remains in place for the boat club.

Paul Campbell ● 1388d

MW: "so I was entirely right,"Well there's no arguing with that reasoning, is there?"M'lud, the Prosecution's case is 'We're right, he's wrong'. And that concludes the Prosecution's case."

Richard Cathcart ● 1388d

People of Chiswick. How about a compromise? Keep the bike lane and improve it where it needs doing but get rid of the LTN's.

Brian Green ● 1388d

Nice idea Brian.  What improvements are you thinking about for the cycle lane?  They've spent two years and a kings ransom on trying to make it work. Haven't heard any recent feedback so not sure if its still dangerous after the recent work. As I understand it though the floating bus stops will never be safe. I've always mentioned the elderly and disabled, but a sprightly 40 year old, visiting Chiswick, recently told me that she nearly got taken out by a cyclist when she was getting off a bus.  What can fix that? re route all buses maybe?  Agree 100 per cent about getting rid of the LTN's

Maggie Dodge ● 1388d

BG:"How about a compromise? Keep the bike lane and improve it where it needs doing but get rid of the LTN's."RC: While the notion of compromise is a good one in principle, it is only applicable to two sides of the SAME argument.Meaning any compromise should be reached by the two opposing sides in each respective scheme.Whereas your "CS9 vs LTN's" suggestion is a false equivalence, for although the two schemes may be related, ultimately they are essentially separate. Consequently, those who benefit from the abolition of LTNs would not be making any extra concession to cyclists. (Ditto if it were v.v)Further, many of those drivers who might welcome the abolition of LTNs will still want CS9 scrapped.Each scheme should be considered on its own merits and where necessary, modified or scrapped etc.

Richard Cathcart ● 1388d

By scrapping LTN's but keeping CS9, what compromise would cyclists be making to those who want to keep LTN's?

Richard Cathcart ● 1388d

We are many years and many more cycle lanes and LTNs away from the point where there will be any discussion of compromise with drivers!

Paul Campbell ● 1388d

"As I understand it though the floating bus stops will never be safe."Twenty months since it opened, no reported collision injuries reported on C9 between Chiswick Lane and Heathfield Terrace. On the same stretch of road, four pedestrians have been injured, one seriously, in collisions with motor vehicles. Your concern for pedestrian safety does not seem to cover the actual injuries they suffer. What can fix that?

Tom Pike ● 1388d

Genuine question Maggie ...Did she nearly get taken off as she was getting off the bus or after she got off the bus? Find it hard to imagine that a bus would stop that far away from the raised floating bus stop that there's so much space to allow a cyclist to go along the roadway that's between the floating bus stop and the bus.It's possible of course, hence my asking the question.

Andrew Jones ● 1388d

I think we should consider a compromise.How about you get to keep the A4/M4 and we keep C9 and the LTNs that prevent motorway traffic from diverting through Grove Park?

Ed Saper ● 1388d

As I posted earlier Tom. an acquaintance, not familiar with Chiswick of floating bus stops, 40 year old,  said she "nearly got taken out by a cyclist". her words. She jumped out of the way, the cyclist did not stop or avoid her. I suppose you need a serious accident or perhaps a death before you acknowledge what many people are saying. Then on your head be it.

Maggie Dodge ● 1388d

Aint that the truth, in black and white from the Chiswick know it all.  You read it here folks

Maggie Dodge ● 1388d

We have a person a seriously injured in collision involving a car, and yet you fail to acknowledge that motor vehicles represent a considerably higher threat than bicycles on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1388d

I am certain that a system of the type that ICES360 is used, it's a local government standard. What I cannot be certain of, is whether it is that specific system in place. There is no doubt, at all, that a PCN recording system is used, so yes, I can be certain that it's straightforward to extract the info & frankly, if I could arsed, I'd ask the people I know at Hounslow what the system they use is. Going back to your clear inability to read/not misrepresent:I said that "The claim that it is difficult to get exact numbers of PCN's issued is, whilst possibly very technically true, what is commonly referred to as a lie. And a blatant one at that."Now, you, as is your MO, are misrepresenting that as me saying that its a blatant lie that it's difficult to extract exact enforcement income.Clutching at straws springs to mind.Now, I can be sure that it's straightforward to extract the information, as I'm familiar with the major products on the market and from perusal of Hounslow's contract register, their technology strategy is to use best in class.So, you never did answer my question, which is, is Cllr Dunne incompetent or untruthful? I think her previous, suspect, public comments lean that answer one way, but you may have a different opinion. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a boolean situation.Apart from Cllr Dunne's words, refuted by the One Chiswick, who one would assume, could release the email in question, you have no actual proof of abuse do you?It wouldn't be the first time than an unsubstantiated claim of abuse had been made by a heavily pro-cycling Councillor. For example, the forunately ex-Cllr Burke at Hackney and Cllr Stringer at Merton have made in one case unsubstantiated & widely disbelieved and in the other, false, claims of abuse, so colour me sceptical.

Mark Warburton ● 1388d

You do love a redundant post & an out of context quote don't you Richard?

Mark Warburton ● 1388d

Mark, you are being rather disingenuous. Your original accusation that Councillor Dunne was a blatant liar was based on her words being misrepresented. When that was corrected, you still said your judgement remained the same.so rather than misrepresenting you, I am taking you at your word!But what is clear, again in your own words, is that while you are quick to brand a councillor a blatant liar, you can’t be “arsed” to either confirm the basis of your claims or indeed check that the original quote was accurate. Instead you present a false dichotomy based on your own unconfirmed presumptions.In contrast you have failed to pass any comment on the clear falsehood that £10m has been paid by the residents of Chiswick in six months. This in indeed one of the “facts”, along with claims of meetings that didn’t take place, in the anonymous email from One Chiswick to the Council leader that charged Councillor Dunne with “trashing the reputation” of the Council and calling on him to sack her. I have indeed seen the anonymous email from OneChiswick which rather grandiosely was copied to a broad selection of local and national news outlets. None have felt it worth publishing, and I’m sure the Council leader has similarly filed it appropriately.

Tom Pike ● 1387d

...Chiswick drivers haven't been fleeced £10m in fines.The value is about a third of that.Most fines are given to drivers living outside the borough and travelling to postcodes in the Richmond/Twickenham areas.The OneChiswick activists have had another 'alternative fact' moment.

Francis Sheehan ● 1387d

What does it matter were the drivers come from, the bottom line is the signage is inadequate.I know some see Chiswick as the boundary of their world but I consider Richmond and Twickenham all part of West London and as such I can't see why it makes a difference.OK maybe the 10m is high or maybe it's not however what should have been the answer to this question at the Area Forum was not the brush off, we cannot give exact numbers but, good question, we will go away and come back with a breakdown as soon as we can.Not too much to ask and may have gone someway to calm the the meeting.

Adrian Irving ● 1387d

Tom, Tom, Tom. You're not very good at this. If you're going to wilfully dishonest & misrepresent me, it's best not to do it in reply to a message that quotes what I actually said.I'll say, quite openly, that Cllr Dunne either has made openly dishonest statements publicly, or she is the only person in the world able to lobby herself and remain neutral to the lobbying that she is part of.What's the false dichotomy? There's isn't one. She's either lying or incompetent. Either are grounds for her removal.No, you're right, I really don't have the motivation to prove beyond doubt that you're wrong. The fact that you would even consider Hounslow wouldn't use a parking/PCN system does make your opinion on this matter is worthless.Why would I, or anyone on this forum, choose to debate with and prove proof to a dishonest, sealioning, misrepresenting, twister of words, who as soon as he loses a point tries to pivot the debate to something else, troll such as yourself? To be honest, I'm a little surprised you haven't managed to bring in some spurious stat about how cars are more dangerous than ballistic missiles into this thread.Having seen the email, I assume you'll be desperate to remove you dishonest claim that it was abusive, given your suddenly so keen on the truth? You'll also, no doubt be keen to agree that it's another example of cycling group affiliated Councillors lying in public about "abuse" received from people opposed to their actions.In relation to the £10m claim, as I understand it, that was an extrapolation based on FoI enquiries. Doesn't look to be accurate, but until I look at the detail, I'll remain neutral on it, because I trust very little of what you say.

Mark Warburton ● 1387d

Not even that, Francis. Assuming the £10m of fines issued was correct, at a full tariff of £130 each, as the actual amount paid averaged £50, that's a total of £380k. But W4 residents received less than 8% of the PCNs in the past, and that proportion is likely to have fallen further with the broader exemptions for residents of Grove Park: a reasonable upper estimate might be more like £40,000. OneChiswick might have actually had a point if a cheque for that amount had been presented at the CAF.It's difficult to know how OneChiswick thought they could advance their cause by sending an anonymous email to the Head of Hounslow demanding the sacking of a fellow councillor based on a compendium of false facts. Apparently the numerous news agencies they copied into the email passed on publishing the content, but it is rather odd that they didn't circulate it to their own members. Maybe they are reluctant to remind them that OneChiswick themselves have taken rather more than £40,000 from the residents of Chiswick in their failed legal effort that didn't even reach the courts. In that case I'm sure their lawyers were very happy to pocket the money, but it seems an outcry from OneChiswick is reserved for when a smaller sum from residents goes to support freedom passes.

Tom Pike ● 1387d

"...lets talk about Tom Pike's facts, or stats."Funnily enough, whenever I ask you to say exactly what data you are talking about, you are reluctant to respond!

Tom Pike ● 1387d

Ha Tom its gives me enormous pleasure that I don't have to answer to you.  Enough people on here have seen your figures queried, so don't think you're getting away with anything.  No power here 👍 and whatever your long post says, I will not be wasting my Saturday on it.

Maggie Dodge ● 1387d

'Talking of alternative facts, lets talk about Tom Pike's facts, or stats.  Will Norman's facts or percentages.'Yeah go on talk about them then and provide evidence.

Matthew Swain ● 1387d

Mark, you are getting increasingly confused.Firstly you are just repeating your unsubstantiated claim that I misrepresented you. But what you actually wrote was "What I said stood correct based on the OP & frankly stands correct now." And given you accepted that the Francis had not been accurate in his original quotation, I took it you meant that your original claim of blatant lying still stood based on the actual quotation. It's very odd that you obviously agree with this, and still say I am misrepresenting you!Now you are further accusing me of being "desperate to remove [my] dishonest claim that [the anonymous email sent by One Chiswick] was abusive". There are two problems with your accusation. Firstly, I made no such claim. Secondly, as you have not seen the email, you have in any case no basis to say such a claim was dishonest. Is it purely coincidental that in both cases you have been eager to make personal attacks of dishonesty against individuals you disagree with based purely on your own assumptions rather than what they have actually said or what you might actually know?

Tom Pike ● 1387d

Blarr, blarr, blarr, what really matters there is a clearly a problem over access to this LTN. Hounslow know this and it's their job to sort it out.What are they doing about? Sweet Fanny Adams.What will they do in the future? Same answer.

Adrian Irving ● 1387d

So again you can offer no actual evidence to support your position after bringing up the subject yourself. It's rather like your professed concern for pedestrians which doesn't stretch to the people actually reported injured on the High Road but is reserved solely for hypotheticals.

Tom Pike ● 1387d

Mark, I now see you decided to made a fresh accusation against Councillor Dunne, even if you speciously framed it as previously being described by me as a false dichotomy:"I'll say, quite openly, that Cllr Dunne either has made openly dishonest statements publicly, or she is the only person in the world able to lobby herself and remain neutral to the lobbying that she is part of."What's the false dichotomy? There's isn't one. She's either lying or incompetent. Either are grounds for her removal."You seem to be repeating the accusation made in the anonymous OneChiswick email that she is conflicted through her membership of LCC and her behaviour is therefore against the Nolan Principles of Public Life.This is very close to one of arguments addressed recently in the Judicial Review of the Enfield LTNs. It was claimed that the association of councillors with Better Streets for Enfield meant that they had failed to act properly. The judgement, in rejecting all claims, referred to a previously established position:"Central to such a consideration, however, must be a recognition that councillors are not in a judicial or quasi-judicial position but are elected to provide and pursue policies." Councillor Dunne, along with the council's ruling group, was elected on a manifesto to provide protected cycling routes, the prime tenet of the LCC, as well as support 15-minute neighbourhoods that reduce car use and encourage active travel. Those are quite openly the policies that Councillor Dunne was elected "to provide and pursue", however much you might disagree with them; and it is not her role to remain neutral, however much you might demand it. That judgement demonstrates that Councillor Dunne is neither lying nor incompetent on the grounds of the argument you have attempted to construct, and furthermore your charge, and OneChiswick's, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of representative democracy.https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/admin/2022/2809

Tom Pike ● 1387d

By a Highway Code (£4.99). Learn the signs. Obey them. No more fines!

John Hall ● 1387d

I think we all know about Tom's stats and have seen them challenged endlessly. So no I'm not bothering.  Will Norman is a standing joke on Twitter for using percentages that mean nothing. You know it and I know it.  I love that you are both ignoring the studies for Imperial carried about by a variety of biased Professors with links to the LCC.  Are you scared of a genuine study by someone who isn't a cycle lobby fanatic. Can we have someone in charge of this at Hounslow that isn't a member of the HCC and therefore LCC.  Its not a fair fight is it, because you wouldn't win a fair fight, would you guys>

Maggie Dodge ● 1387d

So you’re still waiting for a peer-reviewed publication that supports your narrative and you can claim is genuine, though in the meantime all of the existing papers are hopelessly biased.It sounds like you have the same issues as with the reported pedestrian casualties on the route of C9, all in collisions with motor vehicles, and all hopelessly unrepresentative.  You’re still waiting for a pedestrian injury resulting with a collision with a bike on C9. Only that could be considered genuine.  Life is indeed being very unfair to you in being so reluctant to provide the justifications for your viewpoint.

Tom Pike ● 1387d

Did you miss percentages when they were done at school or something Maggie? 

John Hall ● 1387d

I care not a jot that there has been £10 million in fines if the morons who were fined were too stupid to put reflective spray on their number plates. It’s a simple  solution to ensure the Hounslow Council despots don’t get your cash.

Steve Taylor ● 1387d

The article in the Leader Page confirms that £10million in fines has been collected and the Council has not disputed the figure or provided a different figure. Hence it must be true. The article on the Leader Page also confirms that when LTNs were first introduced, there was a petition “during the early stages of the campaign over 10,000 people signed it to say they wanted the changes reversed. Many many more feel the same way.”The Council has not disputed this figure either so why haven’t they removed the LTNs yet? 

Steve Taylor ● 1386d

“you know and I know that percentages tell you nothing”So changes in mortgage rates are meaningless to you, Maggie, and the cost of living crisis is actually based on fake figures?Or are percentages only meaningless when they tell you something you don’t want to hear?

Tom Pike ● 1386d

Wow, that's pretty feeble even for you Tom.  Percentages have their place.  If you talk about percentages on existing figures then they mean something, like on your mortgage.  If you say something has increased 10% say, then you need to quote the original figure.  Not that I'd trust your figures, or that of Will Norman, but you get my drift and you know it's the trick he gets endless stick for, but insists on carrying on. Must try harder Tom, or give up.  Still waiting for comments on the bias of all the people producing figures about LTN's or did I miss it.

Maggie Dodge ● 1386d

No, inflation running at say 10% definitely means something and there is no “original figure” that needs to quoted to make it meaningful.Let’s take Will Norman’s figure you dismiss, the 40% increase in cycling compared to prepandemic levels. This was calculated from all the automated counters around London.  I don’t know the actual October total of counts used, but it’s probably of the order of one million. But quoting the exact number doesn’t actually give you any more insight. The important point is the overall growth of 40%. Similarly, the fact that bike counts on the High Road are averaging over 40% of car counts is a meaningful number.  I can also give a daily average of 3000 bikes and 6,200 cars for September, but that’s not necessary to convey the fact that people are cycling makes up a significant fraction of the traffic on the High Road.

Tom Pike ● 1386d

£10 million in fines collected? Really? For the two roads we are talking about? What a load of tosh! Prove it Steve. The council not disputing the figure isn't proof by the way.

Andrew Jones ● 1386d

"Still waiting for comments on the bias of all the people producing figures about LTN's or did I miss it."You missed it: the fact is that multiple studies are all coming to the same conclusion, that LTNs reduce traffic overall and don't just shift it around. The fact this is seen in other cities other than London might suggest this is not all a conspiracy by LCC. Published studies include Calgary in Canada, Cheonggyecheon in China and Oslo in Norway. Here's a recent example from Barcelona:"Exploring traffic evaporation: Findings from tactical urbanism interventions in Barcelona", Samuel Nello-Deakin, Case Studies on Transport Policy, Vol 10, Issue 4 (2022)- Significant traffic evaporation observed following tactical road space reduction.- Traffic on intervention streets diminished by 14% relative to control streets.- Neighbouring streets not significantly affected by traffic displacement.- Transparent evaluation method could be replicated in future studies.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.11.003

Tom Pike ● 1386d

What figure is acceptable Andrew?

Maggie Dodge ● 1386d

I don’t have to prove it. It’s written on the CW4 Leader Page. Take it up with them if you want to challenge journalistic integrity. I  care not a jot if people have been fined £10million or £100million. People are well aware that the Council has totally stuffed up roads across the Borough so they should avoid Chiswick like the plague. There are far better ‘user friendly’ places to spend your money.  Or, use reflective spray on your number plates and drive wherever you want to.

Steve Taylor ● 1386d

If it is not £10 million and people are angry and the council is making points about threats and emails id know what I would be doing. As a council id be releasing data to back up claims as false. If a group thinks emails are not abusive and the council says they are. Why doesn't the group publish the email for everyone to decide Or have they

Julian Pavey ● 1386d

That anonymous email is an attempted character assassination of Councillor Katherine Dunne, based on a stream of false statements starting at the subject line, “World Record Fines”, and finishing with the sign off, “Your electorate”. Even some members of OneChiswick were dismayed by both its aggressive tone and veracity. They must have breathed a sigh of relief that none of the national news outlets copied in chose to publish it.An anonymous email demanding the sacking of a colleague on spurious grounds has very likely achieved the very opposite of that intended.

Tom Pike ● 1385d

Sounds to me like we have two sides at war 24/7 One side says something and the other responds like clockworkOnly one issue is this99% of residants most likely have not a clue as to whats going on in team bike,team car and team council on a daily basis.So for that,no side possibly speaks for the electorate whatsoever.Surely ? Aye

Julian Pavey ● 1385d

“As a council id be releasing data to back up claims as false.”Precisely!  But they won’t release any data because they know it’s true.

Steve Taylor ● 1385d

TOM - Do you know about Paul Campbell's tweet? a picture of a bike with the words, "New ride for mowing down the elderly and disabled and delaying hard-working tradesmen in their vans in Chiswick and on C9"  Is that OK Tom, he's one of yours I believe.Was the e-mail anonymous? I thought the e-mail came from OneChiswick, It was  their thoughts. The thoughts of many people in Chiswick that are voiced all the time, so nothing new really.  Is that not allowed?  Biased studies by LCC supporters is that allowed?  How much do all these reports cost to produce? what do they achieve, nothing, because they all come up with the same results they are intended to come up with, that's why they are never use independent researchers. Are you on Twitter Tom, if not don't join a sensitive soul like you would not survive.

Maggie Dodge ● 1385d

“ even some members of OneChiswick were dismayed by both its aggressive tone and veracity.”And what evidence do you have of that?

Steve Taylor ● 1385d

“has very likely achieved the very opposite of that intended.” Pure speculation!  What evidence do you have.

Steve Taylor ● 1385d

“ an attempted character assassination of Councillor Katherine Dunne”As she behaves in such an undemocratic manner, why shouldn’t a group, opposed to her despotic behaviour, call her character into question?  You call it assassination, they may call it politics. She is in the game.

Steve Taylor ● 1385d

Just a few points:Julian, as so often, perfect sense.However, feelings are likely to be strong on these issues if you are directly impacted - if you are want your child to cycle safely to school, if your access to care is compromised by restrictions, if your road has become a rat run, if your business income is being severely impacted by customers finding it difficult to access your premises. If you feel your needs are being ignored you are going to get cross.I've seen the email and 'unhinged and slightly creepy' rather than abusive might be a better description. Cllr Dunne had to suffer worse at the Area Forum meeting.It appears to have been unsigned although notionally it is from One Chiswick. However, this body is not formally constituted. There is a now defunct company that was set up for the legal challenge and there is a Facebook group but the email doesn't say it is from either. There is a recurring obsession with councillors being members of the LCC as if this is some sort of 'gotcha'. This fails to understand that lobbying is only an issue for politicians if it is on behalf of commercial interests. If a councillor is open in her or his advocacy for cycling and was elected on that basis then nobody should have a problem.The exaggeration of the amount of fines is stupid. I think it is scandalous how many PCNs are being issued at Staveley Road and Hartington Road based the figure which can be verified which is already huge. The argument against these fines is weakened when people inflate the number.The person who wrote this email should come out from behind the cloak of anonimity. If they are claiming to be part of an organisation this some be one with a proper constitution, a Mem and Arts, with a method for appointing officers who are responsible for anything issued in the organisations name. Until that happens any councillor should feel free to delete without reading anything sent to them by 'onechiswick'.

Francis Rowe ● 1385d

Exactly Francis.The irony is, they sign the anonymous email as 'your electorate' but most of the main Onesies (including the two who disrupted the Chiswick Area Forum with the big cheque) live in the London Borough of Ealing so they aren't part of the electorate of the councillors they are targeting.The Onesies also submitted multiple complaints last year about councillors' membership of LCC claiming this was a 'conflict of interest' These were all rejected.  Same happened with a recent judicial review claim by a Onesie group in Enfield.  Politicians aren't impartial.  They become politicians because of their beliefs and to pursue policies that align with those beliefs.The same could be said about Cllr Biddolph. She hasn't been very forthcoming about the extent of her involvement with OneChiswick behind the scenes, but this isn't a conflict of interest as there isn't (I assume) any financial gain or benefit involved.This isn't the first time OneChiswick has spammed councillors with anonymous 'unhinged' emails.  Councils can take legal action against these types of vexatious emails and the Onesies could be close to crossing the line as they appear to be getting increasingly desperate.

Michael Robinson ● 1385d

Actually Michael, I think the irony is that you are employing similar tactics to the ones that you are criticising your opponents for using.Just as it is nonsense to imply there is something improper about being a member of the LCC it is also nonsense to darkly hint about the being the scenes involvement of another councillor with an organisation that doesn't seem to exist. Cllr Biddolph makes no secret of her sympathy with people in the area who object to Hounslow's traffic measures. Just because some of them are fruitloops, doesn't make her one.

Francis Rowe ● 1385d

Francis, Julian making perfect sense, your opinion I'm not sure I agree.Your post is strange on so many levels, that's my opinion. Using ch8idren cycling to school, is getting old.I'm glad you didn't find the e-mail abusive, of course that is just your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  Unhinged and slightly creepy also your opinion. As I said the cycle lobby are rather well known for being the victim, that is why they went with abusive, I think.  I think the emailwas was clearly from OneChiswick you know who they are and who they represent, people in Chiswick including cyclists. The Onesies as Paul calls them, he accepts them as a group, all of a sudden they don't exist? Is that your point.  We have yet to find out if the fines are exaggerated, they are I think known to be enormous sums, that is not I believe in dispute, as is the money spent on C9. The influence of the LCC in decisions in all Councils is not something to dismiss.  I can't believe you are even trying, that to me is slightly unhinged. We are still trying to get someone to come forward to take responsibility for illegally changing street names, changing bus stops and having a non existent place put on Google maps.  Any comment on them coming forward?

Maggie Dodge ● 1385d

Francis,  to make it clear, I am not claiming there is anything improper about Cllr Biddolph's involvement with OneChiswick, if indeed she is involved either now or in the past.  As I said, politicians aren't impartial, so having opinions isn't a conflict of interest.

Michael Robinson ● 1385d

Maggie,  this is an interesting take on the debate and as with all posters,  shows a bias.  Why is it legitimate to use older people, carers etc, to make your point,  but including children riding to school is "getting old"?  Isn't keeping children safe as important as looking after the elderly or those with mobility issues?  Can't we do both?Is the content of the e-mail in the public domain? Have you seen it?

Nora Watkins ● 1385d

Hi Maggie,That's a really difficult one to answer!I don't know how many PCNs are issued on average per month across the two roads. If it's still anywhere approaching 3000-4000 per month, that's far too high a figure and suggests there's something ineffective about the restrictions being communicated to drivers.The ideal number of PCNs would be zero, because that would mean that no one was accidentally (or deliberately) contravening the restrictions.

Andrew Jones ● 1385d

I'm a regular reader of Conservative Home. Elliot Keck of the TaxPayers Alliance (latterly famous for being one of the Tufton Street lobby groups who gave advice to Liz Truss on her budget) wrote an article for that website on November 29. He celebrates his press release , carried by the Express and in greater detail by the Daily Mail online on November 14.Here's the Mail article:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11425677/London-drivers-fined-100m-driving-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-just-three-years.html.Although the Mail says it did  the investigation it looks to me that they cut and pasted the TPA press release.  I've been trying to find the TPA press release so I can examine their assumptions. Unsuccessful so far.

David McLoughlin ● 1385d

OK, so the total value of fines for all of Hounslow for two years (20/21 and 21/22) came to £9.2M.... but OneChiswick are saying there was £10M just for 2 roads in Chiswick for 6 months  in 2022 (and this was just fines for people in Chiswick...)

Michael Robinson ● 1385d

Maggie,the second post in this thread, made by Andrew Jones, links to the outcome of this FoI:https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/penalty_charge_notices_pcns_and_3I'm quoting:"From the link:4) A monthly total of the number of PCNs issued during the period 1st November 2020 to 31st October 2021.Month PCNs IssuedFebruary 868March 5410April 4826May 5293June 5308July 3631August 2533September 4360October 4025if we take Sept as a high point ( discounting March as it was still new), we get an annualised £3.2m (at £65 per ticket taking into account some non payment/ appeals /late payments of £130)"The rest of the thread also provides a further breakdown about where those vehicles that have been fined are registered.The bottom line, no matter how you spin it, is that 'the people of Chiswick' aren't being fleeced £10m. To say that is beyond disingenuous. To hijack a public meeting with a giant checque for £10m is a political stunt, not a constructive request to make improvements.I'd also like to go back to the double standard you've employed a good few times in this thread: a cyclist jumping a red light is a criminal, a driver of a vehicle weighting north of a tonne, capable of accelerating 0-60 in seconds, can be excused for not reading a sign because... reasons. How do you square that?

Francis Sheehan ● 1385d

Thanks for the added data refinement, Tom. Honestly, I don't have a problem with people voicing their opinion around a topic. But it's rather sad to see a bunch of grown-ups having to retort to tactics worthy of Nigel Farage or Donald Trump to advance their cause, for it automatically debases whichever claim they might be making, at least in my eyes.

Francis Sheehan ● 1385d

That's not what Steve Taylor says so you must be wrong Michael. Sorry."The article in the Leader Page confirms that £10million in fines has been collected and the Council has not disputed the figure or provided a different figure. Hence it must be true."

Andrew Jones ● 1385d

This must be a real dilemma for Onesies.Do they believe the Daily Mail or the two people who disrupted the Chiswick Area Forum with a giant cheque?

Michael Robinson ● 1385d

"Alice laughed: "There's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.""I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen."When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Andrew Jones ● 1385d

"This must be a real dilemma for Onesies.Do they believe the Daily Mail or the two people who disrupted the Chiswick Area Forum with a giant cheque?"Michael, do you tbink this is helpful or a grown up comment.  What is happening in Chiswick and elsewhere is seriously impacting on people's lives.  It's not a joke. You as leader I think of Hounslow Cycling and your friends in the various Councils all attached to LCC have an advantage that I don't think you should have.Would things be different if you didn't have that advantage.  People's responses to consultations are ignored. Is this how we work these days.  Do you think carrying out studies by people who are biased towards cycling is the way to get honesty into the debate.  Or is honesty not top of your priorities.

Maggie Dodge ● 1385d

Well the phrase, "She hasn't been very forthcoming about the extent of her involvement with OneChiswick behind the scenes" may not actually claim anything but it certainly is loaded with implications.From my perspective, one extreme of the debate is making bogus claims about lobbying from the LCC and the other is trying to smear councillors with an association with a Facebook group which occasionally can be quite toxic. Both are confected nonsense.

Francis Rowe ● 1385d

I’ve read it, not abusive, just a bit abrasive, and on that about 1.5 on the Mohs Scale - just up from talc.

Russell Pearson ● 1385d

Clearly if the front page is correct then it is a Mr king who has to supply the data for the claims or the front page needs correction."Rob King, chair of the Grove Park Group, said, “The scheme is not working, this year so far over £10m worth of fines have been issued by Hounslow Council from just two streets in South Chiswick"Maybe it should be... As of this year or today,so far, over £ worth of fines have been issued by Hounslow Council from just two streets in South ChiswickBut is that correct either. Is it all streets

Julian Pavey ● 1385d

Those behind One Chiswick, and some of their supporters on here, don't seem to believe that the email was out-of-order and dismiss Cllr. Dunne's complaints as being "Poor me", or even contrived.But I think people should re-read the front page article on here.In it, Cllr. Peter Thompson, representing Chiswick Riverside and the leader of the Conservatives on LBH, welcomed the council’s support for the campaign [against abuse of Councillors and Officers]. He went on, “There seems to be this expectation that those of us in the public realm have to expect it and put up with it.”He criticised people at the Chiswick Area Forum for using Twitter to insult other residents at the meeting. He said, “While that meeting was going on there were very hurtful and negative comments being thrown around. They are hurtful and nasty, and harmful.“We don’t want this toxic culture to seep into what we do in Hounslow. We need to calmly disagree and call out those who seek to divide our community”When even a Conservative Councillor for Chiswick, to his great credit, has condemned the email in unambiguous terms, I fail to see how people in One Chiswick or on here can dismiss, never mind defend, it.

Richard Cathcart ● 1385d

So do you care if the email content was lies then Russell?The claim about £10M fines seems to be highly dubious and the Onesies haven't provided any proof with the source of this claim.There was a claim that Cllr Dunne went to a Hounslow Cycling meeting on 24 November instead of the Isleworth Area Forum.  Trouble with that, there wasn't a Hounslow Cycling meeting on 24 November, so that was a lie.And of the 3100 members of the OneChiswick Facebook group you were boasting about, not a single one would put their name to it.  Who is the genius in OneChiswick who thinks that spamming councillors with anonymous emails is a good idea?

Michael Robinson ● 1385d

I think a large number of residents feel abused by Hounslow Council. Consultations are a joke. Cllr Dunne claims not to be biased, pull the other one. No one ever deals with the issue of conflict of interest. TFL's studies carried out by people connected to the LCC.  I think you guys have some questions to answer. Trying to hold Hounslow Council to account is something we'd all like to see more of.

Maggie Dodge ● 1385d

Ask them Michael.Hope you also condemn the horrible stuff on Twitter (and fake accounts causing all sorts of mischief both here and there) which was what the comment was about, not an email.

Russell Pearson ● 1385d

I thought (having just read the email in question) that the source "proving" the figure of £10 million was an FOI request.If such a thing exists, it should be easy for someone in the know from the One Chiswick group to provide the information provided by the council in response to the FOI request, and we can make our own minds up as to the veracity of the £10 million figure.

Andrew Jones ● 1385d

Indeed. I asked them. I’ve tried to work out what the fines might be a day if they bagged a car on one road on average say every 5 minutes. How long before the fines could pay for this house?https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/62293216/?search_identifier=2ff29056232569d9458b67e501c9bc7d

Russell Pearson ● 1385d

I just follow a Facebook group, as do 3100 other locals. But you seem obsessed by one piece Pyjamas. Lots to choose from herehttps://www.onepiece.com/gb

Russell Pearson ● 1385d

Given the £10 million figure comes, we are told, from a FOI request to London Borough of Hounslow, why hasn't it been denounced by the councillor from Hounslow who is a keen follower of posts on this site. Could it be that the figure is actually correct?

Mandy Waters ● 1385d

“When even a Conservative Councillor for Chiswick, to his great credit, has condemned the email in unambiguous terms, I fail to see how people in One Chiswick or on here can dismiss, never mind defend, it.“He didn’t condemn the email. That’s nonsense. He condemned some Twitter comments sent between residents who have opposing views.

Steve Taylor ● 1385d

I love it Mandy - unless a specific councillor comes onto this forum to deny the £10m charge, then it is true by default!  That's brilliant :-)I can allege that the OneChiswick Tory Councillors are paid £1m by the Russians to fight cycle lanes so that Chiswick remains a market for Russian oil. I could write it on a cheque made out to Comrade Biddolph!Unless all the Councillors gather in the Old Market Place on Tuesday at 5pm - and they'd better wear their ushankas as it'll be cold - to publicly deny this charge, then it is proven.

Ed Saper ● 1385d

I hesitate to use the Daily Mail as a reliable record, but while the figures they give for Hounslow are not directly verifiable, the number of PCNs for Southwark correspond closely to a published FOI by the council. On that basis, until we might get an updated figure, it’s worth basing any discussion on their number for Hounslow, 81,613 PCNs for all of the LTNs in Hounslow in 2021/22. That might seem like a huge amount, but it’s fifth out of the 15 London boroughs who responded to the original FOI request, so above average but hardly extreme.So the OneChiswick claim that somehow the fines raised on just two roads out of that total were a “World Record” seem dubious at best, but that was the headline claim in an anonymous email to demand the council leader sack a colleague.

Tom Pike ● 1385d

All the stupid comments from the cycle lobby aside, and they really are particularly childish, more so than usual.  Why don't they get in touch with their many friends on the Council, all those cycling Councillors, and get the accurate figure and put an end to all this speculation.  The one thing that is certain, whatever the amount it will be obscene.  Recently there have been posts about fines received by people who state they saw no signs.  Yes we know the signs are there, but they are clearly not doing the job.  Or are they doing the job of bringing in a lot of money to the Council coffers.

Maggie Dodge ● 1385d

No they aren't being childish. They are right. What is ridiculous is the claim that because something hasn't been denied it must be true which has been neatly skewered by Ed.The outcome of all FoI requests are in the public domain, that is the whole point of them. What appears to have happened here is somebody has taken a figure quoted in the Daily Mail, misunderstood it and now OneChiswick, who or whatever that is, has adopted it as a campaign slogan.This is a significant blunder because now the discussion is about the total figure being exaggerated rather than it being too high in the first place.

Francis Rowe ● 1384d

“ information provided by the council in response to the FOI request, and we can make our own minds up as to the veracity of the £10 million figure.”If the president info has already been provided by the council of under FOI, you could obtain it yourself in a matter of minutes from the Council. You don’t need to bother with getting onechiswick to provide it.

Steve Taylor ● 1384d

“ What is ridiculous is the claim that because something hasn't been denied it must be true ”But it HAS been denied by a few on this thread, but they provide no evidence of actual figures. Even Ms Dunne can’t provide figures (or refuses to)

Steve Taylor ● 1384d

Sorry Steve but this doesn't stack up.OneChiswick disrupted a public meeting to say that £10m in fines were levied over the "people of Chiswick" [sic] from two LTNs.As they've made that claim, it's on them to prove it's true. End of.

Francis Sheehan ● 1384d

Steve,If I was really bothered, I could make an FOI request to Hounslow. Which would cost money for Hounslow to process. Money which could possibly be better spent elsewhere.No one has put forward any "evidence" that the figure of £10,000,000 is correct.I have, at least, provided a link to an FOI from 2021 that gives what numbers of PCNs issued in 2021 in one of the roads in question were.Let's just look at what £10,000,000 of PCNs means in reality.£10,000,000 worth of PCNs equals 74074 PCNs @ £135 (non discounted full rate).£10,000,000 worth of PCNs in 6 months equals an average of 12345.679 PCNs per month.The claim was (as I understand it) that £10,000,000 worth of PCNs were issued for just 2 roads in 6 months, which is an average of nearly 6173 PCNs per month/per road. And that's if ALL the PCNs issued were paid at full rate. Some PCNs would be paid at a reduced rate, some wouldn't get paid, so the number of PCNs needed for a figure of £10,000,000 to be true would be even higher.Possible, but highly unlikely, given the figures in the 2021 FOI request I linked to.The source for this alleged £10,000,000 is said by those who made the claim, to be the response to a FOI request. Someone from the One Chiswick Group or Grove Park Group presumably must have a copy of the response to the FOI if the figure of £10,000,000 is correct - and it would be trivial for them to provide the actual response on this forum for all to see.If that happens, and the figures are found to be correct, then I will be happy to apologise to you for saying that you are talking tosh.But until then, I will simple add to what I'd said previously, in that Steve Taylor you are quite simply wrong if you believe the true value of PCNs issued for the two roads in 6 months is £10,000,000 (or higher).To remind you, this is what you wrote:"The article in the Leader Page confirms that £10million in fines has been collected and the Council has not disputed the figure or provided a different figure. Hence it must be true."Total tosh!The amount of fines is probably ridiculously high and an indication that something is wrong with how these restrictions are being conveyed to drivers but that isn't what we are talking about here, we are talking about the veracity of the figure of £10,000,000.

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

You are correct Francis and they can't prove it because it is simply not true.Looking at the figures from the Daily Mail article, Tom's claim that they are above average but not extreme, needs a bit of background. What the data doesn't show is how concentrated the fines are within a particular geographical area - I'm not aware of any London boroughs that focuses enforcement so tightly on one post code so the concentration of fines in Chiswick may possibly exceed any similar district in London (and therefore conceivably the world as local authorities here make much greater use of these fines than any other city).This is a pattern that was almost identical to parking enforcement which Hounslow derives the preponderance of revenue from the W4 area. They used to produce an annual parking report, which I though was a statutory requirement, but none have been released since 2020 (which given that the council year ends in March means that it is close to three years out of date). These reports showed the ridiculously high proportion of fines issued in Chiswick and I doubt much  has changed. Tom does a great job in coralling data to make the case for his point of view but, it seems to me, there information that would be fairly devastating for Hounslow Council's position if opponents of the scheme had someone of his ability to root it out by well constructed FoI requests.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1384d

If the president info has already been provided by the council of under FOI, you could obtain it yourself in a matter of minutes from the Council.Yes Steve, "If". And "If" it hasn't, I wouldn't be able to. And I'm not going to bother trying, as I don't believe the info has been provided, because I doubt it ever existed.

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

Given no road in Chiswick features in the top 25 streets for driving PCNs here:https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11009861/amp/Worst-streets-driving-PCNs-Britain-revealed.htmlit’s unlikely that any world record belongs to W4.Previous data showed 97% compliance on Hartington Road, so while the number of PCNs is high, the vast majority of drivers both see and act on the signs. It is certainly reasonable to say that the measures have been effective in reducing through traffic very significantly, and 100% compliance would not make a substantial further reduction in traffic.

Tom Pike ● 1384d

Is it not possible that Hounslow avoided appearing on this list by not providing the necessary information? This would be consistent with their failure to issue an annual parking report.A figure for 13,132 tickets issued on Chiswick High Road was published by a similar survey in 2012-2013 ranking it as the highest in the country. I haven't been able to find it mentioned since.That gives us two likely scenarios, firstly that Hounslow has significantly reduced enforcement on  CHR or secondly it has worked out a way to dodge giving an answer to those seeking to work out which is the most fined street in the country. I'm surprised that you have leapt to the assumption that 97% compliance, however that is measured, shows that the vast majority of drivers see and act on the signs. It seems far more likely that more are either aware of the restriction because they live locally, have already received a fine therefore don't repeat the mistake or have a sufficiently updated SatNav to forewarn them.The high number of PCNs, which you are good enough to acknowledge, is the only piece of data that matters because it shows the signs aren't effective and represents a growing accumulation of misery for the people on lower incomes who are getting them. Why not give a warning to people on their first offence? That would not compromise the effectiveness of the restriction.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1384d

Confused.com did their report earlier in the year, this is source of the other articles. Their method was this“*Confused.com issued a Freedom of Information request to UK councils requesting the following information:Which single street in your council area has produced the highest income from parking enforcement (income from just fines) in the 2020/2021 financial year? Please provide details of the number of tickets issued and the income to the council of motorists paying parking enforcement fines in this single street in the 2020/21 financial year.”If asked, would LBH know which street produced the highest income?

Russell Pearson ● 1384d

That's an FOI request for parking enforcement information.Parking enforcement can't undertaken by CCTV any more, unless there are compelling reasons why it can't be done by CEOs.

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

I *think* that that list is just for parking related PCNs, and CCTV isn't used (any more) for issuing parking PCNs.

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

You may be right Andrew but, if my memory serves me correctly, the big money spinner for CCTV enforcement of parking for the council in Chiswick was by the entrance to Turnham Green tube station catching people dropping off or picking up which would not have been included in any numbers for Chiswick High Road.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1384d

And this is where the data from Toms article comes from?https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11009861/amp/Worst-streets-driving-PCNs-Britain-revealed.htmlConfused, Dot Com.

Russell Pearson ● 1384d

“ I could make an FOI request to Hounslow. Which would cost money for Hounslow to process. Money which could possibly be better spent elsewhere.”Nonsense. The FOI has already been done and figures provided some it wouldn’t cost a penny to repeat the info.

Steve Taylor ● 1384d

Steve, as there was never a response to a FOI request that proved that £10,000,000 was raised in revenue across the two streets in question over a period of six months, a fresh FOI request would cost money to process.You are talking tosh again.

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

Actually, revisiting the figures, I think that the figures that both Tom and Russell linked to may in fact include all council issued PCNs.The street with the highest number of PCNs (in Newham) does have restrictions where only Buses, Taxis and some other vehicles are permitted, and ordinary traffic is banned, and enforcement would be by CCTV.Apologies for getting it wrong (if I did, which I think is probably the case here).

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

Hounslow have in the last year or so in response to FOIs released data on the monthly totals of PCNs from Hartington Rd, including breakdowns by postcode, PCNs on Turnham Green Terrace and PCNs from LTNs in the Borough at least a couple of times. That’s more representative of their willingness to respond to FOIs than whether a parking report is available. My point was more about the level of compliance rather than the signage itself, which will be problematic without other visual cues for the reasons previously suggested.  As for the distribution of income, given the relative mileage by income bracket as well as the published spread of postcodes, it’s quite likely that PCNs are paid by drivers who have higher than average incomes. The revenue effectively reduces the council tax bill for Borough residents, so it’s certainly not straightforward to assess whether these PCNs represent an overall flow to those on lower incomes, but that is certainly very possible.

Tom Pike ● 1384d

It's the same data, however the figures for the top three roads don't appear to include just parking offences. There is a note at the bottom of the confused.com article that suggests this is the case.** Browning Road is part of a scheme where only emergency response vehicles, buses, cyclists, black cabs and local residents are allowed to drive through. A similar Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) operates in Dermody Road, Lewisham and Lansdowne Drive, Hackney.So, I would imagine that the Browning Road figures include PCNs issued on the basis of CCTV observation.

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

No council can refuse to answer a well constructed FoI request but these surveys are presumably done with standardised questions which an authority wishing to be obstructive could dodge giving an answer. Also if the surveys are based on information from annual borough parking reports rather than FoI requests, that would also explain the absence of CHR.Your justification of elevated PCNs as being non-regressive is more sophisticated than others we have seen in this thread. Is it really the case that mileage driven correlates with income? I'd be surprised if this was the case if you exclude the bottom income deciles who won't generally own a car.If it is true, it is probably reasonable to assume that higher mileage by the better is entirely due to leisure use  which won't be relevant to restrictions that operate during business hours and not on a Sunday. Mileage during the working week will (there is a clue in the description) be mainly for work. I can't think of that many jobs that require a high level of mileage to be driven that pay above the average wage except perhaps working for a Formula 1 team. The GLA provided data on type of vehicles as a proportion of traffic on roads in the GLA area but outside the central congestion zone earlier this year which showed that only around half of journeys are in cars from the morning to the evening peak.https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/mqt/0840%20Table_Proportion%20of%20London%3Fs%20Traffic%20Made%20Up%20Of%20Ride-Sharing%20Vehicles%20.pdfCan we not agree that people driving lorries, vans and mini-cabs during the day are unlikely to be wealthy people? That would mean at least half the fines are going to drivers on below average incomes. As for the cars, we cannot assume these are being driven by wealthy people. Just because you don't have a van doesn't mean you aren't driving for a living. Remember a vast army of carers drives on our streets all through the week trying to fit in a packed appointment schedule. Add to that keyworkers such as police officers, teachers and NHS workers who are not paid enought to afford accomodation near their place of work or far away but with good transport links.Your justification that I should be pleased that the charges place on these people should please me because it reduces my council tax bill seems a very weak one. Once again, would a fairer solution not be to issue a warning for the first breach of a restriction?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1384d

Once again, would a fairer solution not be to issue a warning for the first breach of a restriction?Would definitely be a good idea ... some schemes have a 'grace' period at the start where warnings are sent out, rather than fines. Why can't this be extended for previously non-offending first timers?

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

Here's the annual mileage driven with household income of the driver. It increases across all income brackets for all years. There are also strong indicators that the trips are increasingly discretionary with higher income: firstly the mileage has been decreasing over the years at a higher rate for the higher income groups, indicating that they find it more easy to respond to the pressure to drive less; secondly, during COVID, the mileage dropped increasingly with higher income. In contrast the mileage driven by the lowest income group has been very steady, suggesting there is little discretionary travel.

These figures only cover households with cars, so they tend to exaggerate car usage, and mileage dependent costs, by people with lower incomes. 



Overall, these plots indicate that costs that tend to scale with mileage driven, including fines and fuel, are paid disproportionately by those in higher income households. If those fines are more dependent on income than council tax, then substituting fines for council tax is broadly progressive. 

Tom Pike ● 1384d

I don't seek to defend the council but they do at least appear to have responded positively to some of the feedback from residents in the areas closest to these roads see:https://chiswickcalendar.co.uk/my-first-six-months-as-councillor-for-chiswick-homefields-ward/ and the section about traffic and transport.I think all traffic schemes should have a 'soft' introduction and after that just have warnings for first time offenders, not just this one.I realised I'd strayed into a bus only zone in Edinburgh a few months ago ... once I'd realised it was too late to 'undo' what I'd done. I didn't get a PCN as it turns out, and to be honest no worthwhile purpose would have been served by fining me rather than warning me.  Mind you, if LTNs become more and more prevalent, drivers will become more aware of where they can't drive. 

Andrew Jones ● 1384d

The plot is starting to thicken up like a pot of Bisto.  Seems there might even be some data privacy items bubbling under. Even Mr Crusoe on his Traffic Island, is apparently aware.And here’s a comment from a local group:“The data has not been widely shared. But the data and the analysis has been shared with the local Councillors and more importantly with Cllr  [] and Cllr [] and the traffic team.”

Russell Pearson ● 1384d

According to the latest household expenditure survey, the proportion of income spent on personal transport is remarkably constant over all income deciles at about 7%, as are operational costs at 3%. This is in line with mileage reported, which is hardly surprising as operational costs mostly scale with distance driven.  In contrast, council tax is significantly regressive according to the IFS, with the poorest tenth spending 8% of income, while the richest 40% pay 2 to 3%. Therefore shifting the financing of freedom passes from council taxes to PCNs is very likely progressive, with overall poorer household paying a smaller amount of their cost.

Tom Pike ● 1384d

Russell does like to stir the gravy, even if it is last month’s twice reheated MSG goop.

Ed Saper ● 1384d

Ed, seems this is rather fresh ‘goop’. Will update when I get more info. From what I can work out there’s been some disconnect with the team that collects the data, and those charged with their oversight. Some rather embarrassing and upset moments with the latter, or so I’m told. We can expect their social media minions, to get agitated. 🍿

Russell Pearson ● 1384d

Interesting comment, a while back from Ed  "The simplest way to stop people driving down a road is with a barrier / bollard with no exemptions, unless it is moveable for buses and emergency vehicles (Oxford has a few of those). But the locals don't want that, so the fines are a consequence of not applying the same restrictions to every vehicle."Since when has what the locals want every swayed Hounslow Council Ed? Unless we are talking about HCC etc.  So its the local's fault is it Ed?  funny guy 

Maggie Dodge ● 1384d

The quickest way to undermine support for Active Travel measures is to argue the fine revenue they generate is a benefit to society. Most people, even those sympathetic to restrictions on traffic, are going to recognise this is bogus.Any flat charge will tend to be regressive. If councils are using fines to cover costs rather than raising Council Tax that has to be regressive. The Freedom Pass costs are already covered so arguing that this is a fair redistribution of revenue is not valid.You don't say if the figures you provide for household mileage include non-personal use - I suspect they do not. Also as they only include households that own a car, you are excluding a significant part of the workforce that drive for a living and don't own their own vehicle.You haven't dealt with leisure mileage which has to explain a lot of reasons why people with higher incomes drive longer distances. Below average income families don't tend to have second homes in Devon or take regular break. The cost-of-living squeeze is also a leisure squeeze with lots of people now force to increase their working hours, including at the weekend, to make ends meet.Also, doesn't Jeremy's point based on the GLA data showing that over half the vehicles on London's road during the operation of the restrictions on Staveley Road will be vans, lorries and taxis make the figures you are using totally irrelevant? Whatever the national average for road mileage by income is - it is very different in this area during the working week.Up until the current financial crisis governments have been very unwilling to put up tax levels both at the national and local level which has created huge pressure particularly due to the ever rising cost of social care. Councils are responding to this by looking at other forms of income. Leveraging property assets has been one but that looks set to be a very bad move so the burden is falling ever more heavily on fees and fines. This will tend to make revenue raising at the local authority level more regressive - there is no chart that can contradict this - the higher your income is the lower the percentage of your income a fee or fine will be.The real danger is that councils develop a dependency on fine based income which causes them to lose sight of why restrictions were introduced in the first place and any negative social impact that a large level of infractions might be having. A warning for the first offence, or first batch of offences if they are likely to have occured before the warning is received, is the logical way to mitigate any social injustice while maintaining the benefits of any measures.

Mark Evans ● 1383d

You make two mistaken in your analysis. Firstly, you are presuming because a fine is a flat charge, it has a flat distribution across all income scales. That would indeed by regressive. However, flat fines based on a usage that scales with income are not regressive.Secondly, you say as Freedom Passes are already covered, my point is irrelevant. But if less of the funding comes from fines then inevitably more has to come from council tax. Hence the balance of income from fines and council tax will have an effect on those in different income brackets depending on who is paying more of which. The key issue is therefore the relative regressive nature of council tax and PCNs.IFS states that those in the lowest decile pay 8% of income on council tax, while those in the top 40% of incomes pay 2 to 3%. That is clearly very regressive. Only if the payment of PCNs was even more heavily weighted to those on low incomes would they suffer if revenue was raised from PCNs rather than council tax. This should not be a disputable fact if you are serious about social justice!We don't know the distribution of payment for PCNs by income, but we do know the distribution of household spending for vehicle running costs, and both the bottom 10% and top 40% pay close to 3%. Hence if PCNs scaled with mileage, which is not an unreasonable assumption, shifting revenue raising from council tax to PCNs is progressive. Again, this should not be a disputable fact.You are right that small business spending is not included in household spending so the overall effect may not be reflected in th household spending figures. However, only a small fraction of those on the lowest incomes will be running a small business which risks them getting heavily fined. In fact from that fraction we can work out exactly how much more heavily they would have to be fined before PCNs became more regressive than council tax, where the lowest 10% are paying 3 to 4 times the proportion of income of those in the top 40%.If 10% of the poorest decile had jobs that meant they were at risk of getting fined (which seems very much an upper estimate), they would have to be getting fined at more than 30 to 40 times the rate of the wealthiest 40% before PCNs meant that overall the poorest decile ended up paying more through fines than council tax. Social justice considerations are indeed important, but those considerations need to be rationally based.

Tom Pike ● 1383d

Tom, the rational basis for concerns about the social justice impact of councils relying on fines for income is clearly there. I'm slightly taken aback by your dogged refusal to recognise them and reliance on increasingly convoluted and tendentious arguments to justify your position.Do you not believe that the GLA data I presented shows that at least half the vehicles likely to be on our roads when local restrictions are operating will be being driven for commercial purposes?Do you not think that relying on figures taken at a national level which may not be representatives of driving patterns in London and ignores usage for commercial purposes is an unsound basis for discounting out of hand the possible social justice impact of reliance on fine revenue?Can you not acknowledge that even if you happened to be right and proportionally more of the fines tend to be paid by higher income groups the impact is assymetric? A senior academic or a banker or a lawyer can laugh £65 off as an inconvenience but the same amount of money for a low paid worker could result in genuine hardship.If you are not prepared to endorse my suggestion that first offences should be dealt with by a warning letter would you at least acknowledge that your analysis isn't totally watertight and the best way to determine what the actual impact is would be further research? A small part of the funds being raised could be used for an independent study into what exactly is the social impact of these polices. As you rightly say, these considerations need to be rationally based.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1383d

"Do you not believe that the GLA data I presented shows that at least half the vehicles likely to be on our roads when local restrictions are operating will be being driven for commercial purposes?"We actually have traffic counts for Hartington Road for 2020, before the restrictions were in place, which show a rather different picture than the one you are suggesting from a general picture of London. In particular during the hours of operation the LGV counts are 17% of the total vehicle counts, certainly not more than the half you claim. It is likely that the restrictions would have caused that proportion to fall further, but even if all the LGVs were driven by people in the lowest decile of household income after the restrictions were in force, and 10% of all people in that decile were driving LGVs for a living and personally liable for the fines, that still means that those in the lowest decile are paying a lower proportion of council income through PCNs than council tax. Of course a PCN will be a bigger hit for those on lower incomes, but are you really suggesting on that basis there income should be reduced even further by a higher council tax.

Tom Pike ● 1383d

Tom.  You say the count of LGVs is 17%, does this cover all the commercial vehicles using the road or just LGVs?  Would for example a taxi be included in this 17%?

Kieran Fox ● 1383d

DfT counts don't make a distinction between cars and taxis, so you're right that there will be some taxis not counted. In the general GLA figures Justin referred to, taxis, both PHV and licensed cabs, made up 8-9% of traffic outside the congestion zone, so if we just carry through that proportion we can estimate around quarter of the traffic on Hartington Road are commercial vehicles including all taxis. Assuming that all that commercial traffic was driven by people in the lowest decile of income, and they are all personally liable to pay any PCN, that means they are 2.5 times more likely than average to have to pay a PCN just on the basis of the proportion of vehicles, rather than the five times as much that was the basis of Justin's original argument. That by itself is still certainly regressive for those low-income drivers. However, it is difficult to imagine such drivers making up even as much as 5% of all those in low-income households, and so the overall redistributive effect of such PCNs paid by these drivers will be much more muted. So while the lowest decile is paying on average around three to four times the proportion of their income on council tax as the wealthiest 40% of households (8% vs 2 to 3%), they will be still be paying on average a rather smaller proportion of their income on PCNs than the wealthiest 40% of households - I estimate about 33% more compared to the 200-300% more for council tax. For sure not all commercial drivers come from the poorest decile of households, and I doubt as many as 5% of that decile are commercial drivers who are liable to pay their own PCNs. Hence that 33% is certainly an overestimate.  This means that on average a shift to raising council revenue from PCNs rather than council tax is progressive, reducing the share of the financial burden shouldered by the poorest. That wouldn't be the case if council tax itself were more progressive, but that's not the basis for judging the effects at this time.That doesn't mean as a question of general equity that such PCNs shouldn't be cancelled if first-time contraventions, but that's a different argument to one based on social justice. Indeed, there is a good case to be made for making all PCNs income dependent, as they are for speeding and where the alternative in that case would be to raise funds through general taxation which is much more progressive than council tax.

Tom Pike ● 1383d

So all that's needed for you to claim any data I use is "flawed, made up, false" is for someone else to disagree with me? That's not a very convincing argument, especially when the actual dispute is not even about the data.But at least on the basis your own argument that means you have to accept any numbers I give that are not disputed. This would include the increased bike counts on C9, the reduced pollution measurements on the High Road and that no pedestrians have been reported as injured in collisions with cyclists on C9. Nobody is disputing these three points.In any case, as I said you've overlooked that the main discussion here is not whether the data is correct, but how to best analyse it to understand the effects on the lowest paid of shifting revenue raising from council tax to PCNs.

Tom Pike ● 1383d

Tom, I didn't make any claims about figures. I provided a link in an earlier post to information for 2022 provided by the GLA in response to an assembly member question. This shows that vehicles other that private cars make around half of the traffic on non-central congestion charge zone roads in London. The figure is not just for LGVs but includes HGVs, private hire vehicles and taxis. Why would you place more reliance on a single road count from two years earlier over this? It is difficult to know where to start with your reverse Robin Hood arguments about how fining people is fairer than raising council tax. Hounslow has taken the opportunity to raise the council tax by the maximum since the introduction of these restrictions so the notion that this massive fine revenue reduces the tax burden elsewhere is self-evidently false.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1383d

Maggie, it is the rat-running commuters that have reduced the quality of life for all residents in South Chiswick and it is they, and not local residents who should be penalised by these measures.Further, traffic speeds as well as traffic volumes remain a serious concern for cyclists and pedestrians alike.

Ed Saper ● 1383d

Rat runners, that old chestnut.  No such think Ed, they are people going from A to B the same as the people who live on the streets concerned, when they are going somewhere.  Try telling a cyclist or a pedestrian to go the long way round lol.  No one tells people who go past my front door that they can't, and rightly so.  So why do some have the privilege and not others.  Sorry your argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny

Maggie Dodge ● 1383d

Not my argument and not my words. It was a quote from the open letter signed by councillors Mike Denniss, Gabriella Giles and Sam Hearn. The locals were sick and tired of rat runners, dangerous speeding traffic and just too much traffic. The 2019 residents consultation echoed the same sentiments and also proposed further cycle lanes and other traffic calming or elimination schemes. If you have a problem with the views of the local residents or their elected representatives, then take it up with them! Yours is a lonely and extremist view that school streets should be removed along with all traffic restrictions that would turn Grove Park back into a dangerous and dirty traffic sewer. 

Ed Saper ● 1383d

JP: "Hounslow has taken the opportunity to raise the council tax by the maximum since the introduction of these restrictions so the notion that this massive fine revenue reduces the tax burden elsewhere is self-evidently false."RC: On the basis that Councils are currently prevented by central government from raising Council Tax beyond a certain level, then if they also experience reduced revenue from PCNs, as you appear to support, then then they will be forced either to (a ) cut free services eg social care, and/or (b ) increase charges for services which are paid-for eg leisure centres, and/or (c ) raise business rates, and/or (d ) go into debt.There can be no doubt that (a ) and (b ) are regressive, especially hitting poorer people. While (c ) will hurt the local economy, thereby hitting everyone. And (d ) could eventually lead to the fate suffered eg by Croydon Council, which last month declared bankruptcy for the third time. (Each bankruptcy has led to further cuts to services, much less support for local businesses and greater strain on the national purse.)Therefore as a resident of LB Ealing AND a car owner, who is also now in receipt of a (much valued and used) Freedom Pass, I have no problem whatever with these PCNs being imposed - if anything, I don't think I'd mind if the fines were higher, especially since the majority of fines appear to be levied on drivers from outside either LBE or LBH!P.S. Notwithstanding the above, I do agree with (your?) proposal that PCN offenders should be given a warning for their first infraction, rather than a fine.

Richard Cathcart ● 1383d

Jeremy (sorry, not Justin!), your claim was that your figures from the GLA were more relevant than my derived figures from national statistics, and I agree, at least in making some sort of an estimate about the amount of commercial vehicles. But your figures are for London as a whole, not for the very road we are discussing! Of course there will be some year to year variation, but we also have a previous year’s measure, and that gives 13% LGVs, but that 4% difference is not large given the other assumptions that have to be made. The fact that the proportion  has varied by by relatively little even though counts were taken prepandemic and the in May 2020 suggests that the proportion cannot be expected by huge amounts.  As I said, the road counts do not include taxis though there are HGV counts and coaches and they are negligible in comparison to LGVs. That leaves only taxis not included, and there I just took your numbers as the best average available for outer London,. Overall that gives an estimate of 25% of commercial usage based on vehicle types compared to the 50% you derived from the GLA figures, and that difference is down to the much lower LGV counts on Hartington Rd. While you have a point that in the current circumstances council tax has been increased to the maximum, that just transfers the analysis from how revenue is raised to how it is spent. Generally cuts in council spending hurt the lowest income residents the hardest, and even with the correction for PCNs from commercial vehicles, it is still true that 96% of PCN revenue  is coming from outside the lowest decile (it would be 97% otherwise). Council spending is much more progressive than council tax, so if PCN fines were reduced the resulting cuts would very likely fall much more disproportionately on the lowest paid.

Tom Pike ● 1383d

Maggie said:"Since when has what the locals want every swayed Hounslow Council Ed? Unless we are talking about HCC etc.  So its the local's fault is it Ed?  funny guy "I quoted the Tory Councillors for Grove Park:"it is the rat-running commuters that have reduced the quality of life for all residents in South Chiswick"https://chiswickherald.co.uk/chiswick-riverside-councillors-raise-concerns-about-south-chiswick-traffic-p11528-95.htmI could have quoted from the petition set-up by the local residents:"We all want to reduce the unwanted additional traffic caused by people using the area as a cut through"https://www.change.org/p/hounslow-council-south-chiswick-traffic-measuresOr I could have quoted from the many comments made in the consultation - I didn't see any that argued for more traffic!https://southchiswicklnmap.commonplace.is/commentsLocal residents don't want their streets used as a "rat run", in their words.  However, some also asked that they not be inconvenienced by the measures, which is why we have cameras and fines rather than fixed barriers.  You appear to be demanding that the rest of us share your perverted reality where no-one in Grove Park wanted less traffic and rat runners - they were brought in because Michael Robinson controls the council! It is too ridiculous.  I don't know why you picked this argument with me Maggie - it never ends well for you.

Ed Saper ● 1383d

I could say the same to you Ed. You never win

Maggie Dodge ● 1382d

The point about cuts being necessary if PCN revenue is a fair one but there probably isn't a direct relationship between a reduction in key services and a reduction in PCN income. As I understand it the Freedom Pass liability is already amply covered by existing revenue in both Hounslow and Ealing so would not be affected if the one off boost in PCN income due to the measures imposed due since COVID was reduced. For the rest of the income council's can use clever management accounting to get some of it into other departments but there are limits to what you can do and I think most of it is actually spent on transport related schemes. These are obviously important but the social impact of them not taking place isn't going to be significant.I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that the high levels of fines are okay because most are paid by non-local residents. If this attitude was to infect other areas Hounslow and Ealing residents would be on the wrong end of it and so the unfairness would be equalised.There are two other reasons for concern about the equity of an increasing reliance on PCNs for revenue. Firstly the appeal system is very biased towards higher income groups. Looking at the appeals going through on Fishers Lane, it is taking over a year for them to get to adjudication and a high proportion are successful. It is likely that many more are successful before they get to adjudication. The council is likely to back down if they receive a well-crafted appeal from someone who has legal knowledge or has taken legal advice. This is not necessarily an option for a person fined who doesn't have a tertiary education, friends who are lawyers or who speaks English as a second language.Secondly, although it is not a completely foolproof method, use of Waze or Google Maps does significantly reduce your chances of inadvertently breaching a restriction. To use these you need a relatively up to date smartphone and a generous data allowance on your contract. If you can't afford this you may need to rely on a traditional SatNav which doesn't update as regularly for restrictions or no device at all. Flat charges for anything will always be regressive no matter how sophisticated the arguments people use to justify them. PCNs for access infringements are even more so for the reasons given. It would be good to see research done on this  but what information we have suggests we are increasingly moving towards a system which is profoundly unfair. There is a broader problem here but the specific on in Grove Park could be largely solved by a first offence amnesty. If that was introduced across all similar restrictions it would be a huge step forward.

Mark Evans ● 1382d

"There is a broader problem here but the specific on in Grove Park could be largely solved by a first offence amnesty. "Didn't they do that when they first put in the ANPR cameras?  I recall drivers were issued with Warning Notices during the first few weeks.Given that people might be used to driving a certain route might go through the same restriction more than once per week - more than once per day even - a time based restriction seems fairer than just getting a single "first offence amnesty" as you could get 3 or 4 PCNS before you get the first letter, and only the first one would be covered by an amnesty.

Ed Saper ● 1382d

Ed, I think when people advocate for a first offence amnesty the assumption would be that no fines should apply within a period during which there would be time enough for a notification to arrive in the post.Not sure about Hounslow but Ealing do issue warning notices for the first few weeks of operation which probably explains why not many people living in the area get fined.The time-based system makes alot of sense in theory but it is what should be happening at Thames Road and the council haven't been able to make that work technically.

Mark Evans ● 1382d

Why are decent people using roads to commute to work called rat runners? These are people who have paid vehicle tax and MOT charges. Surely they are entitled to use roads which provide the most comfortable journey? Why call them rat runners?

Steve Taylor ● 1381d

Don't worry, plenty of non-decent people, people who don't pay vehicle tax and people who don't pay MOT charges are also 'tarred' with the same brush.It's not something that would bother me, if I was called a rat runner by someone.

Andrew Jones ● 1381d

I am, and if someone wants to refer to me as a rat runner that's fine by me.Sometimes the routes I took weren't even short cuts in terms of distance, but were quicker.

Andrew Jones ● 1381d

Definitely it’s good to take short cuts. Saves fuel. I duck and dive wherever I can. Only a moron would take congested roads and waste fuel when there are alternatives. We pay our vehicle tax to use our vehicles on all roads.

Steve Taylor ● 1381d

Not every vehicle has associated "Vehicle Tax". Do motor vehicles that don't pay any "tax" have fewer rights? No they don't.You pay "vehicle tax" to help fund the Exchequer.

Andrew Jones ● 1381d

Mind you if/when road pricing comes in, you will be able say "we pay to use all the roads"

Andrew Jones ● 1381d

“ Do motor vehicles that don't pay any "tax" have fewer rights? No they don't.”I am charitable towards vehicles that don’t pay vehicle tax (i.e.)  electric vehicles, to also use ALL roads. Especially as it will soon become law for EVs to also pay vehicle tax. The free lunch is over. The exchequer needs the money as diesel and petrol vehicle numbers reduce so it’s a win, win for the environment and the exchequer.

Steve Taylor ● 1380d

"Why are decent people using roads to commute to work called rat runners?", asks Steve.You might ask why Steve calls decent people using roads to commute to work "scum" or "cockroaches"? The answer to these questions is that Steve really doesn't like cyclists and most people don't like car, van and even HGV drivers who divert off congested main roads to drive through their local neighbourhoods on roads unsuitable for this traffic. You can understand why: this traffic pollutes homes and schools, often speeds and puts local residents at higher risk of being injured in a collision - the very young and the elderly are at most risk.They also cause congestion, delaying local residents going about their business, delaying their buses as well as discouraging people from walking or cycling for local trips due to the increased danger. That's why Sam Hearne and the other Tory Councillors said they supported measures to remove "rat runners" from Grove Park, as did the local residents via their petition and consultation.I get that Maggie and Steve don't like the pejorative "rat" from "rat runner" - it makes it more difficult to argue that school streets should be removed (as Maggie has repeatedly advocated) and kids put in danger or poisoned for the benefit of "rats" taking a shortcut.  They could instead use "chipsters" - comes from the British army slang "CHIPS", "Causing Havoc In People's Streets".That's appropriate as these actually are "people's streets", not some entitled "I pay road tax" driver's cut through to avoid the A4.

Ed Saper ● 1380d

Strangely the officers of London’s Metropolitan Police Traffic Division (Traffpols); were known as the Black Rats.https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-views/features/bikes/the-history-of-the-black-rats-londons-traffic-police

Bernard Allen ● 1380d

I would hardly call it a confession Maggie, rather an acknowledgment.What I don't get very upset about though (unlike you) is if my ability to take a certain short cut is removed e.g. Access to Kew Bridge via Stile Hall Gardens or access to Sainsbury's via Fishers Lane.It's not all about me, and about my right to drive anywhere I please by any route I please.And actually there are still very few roads that cars no longer have access to, but sometimes you now have to get there by a less convenient route.And of course, as I've mentioned before I really don't like the fact that some restrictions generate 1000s of PCNs from motorists who inadvertently transgress, but the solution isn't automatically abandoning the restriction.

Andrew Jones ● 1380d

"You do know that the cycle lobby insist that rat running is the route of all evil"Maggie Dodge"We fully support measures that will reduce or even remove rat-running and speeding....It is the rat-running commuters that have reduced the quality of life for all residents in South Chiswick".Councillors Mike Denniss, Gabriella Giles and Sam HearnMaggie's straw man argument is blown away.

Ed Saper ● 1379d

As others have suggested, if a road is available to be used, then those who use it shouldn't have insulting rodent-like labels attributed to them, wherever they come from and wherever they're going to. If, on the other hand, it's decided that a road should no longer be used for whatever reason, then so be it.  What now adds to the confusion is that closed roads aren't really closed, but equipped with selective cameras and unconvincing signs, and hedged about with complex regulations and escalating penalty payments.  Not so long ago, if a road was to be closed, a barrier was simply put across it and that was that - it was closed and there was no doubt or confusion - and no penalty payments!

Peter Evans ● 1379d

Ed, are you denying that the cycle lobby are against motorists taking short cuts, and that is why they back LTNs?

Maggie Dodge ● 1379d

Peter,  the phrase describes a behaviour rather than a label for the driver.  Now,  for some reason,  people seem to take it personally.  "Rat running/ A rat run" is the act of taking a detour, often planned, on a smaller and often little known or less traveled street or road.

Nora Watkins ● 1379d

..but if it's the best and most efficient route, it's not a detour!

Peter Evans ● 1379d

" if it's the best and most efficient route, it's not a detour!"The best and most efficient route between the A316 and A4 might be to cut through Grove Park to avoid the Hogarth roundabout.However, if 100,000+ cars and thousands of HGVs per month took that route rather than sticking to the A4, what works for the individual driver perhaps doesn't work for the local community?For instance, do we want sleep deprived truckers negotiating Thames Road while kids are arriving at SOTG on their scooters and bikes?  Or should we insist that they stick to the main roads?

Ed Saper ● 1379d

Is that your description of what happened before the measures were put in place Ed.  I get pulled up for referring to old people and the disabled when it comes to using the floating bus stops, as I see them as slower moving generally and therefore worthy of consideration.  What's the  obsession with school kids, they should have parents with them or of course they don't have to ride scooters and bikes, it wasn't mandatory last time I looked.  Whereas many of the drivers in HGV's you refer to are trying to earn a living, possibly delivering goods that you might want to reach their destination.  All about priorities isn't it.  A quiet life for some as opposed to others, in some of the streets like Fishers Lane and Stilehall mentioned by my friend Andrew recently, don't think many HGV's used them did they?

Maggie Dodge ● 1379d

"many of the drivers in HGV's you refer to are trying to earn a living, possibly delivering goods that you might want to reach their destination.  All about priorities isn't it. "You prioritise the right of HGVs to rat run through Strand On The Green over the rights of local people to get their kids to school safely - even going so far as to suggest they shouldn't ride scooters or bikes.I thought you were extreme in trying to get rid of school streets, but this is something else.Well, if this is the hill you've chosen to die on, so be it! 

Ed Saper ● 1379d

Gosh - you really don't like your own words being repeated back to you!It is usually obvious that the safety and quality of life of local residents, especially the most vulnerable, should be prioritised over the rights of drivers to "rat run" (in the words of our Tory Councillors) through local neighbourhoods.I gave an example of HGV drivers cutting through SOTG because who is going to argue that HGV drivers shouldn't stick to the A4?  It never occurred to me that you'd actually argue "the drivers in HGV's you refer to are trying to earn a living, possibly delivering goods that you might want to reach their destination" and thus must be allowed to "rat run" through local neighbourhoods.Winning an argument isn't hard when your opponent adopts absurd and extreme positions, and since your only retort is "nasty little man", it appears you have run out of road, metaphorically.

Ed Saper ● 1379d

You cant get many of the larger HGV's up Thames Road, they cannot get under the railway bridge.The HGV's that do make it down Thames Road enter via Kew Bridge and are delivering to the Pubs mainly.you do get a few 71/2 ton lorry's down but they are normally delivering as well.That's why that area has never had a bus service as the Double Deckers cant get under the railway bridge.When I attend Strand School it was so industrialized the parents of today would be horrified at what we as Childrenuse to negotiated to get to school.on the way home we use to play on the barges on the river that were waiting to be repaired. Non of them floated so when we were inside and the water started coming in we new it was time to go home as the tide was coming in.When the company R & J Parkes was located behind the row of shops we use to stand and watch then unload the Pyrene fire Engines off the low loaders to go into the factory to be created up to be sent abroad, great fun, and no parents in site.  As far as I am aware their was no causalities amongst us, we all made it to become adults, just had a harder upbringing than today's children.   

Bernard Allen ● 1379d

I seem to remember calling you a nasty little man once beforeI see the moderators of this community forum are doing a sterling job once again....

Matthew Swain ● 1379d

PE:"... but if it's the best and most efficient route, it's not a detour!""Most efficient"?You've not heard of Braess's Paradox:"For each point of a road network, let there be given the number of cars starting from it and the destination of the cars. Under these conditions, one wishes to estimate the distribution of traffic flow. Whether one street is preferable to another depends not only on the quality of the road, but also on the density of the flow. If every driver takes the path that looks most favourable to them, the resultant running times need not be minimal. Furthermore, it is indicated by an example that an extension of the road network may cause a redistribution of the traffic that results in longer individual running times."(More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox )Note the key phraae: "If every driver takes the path that looks most favourable to them..." In other words, if everyone decides upon the same rat run, then they will gain no advantage. Which is pretty obvious, if you think about it for a minute.While what is not so obvious is Braess's more general point that "the flow in a road network could be impeded by adding a new road".Oh and before Ms. Dodge should butt in to question Braess's independence from the influence of the Evil Cycling Lobby in Chiswixk etc, I would point out that Herr. Braess is a mathemtician at the Ruhr University, Germany.

Richard Cathcart ● 1379d

Hi Maggie,I made references to Stile Hall and Fishers Lane as these were two routes I used to use that are no longer possible for me to use, and there was absolutely no intention to repeat any "false information". I don't even know what the "false information" might be.I've re-read my post, and I can see how it could be read the way you've read it, so my apologies for not wording it more carefully.In essence, what I was trying to say was that you (IMO) get upset about any road restrictions that stop drivers being able to drive where they want, whereas I accept that there shouldn't be an automatic right to a free for all (for drivers), and while restrictions might inconvenience me, there are other factors that might be more important than my ability to drive where I please, when I please.  Once again, let me emphasise that the references to Stile Hall Gardens and Fishers Lane weren't made with you at all in mind, but rather as two examples in Chiswick where I have had to 'modify' my driving behaviour.Ed Saper wrote a post or two in this thread which gave reasons why LTNs can be appropriate, and I find myself thinking on very similar lines and agreeing with him. 

Andrew Jones ● 1378d

Is the fine £160 ? (reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days)If so, 10 million divided by £160 is 62500.That is 343 fines a day (over 6 months) for those two roads.Would not surprise me given the background of how these restrictions were brought in, regular trips causing multiply tickets, initial poor signage etc

Nick Jenkins ● 1378d

What percentage of people pay the full fine?

Philippa Bond ● 1378d

Maggie, I'm sure you said you drove down Fishers Lane, when it was open, to avoid the traffic on Acton Lane. That would indeed explain why you've been pushing to get Fishers Lane reopened. I wonder how you did drive to Sainsburys if you avoided both!

Tom Pike ● 1378d

MD: "Why would everyone decide upon the same rat run, unless everyone is going to the same end destination, which is highly unlikely"RC: "Highly unlikely"? It is called a "rat run" precisely because everyone starts using it! As for final  destination, take eg four cars travelling westbound along South Parade. They all cut through Fishers Lane to get onto Chiswick High Road. Car A could be heading to go south of the river over Kew Bridge. Car B could be going to Brentford. Car C could be heading to the A4/M4 and Car D to the North Circular/A406. All different destinations, but all clogging up FL.MD: "Whereas LTNs do send everyone in the same direction. Creating much larger carbon footprints."RC: The whole point about LTN's is that they direct traffic from unsuitable roads (residential, school neighbourhoods, narrow carriageways etc) to more suitable roads (trunk routes etc).However, if such measures cause at least some drivers to switch their non-essential journeys from cars to public transport or active travel, then this will lead to a reduction in carbon footbprint. It's called Traffic Evaporation and is a known and measurable phenomenon.

Richard Cathcart ● 1378d

Thanks Maggie,Hope you have a good day too, sounds like there is a lot going on in your life, so I hope it has a good outcome.

Andrew Jones ● 1378d

I don’t understand why there is such a fuss. Nobody needs to pay any fines. If they are too scared to use reflective spray on their number plates, the current weather (snow, sleet, mud) has helped to obscure number plates so everyone should be able to drive down any street as they please with a little imagination. No car driver needs to be bullied by the despots at Hounslow Council. Car owners pay vehicle tax to the National Treasury to use ALL public roads. So use them!!

Steve Taylor ● 1378d

Where do I live Tom? Paul may well know, you can ask him.  I did indeed use Fishers Lane quite often to go to the area at the back of M & S , the opposite end of the High Road to Sainsburys. You obviously don’t know my neck of the woods Tom. I resent you trying to trip me up. We don’t all make things up , which is very different to occasionally getting things wrong.

Maggie Dodge ● 1378d

You've said you lived in Acton Green, so either Acton Lane or Fishers Lane could have been your route to drive to Sainsburys. You've also said after your preferred route of Fishers Lane closed you were left with queuing on Acton Lane. I'm not sure why that's tripping you up - that's what you said previously!

Tom Pike ● 1378d

"Car owners pay vehicle tax to the National Treasury to use ALL public roads.So use them!!"Based on this line, one would be led to assume that motorists, through the Vehicle Excise Duty, pay for the whole road network. That's not the case. The OBR calculated that VED has raised £6.9bn in 20-21 (let's make it £7.0bn just to be on the safe side). https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/vehicle-excise-duty/The overall spend on roads (national and local) in the UK, for the same year, was £12.95bn. Make it £13bn and be done with it.https://www.statista.com/statistics/298667/united-kingdom-uk-public-sector-expenditure-national-roads/That gap of £6bn is plugged by everyone else chipping in, so not just motorists, car owners and so on. And if motorists should use ALL public roads [sic] then the rest of the public ought too. Inferring that only motorists pay for public roads is a bit like saying that Hounslow fleeced £10m out of Chiswick motorists on just two roads: incorrect.

Francis Sheehan ● 1377d

When was the last time you drove under the bridge on Fishers Lane Steve?

Andrew Jones ● 1377d

I have never driven in Fishers Lane. Why do you ask?

Steve Taylor ● 1377d

“And if motorists should use ALL public roads [sic] then the rest of the public ought too. “Yes, why not? I have no problem with that; do you?!?

Steve Taylor ● 1377d

"I don’t understand why there is such a fuss. Nobody needs to pay any fines. If they are too scared to use reflective spray on their number plates, the current weather (snow, sleet, mud) has helped to obscure number plates so everyone should be able to drive down any street as they please with a little imagination."As long as they don't mind getting a £1,000 fine for having an illegible number plate...

Philippa Bond ● 1377d

It was (and debatably still is?) a public road. You were encouraging others to potentially break the law by having illegal number plates. I was wondering whether you were putting  your money where your mouth was by driving down a road that it would be advantageous for you to drive down, to avoid hold ups on alternative routes.Of course, maybe you never cross South Parade from south to north, or vice-versa, in which case there would be no need for you to do so.I guess you haven't driven up Hartingdon Road (or whatever that road is called) either since the restrictions came in.

Andrew Jones ● 1377d

Ah, I should have remembered - I think you said you lived in Barnes, which would explain why Fishers Lane wouldn't be if any use to you.I do wonder whether you practise what you preach about just spraying reflective spray and ignoring any and all restrictions willy-nilly.I wouldn't expect you to admit it even if you did.

Andrew Jones ● 1377d

"As long as they don't mind getting a £1,000 fine for having an illegible number plate..."Who is going to catch them and how? Do we have so many police who can afford to spend time testing cars for reflective number plates?

Steve Taylor ● 1377d

Reflective plates may have worked in the past but technology has moved on and the number can now be read.You are welcomed to test it of course.

Adrian Irving ● 1377d

"I guess you haven't driven up Hartingdon Road (or whatever that road is called) either since the restrictions came inI rarely venture into Chiswick but when I do, I always use Hartington Road because it has good access to cross the A4 and I used to live very close to it so it's an area I am well acquainted with. My very excellent dentist is in Chiswick. Hence my refusal to be bullied by some Hounslow council morons into not using Hartington Road.

Steve Taylor ● 1377d

“ have worked in the past but technology has moved on and the number can now be read.”No it can’t!

Steve Taylor ● 1376d

Reflective spray might work where the numberplate being photographed is 'illuminated' either by a visible light flash or by Infra Red, but the TfL congestion charge cameras (as an example) do provide a multiple number of pictures, and images captured in daylight without any artificial illumination are unlikely to be blocked by such a spray.Anything you can point us to, to explain how a reflective numberplate would succeed in not being captured by a camera Steve?As a previous poster mentioned, technology has moved on, you have sensors with a much higher dynamic range these days. If you can read the numberplate with the naked, the electronic sensors these days will also be able to distinguish the characters.

Andrew Jones ● 1376d

Exactly Andrew.Steve, for example,when did you see average speed cameras flash?That's right. Never.

Adrian Irving ● 1376d

“I gave an example of HGV drivers cutting through SOTG because who is going to argue that HGV drivers shouldn't stick to the A4?“    It looks like Hounslow Council disagree with you. There has been a ban on all lorries over 7.5t (except for loading) driving down Hartington Road for at least 14 years (Google Street view only goes back to 2008). There was also an overnight and weekend ban for lorries over 18t, but the sign has been removed. So HGV’s are now allowed to drive through SOTG thanks to Hounslow Council removing the sign.  I know you think every driver should see all signs the first time they pass them, so can you explain how you have walked/cycled/driven/been on a bus/taxi past this sign for at least 14 years and not noticed it? 

Colin Potter ● 1376d

Colin points out:>It looks like Hounslow Council disagree with you. There has been a ban on all lorries over 7.5t (except for loading) driving down Hartington Road for at least 14 years (Google Street view only goes back to 2008). There was also an overnight and weekend ban for lorries over 18t, but the sign has been removed. So HGV’s are now allowed to drive through SOTG thanks to Hounslow Council removing the sign. I wondered about the signage, what have they done here?

Russell Pearson ● 1376d

I’m not talking about average speed cameras. That’s a different conversation. I am talking about cameras in LTNs or roads restricted line Hartington Road. There is plenty on Google to read and digest about CURRENT reflective sprays and effective filters.  I am not 100% sure if number plates covered in mud or salt /grit are 100% certain to block the number from being photographed so I’m open to advice or expert opinion on that. I would not speed on the A316 or any road where average speed cameras are in place. Likewise I  would not speed on an LTN but I will certainly use the roads to avoid the congestion and highly polluted arterial roads.

Steve Taylor ● 1376d

Steve - "I would not speed on the A316 or any road where average speed cameras are in place."Average speed cameras 'work' by using ANPR and the time the same vehicle takes between passing two locations that are a known distance apart is used to determine if the speed limit has definitely been exceeded. If reflective plates don't prevent Average Speed cameras capturing your registration number, then they wouldn't prevent your reg being captures by an access restriction camera (like on the entrance to an LTN) using the same technology to capture images.Given the money at stake, I don't buy the idea that the ANPR cameras in use for enforcement of average speed restrictions are somehow superior in technical ability to those in use for enforcement of access restrictions.

Andrew Jones ● 1376d

Steve, I was only using average speed cameras as an example.  Anyway carry on but do stop encouraging other people to break the law and pick up fines.BTW. Do say if your number plates are sprayed.From what you say it very much