Forum Topic

SOTG/Kew Bridge camera

It looks like the no drive through cameras from Kew Bridge to Hartington Rd (or vv) are now in place so avoid driving through (without access stopping) or you'll be ticketed/fined.

Jim Brown ● 22d57 Comments

While the adjudicators can't say that the claims are rejected because the driver was speeding, I wonder if some still do on the basis that the driver still deserves some punishment, although they can't say that.They are only human, after all.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

Reading some of the Green Dragon Lane appeals, the actual time limit is often, not unreasonably, revealed in the discussions, and some appellants do indeed say they were going much faster, to explain a brief ‘access’ stop, and in the knowledge they can’t be done for speeding in this situation.

Peter Evans ● 2d

"Is the time that would be considered as entering for access as opposed to driving through ever defined in these appeals?"No.  I assume that the time threshold has been set so the evidence that the driver did not stop is quite compelling for the adjudicator.For example, if the cameras are 800m apart, and Hounslow set the time threshold based upon the speed limit of 20mph, then if the vehicle travels at an average speed of 20mph, it will take about 90 seconds to travel between the cameras.If the driver claimed 'but I stopped for a minute', that would mean they travelled at an average speed of 60mph before and after stopping.  As this is an average, this means the driver would have exceeded 60mph if their claim is true.So then the adjudicator might:- have a good laugh at the driver's claim- accept the evidence provided by the council infering that the driver did not stop to access a location beyond the restriction- dismiss the driver's claim as not being believableOf course, councils can't enforce speeding (currently) so this is evidence the driver did not stop, not evidence of speeding.  I don't know what the position is if the driver themselves say they have been speeding, in effect.I stand corrected if the maths above is wrong.Also, the evidence only works if the clocks on the cameras are synchronised.  This can be done using GPS or an internet connection.  There are clearly some issues with this way of enforcing the restriction otherwise Hounslow and other councils would be using it in more locations. Maybe there are technical issues, maybe operational. Don't know.

Michael Robinson ● 2d

Is the time that would be considered as entering for access as opposed to driving through ever defined in these appeals?

Francis Rowe ● 2d

Many of the Green Dragon Lane appeals seem to have failed because the judge accepted that the camera times supported a ‘balance of probability’ that an offence has been committed.But if we’re now told there are no cameras in Thames Road…..!?

Peter Evans ● 7d

Many of the Green Dragon Lane appeals seem to have failed because the judge has accepted that the camera times support a ‘balance of probability’ that an offence has been committed.But if we’re now told there are no cameras in Thames Road…..!?

Peter Evans ● 7d

The "evidence" that a contravention has occurred doesn't have to be to the same standard as that in a criminal court of law to secure a conviction.If a PCN were to be issued for a contravention and appealed against, the person deciding the outcome of the appeal would make their decision on the balance of probabilities given the evidence and representations made by both parties, rather than to the higher standard of beyond all reasonable doubt.

Andrew Jones ● 7d

Peter, given Brian's very helpful post, would it be fair to say now that your concerns are purely hypothetical?

Francis Rowe ● 7d

There are no cameras. I think the OP has seen the ulez camera at the Kew Bridge end and a private house security camera at the Grove Park Road end.

Brian Green ● 8d

As others have pointed out, passing the first ‘No Motor Vehicles’ sign is the actual infringement, unless subsequently accessing a property, despite Hounslow saying that passing both signs is what they’re trying to stop.  Passing the first sign and doubling back without accessing a property would still seem to be an infringement, though probably not detected by the present cameras. Such an arrangement is often used on a cul de sac to stop non-residents driving in just to park. What’s significant in Thames Road is that passing through in less than a set, and potentially unknown time, as detected by two cameras, appears to be a newly invented prima facie infringement, irrespective of what a motorist might actually have done between the two signs.

Peter Evans ● 8d

I'm pretty sure doubling back would be okay. Here is what the Hounslow Council web site says, "To prevent traffic from using this as a through route, an access only zone from the Kew Bridge / Strand on The Green junction to the junction of Grove Park Terrace / Grove Park Road was implemented on a trial basis. This allowed vehicles to enter the zone to access residential properties and businesses in the area unchanged, but not to pass through both points as part of a longer through journey." Therefore the only way that you would risk a fine is if you passed cameras at both ends within a undisclosed time frame. This has always been the rule but, as far as I am aware, it has never been enforced. Do we have any evidence that enforcement has now started?

Francis Rowe ● 8d

As long as it wasn't the same 'expert' who designed the derided Hogarth roundabout 'solution' which thankfully was surpassed by common sense.

N V Brooks ● 16d

If a traffic engineer in command of the facts were to step forward and contribute to this thread I’m sure we’d wholeheartedly welcome their contribution and it would save our continued speculation.

Peter Evans ● 16d

Perhaps better leaving this to traffic engineers who are in full command of the facts rather than commentators on social media.Or former Labour councillors who base their traffic planning on Google Maps.

N V Brooks ● 16d

Perhaps better leaving this to traffic engineers who are in full command of the facts rather than commentators on social media.

David Burke ● 17d

I opposed the majority of LTNs in Ealing as they did nothing but selfishly shifted the traffic onto neighbouring roads, extended journey times for emergency service vehicles trying to reach Ealing hospital, massively inconvenienced disabled user trying to access GPs and hospitals (some journeys were more than doubled in length) and increased pollution to the point where, in Ealing at least, diffusion tube monitoring sites conveniently went out of service.

N V Brooks ● 17d

I'm glad that you want to avoid rat runs I happen to live on one but we can't have everything to suit us .LTNs we're  brought in to overcome this but these were opposed by selfish individuals.

David Burke ● 17d

David I  didn't want to to turn Chestnut into a ratrun. The Occupation Lane route to Clayponds passes two residential blocks rather than the fifty or so houses on Chestnut Avenue.

N V Brooks ● 17d

Pathetic attempt at insults Guy, you can do better.  I have no 'henchman' unlike you Guy who had them but they deserted you!Since you ane your comrades (sorry former comrades who have disowned you) closed Occupation Lane. The journey along South Ealing Road/A4/Clayponds Lane is a minimum of fifteen minutes.If your transport planning was based on Google Maps it's no wonder the roads are in such a state!

N V Brooks ● 17d

Why do you persist in being such a self righteous arse, Lambert?Do you think Google Maps is ultra reliable? Only someone who manages to fall off his bike while trying to get on it would think so. Why not haul your lardy butt down there at rush hour and see how slow the traffic moves. Pop into Howdens while you are at it and ask how the traffic restrictions are affecting business.But you won’t because the real Trumpian figure here is you. Your belief that everything you say is correct is staggering, even when you are proven to be incorrect.Of course, as a ‘politician’ anything you say should be taken with a very large pinch of salt. Little wonder Shantanu wanted shot of you.

Simon Hayes ● 17d

When I had to drive to the physio at Clayponds I simply went down Ealing Road to Chestnut Avenue left into Clayponds Avenue and right into Stirling Place.What's the problem?

David Burke ● 17d

According to Google Maps it would take 3 minutes from the junction between Occupation Lane To Clayponds Hospital. Typically 3 to 6 minutes in the rush hour. It would not less than 2 minutes using Occupation  Lane. This is the usual Trumpian myth created by Ealing's mythologist in chief and his reliable henchman

Guy Lambert ● 17d

And so it goes on! As I said before this is all down to interpretation, which is not acceptable. Clearly there needs to be a sensible way for a driver to react to the restriction sign and avoid being penalised for so doing - particularly pertinent for somebody who isn't familiar with the area.Does anyone know the precise  location of the cameras? I would think that there would be an undeniable case  for "access" if a vehicle was turned around  before passing the second camera.

Bruce Hammal ● 17d

I’d check if doubling back is strictly OK as you’ll have passed the restriction sign and not ‘accessed’ anywhere.  Presumably cameras would detect you entering and leaving, but a PCN might depend on how they’re set up to interpret those readings. While the official intention might be to stop through traffic in Thames Road, such that coming out the other end would appear to be the offence, the No Motor Vehicle signs they’ve used make the offence to enter that stretch of road in the first place - ‘Except for Access’, of course!

Peter Evans ● 17d

Thanks Simon - that's the kind of succinct answer I was looking for!Now to test the theory....

Bruce Hammal ● 17d

Usual B/S answer from Lambert. It’s not the distance that’s the issue but the increased journey times. Funneling everyone onto one busy and often congested road, not helped by TfL meddling with the traffic signals at the A4 junction.

Simon Hayes ● 17d

You can enter and leave by the same access point, regardless of the purpose of your entry into the zone.

Simon Hayes ● 17d

Rubbish and you know it.  Never mind Guy, as long as you are happy with you version of the facts, I guess that's all that matters (to you).

N V Brooks ● 17d

I really don't see how a regulation that depends for its enforcement on a subjective interpretation of the rules can be legal. Which is not to say they won't do it!What about this scenario? A person drives past the "access only" sign, registers that they're not supposed to be there so turns around and goes back the way they came. Has an offence been committed or not?

Bruce Hammal ● 17d

‘’My public service knowledge is of Brentford’’ says Guy Lambert.Yes, except you were a cabinet member when these restrictions were introduced so we’re involved in the decision making process. Unless, of course, you conveniently forgot to turn your hearing aids on again.As for your anecdotes, you really are losing the plot if you forgot the many objections you had from residents about the Whitestile Road LTN. If you want to make things up try not to do it in front of people who know the truth.Little wonder Labour wanted shot of an embarrassment like you.

Simon Hayes ● 17d

Good point. Yes you could go via Richmond or Aberdeen to emphasise your point.As I said, the actual dissertation is about 200M

Guy Lambert ● 17d

In one official listing, the exception is defined thus: ‘Except for access to premises or land adjacent to the road, where there is no other route.’So driving through slowly or stopping and waiting a while wouldn’t count. Delivering something or someone probably would, though might fall foul of the camera timings if it’s done too quickly, if some of the Green Dragon Lane appeal results are anything to go by. I’ve read cases where accessing a restricted stretch of road just to park, even in a designated bay, doesn’t count, as you wouldn’t be ‘accessing a property’, though the camera timings would probably let you off!

Peter Evans ● 17d

Thanks Jim. This isn't just a theoretical question. Quite often we pick up or deliver visitors from Kew/Richmond who take the 65 bus for all apart from the first or last part of the journey depending on direction of travel.So far this has never resulted in a penalty charge notice, but that may be because thus far there has only ever been the occasional camera car to worry about. I don't want to be relying on the random interpretation of some fuzzy rules by a bored civil servant. It may be that we will have to try it and see!

Bruce Hammal ● 18d

Stick to Brentford Guy.The diversion caused by you and your, now former, comrades closure of Occupation Lane if coming from Ealing is over 1200 metres along South Ealing Road, the A4 and Clayponds Avenue which is invariably busy ruring clinic hours. you acknowledge this by referring to 'frequent queues'.  Are you advocating turning Chestnut Avenue into a ratrun as an alternative? As I suggested at the time, ANPR or even simple CCTV would have permitted ambulance access but you and your former colleagues simply chose to ignore this for reason best known to yourselves.You must be so very proud of inconveniencing the disabled and eldrely.

N V Brooks ● 18d

"The precise nature of "access" still  seems to me a bit vague.If I were to drive from my house just off Hartington Road along Thames Road, stop to drop someone off  before reaching Kew Bridge then turn around and go back the way I came, would this count as access? Logically it should but the time taken for the journey is irrelevant."As you correctly state Bruce, enforcement of the restriction would depend on (the council's?) interpretation of the word 'access'. In your example above, I'm pretty sure you could drive through the Kew Bridge exit and shouldn't be fined as you have physically stopped along SotG to drop someone off ie. used the area for access but with the new camera in place I wouldn't recommend risking it. Re-exiting along Hartington Rd is certainly possible as you're not driving through the area using different entry and exit points.

Jim Brown ● 18d

The precise nature of "acccess" still  seems to me a bit vague.If I were to drive from my house just off Hartington Road along Thames Road, stop to drop someone off  before reaching Kew Bridge then turn around and go back the way I came, would this count as access? Logically it should but the time taken for the journey is irrelevant. It bothers me that I am having to ask this question on a forum.

Bruce Hammal ● 18d

More nonsense. Still dead easy to access the Rehabilition unit. Yes, if coming from Ealing by car or ambulance you have to go about 200M further than using the once often impassable Occupation Lane if vehicles were coming in both directions because it is very narrow. We saved the people in Clayponds AVenue from the frequent queues of people avoiding the Ealing Road roundabout, traffic on the road where many children cross heading for Lionel School. Sorry it added a few seconds to your journey from Ealing, NV.

Guy Lambert ● 18d

I can't imagine it would be in Hounslow's interest to publish what the threshold is (assuming it's a fixed value) - that would simply serve to let those who chose to flout the restriction know exactly how long they need to stop for, so they don't get a PCN.And in any case, the restriction isn't whether you go past the two cameras in less than a certain time, it's whether you have passed the first camera to 'access' the area or not.(Mind you, it isn't clear what the limits of the area being accessed are allowed to be!)

Andrew Jones ● 18d

Nasty.

David Burke ● 19d

"Sorry but my public service knowledge is of Brentford. "Says  the man who was complicit in the closure of Occupation Lane doubling journey times for people visiting the Therapy Services at the Clayponds Rehabilitation Unit.Long expected that Labour councillors couldn't even spell the word shame. Hopefully you are distancing yourself from this bunch as much as they have distanced themselves from you.

N V Brooks ● 19d

Sorry but my public service knowledge is of Brentford. My anecdotes are a lot more valid than your biased nonsense, which in this post demonstrates you have no clue about how the restriction works.

Guy Lambert ● 19d

Green Dragon Lane, anecdotal evidence. Meaningless.What about the Strand On The Green/Grove Park restriction? What’s the regulation about stopping and then driving out the other side?Do some public service councillor.

Simon Hayes ● 19d

Whatever people might expect, many Green Dragon Lane appeals do seem to have been rejected because the recorded time interval was accepted as evidence of an infringement, despite some alternative scenario being put forward by the plaintiff.  Interestingly, actual times were mentioned in several appeals so it should soon be possible to work out what the interval is in Thames Road, if we’re not going to be told.

Peter Evans ● 19d

When this was introduced a woman that I know who lives on GDL said she broke down in tears of joy when it was introduced. Instead of haveing to wait up to 30 minutes to get home from Ealing road to her car park, she could do it in seconds. I was worried (and so were the traffic engineers) when it was introduced because it was very innovative. I was worried about residents thinking 'oh spit, I forgot to pick up my tins of beans' and inadvertently breaking the system. If it ever happened, I never had a single complaint about this scheme from any resident.  A couple of people got caught early on but I haven't heard it repeating since the signage was adjusted shortly after it started.

Guy Lambert ● 20d

Well, a simple defence is to stop for a minute or two then carry on. If there’s no minimum time to stop then they can’t price you drove straight through, regardless of times cameras.If thick old Rancid Robinson is making the rules then they are bound to be wrong-headed.But, you clod headed eejit, my point was about Grocw Park, not Green Dragon Lane. Try to keep up.

Simon Hayes ● 20d

It all comes down to one of LBH's unwritten principles:'Unclear signage = more revenue'.

Colin Jordan ● 20d

Ah, Simon Hates gets angry yet again.It doesn’t matter what you think.  Residents of Green Dragon Lane appear to be very happy their road is no longer blighted by drivers trying to save a few seconds because google maps said they might.

Michael Robinson ● 20d

Do you actually think about what you write, Michael Robinson?If someone enters the zone to, say, make a delivery that only takes a couple of minutes to do and then continues on to exit the zone at the other end are thry deemed to have transgressed the rules? This is where the whole thing is a nonsense, because stopping for just one minute would fulfil the criteria about access. But the council has no way of proving that a vehicle entered the zone with the intention of driving straight through.A lot of residents have asked for clarification on this and received zero response from Hounslow.As for your last point, you being an ignorant and aggressive cyclist igniting signs (and traffic lights) is something you do all the time.

Simon Hayes ● 20d

The infringement is driving through the area without stopping to access the area. The infringement isn’t a time limit.Camera images of timings of a vehicle entering and leaving the area  is simply evidence that the driver has not stopped to access the area and in the vast majority of appeals the adjudicator has believed this evidence.You aren’t going to get a specific time limit and there is no reason for a driver to know what it is; just obey the sign. However obeying the sign is beyond many drivers given a significant proportion don’t even know what more common signs like ‘no entry motor vehicles’ mean.

Michael Robinson ● 20d

Looking at the Tribunal decisions on Green Dragon Lane 'Except for Access' appeals, there seems to be a range of interpretations, with some adjudicators saying the Council hadn't proved that the plaintiff hadn't stopped briefly, while others said that plaintiff hadn't proved that they had.  It does seem clear, however, that two timed images from each end of the road was acceptable evidence. It was interesting that Green Dragon Lane, unlike Grove Park, appeared not to have any exemptions for residents, with several victims saying they'd just popped home to pick up something. Hmm!  'These social class distinctions by now should be antique' - with apologies to My Fair Lady!

Peter Evans ● 21d

If this is such a novel installation, I'm surprised that taking less than a specific time between two points has become accepted as a legal substitute for doing what the actual signs forbid. I assume Hounslow must have had some legal advice, but we should certainly know what time limit actually applies and how it's been calculated. Maybe local Councilors can find out.Having said that, just going slowly or pulling up for a short time probably doesn't really count, as 'Except for Assess' has a specific meaning in the Regulations.

Peter Evans ● 21d

The lack of information about what constitutes the minimum time allowed to be within the zone before leaving at the other end is perplexing. Even the residents I know there are at a loss as to the rules.It does rather fly in the face of the principle of legal certainty. It’s not helpful to tradespeople or delivery drivers who access the area.

Simon Hayes ● 21d

Another factor behind the use of ANPR cameras in Grove Park was to allow exemptions for registered residents. As well as adding to the complexity of the scheme, many felt this added to the confusion, as it would be tempting to unwittingly follow such a vehicle through the restriction. It also created a virtual ‘gated community’ into which some privileged traffic was still allowed, thus diluting the intended traffic reducing safety features. As others have suggested, it would be helpful to visually reinforce the restrictions in Hartington Road with some physical chicane, and also to locate the signs where it’s possible to safely take an alternative route to avoid them.

Peter Evans ● 21d

Historically 'except for access' could be enforced if a single camera could cover the entire section of road with the restriction.I think a single camera could enforce this type of restriction on, for example, Devonshire Rd, if it was in place there.I understand that using timing information from two cameras to cover a longer section of road was a deliberate decision by a former head of transport in Hounslow to try something new and different and Green Dragon Lane was the first location in the country where it was tried.  So as things have turned out, being a pioneer doesn't always work and I don't think it has been used elsewhere in Hounslow or anywhere else.  As I speculated, maybe there were complexities with implementation.The challenge with the Grove Park scheme was the high volume of traffic driving through the area between A316 and A4 and A316 to S Circular and belief cameras would be more acceptable to local residents than sticking a bollard in the road at selected locations and forcing certain journeys to be re-routed.The reality is that drivers are on auto-pilot most of the time and don't see signage, so if there had been a change to the road layout at for example, Hartington Road, requiring drivers to slow down or stop, then there is more chance of signage actually being seen.Using cameras to appease drivers was also the approach in LBHF where despite the area having dozens and dozens of road closures put in during the 90s and 2000s, they have used cameras extensively.  Using cameras to appease drivers doesn't work because they will complain about any restriction to driving.The advantage of a physical closure is that people just get used to it and within few years it is just a normal part of the road network.  There are many streets in Chiswick that are low traffic neighbourhoods before they were called low traffic neighbourhoods and residents don't even know they live in one because the road was closed 20 or 30 years ago.

Michael Robinson ● 21d

It puzzles me how an ‘Access Only’ restriction was ever traditionally enforced other than by an enforcement agent actually observing or following a vehicle entering and leaving the designated zone. With camera-aided enforcement, drivers should at least be told what time limit they shouldn’t break, as that now appears to have become the offence. I remember thinking when the various Grove Park restrictions were first put in place, that it looked like an experimental test bed for the camera company, with about four different schemes with different functionality. From the amount of money Hounslow collects from these restrictions, the signage is clearly confusing and ineffective, which is unfair on drivers and residents. Time for a rethink and half a dozen planters to block the relevant roads!

Peter Evans ● 21d

Peter,A 'No Entry Except For Access' restriction is in place along Green Dragon Lane in Brentford.  This is enforced by cameras at each end of the road, so about 1km apart.A couple of years ago I checked the London Tribunals website which has a register of appeals against driving offences.  Of the 6 or so driver appeals for being fined on Green Dragon Lane, the adjudicator rejected every one and accepted the camera evidence from Hounslow that the driver had contravened the 'Except for Access' restriction and had driven through without stopping.So in these cases, evidence from two cameras with timestamps when the driver had passed them were sufficient to convince the adjudicator that they hadn't stopped to access anything on the road.Having said that, Hounslow hasn't implemented this type of camera enforcement on any other streets and a single camera wouldn't be sufficient to enforce 'except for access' restrictions covering a street about 1km in length.I'd speculate that there are other reasons why it hasn't been used elsewhere - it may be too technically or operationally complex for widespread deployment.The Grove Park Group were advocating this restriction should be applied to the entire Grove Park area, covering about 8 different entrances/exits or 50+ different combinations of entries and exits, but this was pie in the sky.

Michael Robinson ● 21d

But, as has been discussed before, on what basis will the cameras judge that an offence might have been committed? The time taken can’t be the basis of an offence in itself as it doesn’t prove or observe whether or not ‘access’ has actually taken place.  More questionable fund raising?

Peter Evans ● 21d