So after a comment by local Councillor Alan Stanton asking about whether my work on Lausanne Rd had just pushed HGV traffic elsewhere I thought I'd check it out. I don't know what conversations he's overheard around the water cooler in the council but he was right! It appears that although the council no longer illegally bring their HGVs back to their depot in Mary Neuner way along Lausanne Rd, they happily use Raleigh Rd.
Note the timestamps, they're not the same truck.
The first truck noticed me taking his picture so stopped his truck and got out to take mine! Of course I couldn't resist and got to have a chat with him. He says he's allowed to use Raleigh Rd because the sign at the bottom is broken,
He also said that he lives on Hampden Rd and that the sign is missing completely from there (it has been for years) so he's allowed to use that one too. Has anyone other than me reported that sign missing from the top of Hampden? I've reported it just yesterday and months ago and years ago. I also reported the damaged one at the bottom of Raleigh Rd. Now one thing that's changed since is that Willoughby Rd now has a sign up saying that it's 7.5t access only and Wightman Rd has been made explicitly 7.5t access only (previously implicit because of the bridge restriction further down towards Finsbury Park).
Even I can't believe that the council's subcontractors could be so cynical as to avoid my road because I give them a hard time and yet happily use Raleigh Rd. See the previous discussions here and here for further background. Also note that this is not OnTime I'm catching here, it's Veolia.
I don't want to be a complete bastard about this, I'd be happy for council subcontractors to use my street if they'd creep quietly down it and enforce the 7.5t limit for the cowboys in skip trucks etc who make small explosions as they tear down at 30mph.
In my view, it's unacceptable for him to use Raleigh or Hampden when he KNOWS that they have a 7.5T limit, irrespective of whether or not they are correctly signposted.
And he shouldn't be on the correctly-signposted Wightman unless he requires access to premises on Wightman.
I think all efforts need to concentrate on Wightman from now on, it really is the key. Alan is right, all I have done is shift the problem around although I do think O'Donovans were the worst offenders and now I hardly seem them at all so worth it in that respect.
We really need Tollington Park and Hornsey Park to be made 7.5t access only too. Perhaps a local councillor would be interested in helping out with that...
John D, I'm sure many people share your view that a driver who "knows" - or ought to have known - is still morally obliged to obey the rules. Perhaps you also think he/she should pay up if fined - even if there's a technical legal loophole?
However, I see another moral dimension: in the implicit "mutual agreement" between residents and their elected councils. I think people are entitled to expect and trust local councils to install legally correct lines and signs. They are entitled to expect and have confidence that when a local council enforces the restrictions, it will follow the legal rules.
If it doesn't, then a local council is acting as if it's above the law. Which fosters cynicism and distrust among residents.
If a traffic sign is broken or missing it should be reported and repaired/replaced. If any sign or road marking is legally required to issue a fine then: no sign or line = no fine.
I don't want to see anyone fined: I don't believe that taking money off people is the best way to change their behaviour. I would be happy if they would just stop using these roads.
As John McM says - the missing Hampden Road sign was reported to the council several years ago and nothing was done. That's what fosters cynicism and distrust. Actually, the missing Hampden Road sign is now irrelevant - to access Hampden you have to be on Wightman which IS signposted as a 7.5T limit.
JohnD, you write: "I don't want to see anyone fined: I don't believe that taking money off people is the best way to change their behaviour". A very interesting viewpoint. And for drivers of commercial vehicles I suspect it may be true - as long as their firms see the fine as yet another business expense.
And it could have the opposite consequence to that intended: being treated as a payment which legitimates their rule breaking. You may have seen the article called Freakonomics about an Israeli Day Care Centre where parents were fined when they were late to pick up their kids.
So I'm curious. How would you propose changing behaviour? Keeping bus lanes clear, for example? Or another method of getting drivers to observe the congestion charge area?
I entirely agree with you about the Council ignoring missing signs. At minimum, whoever reported the missing sign should have had a courteous and helpful reply. Perhaps explaining why the sign was no longer needed. (Here I'm assuming David Schmitz is correct. Though I haven't checked the legal position myself.)
Both the driver AND the firm can be fined up to £1000. In this case I think they may have to pay because the infringement began at Willoughby road's intersection with Green Lanes which is still clearly signposted (Thank you David Schmitz).
Alan a bigger question for me in all of this is, the council spent five million pounds building Mary Neuner way, primarily in the short term to allow their large recycling HGVs and OnTime's vehicle recovery trucks access to their depots from south of Wood Green. The only legal way they can use this road is if they're coming under the Turnpike Lane tunnel heading east. The cannot turn right from Turnpike Lane and they should not be using Wightman Rd for access. I feel like I am pushing custard up hill. Once I have council HGVs out of Raleigh road they will start using Falkland, they almost have to (and I'm playing whack-a-mole too).
I emailed Nilgun Canver on the 25th of September last year asking if we could do a deal, someone enforces the limit and residents allow council subcontractors to quietly and fairly utilise our roads because it is a ridiculous waste forcing them to go up to Wood Green. I received no reply.
OK, I really would like you to collect registration numbers, time and date of visit and if you can, livery details (i.e. is it the council, O'Donovan's etc). I presume that you can hear them from the first road hump...
I am happy to chase the companies, I feel a bit guilty that I may have just moved my problem onto your road.
Dear Councillor Adamou,
Thank you for your email.
Veolia Environmental Services uses vehicles in excess of 20 tonnes on all ladder roads to collect refuse and recycling. Provided these vehicles only use the ladder roads when they are collecting refuse and recycling then they are complying with the vehicle restrictions in place, i.e. vehicles over 7.5 tonnes can drive into the road if it is to make a delivery or collection. .
In order to ensure that refuse and recycling collection vehicles do not use ladder roads for access purposes, drivers have been issued with instructions to this effect. Should any Veolia Light Goods Vehicle driver be found driving through ladder roads for access purposes they will be subject to disciplinary action. They could also face action from the Traffic Police for failure to observe the road signs.
Following the decriminalisation of a number of restrictions placed along the public highway, the enforcement of these restrictions which includes 7.5 tonne weight limits, now comes under the responsibility of local authorities. Although the enforcement of most of the restrictions, such as banned turns, one way, no entry etc are straightforward, the enforcement of weight restrictions are more problematic. Our enforcement team are however committed to enforcing all restrictions under their remit. With this in mind we will arrange for a review of the existing signage along the ladder roads to ensure they are compliant prior to trialling enforcement through the use of mobile units.
I trust that I have satisfactorily addressed your enquiry.
If you have any questions, please contact me on 0208 489 1335 or email me at email@example.com