Flouting of 7.5 T weight Limit - again

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John D on April 25, 2011 at 23:45

The problem is that the 7.5 T restriction is " Except for access" . For example, there is already a camera at the north end of Wightman but of course it doesn't cover the length of the road and a driver will claim that he needed to use Wightman to pick up or set down on one of the Ladder rungs or even that he needed to go into Jewson's.

A camera covering the Alroy bridge would be effective however, as there is no exception to the weight restriction.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on April 27, 2011 at 22:21

Jono explained to me once, in depth after I had a rant at them on their voice mail, that there is a big difference between a traffic violation caused by a vehicle that is moving and one that is static. It's basically not the same and not as easy. That has not stopped me leaving ranty messages on their voice mail though.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlotte on April 27, 2011 at 23:04

Still if if was outsourced to a for profits company I am sure they could make a killing catching and fining these types of offences.  It can't be that hard to stop someone driving down a road like ours and asking them for proof of business.  As it is the police have no or few resources to deal with this given the amount of emergency call outs judging by the amount of sirens we hear and see.  I don't think I have ever seen a car being stopped for a traffic offence in Haringey.  John, I admire your persistence and I am grateful of it.  But, as it stands now the companies save a massive amount of time taking these short cuts and the risk of a fine once in a blue moon is probably worth it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on April 28, 2011 at 8:24

Is that what we want? Laws which provide business opportunities for private companies to make a financial killing? Are we privatising even more public streets?

Apart from issues of democratic accountability and civil liberties, isn't there a fundamental flaw? The prime purpose of a fine - the legal sanction - should be to secure compliance. But what if, not-so-subtly, this turns into a business making profits by imposing fines? Being too efficient will result in falling income. To balance the books such a business needs people to break the rules.

With John McMullan's truck problem, it's interesting to consider things from a truck company's viewpoint. If fines become a normal business expense won't they simply be passed on to customers in higher prices?

As a councillor, some of the most effective work I recall was by Haringey staff who got to know the owners of businesses. They talked to them and looked for solutions. This type of work is unglamorous, small scale, and needs intelligence and persistence. As cuts take their toll and we lose some of the best and most experienced staff, their skills and knowledge are also lost.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John D on April 28, 2011 at 9:10

I'm sure there would be a legal problem. A private company ( or even Council staff ) probably would not have the authority to stop a vehicle on a public road and inspect documents. That is what the police do.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charlotte on April 29, 2011 at 23:13

It was just a thought.  The council can make a profitable business out of dealing with parking offences so why should certain other traffic offences not be tackled in the same way either by a private business or the council subject to legal issues of course.  Yes the customer will pay but the customer would continue to choose the delivery prices which are most competive.  If I was running a business involving heavy vehicles I wouldn't worry too much about the access only rules and speed limits as they are not enforced.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on April 30, 2011 at 0:23

Which, dane66, seems to illustrate my point about compliance. As I understand the problem, John McMullan - and other people - want their sleep and quiet enjoyment of their homes undisturbed by heavy rumbling trucks, driving where they didn't oughta.

So the aim is that drivers (and their firms) obey the existing rules. 

Not to say: "Carry on flouting the rules as much as you like, but pay us money." That's like a sale of indulgences. What's the betting that John would have more than 95 objections?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page