Forum Topic

Wandsworth Fines for Speeding in 20mph Zones 'Unlawful'

Headline from PutneySW15Government blocks sharing of driver information to issue PCNshttp://www.putneysw15.com/default.asp?section=community&link=http://neighbournet.com/server/common/ldrswandroad009.htmI wonder what is the unlawful bit.  Obtaining information from the DVLA?  If this is the case, did the DVLA not act unlawfully too?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d43 Comments

Yes, indeed.  The Conservatives nationally have played irresponsible party politics over the issue of speed cameras in the past, playing on populist sentiment by referring to "Labour's army of speed cameras" targeting the innocent motorist, breaching people's civil liberties and being used as a "cash cow" to generate revenue.  It wouldn't surprise me if this is politically motivated now that Wandsworth is a Labour council.

David Beeney ● 1077d

Not at all.  It is all political.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1080d

Anyone else get the impression that there is some petty party politics going on?

Philippa Bond ● 1080d

I agree about those driving 22mph in a 20mph limit but those going a lot faster and racing each other is the problem and those drivers should be able to be fined or penalised in some way BEFORE they cause death and injury.

Philippa Bond ● 1083d

Yes, I noticed the "decriminalisation of speeding" too.  Then, why have speed limits on roads, particularly the 20mph limit. It does not make sense!The Met may have 34,000 police officers but not all are traffic officers....And, no, people driving at 22mph in a 20mph zone do not worry me either!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1083d

Notice the "decriminalisation of speeding" phase used in the link.The Met has about 34,000 police officers, then there is the city police and British Transport Police.A shame the Mayor didn't split the Met and instead wasted the last couple of years.It's not the ones doing 22mph that I'm worried about!

Ed Robinson ● 1083d

The problem with this is that TfL has no jurisdiction on residential roads, be they very busy roads or not.When they speak of "local roads", they refer to roads like Putney Hill, Putney High Street, Upper Richmond Road, Lower Richmond Road, etc., some of which are red routes.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1083d

Yes Philippa,like going back to Chiswick site.

Barbara Stevens ● 1083d

https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/enforcement-20mph-zones-local-roads

Philippa Bond ● 1083d

And you keep on telling us how you don't think that any rules or regulations should apply to you!  No wonder there are those who think that there should be a lot tighter regulations!

Philippa Bond ● 1083d

Telling people what to do again, you just can't help yourself.

Barbara Stevens ● 1085d

I didn't write the Highway Code but it is there for all of us.  Perhaps we should all have regular tests to see if we are still up to date with all the rules of the road?  It is far too long waiting from age 17 until 70!  Things change.

Philippa Bond ● 1085d

Don't forget to do this don't forget to do that. Don't drive on the pavement, don't drive in the cycle lane. Don't drive your car. In fact don't do anything, unless Philippa says it's OK.

Barbara Stevens ● 1085d

You just listen to yourself!

Philippa Bond ● 1085d

Blah,Blah,Blah, the same old tripe.

Barbara Stevens ● 1085d

https://www.gylesbrandreth.net/blog/2020/7/4/th8q3iv2tpyo8wj0xivej555d8i94xWho said a cycle had to have only two wheels?It's true in other countries there are plenty of other sorts of cycles on the roads.If you are not sure that the car in front of you is moving at 20mph on the road then you should just not be driving on it.  Damage to pavements is done by motor vehicles not cycles!  And driving a motor vehicle at more than 20mph causes a lot more damage to pedestrians.Remember to report damage to pavements to the Council so that it is not you or yours that ends up in hospital as a result of a fall!

Philippa Bond ● 1085d

God almighty, Richard you only see yourself nobody else. How many at your Putney Society meetings can ride a bike.You only have to walk down the High Street, to see how many people are limping or walking with a stick or on mobility scooters. Perhaps if you only think of yourself it's not a very good idea you are representing Putney. It's bad enough driving at 20 mph your not sure if the car in front of you is actually moving or not. Is this why all the shops are shutting as they are not getting enough usage, due not people not being able to get to the High Street with the already in place ULEZ.

Barbara Stevens ● 1086d

As for your suggestion that for many older people its unsafe to cycle, it's palpable nonsense: inactivity is a far greater risk to health.

Richard Carter ● 1086d

"It's a purely fund raising strategy by n anti car WBC."The usual anti-cycling bleat here, yet again. How many cyclists can even get over 20 mph? Very few, I would guess, but the delivery motorbikes almost all exceed the limit and are consequently a serious risk. Why not concentrate on the real risks?

Richard Carter ● 1086d

I remember one of my grandparents had a bicycle and the other a tricycle but that was when there were only a couple of cars parked on my street.Tricycles have come a long way since then. I was hoping some of the ones with two wheels at the front would become more affordable.I think my locks cost more than my bicycle. Theft is probably another blocker to people cycling. Countries that have a high percentage of cycling actually have fairly strict rules, they have to as the space is shared with cyclists of different ability. All seem sensible. The fines tend to be a lot higher too.The UK seems to be going down a uniquely and odd route as always.

Ed Robinson ● 1086d

It's a purely fund raising strategy by n anti car WBC.  Will the cycles going above 20mph be fined?  Thought not.  They are free as birds, no registration.So many older people are unable to cycle because of the risk of falling off.  It's not that we are too lazy or unfit to cycle its that any injury can take a year to heal.  It's not practical.

Jenny Featherstone ● 1086d

Considerable and sensible and law abiding people will automatically travel slower.  It really does show up the selfishness of others.  I hope it is just a technical hitch.

Philippa Bond ● 1089d

"But there is a body of evidence that a person hut by a car at 20 mph has a much greater chance of survival than at 30 mph"Sadly just sticking a sign up does not reduce the speed.All the crazy encounters I've had have been on 20mph roads with hardly any traffic enabling vehicles to travel at high speed.I'm personally against expanding any more 20mph zones unless there is enforcement of the current ones.Ideally enforcement should be part of a new 20mph zone or LTN. It is behaviour that needs to change and at the moment we have motorists that have had a couple of years of ignoring 20mph signs. It would also be good practice to publish the raw data before and after any change.Obviously the mass of the object and other factors need to be considered as well. Serious injuries from buses is a good example, although some would have us believe they are huge cuddly soft objects!The size and weight of future buses should be looked at if they are increasingly mingling with pedestrians and cyclists etc. On average around 7 people are killed by bus collisions each year in London."In 2021 there was a 29 per cent increase inpeople killed or seriously injured in collisionsinvolving a bus compared to 2020, up from 135to 174 people."https://content.tfl.gov.uk/casualties-in-greater-london-2021.pdf

Ed Robinson ● 1089d

Although it was before I learnt to drive I can remember when there were no nation speed limits just restrictions on particular stretches of road or the 30 mph limit in areas with Street lights. However,  as Andy say, I believe the 20 mph limit has been introduced to protect pedestrians and cyclists in the event of an accident based on research that they are more likely to survive at the lower speed. I see some are proposing a national limit of 50 mph because of the energy crisis.Not sure this is necessarily related to car control as accidents can also be caused by pedestrians or cyclists. Of course, the main lesson to learn about speed and driving is that one's speed should be gauged to fit road conditions; a speed limit is just that: the maximum speed allowed but not necessarily one appropriate for the conditions. 5 mph might be more appropriate in a 30 mph area if children are swarming out of school; 20 mph would be inappropriate on a motorway where the traffic is flowing at 70 mph.

Michael Ixer ● 1089d

But there is a body of evidence that a person hut by a car at 20 mph has a much greater chance of survival than at 30 mph

Andy Pike ● 1089d

When you took your driving lessons, what speed did you have to drive was it 30 mph. Well how come most think the speed limit should be 20 mph. Because seems to me your scared or don't have control of your vehicle. Because having to drive so slow is more difficult than driving a bit faster. Also it is causing more traffic jams.

Barbara Stevens ● 1090d

Oops. I meant to say "isn't very enlightening"!

Michael Ixer ● 1090d

I assume the various acts mentioned were never intended for speeding.Do we want to reward speeding drivers with a 50% discount for paying a fine early?Not to mention the fact that no account is taken for how much over the speed limit they were going - it's the speed that they pay the fine that counts apparently!Ideally the Mayor would have taken the opportunity to split the Met last year and devote more resources to transport and local policing.

Ed Robinson ● 1090d

I think you are right, Michael.I also think the statement of the DfT is not very helpful.  As it stands, it feels rather secretive and it is certainly not clear.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

The DfT statement is very enlightening. It doesn't say that the collaboration with the Met is wrong just that the Wandsworth process isn't lawful and they've stopped data transfers from the DVLA for this purpose.  My guess is that this is a data protection irregularity and the legislation Wandsworth are using for this doesn't sanction data transfers from the DVLA for this purpose. But I'm really just guessing it's some sort of technicality like that.

Michael Ixer ● 1090d

I have not a clue either!But it seems rather extreme to say that the collaboration between the Met and WBC is unlawful.I would love to know what is the unlawful bit about it which is not altogether clear!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

Ivonne, I'm puzzled as well but as I was trying to indicate earlier (perhaps not very well!) I suspect it's a technical issue with the drafting? Whether that was intentional or inadvertent I've no clue ...

Michael Ixer ● 1090d

I agree that speeding is far more dangerous than temporarily straying across a white line into a bus lane, stopping on a red route, etc.What I find inconceivable is that the government has declared the WBC speeding cameras unlawful.  If the Council is allowed to consult DVLA for details of a car badly parked, why is it unlawful for WBC, who installed the cameras as a collaboration with the Met, to be unlawful?When I posted the information on the cost of PCNs by TFL when stopping on a red route or the different bands of charges for PCNs in different boroughs, was to show that the £130 fine by WBC is not a charge out of the air.  I think DfT website is very out of date!

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

Agreed , Ed. Speeding is far more dangerous than temporarily straying across a white line int a bus lane. Surely, it's the points on licence, not the amount of the OCN or fixed penalty that's important, particularly for those who consider such fines small change. The threat of losing a licence after 12 points is a great incentive to slow down. (I remember in the 1980s some IT sales people in the City could charge parking tickets to expenses; it was a cost of doing business in a lucrative but competitive market where time finding a meter or walking to a multistorey car park cost money! Clamping and towing fixed that ...)

Michael Ixer ● 1090d

I'm not sure you can compare stopping in red routes and speeding, which is why Red Routes are covered by PCN's.Speeding implies a safety concern and should be treated as such.

Ed Robinson ● 1090d

This is the wording of the email TfL sent to me on 13 January 2022 regarding the £160 charge for red routes:Good morning  Thank you for your interest in our recent public consultation proposing to increase the level of our Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for people who fail to follow the rules of the red route network (i.e. the roads we manage in London).  We received 2,573 responses to the consultation. Of these, 2,541 were from members of the public and 32 were from stakeholders.  We asked respondents if they thought the proposed PCN cost of £160 was sufficient. Of those responses we received:  - 65 per cent of respondents considered the proposed PCN cost of £160 was too high to act as an effective deterrent- 17 per cent considered it was sufficient to act as an effective deterrent- 17 per cent considered the cost of £160 was not high enoughFollowing careful consideration of the consultation responses, we have decided to proceed to increase the level of the PCN from £130 to £160, as set out in the consultation.  The increase of the penalty charge level will be implemented from 17 January 2022. 

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

PCN in Merton are £130 or £65 if paid within 14 days.PCNs in Richmond are £110 or £130 depending on where in Richmond the contravention took place.In Wandsworth:There are two charge bands for PCNs that we issue:Band A (£130 or £80 depending on how serious the parking contravention is considered to be) – Applies to the area north of the borough bounded by the south circular and the A3 to the westBand B (£110 or £60 depending on how serious the parking contravention is considered to be) -Applies in the remainder of the boroughAll PCNs issued for bus lane and moving traffic offences will be charged at the Band A higher rate of £130.

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

If the purpose is to reduce speeding I'm not sure a PCN will be effective. It does sound more like a money generating scheme. Speeding should be tackled by the Police who can stop you, give you a verbal warning, issue an FPN etc."If you plead guilty: You’ll have to pay a £100 fine and have 3 points added to your licence, unless you’re given the option to attend a speed awareness course"

Ed Robinson ● 1090d

Also, this press release gives some answers:https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/roads-and-transport/road-safety/speed-enforcement-pilot-priory-lane-wimbledon-park-road/

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

I think the level of penalty could be argued.But TfL charges £160 for cars that stop (not park) on a red route.Does DfT not provide the funding to TFL?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d

I assume the legislation concerning parking enables local authorities and commercial organisations enforcing parking on public or private land makes provision for obtaining this information from the DVLA? (I haven't checked but I'm sure if it didn't there would have been challenges in the courts!) Again, I'm not sure, but perhaps speeding legislation only allowed police to obtain registered owner information from the DVLA? I suppose anyone contacted by the local authority regarding speeding could raise it at a data privacy issue with the information commissioner? Perhaps the council could make a case of legitimate interest in that it was trying to reduce accidents?

Michael Ixer ● 1090d

"..with no points added to their licences"It sounds like something the local authority just made up.The following from gov.uk:"The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence."https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties

Ed Robinson ● 1090d

Also, how do private parking enforcement firms obtain information on the owners of cars they issue PCNs to?I received a PCN from a private firm for entering private land when driving up the dramp to Sainsbury's car park in Wimbledon.  They had all the pictures of my car, but who did they get my name and address from?

Ivonne Holliday ● 1090d