Using income from box junctions to support public transport?

[whole diary]

[grahame]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37474415

London councils are being accused of making millions of pounds from drivers who infringe yellow box junction rules because of poor traffic management.
Most councils have a camera trained on box junctions enabling them to enforce the traffic regulations.
One box junction in Fulham has earned the council £2.4m in Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) fines in 18 months.

Rail services provide a real economic benefit to the towns they serve, yet only a small proportion of that benefit flows back to the train and/or network operator through the farebox. Some of the rest is levelled out through the franchising system, but there still remains the question of how to balance train services between the marginal finances of the actual operation and the big benefits to their catchments.

I don't really think it's the solution, but as I read the article about council's incomes from box junction infringements, I got to wonder if just a little of that income couldn't be used to support public transport. "Due to significant demands put on the Council against ever diminishing resources, I have to inform you that I am not able to provide funding" states Wiltshire Council's Associate Director of Highways & Transport to the Community Rail Partnership for this year though "the Council would like to continue to work in partnership with the CRP^▸ (Community Rail Partnership) to improve services and facilities and infrastructure where our respective organisations have a common objective".  Calculations tell me that a single year's income from that box junction in Fulham (which I do understand is not in Wiltshire!) would have covered requested funding for 431 years ...

[ChrisB]

box junctions wouldn't earn anything if drivers stuck to the rules - they're there for good reason

[chrisr_75]

box junctions wouldn't earn anything if drivers stuck to the rules - they're there for good reason

Mass rule breaking is generally an indication that a rule, or the management of whatever it is in place to enforce is not fit for purpose and should be adapted to reflect reality. The law is sometimes, quite simply an ass. Sticking to the rules in the example above appears to result in conflict and gridlock, neither of which are really acceptable outcomes.

If you watch the video attached to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) report above, it appears it is not possible for the driver to enter the box junction without infringing, due to the manner in which the traffic lights work - i.e. her exit from the box junction is perpetually obstructed - I think the point here is that better traffic management needs to be put in place to allow people to make due progress without infringing, if the council intend to strictly enforce it. Otherwise it is seen as a 'set up' to make money.

[ChrisB]

Mass rule breaking is generally an indication that a rule, or the management of whatever it is in place to enforce is not fit for purpose and should be adapted to reflect reality. The law is sometimes, quite simply an ass. Sticking to the rules in the example above appears to result in conflict and gridlock, neither of which are really acceptable outcomes.

From the article....

Hammersmith and Fulham Council has received £12m in fines from the Bagley's Lane box junction in seven years.




It said: "This is one of the busiest routes into London. Seven million drivers navigate the junction each year without breaking the rules and getting a ticket."

If 7m can avoid a fine, the other 'few' can too

[trainer]

If 7m can avoid a fine, the other 'few' can too

Perhaps a simplistic interpretation? Many factors including driver error (deliberate or otherwise) can be involved. Traffic levels vary and congestion caused by a badly designed junction along with drivers unfamiliar with the road may be amongst the reasons for looking again at traffic management. I can imagine that over seven years, a million vehicles per year pass through a London junction off peak. I am, of course, speculating with no personal evidence.

[chrisr_75]

If 7m can avoid a fine, the other 'few' can too

The other 'few' is around 180000 (£120000/£65) people, hardly a statistically irrelevant number...

There is clearly a problem with this junction, the council shouldn't 'cash in' from this without addressing the issues that are causing the problem, be that traffic management, road layout or driver education. I suspect some small changes to traffic management and road layout would cure the issues at this junction.

[ChrisB]

Isn't the fine £130 (with 50% off for prompt payment?) - so half that - over 7 years is just over 1,250 a year, just 4 a day when millions a day go over it.....

[Tim]

Isn't the fine £130 (with 50% off for prompt payment?) - so half that - over 7 years is just over 1,250 a year, just 4 a day when millions a day go over it.....

That assumes that the ticket issuing system hasn't been set a limit of 4 tickets a day, which it may well have been.

I am generally supportive of a big toughening up on driving standards and I like the idea of optional taxes (only paid by the foolish and selfish), but I would prioritise my cash collecting activities on traffic infringements which are genuinely dangerous (ie speeding) rather than merely selfish/inconvenient (blocking junctions, parking).

In the interests of justice I'd also like to see some kind of effort to remove the perceived conflict of interest here whereby the council appears to be incentivised to keep a road layout which catches people out and raises money for the same council.

But subject to some proper safeguard, catching poor drivers using all technology available is a good thing to do.   

[chrisr_75]

but I would prioritise my cash collecting activities on traffic infringements which are genuinely dangerous (ie speeding) rather than merely selfish/inconvenient (blocking junctions, parking).

But speed in itself simply isn't dangerous. It is inappropriate speed that is dangerous. I do wish we in this country could become more obsessed with general driving standards (observation, anticipation, vehicle handling skills, good manners) than concentrating on speed alone.

In the interests of justice I'd also like to see some kind of effort to remove the perceived conflict of interest here whereby the council appears to be incentivised to keep a road layout which catches people out and raises money for the same council.

Agreed, watching the video on the original article posted, it does look as if the road layout needs to be reviewed at that particular junction. You can often make some pretty significant improvements to traffic flow and safety by making some quite cheap and subtle changes to road layout & traffic management.

But subject to some proper safeguard, catching poor drivers using all technology available is a good thing to do.   

What we really need is more traffic police on the roads to enforce things like middle lane hogging (in my opinion the single biggest cause of motorway congestion currently, after volume of traffic), mobile phone use and all those things that technology simply cannot enforce without severe intrusion of privacy. Pinging people for being 10mph over a speed limit on an empty motorway or hanging a few feet into a box junction understandably results in people feeling aggrieved.

[chrisr_75]

Isn't the fine £130 (with 50% off for prompt payment?) - so half that - over 7 years is just over 1,250 a year, just 4 a day when millions a day go over it.....

Yep, just noticed the article is confusing, nice bit of journalism BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page). One figure relates to an 18 month period, another to 7 years, others to a year.... 



From the BBC article, reinforcing my point, I think these guys should know a thing or two about highway design:

The Institute of Highways Engineers (IHE) said high infringement suggested there was a wider traffic flow issue...

...However, Richard Hayes from the IHE said: "Something is definitely wrong.

"Should there be a lot of infringement, then I think there is something wrong with the installation."

"The situation isn't the box junction - it's the traffic flow ahead of the box junction that is causing the problem," he added.

[ChrisB]

I understood that police won't 'ping' motorists doing speeds below 90mph unless it's perceived to be dangerous too. And the automatic ban for a ton or more I support fully.

[Oxonhutch]

I understood that police won't 'ping' motorists doing speeds below 90mph unless it's perceived to be dangerous too.

I wouldn't go faster than 79 mph on the M4 in Wiltshire.  Their Chief Constable apparently has a thing about speed - even on motorways.

[chrisr_75]

I understood that police won't 'ping' motorists doing speeds below 90mph unless it's perceived to be dangerous too. And the automatic ban for a ton or more I support fully.

But a camera will. It does not offer the discretion that a traf pol has. Often infringements can be best dealt with by means of a stern telling off - saves on paperwork for the officer, no fine/hassle for the motorist and I firmly believe that direct interaction with a person rather than a camera and the automated penalties that follow, is much more likely to prevent someone from further infringements, or at least prompt them to think twice in future. Say you're doing a real 105mph, caught by a camera you're guaranteed a court summons, caught by a traf pol in the right circumstances and you pass the attitude test, then they might reduce the recorded speed to say, 98mph in order to deal with it by means of a fixed penalty notice which is better all round.

100mph+ tends to result in a visit to a magistrates court (or crown if deemed serious enough), where it can be dealt with by various means, be that a short ban (i.e. no points) plus a big fine, lots of points plus a smaller fine, there's no 'automatic' ban per se - depends on your attitude in court and how the magistrate feels on that day.

[ChrisB]

I think magistrates guidelines from the MoJ require a ban in most cases over 100mph

[JayMac]

I understood that police won't 'ping' motorists doing speeds below 90mph unless it's perceived to be dangerous too.

I'd hope they would on the roads near my house. 20mph limit!