Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

news

LTN road blocks could be replaced with ANPR cameras

Vast majority of penalty charge notices issued in Ealing LTNs have been issued to drivers from outside the area

The planters used to block roads in low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) in Sutton and Croydon could be replaced by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.

The Crystal Palace LTN is due to be removed in coming days. An experimental scheme has been mooted to replace it relying on camera enforced ‘No Motor Vehicle’ signs in place of the current planters.

My London reports that as well as residents, permits could be extended to school staff, carers and taxis.

The council’s Traffic Management Advisory Committee (TMAC) is due to meet on February 15 to decide whether to go ahead with the plan.

Councillor Muhammad Ali, cabinet member for sustainable Croydon said: “Whatever we do next with this scheme needs to be done right, and serve our objectives to reduce unnecessary car journeys and increase walking and cycling.”

Your Local Guardian reports that similar measures are also on the table for the LTNs in Sutton.

Deputy council leader Manuel Abellan said: “During the trial operations of the schemes the emergency services have at some points raised issues with us and where that has happened we’ve met with them on site and they’ve suggested amendments such as moving planters.

“We will be recommending on January 28 that all road closures are upgraded to ANPR cameras to facilitate emergency access.”

One borough council that has already introduced ANPR cameras in its low traffic neighbourhoods is Ealing.

Ealing Today reports that a Freedom of Information (FoI) request by a resident has revealed that 5,920 penalty charge notices were issued in these areas between December 7 2020 and January 11 2021.

A spokesperson for Ealing Council said: “Low traffic neighbourhoods (LTNs) are designed to limit heavy and non-local traffic using quieter streets as short-cuts and through-roads.

So far, 99 out of every 100 penalty charge notices (PCN) handed out as part of our enforcement of the trial schemes during December 2020 were issued to drivers who live outside of that LTN. To date, 60% of PCNs have been issued to drivers who do not live in the borough.

"Income from penalty notices is ring-fenced and used to pay for the borough road safety and traffic management measures and concessionary travel schemes.”

They’ve been using cameras for LTNs in Hackney too…

 

 

Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.

Add new comment

21 comments

Avatar
hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
2 likes

I think I prefer the ANPR solution.

The problem with dumping planters into roads is that we're paying for building public infrastructure (i.e. roads) and then sabotaging that infrastructure (though I agree with the reasons). With ANPRs we can keep the roads as they are, reap in a bit of money from the motorists who don't read the signs or don't learn and eventually they should get the message that it's cheaper to not rat-run.

However, the problem with most fines is that they discriminate against poor people whilst allowing the wealthy to just do what they want. Maybe using the points system would prevent abuse by the wealthy?

Avatar
Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes

Jesus, way to complicate things. Taxi's and locals already had access to these areas.

Just sink some fecking bollards into the ground and have done with it.....

Avatar
Bmblbzzz | 3 years ago
1 like

Everything useful to be said for the worth of physical barriers over CCTV (at least while there's still too much motor traffic) has been said already. So: 

Councillor Muhammad Ali, cabinet member for sustainable Croydon said

Leads naturally to this:

 

When Muhammad Ali—then Cassius Marcellus Clay—was twelve years old, a thief stole his new red Schwinn bicycle outside of the annual Louisville Home Show. Clay, in tears, found a policeman to report the crime to and stated that he wanted to “whup” the thief who stole his bike.

Serendipitously, the policeman was Sergeant Joe Martin, who trained boxers. He encouraged Clay to learn how to fight before looking for retaliation. Martin’s gym was in the basement of the same building they were standing in. Clay showed up the next day to start training and he spent the next six years under Martin.

Had young Cassius not been the victim of a stolen bicycle AND had he not taken the advice of the police officer, his life would certainly have taken a different path. Cassius Clay’s stolen bike became a catalyst for his boxing career and illustrates by example how Cassius found his purpose in life at an early age.

This experience involving his stolen bike, became the first pivotal moment in Muhammad’s life; it became his “Red Bike” Moment.

https://alicenter.org/red-bike-moment

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to Bmblbzzz | 3 years ago
3 likes
Bmblbzzz wrote:

.....When Muhammad Ali—then Cassius Marcellus Clay—was twelve years old, a thief stole his new red Schwinn bicycle outside of the annual Louisville Home Show. Clay, in tears, found a policeman to report the crime to and stated that he wanted to “whup” the thief who stole his bike.

 

Reminds me of when Mum found me in tears one day and asked me why. I said that I'd been praying, praying hard, and I still hadn't got a bike, so maybe Jesus didn't love me. Mum smiled and hugged me tight and said of course he did, he loves everyone, it's just that prayer doesn't work that way.

I thought about my Mum's wise loving words for a while. Then I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Captain Badger | 3 years ago
2 likes

You should ask for forgiveness for that joke

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to hawkinspeter | 3 years ago
1 like
hawkinspeter wrote:

You should ask for forgiveness for that joke

I'm praying as hard as I can!

blush

Avatar
DrG82 | 3 years ago
5 likes

If the councils are happy to invest in infrastructure like cameras, why not spend the money on a droppable bollard like they use in bus gates. That way the LTNs could be imposed at specific times and the bollards dropped for emergency vehicles if required. This would surely counter a lot of the opposition from drivers.

Avatar
Simon E replied to DrG82 | 3 years ago
3 likes
DrG82 wrote:

If the councils are happy to invest in infrastructure like cameras, why not spend the money on a droppable bollard like they use in bus gates. That way the LTNs could be imposed at specific times and the bollards dropped for emergency vehicles if required. This would surely counter a lot of the opposition from drivers.

I doubt it.

Many, many people, including most councillors it seems, have been led to believe that Roads Are For Cars (and that everyone else will just have to live with it or f**k off), that drivers are the life and soul of every built-up area. Without them everything would die.

The huge issues we face like air pollution and water pollution, obesity due to inactivity, noise, congestion, pavement parking and so on mean nothing to them. It's solely about convenience for one group at the expense of everyone else.

And, unlike bollards, cameras can be decommissioned with the click of a mouse.

Avatar
bobinski | 3 years ago
15 likes

ANPR does NOT make roads safe for other users. Closure  of rat runs, routes to schools etc is the only sensible way to encourage pedestrian and cycles use rather than cars. The kids who started cycling on roads within the ltn 's closest to me won't carry on cycling once the barriers to access are replaced by camera's. 

Avatar
brooksby replied to bobinski | 3 years ago
0 likes

Exactly.

ANPR doesn't stop the motorists passing through, it just (eventually) punishes the ones who do.

Avatar
David9694 | 3 years ago
2 likes

Here's an average speed check proposal, which according to drivists would be a regular money spinner for the police - yet they aren't supporting it in an area with a clear and present danger. £40k just for a feasibility study tells you something about why not. 

https://www.advertiserandtimes.co.uk/speed-cameras-b3078

 

 

 

Avatar
brooksby | 3 years ago
11 likes

So instead of using the "it just diverts motor traffic and creates worse air quality" argument, the motorists will all start using the "it's just a money making exercise!" argument...

Avatar
Captain Badger replied to brooksby | 3 years ago
2 likes
brooksby wrote:

So instead of using the "it just diverts motor traffic and creates worse air quality" argument, the motorists will all start using the "it's just a money making exercise!" argument...

I think you're being very unfair.

Why can't they multitask and use both?

Avatar
Rendel Harris | 3 years ago
10 likes

Most motorists will obey the rules. The drunk, the criminal, the uninsured, the disqualified and the stupid (or combination thereof) won't. It won't be much consolation when someone ploughs into me at 40mph in a 20mph zone that they were caught on a camera at the end of the street. We need physical barriers.

Avatar
MattieKempy | 3 years ago
17 likes

Wow! If ANPR cameras in Ealing have led to almost 6000 fines in just over a month, that kind of shows they're not really creating the low-traffic neighbourhoods they were deployed to create! I'd stick with planters! They're prettier for a start!

Avatar
ktache replied to MattieKempy | 3 years ago
12 likes

It does make you wonder about these otherwise "law abiding" motorists, and what other rules, regulations and signage they must be ignoring.

Avatar
rct | 3 years ago
12 likes

How is allowing residents permits to drive through "barriers" going to nudge them out of using their car for local journeys?

Avatar
David9694 | 3 years ago
16 likes

we've created ourselves a monster here, haven't we, in terms of this targeted vandalism.  Impounding any motor vehicles kept by the offenders wouldn't come amiss. 

curious isn't it, housing areas have been designed around the cul de sac idea since the 1960s - the LTN iidea just updates older areas to the modern standard. 
 

Avatar
GREGJONES replied to David9694 | 3 years ago
0 likes

If anything this is better, too many housign estates don't permit the movement of pedestrians and cycles easily. What we need are housing estates that are porous to the more active in our society, that's what bollards and LTN do. Cul-de-sacs don't do that very well.

Avatar
nikkispoke | 3 years ago
10 likes

This may seem like an quick solution as it removes the visual impact of denying drivers the road. The reality is that headlines of a 'war on motorists' will appear in certain newspapers and be viewed as a source of money making on hard working people ? Signage will become a ground for challenges on it being sufficent or lawful. It does not make feel people feel safe or encourage people to walk or cycle around the area or allow children to play outside and use the street. In time the cameras will be turned off or no money will be present to upgrade or replace. Each LTN case is different and needs to be properly designed but this seems to pander again to a minority of motorists as it sounds easier ? 

Avatar
Awavey replied to nikkispoke | 3 years ago
6 likes

thats already started, the Telegraph, whose weekly contributions to LTNs seems to plum new depths every week,this week they claim LTNs are forcing teachers to quit the profession due to LTNs causing low morale... but they published an article earlier in the month claiming Croydon council were insolvent and using APNR cameras on LTNs, to generate 4million pounds of fines from poor motorists to fill the funding gap.

Latest Comments