Pictured above is a CCTV camera attached to the lamppost adjacent to the 128 Bus terminus in Clayhall Avenue. It is facing the width restriction and the junction with Claybury Broadway. It has already nabbed a local resident for doing a legal U-turn opposite the rear access to the shops who will be contesting the PCN on the same basis as he did last time. However, we don’t know how long it’s been there and we don’t know how many vehicles have been nabbed going through the central "Emergency Vehicles Only" part of the width restriction, those doing illegal U-Turns at the Claybury Broadway junction or those vehicles responsible for this.
But I’ll wager it has already paid for its keep and it's only taken 3½ years to install it.
I've added some photos
My neighbour has just been given a ticket by this for doing a 'legal' u-turn in the gap immediately before the width restriction (rather than at the entrance to Claybury Broadway) as we have been doing for in excess of 30 years (my family have lived in Rivington Avenue since 1956, at which time you could still turn right from North View Drive onto Southend Road). It seems that as some point recently the sign saying 'ENDS' underneath the 'no u-turn' sign after Claybury Broadway has been reomved, which means that it is now illegal to do a u-turn at any point in this area. I have requested more information on when this happened from Redbridge, and awaut their response.
ReplyDeleteMy elderly father just had a ticket in the same place. It's pretty sneaky just to remove the 'Ends' sign.
ReplyDeleteHi, my Dad has just been done for the same thing! seems a bit naughty of them to just remove the "ENDS" sign and i have probably seen a million cars do a U-turn there and also in the very first gap (ie where you should be turning to Clayhall Broadway by the Library) but it seems the council needs a small top-up to their final salary pension schemes. Would love to hear if you get any joy out of the council!!
ReplyDeleteThere is no such thing as an "End of No U-Turn" sign. The sign applies to the junction where it is located and nowhere else, just like a No Right Turn sign or a No Entry sign is specific to the junction where it is located.
ReplyDeleteDon't let Redbridge Council tell you otherwise.
I have just recieved a fine for doing a u-turn, as mentioned before being doing it for many years both sides of the width restrictions. i did not notice a change in the sign but will go and have a look laterre comment above. If any one knows of a way to contest this please let us know.
ReplyDeleteI have received two tickets this morning for various days. I will appeal these tickets and see what the outcome is.
ReplyDeleteI know the council is desparate to raise revenues, but this is underhanded and screwing the local residents is wrong.
Perhaps it would have been more obvious if the 'End' sign had been replaced by a camera sign?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, the camera needs paying for ...
If you want really sneaky, use a spray can of grey paint ...
A few years ago, just before rebuilding work started on the Canning Town flyover and the A13, I was travelling east at 3am when I was flashed by the camera near New Barn Street.
My speedo was dead on 50, so real speed was probably 45 - 46 mph; there was a car in front of me and another in the adjacent lane, both travelling at the same speed as me.
I didn't get a ticket - perhaps the chap in front did - but I passed that way in daylight a few days later and noticed that the 50 sign at the start of the flyover had been sprayed with grey paint.
Three weeks later, there was so much traffic film in it and on the 30 sign on the adjacent slip road that both signs were impossible to read.
Additional, clear, 30 signs were put up east of the flyover before the work started in earnest but I've often wondered at the legality of simply obliterating existing signs particularly as, when the same signs are covered by traffic film, they are still perfectly valid, although equally invisible.
The signs are quite clearly prohibition signs, and you have been ignoring them. So blame yourself, pay up, and don't do it again.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a qualifying plate - For 90 metres or whatever the length is - on the first sign at the junction is in order?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, how clear does a sign need to be? I'm always fascinated by the signs on Belgian motorways banning Cruise Control on twisty urban sections ...
Over in Brentwood, on Sandpit Lane, conventional white on blue square signs saying Physical width restriction 1 mile ahead have been suplemented - or possibly replaced - by a very, very large yellow sign which says, in very large black letters: Width restriction ahead. Ignore Sat Nav
A mile after we passed it last week, we sat in a queue of traffic while the artic driver who'd found that he couldn't get past the 5ft restriction was performing a very complex multi-point turn ...
Morris @ 12:06 and All,
ReplyDeleteAs I have explained earlier on this blog, I have confirmed with the Lead Highways officer, Matthew Gray, that the "No U-Turn" signs apply to, and ONLY to, the junction with Claybury Broadway, ie the "Keep Clear" bit.
U-Turns immediately either side of the width restriction are LEGAL. Matthew has already assisted at least one local resident to overturn a PCN for this alleged offence.
This is a case of Operatives being over zealous and not knowing the rules, possibly through lack of adequate training and instruction.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI have found a website ticketfighter.co.uk in regards to the new camera on Clayhall Avenue.
This is the information used to fight the ticket.
3. Parking ticket issued by CCTV (note the 2nd part can be used for any type of ticket issued by CCTV)
Please note that this is guidance not legislation and while the adjudicator in the Wirral case found it compelling, another adjudicator may see differently.
Dear Sir / Madam,
1. I wish to appeal the above PCN issued by CCTV on the following grounds:
The1. Section 48 of the The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions states "The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical". Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act states that local authorities must give regard to this guidance. xx Road does not fall under this description.
2. The IOC CCTV code of conduct states that warning signs should be placed where CCTV is in use. No such signs were in place in the location where this PCN was issued therefore it is invalid. This has been confirmed at Adjudicator by the case of Rachel Johnson v Wirral, copy of press article included. Quote form the code of conduct:
"You must let people know that they are in an area where CCTV surveillance is being carried out. The most effective way of doing this is by using prominently placed signs at the entrance to the CCTV zone and reinforcing this with further signs inside the area. ....... Clear and prominent signs are particularly important where the cameras themselves are very discreet, or in locations where people might not expect to be under surveillance. As a general rule, signs should be more prominent and frequent where it would otherwise be less obvious to people that they are on CCTV
Signs should:
be clearly visible and readable;
contain details of the organisation operating the system, the purpose for using CCTV and who to contact about the scheme (where these things are not obvious to those being monitored); and
be an appropriate size depending on context, for example, whether they are viewed by pedestrians or car drivers."
Hence I trust the PCN will be cancelled.
If you reject my appeal please send with your response a copy of the relevant traffic order and proof that the camera in use is an approved device. Please consider this a request under the freedom of information act.
Yours faithfully,
Mr xxxx
10% of PCNs are eventually waived by the issuing authority - this is known as "Informal Challenge".
ReplyDeleteOnly about 1% of PCNs issued in Greater London are formally appealed to PATAS (Parking and Traffic Appeals Service). This rises to 2% for moving traffic offences, usually those captured by CCTV.
Total PCNs issued in Redbridge in 2009 were half of the average for London as a whole.
The figures for the first half of 2009 wee that 335 PCNs were appealed of which 59% (3 out of every 5) were allowed. Of these, half were allowed because the issuing authority did not contest the appeal (known as DNC).
The majority of appeals are based on inadequacy of signage (mounted signs and road markings).
I recommend the ticketfighter website referred to previously.
Have received a ticket today for illegal u-turn here dated 18th March. I have been doing the same U-turns since I moved here 5 years ago. Ticket was issued on 1st April, and I wonder how many more will come through to me dated between 18th March and today. Will appeal but would be interested to see how others get on, please can you post any updates, thanks.
ReplyDeleteWe have lived in Westview Drive Since 1972 and have been turning here since then . Why did the Council not put up proper signs saying that TURNING HERE IS NOT ALLOWED NOW then we would have stopped doing this immediately and taken the long way round .
ReplyDeletePeople on Hills Farm Estate have always been allowed to turn here this is easiest and quickest way for us to turn right on to the Woodford Avenue the Council know this. Several times the Council has been asked by people living on Hill Farm Estate for access to turn right on to the Woodford Avenue from Northview Drive .
When Tesco was being built we asked if the crossing could go there . The Bridge got knocked down that used to be there so we have not been unable to cross the road there since then.
This request was refused because Tesco wanted the crossing outside their store and they were given preference .
We were shocked today to received our first fine I am sure more will follow as I did this turn this morning and last Monday the same as I have been doing for the last 39 years .
Come on Redbridge Council play fair and stop trying to make money out of Hill Farm Residents by penalizing us for things we have not been warned about.
I hold no brief whatever for Tesco, but the facility to cross Southend Road was placed by the entrance to their store because they paid for it. Similarly at Newbury Park to cross Eastern Avenue to go to the Sainsbury store.
ReplyDeleteDear Hill Farm Estate Residents,
ReplyDeleteThere is a drop-in-surgery/ community event with your local SNT on Tuesday 5th April 7-8pm @ the Wanstead Rugby Club.
I will try to get the Deputy Leader of Redbridge Council, who is one of your councillors, to attend with some answers.
I'm puzzled by this:
ReplyDeleteSimilarly at Newbury Park to cross Eastern Avenue to go to the Sainsbury store ...
because pedestrians were expressly banned from using the access road! The only (legal) pedestrian access was via Chase Lane.
Although I note that the prohibition signs have been removed relatively recently - possibly because of the way they were so flagrantly ignored - they were there for a very long time!
Yes - I was referring to traffic. Only pedestrians with a death wish cross Eastern Avenue at surface level.
ReplyDeleteI and my ward colleagues have already taken this up with the Council's Highways Department. Hopefully it will turn out to be a misunderstanding. As residents have said, a U-turn here (beyond the traffic island north of the keep clear junction - not at the Claybury Broadway junction itself) has been common practice for years. It's not an ideal arrangement but unavoidable for people who live on the Hill Farm Estate given the inability to turn right onto Southend Road at Northview Drive or Roding Lane North.
ReplyDeleteMore news soon, hopefully...
WE HAVE ALSO RECEIVED 2 YESTERDAY FOR U TURN HAVE TAKEN PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE AND AM APPEALING WITH PHOTOS ATTACHED. HAVE BEEN DOING THIS U TURN FOR THE 30YRS HAVE LIVED ON HILL FARM ESTATE. INCIDENTS DATED 18/03/11 AND 22/03/11. WE ARE EXPECTING MORE AS DO THIS U TURN EVERY DAY!!!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteBarkingside21 and Ian, I really appreciate your input about the Highways Department. I phoned the Redbridge Council Highways Department today and they claim to know nothing about it and insisted I need to phone the "correct" department which is parking department. Mind you Matthew Gray was not there today so I did not get to speak to him.
ReplyDeleteOrlando, that's outrageous. "Parking" is part of Highways as I'm sure you know.
ReplyDeleteHi, my Dad has now received a few of these fines - I am going to have to write a letter to challenge them today or tomorrow - has anyone spoken to the council and been able to get theirs overturned? If they have would they be able to give me a few pointers as to what needs to be included to get him off the hook? Thanks.
ReplyDeletei got another one this weekend i challange the first one, on grounds the use of CCTV should be sign posted and its not, and if i was aware of the this i would not have done the U turn, also the sign for no u turn is facing the other way and you dont see it untill you have already done the U turn.
ReplyDeleteFron Anonymous; copied from another thread by B21
ReplyDeletei have four tickets from the camera in the past week. i have been living for 11 years and always do a u turn there to get to charlie browns round about. has any one else had tickets from there and if i can appeal. i now go from Wensleydale Avenue.
I have received two of this PCNs dated 1st April (which incidentally is when Redbridge Councils new Financial year starts) for performing prohibited turns on 17th March and 22nd March so it has taken Redbridge nearly 3 weeks to notify me of my actions.
ReplyDeletePeople on here may be interested to know that I have discovered that Matthew Gray and a certain Terry Bowe from Redbridge Council (Highways and Traffic management) need to generate a revenue of approx £1.5 million this coming financial year in order to cover forthcoming contracts. Would suggest everyone hound Messrs Gray and Bowe!
Regarding PCN "Performing a prohibited turn" Clayhall Ave. Please look at your pictures.
ReplyDeleteHighway Code Rule 130:
Areas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to seperate traffic lanes or protect traffic turning right. If the area is bordered by a broken white line you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and that it is safe to do so. If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by a solid white line you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency. Laws MT(E&W)R Regs5,9,10 & 16, MT(S)R Regs 4,8,9 &14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)
These chevors are bordered by a BROKEN WHITE LINE which again calls into question exactly where the NO U TURN applys and hopefully more ammo to allow anyone to appeal against these PCNs.
And as if by magic, I've added some pictures to the original post.
ReplyDelete"Highway Code Rule 130:
ReplyDeleteAreas of white diagonal stripes or chevrons painted on the road. These are to seperate traffic lanes or protect traffic turning right. If the area is bordered by a broken white line you should not enter the area unless it is necessary and that it is safe to do so. If the area is marked with chevrons and bordered by a solid white line you MUST NOT enter it except in an emergency. Laws MT(E&W)R Regs5,9,10 & 16, MT(S)R Regs 4,8,9 &14, RTA sect 36 & TSRGD 10(1)"
In that case any lorry or other wide vehicle that uses the central reservation part of the width restriction is in contravention of this part of the highway code, so they should be issued with PCN as well, which begs the question why are the chevrons there in the first place?
I seem to recall that when it was first mooted to have a camera at the Clayhall Avenue junction it was because concerns had been expressed about vehicles violating the gap for emergency vehicles across the "island" where the width restriction was installed. No-one had particularly complained about traffic doing U-turns although it can be a nuisance and a cause of delay when traffic is heavy (but so can traffic attempting to exit from Claybury Broadway having used back roads to avoid Clayhall Avenue).
ReplyDeleteAs has been pointed out, the white "hatching" by the width restriction is to protect traffic turning right into the service road behind the shops and as a warning of emergency vehicles using the "island" to avoid the width restriction.
The photos show that the "No U-turn" signs refer to the "Keep Clear" area by Claybury Broadway and to any clever clogs attempting to drive over the centre-island between that and the "hatching" by the service road.
Whereas motorists attempting to get through the width restriction going south may find it irritating that traffic turning by the service road is blocking them, the signs do not say that it cannot be done.
see Roding Councillors blog
ReplyDeleteHi All,
ReplyDeleteI received two tickets in December 2010 which were issued following the use of their CCTV car. I appealed these tickets and they failed to evne respond to me. They appear to have ignored my appeal letter and chosen not to pursue any action. I believe this is because they are fully aware that the tickets are legally unenforceable.
I have contacted Lee Scott and Roding Ward councillors as well as done a local leaflet drop, only to find many residents here have received multiple penalty notices.
Heres my letter (in two parts below). Feel free to add to it or use it, or simply correct me if I'm wrong.
ayyaz.mirza@gmail.com
CCTV Traffic Enforcement
PO BOX 2326
Ilford
IG1 9AH
1/4/2011
To Whom it may concern,
I am writing to you to appeal the two Penalty Charge Notices that were issued to me on the 1st April 2011 The details of the PCN are as follows:
1. PCN Number: AF8999xxxx
Date of Notice: 1/4/11
Date of Contravention: 20/3/11 AT 16.06
2. PCN Number: AF8998xxxx
Date of Notice: 1/4/11
Date of Contravention: 17/3/11 at 08.55
Both tickets were issued:
for 'Performing a prohibited turn in Clayhall Avenue’
EVIDENCE OF DRIVER IN RELATION TO AF89993605
In relation to the PCN for the Renault (penalty charge number AF89993605) I am the registered keeper of the vehicle, but both myself and my wife drive the vehicle and regularly find ourselves in the car on Clayhall Avenue. We are not sure who was driving at the time of the alleged offences.
Can you please provide clearer pictures of the driver so that we know who is responsible for the alleged contraventions.
TURNING
Further still can you kindly provide evidence that the driver of the vehicle in both cases performed a U turn, as I expect that this is the contravention that your notice refers to. There is a right turn which is not prohibited, and we may have been simply turning right at the time the pictures were taken, in which case there is no contravention.
Also I would like to bring to your attention the key case of Kennedy v Camden, the adjudicator said;
"Having considered the evidence, I cannot be satisfied that the manoeuvre can properly be described as a "turn". The term "turn" suggests a change of direction directly from the prohibited place, in broadly one sweeping motion, as opposed to a series of individual movements in which direction is changed."
Can you show me evidence that the manouvre was not a series of movements such as a “3 point turn”, which would in effect constitute a series of manouvres rather than one sweeping motion.
INCORRECT SIGNAGE
ReplyDeleteI am also appealing on the grounds that the signage posted at the junction in question is not compliant with the regulations set out in the “Traffic Signs Manual” by the Department of Transport. The guideline clearly states:
“Where the prohibition (U-Turn) applies to a length of road, the start should be signed using a pair of signs to diagram 614, one on each side of the road or, in the case of a dual carriageway, on each side of the carriageway. Both signs should have a supplementary plate to diagram 570 showing the distance over which the prohibition applies. A sign and distance plate should also be erected within 50 m of each point of entry from a side road. Elsewhere repeater signs, without distance plates, should be provided at intervals of about 100 m or, on dual carriageway roads, just before each break in the central reservation. Unlike speed limit and rural clearway signs, the repeater signs should be the full size appropriate to the speed of traffic” - Pg 27/28 article 4.50
Thus the position of the sign is incorrect as it is not on both sides of the road with both signs having supplementary plates. The sign simply states “no U-Turn” and has no limit on distance. A sign and distance plate should also be erected within 50m of each point of entry, which is not the case. The distance quoted on the sign must be a regulation value. Schedule 16, Item 6 in Appendix B of the Traffic Signs Manual states:
“ distances of less than ½ mile being expressed in yards to the nearest 10 yards; “yards” or the abbreviation “yds” may be used interchangeably.” The sign in question has no value.
Additional to the lack of a repeater sign, the length of the prohibition was not marked by an end of restriction "END" plate sign as shown in diagram 645 of the TSM. Without it a driver may consider he has passed any restriction and was safe to do a U-turn.
ReplyDeleteThese regulations for the signage allowable is clearly used for the purpose of making sure that drivers can adequately see the sign in plenty of time and react accordingly.
UNCLEAR/ CONFUSING SIGNAGE
There are two “no u turn” signs on the right hand side between the entrance to Claybury Broadway, suggesting that no U turns are permitted within this section. This would make sense as cars turning here would possibly end up blocking vehicles traveling along Clayhall Avenue, towards Woodford Avenue.
There is an opportunity to place a “No U turn” sign on the post marked “signs C” on the attached diagrams, but this has presumably not been done so as to allow vehicles to turn in the section directly by this area.
I stood at this area for a very short while yesterday and spoke to several drivers manouvering around in this area. The response I received was that they believed it was ok to turn here, and that if they were not supposed to, then they felt that the signs were actually unclear or confusing, because it did not seem to be properly marked as a no u-turn area.
TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER FOR CHANGES
I have lived at the above address for over seven years and prior to this new signage being put up, there used to be two signs on this part of Clayhall Avenue. The first stated “No U-turn” and then approximately 20 ft down, there was a “No U Turn-End” sign (I think, where sign C on diagram 1 and 2 is indicated). This was supposedly to ensure that cars did not U-turn in the first part of Clayhall Avenue (between sings A and B), but were able to do so within the area my car is pictured. This makes sense, and you will also note that hundreds of vehicles continue to turn around within this section, as they are used to doing so over the many years that the previous signs clearly permitted doing so. It appears that at some point the “end” sign was removed. I think this removal of the “end” sign happened following an accident, which damaged the original “END” sign.
I am therefore skeptical about the Traffic Regulation Order that enforces this particular restriction, as I do not believe that it could have been properly implemented.
So, if after all the above reasons for appeal the Council decide to reject these representations then please forward me a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order that enforces this particular restriction. Please include with this Order any written authorisation by the Secretary of State for any amendment to regulation signage requirements as this will be necessary for further representations to yourselves or to an adjudicator.
UNAUTHORISED ENFORCMENT FOR MOVING TRAFFIC VIOLATIONS
Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, authorities can issue Penalty Charge Notices for moving traffic violations in respect of specific road signs, called Scheduled Section 36 Traffic Signs, and are defined in the Road Traffic Act 1988, applied by virtue of regulations made under Section 64 (5) of the Road Traffic Act 1984.
A Scheduled Traffic Sign means a traffic sign of a type described in Schedule 3 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This says that it has to correspond, and this in turn refers to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002("TSRGD2002"). Regulation 10 sets out what are signs relevant to Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Where the Council have fallen down is that although the TSRGD2002 show the signs it specifically DOES NOT authorise the Council for enforcement under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the following excluded signs cannot therefore be enforced.
The following are the unenforceable signs, together with their number in the TSRGD 2002.)
ReplyDelete1. No right turn for vehicular traffic (diagram 612)
2. No left turn for vehicular traffic (diagram 613)
3. No U-turns for vehicular traffic (diagram 614)
4. All vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically propelled vehicles being pushed by pedestrians (diagram 617)
5. Entry to pedestrian zone restricted (Alternative types) (diagram 618.2)
6. Entry to and waiting in pedestrian zone restricted (Alternative types) (diagram 618.3)
7. Entry to and waiting in pedestrian zone restricted (Variable message sign) (diagram 618.3A)
8. Motor vehicles prohibited (diagram 619)
9. Motor vehicles except solo motor cycles prohibited (diagram 619.1)
10. Solo motor cycles prohibited (diagram 619.2)
11. Goods vehicles exceeding the maximum gross weight indicated on the goods vehicle symbol prohibited (diagram 622.1A)
12. One Way traffic (diagram 952)
Parking Adjudicator case. 2090551700 (Zeesham Sheikh against Waltham Forest Council 2009 - No right turn held to be unenforceable)
I hope that on the basis of the above points that you will consider cancelling the PCN’s and perhaps reviewing the signage in Clayhall Avenue, with regard to the needs of the local community, who have to turn their cars around somewhere along Clayhall Avenue in order to proceed back along the opposite direction in Woodford Avenue.
FUTURE GUIDANCE PLEASE
As I am a Redbridge resident and still require to be able to travel from my home on Summit Drive across to the opposite side of Woodford Avenue (my son goes to Hatton school and nursery on Roding Lane South), where would I be able to turn my vehicle around to travel to the opposite side of Woodford Avenue? Can you indicate where I could turn around on Clayhall avenue as your signs appear to create a restriction to turning but without guidance as to where the restriction is limited to?
We look forward to a speedy response.
Ayyaz Mirza
Enclosures, Diagram 1 and Diagram 2
News from the Roding Councillors.
ReplyDeletehttp://roding.mycouncillor.org.uk/2011/04/06/clayhall-traffic-camera-ii/
The latest is that the Council has today agreed our request to suspend enforcement of the supposed no-u-turn restriction with immediate effect. Whilst we review the issue, this means that people are now safe to u-turn at the second gap (not the first, which is access to the shops) as they always used to.
ReplyDeleteWe are letting the residents know and in the process are meeting people who make this turn every day and have already received a stack of penalty notices. We will do our best to get to the bottom of why and how this happened, and to try and get previously issued tickets cancelled.
One mystery is what happened to the old "ENDS" sign that used to be beneath the second no-u-turn sign here. Some people are suggesting it was taken down recently, just before the camera went up, but the local Police suggest it may have been knocked off some time back. In any case, if the old signage reflects the traffic orders that are in force at this junction (and we will check), this would mean that people who have received tickets are in the clear, provided they appeal.
Anyone who has already paid a penalty notice for a u-turn here should get in touch with any of their councillors asap, and we will do what we can to help
Cllr Ian Bond
More from the Roding Councillors.
ReplyDeleteAnyone driving along Clayhall Avenue towards the A1400 has plenty of opportunity to U-Turn before they get past the width restriction and even there they have the option of turning into Claybury Broadway and going round the block. I have never seen anyone perform such a turn.
ReplyDeleteThe sign located adjacent to the alleyway access to the shops is therefore completely superfluous UNLESS it is facing the wrong way AND the “ENDS” sign is missing. I suspect it was damaged at some point and replaced INCORRECTLY.
I have just been told that the sign has been turned around, some point last night or this morning...
ReplyDeleteCouncillors said that its safe to do u-turn in the focus newsletter posted to every door, but redbridge council thought otherwise and changed this...
Now thats really going to make residents more angry
I'll have a look after the football.
ReplyDeleteI can confirm that the sign arrowed here is now facing the opposite direction. The question now is, referring to Weggis' comment above, will an "ENDS" sign be added shortly?
ReplyDeleteIt's the second sign that used to have, and should have, the "ends" sign. The third sign should, in my view, always have faced north, and it's a mystery why anyone has thought it sensible to turn it around.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile I notice from the B21 "end of year report" from 2010 that you were calling for CCTV camera enforcement at the junction of Clayhall Avenue and Woodford Avenue. Care to explain?
Ah Meester Bond. The post you refer to is merely reporting on what's going on. Had you been paying attention you might have been able to warn your residents via your Focus newsletters.
ReplyDeleteBut, having said that, yes, I do think CCTV there is a good thing - viz. the costs of replacing these every 6 months coming from the miscreants insurance instead of us council tax payers.
I would suggest it to be appropriate for B21 to explain their position only if the Deputy Leader of the Council explains to all and sundry who it was (member, officer, or both, and their names) who took the decision to operate it without warning, and why. Another Redbridge Council money-grabbing exercise?
ReplyDeleteThanks B21 - there is however a comment below the article you've linked to that I would take to indicate that B21 had been campaigning for this?
ReplyDeleteWe'll get to the bottom of how this decision came to be made, but as ever this may take a little time. The more immediate issue is getting a solution for the 100s of people who've been given penalty notices for a u-turn that has been legal here previously for the best part of 40 years at least.
Regarding the '3rd' U Turn sign being turned around, does this now mean that a U Turn is allowed as you come through the width restriction but because of how tight the gap would be it would acutally be a 3 point turn (or more). Once again, typical council just trying to cover themselves and screw the people that pay their salary. Also can they just change the sign without getting relevant permissions from TfL, Sec for State etc... and for relevant notification to be given and signage saying road signage etc.. changed etc..
ReplyDeleteI am one of the many with 4 tickets so far...
Can't they just put a camera sign underneath the no U turn sign - oh they wouldn't do that as then they wouldn't generate income. or why not just put a barrier up all the way to the restrictions? thieving council.
ReplyDeleteIndeed - I've asked why the Council thought it made any sense to start playing about with the signs at the weekend - particularly strange since I have confirmation that the enforcement is suspended there since April 6 while the concerns we have raised are considered.
ReplyDeleteDoes that mean we still cant u-turn now they put an " official" sign up? Even though we got the newsletter saying we can? I'm confused!
ReplyDeleteSee latest on Roding Councillors blog.
ReplyDeleteMorning all,
ReplyDeleteWell another day and another U-turn puzzle.
As i have to do this turn every morning to get onto the A406 towards work, i turned into Clayhall Avenue, and guess what.... the THIRD sign has been removed!!!!
Yup indeed someone has come along and removed it since yesterday 9pm when i took a photo of it as proof that they turned the sign around.
I will be back there today to take another photo of the sign no longer there. Only the pole remains!
Does anybody know what Redbridge council are actually doing? Or is this another mystery game, where everyday a NEW move is taken and something for us Residents to Guess.
Regards
really annoyed & frustrated resident from the Hill Farm Estate!
Please see the Roding Councillors blog for the latest!
ReplyDeleteThe third sign was removed because I complained that they turned it round for no obvious reason.
The latest from the Council can be found here.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that the Traffic Management Order is being reviewed to extend it to the full length of that section of Clayhall Avenue [between the A1400 and the Width Restriction] for Road Safety reasons.
The good news is that the Council has now completed its own u-turn on this issue: The CCTV enforcement is ceased, all outstanding PCNs for u-turning here will be cancelled, and people who have already paid their fines will be refunded. Full details on the Roding Councillors' site.
ReplyDeleteWell, I hope that the CCTV enforcement has NOT ceased for Illegal Traffic violations.
ReplyDeleteOnly yesterday I witnessed a large commercial vehicle using the "emergency vehicles only" part of the width restriction.
I am waiting for two such vehicles to do so at the same time... in opposite directions....
Thus the position of the sign is incorrect as it is not on both sides of the road with both signs having supplementary plates. The sign simply states “no U-Turn” and has no limit on distance.
ReplyDeleteTake a peek at the railings on the left as you turn into Clayhall Avenue from Woodford Avenue - bashed up yet again in about 3 places as drivers do U-turns where there is insufficient space and reverse into them.
ReplyDeleteI think your talking about multi-point turns here. I trust that the CCTV is used to catch offenders and, most important, that they are made to pay the full cost of all repairs.
ReplyDeleteAh look! A squadron of pigs preparing for take-off!
Are you sure it was not a squadron of these?
ReplyDeleteWe could use a few squadrons of those, Weggis, to defend us from the enemy within.
ReplyDelete