Thousands of drivers were caught out in the first 24 hours of new traffic cameras going live in Liverpool city centre.

Less than two months ago, Liverpool Council was granted new powers to punish people who flout specific regulations like driving through no entry signs and zones dedicated for buses and taxis. Those found doing so face a penalty of a £70 fine.

New local authority data has now revealed how many drivers fell foul of the new cameras in the first weeks of the roll out. The specialist devices have been placed at Lime Street’s junction with London Road and Ranelagh Street at Brownlow Hill.

Under the new powers, which will include the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, those waiting too long at yellow box junctions, banned turns and misuse of bus gates could face a fixed penalty charge notice (PCN). During the first six months following implementation of moving traffic enforcement in practice, Liverpool Council is to issue warning notices for first-time moving traffic contraventions.

These advise that any further moving traffic contravention at the same camera location would result in the issuing of a PCN. An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000 motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14.

Of those, 1,400 were identified in the first 24 hours. More than 2,500 warnings were issued in the initial three weeks of the cameras being in place.

Instances where buses and taxis were identified by the cameras were not included.

The new powers granted were previously solely available to London to enforce moving vehicle contraventions. This had been the responsibility of the police.

The documents, to be discussed by the city council’s sustainable, safe and thriving neighbourhoods scrutiny committee next week, said there are currently 41 civil enforcement officers in post across Liverpool. The service has identified that a further 74 staff could be considered to “further enhance the impact of parking enforcement within the city.”

In September, the local authority also confirmed it would seek to bring back bus lanes as part of its wide-ranging four year transport strategy. The new committee documents said work will get underway to establish how this can be achieved.

It said: “As part of the work with the Combined Authority and the ambitions of the council to generate an increase in bus use, a number of bus lanes will be introduced across the city to improve journey times and the journey experience for passengers. To ensure compliance with the new bus lanes, enforcement will be undertaken on these routes utilising camera technology and civil enforcement officers to ensure these lanes remain clear for bus travel.”

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/staggering-number-drivers-caught-out-28430934

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thousands of drivers were caught out in the first 24 hours of new traffic
> cameras going live in Liverpool city centre.
>
> Less than two months ago, Liverpool Council was granted new powers to
> punish people who flout specific regulations like driving through no
> entry signs and zones dedicated for buses and taxis. Those found doing so
> face a penalty of a £70 fine.
>

If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be used
to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.

Perhaps the cyclist who intimidated a pedestrian before falling under a car
would have learned not to ride on the pavement, avoiding killing herself
and the unjustified jailing of the pedestrian.

On 15/01/2024 08:43 pm, Brian wrote:

> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Thousands of drivers were caught out in the first 24 hours of new traffic
>> cameras going live in Liverpool city centre.
>>
>> Less than two months ago, Liverpool Council was granted new powers to
>> punish people who flout specific regulations like driving through no
>> entry signs and zones dedicated for buses and taxis. Those found doing so
>> face a penalty of a £70 fine.
>>
>
> If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be used
> to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.
>
> Perhaps the cyclist who intimidated a pedestrian before falling under a car
> would have learned not to ride on the pavement, avoiding killing herself
> and the unjustified jailing of the pedestrian.

+1.

On 14/01/2024 01:57 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> Thousands of drivers were caught out in the first 24 hours of new traffic cameras going live in Liverpool city centre.
>
> Less than two months ago, Liverpool Council was granted new powers to punish people who flout specific regulations like driving through no entry signs and zones dedicated for buses and taxis. Those found doing so face a penalty of a £70 fine.
>
> New local authority data has now revealed how many drivers fell foul of the new cameras in the first weeks of the roll out. The specialist devices have been placed at Lime Street’s junction with London Road and Ranelagh Street at Brownlow Hill.
>
> Under the new powers, which will include the use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras, those waiting too long at yellow box junctions, banned turns and misuse of bus gates could face a fixed penalty charge notice (PCN). During the first six months following implementation of moving traffic enforcement in practice, Liverpool Council is to issue warning notices for first-time moving traffic contraventions.
>
> These advise that any further moving traffic contravention at the same camera location would result in the issuing of a PCN. An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000 motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14.
>
> Of those, 1,400 were identified in the first 24 hours. More than 2,500 warnings were issued in the initial three weeks of the cameras being in place.
>
> Instances where buses and taxis were identified by the cameras were not included.
>
> The new powers granted were previously solely available to London to enforce moving vehicle contraventions. This had been the responsibility of the police.
>
> The documents, to be discussed by the city council’s sustainable, safe and thriving neighbourhoods scrutiny committee next week, said there are currently 41 civil enforcement officers in post across Liverpool. The service has identified that a further 74 staff could be considered to “further enhance the impact of parking enforcement within the city.”
>
> In September, the local authority also confirmed it would seek to bring back bus lanes as part of its wide-ranging four year transport strategy. The new committee documents said work will get underway to establish how this can be achieved.
>
> It said: “As part of the work with the Combined Authority and the ambitions of the council to generate an increase in bus use, a number of bus lanes will be introduced across the city to improve journey times and the journey experience for passengers. To ensure compliance with the new bus lanes, enforcement will be undertaken on these routes utilising camera technology and civil enforcement officers to ensure these lanes remain clear for bus travel.”
>
> https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/staggering-number-drivers-caught-out-28430934
>

On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:43:25 PM UTC, Brian wrote:

> >
> If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be used
> to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.

This is despite nearly 60 times more pedestrians being killed in collisions with cars than bicycles, and many cyclists not being able to reach even 20mph. In November, roads minister Baroness Vere said the Government has “no plans to introduce a mandatory registration scheme for cycle ownership” as the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits and it would “deter many people from cycling”.

Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, told the PA news agency the proposals to regulate cycling are “impractical and unworkable”, and have been “repeatedly dismissed by successive governments”.

He added that more people are cycling due to the cost-of-living crisis and the Government should “encourage people to cycle more, not less”.

Simon Munk, campaigns manager at London Cycling Campaign, said the proposals have already been deemed “unworkable and costly to implement” by DfT officials.

JNugent <jnugent@mail.com> wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 08:43 pm, Brian wrote:
>
>> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Thousands of drivers were caught out in the first 24 hours of new traffic
>>> cameras going live in Liverpool city centre.
>>>
>>> Less than two months ago, Liverpool Council was granted new powers to
>>> punish people who flout specific regulations like driving through no
>>> entry signs and zones dedicated for buses and taxis. Those found doing so
>>> face a penalty of a £70 fine.
>>>
>>
>> If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be used
>> to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.
>>
>> Perhaps the cyclist who intimidated a pedestrian before falling under a car
>> would have learned not to ride on the pavement, avoiding killing herself
>> and the unjustified jailing of the pedestrian.
>
> +1.

WHS. No shades of Grey in that case.

--
Spike

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:43:25 PM UTC, Brian wrote:
>
>>>
>> If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be used
>> to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.
>
> This is despite nearly 60 times more pedestrians being killed in
> collisions with cars than bicycles, and many cyclists not being able to
> reach even 20mph. In November, roads minister Baroness Vere said the
> Government has “no plans to introduce a mandatory registration scheme for
> cycle ownership” as the costs of doing so would outweigh the benefits and
> it would “deter many people from cycling”.
>
> Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, told the PA news agency
> the proposals to regulate cycling are “impractical and unworkable”, and
> have been “repeatedly dismissed by successive governments”.
>
> He added that more people are cycling due to the cost-of-living crisis
> and the Government should “encourage people to cycle more, not less”.
>
> Simon Munk, campaigns manager at London Cycling Campaign, said the
> proposals have already been deemed “unworkable and costly to implement” by DfT officials.
>

The problem with statistics is, fools are easily misled by other fools who
use them.

This may help you understand, if you ask someone numerate to explain it to
you:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics

( In simple terms, the number of trips by cycle is tiny compared to the
number of trips via car. Correct for that and you don’t come out so well.
)

Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:43:25 PM UTC, Brian wrote:

>>> If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be
>>> used to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.

>> This is despite nearly 60 times more pedestrians being killed in
>> collisions with cars than bicycles, and many cyclists not being able to
>> reach even 20mph. In November, roads minister Baroness Vere said the
>> Government has “no plans to introduce a mandatory registration scheme
>> for cycle ownership” as the costs of doing so would outweigh the
>> benefits and it would “deter many people from cycling”.

>> Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, told the PA news
>> agency the proposals to regulate cycling are “impractical and
>> unworkable”, and have been “repeatedly dismissed by successive governments”.

>> He added that more people are cycling due to the cost-of-living crisis
>> and the Government should “encourage people to cycle more, not less”.

>> Simon Munk, campaigns manager at London Cycling Campaign, said the
>> proposals have already been deemed “unworkable and costly to implement” by DfT officials.

> The problem with statistics is, fools are easily misled by other fools who use them.

> This may help you understand, if you ask someone numerate to explain it to you:

> https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics

> ( In simple terms, the number of trips by cycle is tiny compared to the
> number of trips via car. Correct for that and you don’t come out so well)

I’ll spell it out for him…

Motor vehicle mileage is 60 times that of cycling mileage, so on that basis
alone cyclists are no safer than motor vehicles as far as pedestrians are
concerned.

But in order to sex-up the comparisons, cyclists condemn themselves out of
their own mouths. This is because they claim that many cyclists are unable
to reach “even 20mph”.

In other words, the pedestrian slaughter-rate by cyclists, on a per-mile
basis, is comparable to that of motor vehicles, despite travelling much
slower.

Something is seriously wrong in the cycling world, and it’s enough for
those who can think to avoid taking up cycling. The others don’t matter,
they are simply ‘useful fools’ to fuel the cyclist crusade.

--
Spike

QUOTE:
An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000 motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14. ENDS

4000 law breaking drivers, you say?
Keeps the council tax bill low, I suppose.

Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> QUOTE:
> An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000
> motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14. ENDS
>
> 4000 law breaking drivers, you say?
> Keeps the council tax bill low, I suppose.
>

Again, adjust for the number of miles travelled and the lack of enforced
against cyclists and the picture changes somewhat.

On 16/01/2024 12:08 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> QUOTE:
> An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000 motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14. ENDS
>
> 4000 law breaking drivers, you say?
> Keeps the council tax bill low, I suppose.

You wouldn't say that if you knew the rate of Council Taxes in Liverpool.

Band D is currently £2,307.55 pa (£44.38 per week out of taxed income).

Band A is £1,538.36 (£29.58 per week out of taxed income).

They'll both be increased in a few weeks' time.

On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 2:52:22 PM UTC, Brian wrote:
> Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > QUOTE:
> > An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000
> > motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14. ENDS
> >
> > 4000 law breaking drivers, you say?
> > Keeps the council tax bill low, I suppose.
> >
> Again, adjust for the number of miles travelled and the lack of enforced
> against cyclists and the picture changes somewhat.

Cyclists do not smoke when riding and their water bottles get reused.

On 16/01/2024 05:35 pm, Simon Mason wrote:

> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 2:52:22 PM UTC, Brian wrote:
>> Simon Mason <swldx...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> QUOTE:
>>> An update on the city’s parking strategy confirmed more than 4,000
>>> motorists had been caught flouting the rules between November 20 and December 14. ENDS
>
>>> 4000 law breaking drivers, you say?
>>> Keeps the council tax bill low, I suppose.
>
>> Again, adjust for the number of miles travelled and the lack of enforced
>> against cyclists and the picture changes somewhat.
>
> Cyclists do not smoke when riding and their water bottles get reused.

Not heard of the chav-cyclist antics in the Surrey Hills villages?

Their "litter" left on village greens?

On 16/01/24 23:36, Spike wrote:
> Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
>> Simon Mason <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Monday, January 15, 2024 at 8:43:25 PM UTC, Brian wrote:
>
>>>> If cyclists were required to have number plates, the cameras could be
>>>> used to catch those who ride on pavements, ignore red lights, etc.
>
>>> This is despite nearly 60 times more pedestrians being killed in
>>> collisions with cars than bicycles, and many cyclists not being able to
>>> reach even 20mph. In November, roads minister Baroness Vere said the
>>> Government has “no plans to introduce a mandatory registration scheme
>>> for cycle ownership” as the costs of doing so would outweigh the
>>> benefits and it would “deter many people from cycling”.
>
>>> Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s head of campaigns, told the PA news
>>> agency the proposals to regulate cycling are “impractical and
>>> unworkable”, and have been “repeatedly dismissed by successive governments”.
>
>>> He added that more people are cycling due to the cost-of-living crisis
>>> and the Government should “encourage people to cycle more, not less”.
>
>>> Simon Munk, campaigns manager at London Cycling Campaign, said the
>>> proposals have already been deemed “unworkable and costly to implement” by DfT officials.
>
>> The problem with statistics is, fools are easily misled by other fools who use them.
>
>> This may help you understand, if you ask someone numerate to explain it to you:
>
>> https://www.cyclinguk.org/statistics
>
>> ( In simple terms, the number of trips by cycle is tiny compared to the
>> number of trips via car. Correct for that and you don’t come out so well)
>
> I’ll spell it out for him…
>
> Motor vehicle mileage is 60 times that of cycling mileage, so on that basis
> alone cyclists are no safer than motor vehicles as far as pedestrians are
> concerned.
>
> But in order to sex-up the comparisons, cyclists condemn themselves out of
> their own mouths. This is because they claim that many cyclists are unable
> to reach “even 20mph”.
>
> In other words, the pedestrian slaughter-rate by cyclists, on a per-mile
> basis, is comparable to that of motor vehicles, despite travelling much
> slower.
>
> Something is seriously wrong in the cycling world, and it’s enough for
> those who can think to avoid taking up cycling. The others don’t matter,
> they are simply ‘useful fools’ to fuel the cyclist crusade.
>
Thank God I started biking before the 'bicyclist crusade'