Cameras in Swindon's bus lanes spot 5,500 offences

This Is Wiltshire: Bus lane cameras in operation in Penhill Bus lane cameras in operation in Penhill

MORE than 5,500 fines and warnings have been issued to drivers caught using bus gates or lanes since camera enforcement was introduced at the end of June.

The council bought five mobile cameras which are moved randomly between Swindon’s 19 bus lanes and 24 bus gates.

On June 30 the cameras were switched on and in the first three weeks 4,533 warnings were handed out to drivers.

From July 21, Penalty Charge Notices were introduced and since that date more than 1,000 have been handed out.

However, because there are only five cameras it is likely that the actual number of offences is considerably higher.

The owners of 680 vehicles received more than one warning notice, and 103 have received more than one fine.

The record number of warning notices issued to one car was 20, for repeatedly driving through the same bus gate.

This driver ceased driving through after the date when fines were introduced.

However, among the drivers who received a warning letter, 130 went on to contravene again and received a fine.

The cameras were first put in place because the number of drivers misusing the traffic measures was delaying buses and slowing the public transport system.

Coun Dale Heenan (Covingham and Dorcan), the Cabinet member for Highways and Transport, said: "We did not want to have to install cameras, but the number of people caught using bus lanes and bus gates shows the scale of the problem.

“These features are important parts of the transport network in Swindon, because they reduce congestion and encourage the use of public transport.

“We took a responsible approach by sending warning letters for the first three weeks, instead of issuing fines immediately.

“However, there are clear warning signs, and from now on if drivers ignore them, fines will be issued.”

The cameras were first brought into action following complaints about drivers regularly using the bus lanes and gates.

A total of £180,000 was spent on the cameras, which take vehicles registrations and also putting up signs at each of the camera points.

A 2010 traffic survey showed there were 16,000 offences in Swindon each week, prompting the move.

The scheme has been welcomed by the bus companies.

Thamesdown Transport’s chief executive Paul Jenkins said: "Bus gates are an important way of giving bus services priority over other traffic and we welcome their enforcement. “Along with bus lanes they benefit our passengers by helping us deliver punctual bus services, even when there is congestion.”

Comments (32)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:52am Wed 6 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

Didnt we do this yesterday, is it Groundhog day?
Didnt we do this yesterday, is it Groundhog day? house on the hill
  • Score: 6

7:58am Wed 6 Aug 14

umpcah says...

I wonder if it will be done again tomorrow !
I wonder if it will be done again tomorrow ! umpcah
  • Score: -3

8:14am Wed 6 Aug 14

Al Smith says...

house on the hill wrote:
Didnt we do this yesterday, is it Groundhog day?
Maybe the editorial team had a jolly good laugh reading some of the excuses/justificatio
ns for this particular variety of law-breaking?
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Didnt we do this yesterday, is it Groundhog day?[/p][/quote]Maybe the editorial team had a jolly good laugh reading some of the excuses/justificatio ns for this particular variety of law-breaking? Al Smith
  • Score: 0

9:09am Wed 6 Aug 14

jonelway says...

This is one article the Adver can keep reprinting in my opinion. Too many inconsiderate motorists on the road that pay little to no attention. Through the book at the f*****s!
This is one article the Adver can keep reprinting in my opinion. Too many inconsiderate motorists on the road that pay little to no attention. Through the book at the f*****s! jonelway
  • Score: -3

9:16am Wed 6 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues.

They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.
It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues. They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 5

9:19am Wed 6 Aug 14

Davey Gravey says...

Where will the money collected from fines go? There's pot holes that need sorting. Roads need resurfacing
Where will the money collected from fines go? There's pot holes that need sorting. Roads need resurfacing Davey Gravey
  • Score: 10

9:41am Wed 6 Aug 14

Oik1 says...

12:55pm Tuesday 5th August 2014

SINCE the introduction of camera enforcement at bus lanes and gates at the end of June, more than 5,500 warnings and fines have been given to drivers.

From yesterday, just in case anyone from the Swindon Advertiser takes any interest in what they report on-line.
12:55pm Tuesday 5th August 2014 SINCE the introduction of camera enforcement at bus lanes and gates at the end of June, more than 5,500 warnings and fines have been given to drivers. From yesterday, just in case anyone from the Swindon Advertiser takes any interest in what they report on-line. Oik1
  • Score: -1

9:52am Wed 6 Aug 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues.

They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.
Rubbish, it's about enforcing the law. And no-one said it's about safety, it's about providing public transport with congestion free routes into town.

And in the case of the Torun Way camera it's about both enforcing the planning conditions AND about improving safety, given the speed some "drivers" were going through there.

BTW, speed camera revenue went to central government, the council "lost" nothing by removing them. In fact they gained money because they no longer had to spend money maintaining them. Therefore your argument is invalid.
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues. They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it's about enforcing the law. And no-one said it's about safety, it's about providing public transport with congestion free routes into town. And in the case of the Torun Way camera it's about both enforcing the planning conditions AND about improving safety, given the speed some "drivers" were going through there. BTW, speed camera revenue went to central government, the council "lost" nothing by removing them. In fact they gained money because they no longer had to spend money maintaining them. Therefore your argument is invalid. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 2

10:16am Wed 6 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues.

They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.
Rubbish, it's about enforcing the law. And no-one said it's about safety, it's about providing public transport with congestion free routes into town.

And in the case of the Torun Way camera it's about both enforcing the planning conditions AND about improving safety, given the speed some "drivers" were going through there.

BTW, speed camera revenue went to central government, the council "lost" nothing by removing them. In fact they gained money because they no longer had to spend money maintaining them. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Couple of things:

1. It cost the council less to maintain the Speed Cameras than the revenue they created - the Council just felt that Speed Cameras do not increase road safety and felt the budget could be more successfully used in other road safety measures. The figures bear out their predictions.

2. If it were about 'enforcing law', why have the Speed Cameras been removed? Most people would consider speeding, and red light jumping for that matter, a worse transgression of the law than straying into an empty bus lane.

3. Is there *really* a big problem with poor old empty buses being delayed by motorists using bus lanes? I've never seen any bus held up in bus lanes - although the drivers do have to twiddle their thumbs when stuck in the regular congestion that's, in part, caused by bus lanes.

Overally, it doesn't bother me about bus lane cameras because I never use bus lanes - wouldn't give them the satisfaction. It's just yet another way of raising money off the back of motorists.

Yes, drivers shouldn't use the bus lanes when they're not permitted to, but then there shouldn't be any bus lanes in operation in the first place. Several large city councils have removed them precisely because they're a detriment to overall traffic congestion. What's the point of not having enough road capacity and then painting over some of the most used roads in order that they're hardly ever used during the daytime?

Stupid system that doesn't work. So to then go out of your way to rigorously enforce it - while not enforcing more dangerous driving styles at all - is plainly ridiculous.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues. They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it's about enforcing the law. And no-one said it's about safety, it's about providing public transport with congestion free routes into town. And in the case of the Torun Way camera it's about both enforcing the planning conditions AND about improving safety, given the speed some "drivers" were going through there. BTW, speed camera revenue went to central government, the council "lost" nothing by removing them. In fact they gained money because they no longer had to spend money maintaining them. Therefore your argument is invalid.[/p][/quote]Couple of things: 1. It cost the council less to maintain the Speed Cameras than the revenue they created - the Council just felt that Speed Cameras do not increase road safety and felt the budget could be more successfully used in other road safety measures. The figures bear out their predictions. 2. If it were about 'enforcing law', why have the Speed Cameras been removed? Most people would consider speeding, and red light jumping for that matter, a worse transgression of the law than straying into an empty bus lane. 3. Is there *really* a big problem with poor old empty buses being delayed by motorists using bus lanes? I've never seen any bus held up in bus lanes - although the drivers do have to twiddle their thumbs when stuck in the regular congestion that's, in part, caused by bus lanes. Overally, it doesn't bother me about bus lane cameras because I never use bus lanes - wouldn't give them the satisfaction. It's just yet another way of raising money off the back of motorists. Yes, drivers shouldn't use the bus lanes when they're not permitted to, but then there shouldn't be any bus lanes in operation in the first place. Several large city councils have removed them precisely because they're a detriment to overall traffic congestion. What's the point of not having enough road capacity and then painting over some of the most used roads in order that they're hardly ever used during the daytime? Stupid system that doesn't work. So to then go out of your way to rigorously enforce it - while not enforcing more dangerous driving styles at all - is plainly ridiculous. Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 11

10:31am Wed 6 Aug 14

Hearditallbefore says...

Same poor adver editorial team, posting same things days at a time.
Same poor adver editorial team, posting same things days at a time. Hearditallbefore
  • Score: 0

10:44am Wed 6 Aug 14

maikeru83 says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Where will the money collected from fines go? There's pot holes that need sorting. Roads need resurfacing
And an SBC Xmas jolly that needs financing, I'd imagine.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Where will the money collected from fines go? There's pot holes that need sorting. Roads need resurfacing[/p][/quote]And an SBC Xmas jolly that needs financing, I'd imagine. maikeru83
  • Score: -6

11:18am Wed 6 Aug 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Sandor Clegane wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Sandor Clegane wrote:
It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues.

They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.
Rubbish, it's about enforcing the law. And no-one said it's about safety, it's about providing public transport with congestion free routes into town.

And in the case of the Torun Way camera it's about both enforcing the planning conditions AND about improving safety, given the speed some "drivers" were going through there.

BTW, speed camera revenue went to central government, the council "lost" nothing by removing them. In fact they gained money because they no longer had to spend money maintaining them. Therefore your argument is invalid.
Couple of things:

1. It cost the council less to maintain the Speed Cameras than the revenue they created - the Council just felt that Speed Cameras do not increase road safety and felt the budget could be more successfully used in other road safety measures. The figures bear out their predictions.

2. If it were about 'enforcing law', why have the Speed Cameras been removed? Most people would consider speeding, and red light jumping for that matter, a worse transgression of the law than straying into an empty bus lane.

3. Is there *really* a big problem with poor old empty buses being delayed by motorists using bus lanes? I've never seen any bus held up in bus lanes - although the drivers do have to twiddle their thumbs when stuck in the regular congestion that's, in part, caused by bus lanes.

Overally, it doesn't bother me about bus lane cameras because I never use bus lanes - wouldn't give them the satisfaction. It's just yet another way of raising money off the back of motorists.

Yes, drivers shouldn't use the bus lanes when they're not permitted to, but then there shouldn't be any bus lanes in operation in the first place. Several large city councils have removed them precisely because they're a detriment to overall traffic congestion. What's the point of not having enough road capacity and then painting over some of the most used roads in order that they're hardly ever used during the daytime?

Stupid system that doesn't work. So to then go out of your way to rigorously enforce it - while not enforcing more dangerous driving styles at all - is plainly ridiculous.
Yeah, but 1) aside from the fact that speed cameras are a completely separate issue, the council didn't get to keep the revenue anyway so it's irrelevant how much money the fines brought in - the money went to central government. 2) I've already explained that - it saved money from the council budget to remove them. and 3) if the poor old boohoo drivers used the bus, cycled or walked instead of causing congestion by sitting one person to a car in a queue, there wouldn't be any congestion to sit in. Remember, it's too many people sitting in cars that cause congestion, not the so called empty buses - although I think you'd find if you were to get out of your car and use the bus in peak times that the buses are in actual fact, not "empty", but actually quite full. I do take your point about bus lanes outside of peak times though, although ironically having bus lanes or not makes no difference outside of those few hours a day...
[quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Sandor Clegane[/bold] wrote: It's about money, nothing else. Most bus lanes are empty 99% of the time and even those who support bus lanes wouldn't claim that using them causes any safety issues. They took away the Speed Cameras, which was a good thing, but realised how much money they'd lost... hence the bus lane cameras.[/p][/quote]Rubbish, it's about enforcing the law. And no-one said it's about safety, it's about providing public transport with congestion free routes into town. And in the case of the Torun Way camera it's about both enforcing the planning conditions AND about improving safety, given the speed some "drivers" were going through there. BTW, speed camera revenue went to central government, the council "lost" nothing by removing them. In fact they gained money because they no longer had to spend money maintaining them. Therefore your argument is invalid.[/p][/quote]Couple of things: 1. It cost the council less to maintain the Speed Cameras than the revenue they created - the Council just felt that Speed Cameras do not increase road safety and felt the budget could be more successfully used in other road safety measures. The figures bear out their predictions. 2. If it were about 'enforcing law', why have the Speed Cameras been removed? Most people would consider speeding, and red light jumping for that matter, a worse transgression of the law than straying into an empty bus lane. 3. Is there *really* a big problem with poor old empty buses being delayed by motorists using bus lanes? I've never seen any bus held up in bus lanes - although the drivers do have to twiddle their thumbs when stuck in the regular congestion that's, in part, caused by bus lanes. Overally, it doesn't bother me about bus lane cameras because I never use bus lanes - wouldn't give them the satisfaction. It's just yet another way of raising money off the back of motorists. Yes, drivers shouldn't use the bus lanes when they're not permitted to, but then there shouldn't be any bus lanes in operation in the first place. Several large city councils have removed them precisely because they're a detriment to overall traffic congestion. What's the point of not having enough road capacity and then painting over some of the most used roads in order that they're hardly ever used during the daytime? Stupid system that doesn't work. So to then go out of your way to rigorously enforce it - while not enforcing more dangerous driving styles at all - is plainly ridiculous.[/p][/quote]Yeah, but 1) aside from the fact that speed cameras are a completely separate issue, the council didn't get to keep the revenue anyway so it's irrelevant how much money the fines brought in - the money went to central government. 2) I've already explained that - it saved money from the council budget to remove them. and 3) if the poor old boohoo drivers used the bus, cycled or walked instead of causing congestion by sitting one person to a car in a queue, there wouldn't be any congestion to sit in. Remember, it's too many people sitting in cars that cause congestion, not the so called empty buses - although I think you'd find if you were to get out of your car and use the bus in peak times that the buses are in actual fact, not "empty", but actually quite full. I do take your point about bus lanes outside of peak times though, although ironically having bus lanes or not makes no difference outside of those few hours a day... The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man
  • Score: 2

11:31am Wed 6 Aug 14

The Real Librarian says...

house on the hill wrote:
Didnt we do this yesterday, is it Groundhog day?
You said that before
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: Didnt we do this yesterday, is it Groundhog day?[/p][/quote]You said that before The Real Librarian
  • Score: 1

11:32am Wed 6 Aug 14

The Real Librarian says...

jonelway wrote:
This is one article the Adver can keep reprinting in my opinion. Too many inconsiderate motorists on the road that pay little to no attention. Through the book at the f*****s!
Maybe you missed the point yesterday

Most Bus Lanes are 7-7
The cameras seem to be working 24 hours
[quote][p][bold]jonelway[/bold] wrote: This is one article the Adver can keep reprinting in my opinion. Too many inconsiderate motorists on the road that pay little to no attention. Through the book at the f*****s![/p][/quote]Maybe you missed the point yesterday Most Bus Lanes are 7-7 The cameras seem to be working 24 hours The Real Librarian
  • Score: 4

11:32am Wed 6 Aug 14

Sandor Clegane says...

@The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man - the fine money from Speed Cameras went to both the Speed Camera Partnerships and central government... both of whom then returned it to local councils either via increased spend on Speed Camera enforcement of plain cash handouts. The council did financially benefit from them, just not to the tune of every single penny raised. You'll likely find the money they make from bus lane cameras will be roughly what their surplus was from running Speed Cameras - hence why they're doing it.

Obviously, five mobile cameras and a couple of operatives do not cost anything like £65,000 a month to run. Probably more like £10k, if that. Money for nothing, basically.

Of course excess cars don't help congestion, but to then halve the amount of usable road in busy areas is hardly the way to ease that congestion, is it?

Why have both Liverpool and Bristol councils removed bus lanes if they work so well? Why was Prescott's beloved M4 Bus Lane removed?

Because they actually cause congestion rather than easing it.

I do agree with you that buses run quite full about 3 or 4 hours a day. The other 85% of the time you can count the number of passengers on one hand and often there is nobody on the bus bar the driver. It's actually quite depressing when you see so much of it. All that pollution, all that wasted money, all that additional (needless) congestion...
@The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man - the fine money from Speed Cameras went to both the Speed Camera Partnerships and central government... both of whom then returned it to local councils either via increased spend on Speed Camera enforcement of plain cash handouts. The council did financially benefit from them, just not to the tune of every single penny raised. You'll likely find the money they make from bus lane cameras will be roughly what their surplus was from running Speed Cameras - hence why they're doing it. Obviously, five mobile cameras and a couple of operatives do not cost anything like £65,000 a month to run. Probably more like £10k, if that. Money for nothing, basically. Of course excess cars don't help congestion, but to then halve the amount of usable road in busy areas is hardly the way to ease that congestion, is it? Why have both Liverpool and Bristol councils removed bus lanes if they work so well? Why was Prescott's beloved M4 Bus Lane removed? Because they actually cause congestion rather than easing it. I do agree with you that buses run quite full about 3 or 4 hours a day. The other 85% of the time you can count the number of passengers on one hand and often there is nobody on the bus bar the driver. It's actually quite depressing when you see so much of it. All that pollution, all that wasted money, all that additional (needless) congestion... Sandor Clegane
  • Score: 5

12:16pm Wed 6 Aug 14

MCdjGperkyWicked says...

I paid my road taxes I drive on the roads.
Chase up these illegal drivers who dont pay my road, my car, my choice.
I paid my road taxes I drive on the roads. Chase up these illegal drivers who dont pay my road, my car, my choice. MCdjGperkyWicked
  • Score: 2

12:33pm Wed 6 Aug 14

molly60 says...

Never heard nothing so ridicules. "Drivers misusing traffic measures were delaying buses and slowing the public transport system ".The only vehicles I see, and I do a lot of miles around Swindon, do the "delaying and slowing" are inconsiderate parkers and buses .Every time a bus halts at the majority of bus stops traffic behind the bus is forced to stop as well therefore "delay and slow" causing a domino effect of "delay and slow". Where do they find these brainless muppets who make such laughable statements. Oh sorry they don't live in the real world.
Never heard nothing so ridicules. "Drivers misusing traffic measures were delaying buses and slowing the public transport system ".The only vehicles I see, and I do a lot of miles around Swindon, do the "delaying and slowing" are inconsiderate parkers and buses .Every time a bus halts at the majority of bus stops traffic behind the bus is forced to stop as well therefore "delay and slow" causing a domino effect of "delay and slow". Where do they find these brainless muppets who make such laughable statements. Oh sorry they don't live in the real world. molly60
  • Score: 3

12:42pm Wed 6 Aug 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished.
More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)
This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished. More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-) A.Baron-Cohen
  • Score: 5

1:23pm Wed 6 Aug 14

BCDR99 says...

molly60 wrote:
Never heard nothing so ridicules. "Drivers misusing traffic measures were delaying buses and slowing the public transport system ".The only vehicles I see, and I do a lot of miles around Swindon, do the "delaying and slowing" are inconsiderate parkers and buses .Every time a bus halts at the majority of bus stops traffic behind the bus is forced to stop as well therefore "delay and slow" causing a domino effect of "delay and slow". Where do they find these brainless muppets who make such laughable statements. Oh sorry they don't live in the real world.
A lot of bus-stops used to be the "lay-by" offset from the road but unfortunately too many other drivers ignored the Highway Code and refused to let buses pull out, so now we're in the situation where we have bus stops actually in the road, so that the pulling out issue, isn't an issue.
[quote][p][bold]molly60[/bold] wrote: Never heard nothing so ridicules. "Drivers misusing traffic measures were delaying buses and slowing the public transport system ".The only vehicles I see, and I do a lot of miles around Swindon, do the "delaying and slowing" are inconsiderate parkers and buses .Every time a bus halts at the majority of bus stops traffic behind the bus is forced to stop as well therefore "delay and slow" causing a domino effect of "delay and slow". Where do they find these brainless muppets who make such laughable statements. Oh sorry they don't live in the real world.[/p][/quote]A lot of bus-stops used to be the "lay-by" offset from the road but unfortunately too many other drivers ignored the Highway Code and refused to let buses pull out, so now we're in the situation where we have bus stops actually in the road, so that the pulling out issue, isn't an issue. BCDR99
  • Score: 2

1:31pm Wed 6 Aug 14

BCDR99 says...

MCdjGperkyWicked wrote:
I paid my road taxes I drive on the roads.
Chase up these illegal drivers who dont pay my road, my car, my choice.
If only I had a pound every time I'd had to explain "road tax" to someone spouting exactly this sort of nonsense.

"Road tax" does not exist. I presume you are getting it confused with Vehicle Excise Duty which is an annual duty payable on a motor vehicle based on its CO2 emissions. It does not entitle you to use the roads. It also does not fund the roads. The money raised goes in to a central pot at the treasury along with income tax, NI, VAT, stamp duty etc, etc.
Taxes paid on fuel are simply taxes on a product that has a relatively inelastic demand therefore is perfect for raising taxes as quantity consumed doesn't seem to drop much when the price goes up. They also go in to the central pot.

The Highways agency build and maintain most A Roads and motorways etc. The local council is responsible for maintaining the roads within their control. The roads are there for lots of people who don't pay VED (like owners of low emission cars) or fuel duty (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders).
So, if you want to make an "I've paid for this road, therefore I'm going to use it." you need to consider how much income tax and council tax you pay. Would you like people who pay less of these taxes to have less right to use the roads?
The bigger problem in terms of actual impact on real, living people are the estimated 2-3 million drivers who are not insured.
[quote][p][bold]MCdjGperkyWicked[/bold] wrote: I paid my road taxes I drive on the roads. Chase up these illegal drivers who dont pay my road, my car, my choice.[/p][/quote]If only I had a pound every time I'd had to explain "road tax" to someone spouting exactly this sort of nonsense. "Road tax" does not exist. I presume you are getting it confused with Vehicle Excise Duty which is an annual duty payable on a motor vehicle based on its CO2 emissions. It does not entitle you to use the roads. It also does not fund the roads. The money raised goes in to a central pot at the treasury along with income tax, NI, VAT, stamp duty etc, etc. Taxes paid on fuel are simply taxes on a product that has a relatively inelastic demand therefore is perfect for raising taxes as quantity consumed doesn't seem to drop much when the price goes up. They also go in to the central pot. The Highways agency build and maintain most A Roads and motorways etc. The local council is responsible for maintaining the roads within their control. The roads are there for lots of people who don't pay VED (like owners of low emission cars) or fuel duty (pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders). So, if you want to make an "I've paid for this road, therefore I'm going to use it." you need to consider how much income tax and council tax you pay. Would you like people who pay less of these taxes to have less right to use the roads? The bigger problem in terms of actual impact on real, living people are the estimated 2-3 million drivers who are not insured. BCDR99
  • Score: 4

1:45pm Wed 6 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished.
More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)
The negative thumbs on your comments just proves your point that too many just don't care about the law and think the roads are their playground to drive and park and speed at whatever and whenever they feel appropriate and s0d anyone else. Clearly they have never had a loved one killed by a drunk driver who didnt even bother to apologise!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished. More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)[/p][/quote]The negative thumbs on your comments just proves your point that too many just don't care about the law and think the roads are their playground to drive and park and speed at whatever and whenever they feel appropriate and s0d anyone else. Clearly they have never had a loved one killed by a drunk driver who didnt even bother to apologise! house on the hill
  • Score: -4

1:57pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Moth says...

Odd that. SBC can put cameras in bus lanes but can't put a decent CCTV system in the underpass linking Station Road and Hawksworth where people frequently get mugged, assaulted and, sadly murdered. Oh. Silly me. The latter isn't a cash cow where the former is.
Odd that. SBC can put cameras in bus lanes but can't put a decent CCTV system in the underpass linking Station Road and Hawksworth where people frequently get mugged, assaulted and, sadly murdered. Oh. Silly me. The latter isn't a cash cow where the former is. Moth
  • Score: 3

2:59pm Wed 6 Aug 14

MCdjGperkyWicked says...

Its just about money and nothing else. I have paid mine so should be free to do as I please.
Its just about money and nothing else. I have paid mine so should be free to do as I please. MCdjGperkyWicked
  • Score: -5

3:04pm Wed 6 Aug 14

Davey Gravey says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished.
More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)
Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life!
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished. More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)[/p][/quote]Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life! Davey Gravey
  • Score: -1

3:34pm Wed 6 Aug 14

BCDR99 says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished.
More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)
Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life!
I think there is a legitimate case for banning people for short periods of time instead of allowing them to run up four convictions (12 points) before a ban is even discussed. Maybe give people a minor offence as a warning and then on the second minor or first major, you ban them for 14 days. 2 weeks without being able to drive would make people think twice about what a privilege it is to be allowed to drive a large, motorised vehicle around in congested, public spaces.

Second offence: 28 days, 3rd offence: 90 days and a re-test.

If you're caught driving while banned it's 3 years and a re-test. Caught driving whilst banned twice and I'm afraid your utter contempt for the law should give you a period with bars on your window and a bucket in the corner of your bedroom at night.

Minor offence - maybe something like less than 10% over the posted limit or using a bus gate/lane.
Major offence - using a mobile etc.

Keep the existing laws in place for drink/driving and careless/dangerous driving.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished. More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)[/p][/quote]Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life![/p][/quote]I think there is a legitimate case for banning people for short periods of time instead of allowing them to run up four convictions (12 points) before a ban is even discussed. Maybe give people a minor offence as a warning and then on the second minor or first major, you ban them for 14 days. 2 weeks without being able to drive would make people think twice about what a privilege it is to be allowed to drive a large, motorised vehicle around in congested, public spaces. Second offence: 28 days, 3rd offence: 90 days and a re-test. If you're caught driving while banned it's 3 years and a re-test. Caught driving whilst banned twice and I'm afraid your utter contempt for the law should give you a period with bars on your window and a bucket in the corner of your bedroom at night. Minor offence - maybe something like less than 10% over the posted limit or using a bus gate/lane. Major offence - using a mobile etc. Keep the existing laws in place for drink/driving and careless/dangerous driving. BCDR99
  • Score: 1

4:36pm Wed 6 Aug 14

house on the hill says...

BCDR99 wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished.
More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)
Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life!
I think there is a legitimate case for banning people for short periods of time instead of allowing them to run up four convictions (12 points) before a ban is even discussed. Maybe give people a minor offence as a warning and then on the second minor or first major, you ban them for 14 days. 2 weeks without being able to drive would make people think twice about what a privilege it is to be allowed to drive a large, motorised vehicle around in congested, public spaces.

Second offence: 28 days, 3rd offence: 90 days and a re-test.

If you're caught driving while banned it's 3 years and a re-test. Caught driving whilst banned twice and I'm afraid your utter contempt for the law should give you a period with bars on your window and a bucket in the corner of your bedroom at night.

Minor offence - maybe something like less than 10% over the posted limit or using a bus gate/lane.
Major offence - using a mobile etc.

Keep the existing laws in place for drink/driving and careless/dangerous driving.
And the most important part is that they are enforced. You can have the right laws in place but if no one is prepared to give the right sentence its a waste of time!
[quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished. More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)[/p][/quote]Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life![/p][/quote]I think there is a legitimate case for banning people for short periods of time instead of allowing them to run up four convictions (12 points) before a ban is even discussed. Maybe give people a minor offence as a warning and then on the second minor or first major, you ban them for 14 days. 2 weeks without being able to drive would make people think twice about what a privilege it is to be allowed to drive a large, motorised vehicle around in congested, public spaces. Second offence: 28 days, 3rd offence: 90 days and a re-test. If you're caught driving while banned it's 3 years and a re-test. Caught driving whilst banned twice and I'm afraid your utter contempt for the law should give you a period with bars on your window and a bucket in the corner of your bedroom at night. Minor offence - maybe something like less than 10% over the posted limit or using a bus gate/lane. Major offence - using a mobile etc. Keep the existing laws in place for drink/driving and careless/dangerous driving.[/p][/quote]And the most important part is that they are enforced. You can have the right laws in place but if no one is prepared to give the right sentence its a waste of time! house on the hill
  • Score: 1

9:39pm Wed 6 Aug 14

LordCharles says...

Some bloke yelled at me last night as he overtook me. I was in the Cricklade Road bus lane. "Oi. Stupid. That's a bus lane." I yelled back. "Oh! I thought I was driving a bus." He stopped at the Moonies mini roundabout wound down his window again and yelled at me again. "Oi! It's a sixty quid fine, Mate, 'cos there's cameras now." I said. "What's the time?" He said "Half past seven." I said. "Perhaps you should read the sign back there. It's a part time bus lane." He shot off completely unaware. So how does he treat other road signs like: Stop, Give Way, School Crossing. There are some di*k heads out there. Be careful.
Some bloke yelled at me last night as he overtook me. I was in the Cricklade Road bus lane. "Oi. Stupid. That's a bus lane." I yelled back. "Oh! I thought I was driving a bus." He stopped at the Moonies mini roundabout wound down his window again and yelled at me again. "Oi! It's a sixty quid fine, Mate, 'cos there's cameras now." I said. "What's the time?" He said "Half past seven." I said. "Perhaps you should read the sign back there. It's a part time bus lane." He shot off completely unaware. So how does he treat other road signs like: Stop, Give Way, School Crossing. There are some di*k heads out there. Be careful. LordCharles
  • Score: 5

9:52pm Wed 6 Aug 14

CllrDJGAZZAperky@HaydenMaSS says...

SBC seem to be attempting to force me from my car and to sit with the disgusting oik that travel on those germ wagons.
I should be able to drive from my home to my destination and park where I need to cant afford a car?
Walk in it will save you money.
Lazy Oiks
SBC seem to be attempting to force me from my car and to sit with the disgusting oik that travel on those germ wagons. I should be able to drive from my home to my destination and park where I need to cant afford a car? Walk in it will save you money. Lazy Oiks CllrDJGAZZAperky@HaydenMaSS
  • Score: -4

10:38pm Wed 6 Aug 14

therock4u says...

I bet most caught were BMW's, Audi's, and 4 wheel drive motors.

Most of their driving is terrible, must get the front of the queue, even if it means passing just one car.
I bet most caught were BMW's, Audi's, and 4 wheel drive motors. Most of their driving is terrible, must get the front of the queue, even if it means passing just one car. therock4u
  • Score: 0

10:21am Thu 7 Aug 14

BCDR99 says...

house on the hill wrote:
BCDR99 wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished.
More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)
Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life!
I think there is a legitimate case for banning people for short periods of time instead of allowing them to run up four convictions (12 points) before a ban is even discussed. Maybe give people a minor offence as a warning and then on the second minor or first major, you ban them for 14 days. 2 weeks without being able to drive would make people think twice about what a privilege it is to be allowed to drive a large, motorised vehicle around in congested, public spaces.

Second offence: 28 days, 3rd offence: 90 days and a re-test.

If you're caught driving while banned it's 3 years and a re-test. Caught driving whilst banned twice and I'm afraid your utter contempt for the law should give you a period with bars on your window and a bucket in the corner of your bedroom at night.

Minor offence - maybe something like less than 10% over the posted limit or using a bus gate/lane.
Major offence - using a mobile etc.

Keep the existing laws in place for drink/driving and careless/dangerous driving.
And the most important part is that they are enforced. You can have the right laws in place but if no one is prepared to give the right sentence its a waste of time!
Actually, you've got to catch people first and that means putting proper police patrols out on the roads. On the plus side, this would catch all forms of bad, careless, dangerous and illegal driving as opposed to just people using a bus lane which is all that is enforced currently in Swindon (oh, and the occasional 2 day blitz on a specific offence like drink-driving or driving on a mobile etc)
[quote][p][bold]house on the hill[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BCDR99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: This is about obeying the Law! no ifs no buts, respect the Law or be punished. More cameras please to catch more ignorant, inconsiderate drivers, lets hit them where it hurts:-)[/p][/quote]Agree. Too many idiots on our over congested roads. Ban more of them and do so for life![/p][/quote]I think there is a legitimate case for banning people for short periods of time instead of allowing them to run up four convictions (12 points) before a ban is even discussed. Maybe give people a minor offence as a warning and then on the second minor or first major, you ban them for 14 days. 2 weeks without being able to drive would make people think twice about what a privilege it is to be allowed to drive a large, motorised vehicle around in congested, public spaces. Second offence: 28 days, 3rd offence: 90 days and a re-test. If you're caught driving while banned it's 3 years and a re-test. Caught driving whilst banned twice and I'm afraid your utter contempt for the law should give you a period with bars on your window and a bucket in the corner of your bedroom at night. Minor offence - maybe something like less than 10% over the posted limit or using a bus gate/lane. Major offence - using a mobile etc. Keep the existing laws in place for drink/driving and careless/dangerous driving.[/p][/quote]And the most important part is that they are enforced. You can have the right laws in place but if no one is prepared to give the right sentence its a waste of time![/p][/quote]Actually, you've got to catch people first and that means putting proper police patrols out on the roads. On the plus side, this would catch all forms of bad, careless, dangerous and illegal driving as opposed to just people using a bus lane which is all that is enforced currently in Swindon (oh, and the occasional 2 day blitz on a specific offence like drink-driving or driving on a mobile etc) BCDR99
  • Score: 0

9:29pm Thu 7 Aug 14

Ollie Dognacky says...

**Couple of things: 1. It cost the council less to maintain the Speed Cameras than the revenue they created - the Council just felt that Speed Cameras do not increase road safety and felt the budget could be more successfully used in other road safety measures. **
........
How do you know such thing 😳
Oh yes. I remember 😜
**Couple of things: 1. It cost the council less to maintain the Speed Cameras than the revenue they created - the Council just felt that Speed Cameras do not increase road safety and felt the budget could be more successfully used in other road safety measures. ** ........ How do you know such thing 😳 Oh yes. I remember 😜 Ollie Dognacky
  • Score: 0

6:45am Mon 11 Aug 14

erniebond says...

Just another money making concern by our Council so that it can be wasted on other projects. WiFi. Failed Park and Ride schemes in Penhill etc.
Many other projects that have been promised and not materialised.
Just another money making concern by our Council so that it can be wasted on other projects. WiFi. Failed Park and Ride schemes in Penhill etc. Many other projects that have been promised and not materialised. erniebond
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree