So what will be the excuses this time? Options

[Darren]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/56796

6080 fines for using Park Way bridge since it was restricted.

How many were repeat offenders?

Either way that's a scary amount of inattentive drivers out there, but I'm sure they all had a perfectly valid 'excuse'...

[On the edge]

Lets see now:-

- The background colour of the sign is the wrong colour tone
- The battery has gone in my SatNav
- I'm a street warden's supervisor
- I'm exempt because I don't agree with this regulation
- This is a people carrier so tI follow the same rules that apply to taxi's
- I was making a political point
- No one told me when the start date was

Presumably our opposition Councillors will now be calling for exemptions for those drivers who are registered blind! I must admit, 'till now I've thought that the wharf bollards were unjustified overkill; perhaps not!

[Adrian Hollister]

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2012/56796

6080 fines for using Park Way bridge since it was restricted.

How many were repeat offenders?

Either way that's a scary amount of inattentive drivers out there, but I'm sure they all had a perfectly valid 'excuse'...

I must admit, that it's going to be difficult for people to argue about it this time around. The locals should be used to the road layout by now and anyone who doesn't know the area should have a good deal of observation built into their driving. Perhaps instead of fining people WBC could offer a driving observation course or a few hours of community service?

[Biker1]

Are the signs lit now?
Because if they are not lit you can't see them, or the bloody great 3 foot letters in the road!!
Perhaps if they raise enough in fines they may be able to pay for a new, 2 - way bridge which is what should have been built in the first place.

[Andy Capp]

Are the signs lit now? Because if they are not lit you can't see them, or the bloody great 3 foot letters in the road!! Perhaps if they raise enough in fines they may be able to pay for a new, 2 - way bridge which is what should have been built in the first place.

I don't think a two way bridge is 'what is needed', before that you would need a better traffic system in Bear Lane. That is the 'problem'. I have a better solution: I rarely, if ever, use Parkway.

[Biker1]

I don't think a two way bridge is 'what is needed', before that you would need a better traffic system in Bear Lane. That is the 'problem'. I have a better solution: I rarely, if ever, use Parkway.

Agreed, which could or should be incorporated in any bridge project.
However, "pie in the sky".
I too, because of the current traffic arrangements, never drive in Parkway.
"Round the Robin Hood" every time for me I'm afraid!

[JeffG]

If they knocked down the KFC building they could improve both the junction layout and Newbury's health in one fell swoop.

[Penelope]

I must admit, that it's going to be difficult for people to argue about it this time around. The locals should be used to the road layout by now and anyone who doesn't know the area should have a good deal of observation built into their driving. Perhaps instead of fining people WBC could offer a driving observation course or a few hours of community service?

Precisely, and if they can't see these signs would they not see a child in the road either? One or two motorists may claim to have made a mistake but not this many. Rank stupidity.

[Biker1]

Precisely, and if they can't see these signs would they not see a child in the road either? One or two motorists may claim to have made a mistake but not this many. Rank stupidity.

I'm fairly certain that in many instances it is not a case of drivers not seeing the signs.
It is more a case of seeing them but thinking "I am too important for this to apply to me, I'll chance it".
Much the same drivers as those who refuse to queue with everybody else, and who jump red traffic lights.

[Andy Capp]

Precisely, and if they can't see these signs would they not see a child in the road either? One or two motorists may claim to have made a mistake but not this many. Rank stupidity.

I suspect people do see the signs but don't understand them.

I wonder why Keith Ulyatt won't say what happened to the £12, 400.00 they should have received.

"Each fine is £30 if it is paid within 14 days, rising to £60 thereafter, therefore the council could have made at least £182,400 from the 6,080 upheld fines.

However, public relations manager for the district council, Keith Ulyatt, said the local authority had only made £170,000 from the fines – but he refused to explain why."

[Andy Capp]

I'm fairly certain that in many instances it is not a case of drivers not seeing the signs. It is more a case of seeing them but thinking "I am too important for this to apply to me, I'll chance it".

I'm more inclined to think it is people not being sure of their rights to use the bridge.

[Biker1]

I suspect people do see the signs but don't understand them.

And these people are DRIVING!!
How can you misinterpret written in the road in big letters:-
BUSES AND TAXIS ONLY??

[Andy Capp]

And these people are DRIVING!!
Back to the Highway Code for them pronto!

I would imagine the vast majority of these drivers are otherwise perfectly safe by comparison to other drivers. I think the 'danger' aspect is over-hyped. Not with out more information.

I'd like to know what the ratio is of drivers that cross compared to these that turn away.

How can you misinterpret written in the road in big letters:-BUSES AND TAXIS ONLY??

Well since you ask: the statement can mean at least two things. BUSES AND TAXIS ONLY can mean only they can, or can't do something. In any case, it is easier to examine signage from the relative calm of a computer desk, but not so easy when you only have seconds to read an absorb new signage in the relative pressure situation of driving on the road.

The traffic situation is rather ambiguous in so far as there are a number of signs detailing conditional use. That will mean people will more likely do the wrong thing compared to, say, a NO ENTRY sign, for instance.

I'm not excusing anyone, I can just see how it happens, and I don't accept the argument that these people are more likely to hit children who stray in the road, and such arguments. I think that is sensationalist, unless there is data to support it of course.

[Biker1]

I think the 'danger' aspect is over-hyped. Not with out more information.

I agree, hence my earlier comments - they see the signs but chance it, not realising that 24hr cameras are watching them.

[Andy Capp]

I agree, hence my earlier comments - they see the signs but chance it, not realising that 24hr cameras are watching them.

Yes it seems the council can operate effective camera systems when they want to.

[Darren]

Looking at the photos, the signs are very clear on what and isn't permitted. Perhaps they'd be bet off stopping off at the library and reading the Highway Code.

[Bartholomew]

Yes it seems the council can operate effective camera systems when they want to.

Where do the fines go? Is it to central government fund or does WBC get some or all of it?

[Andy Capp]

/8

Looking at the photos, the signs are very clear on what and isn't permitted. Perhaps they'd be bet off stopping off at the library and reading the Highway Code.

That is a sensible idea; however, we are more likely to make a 'mistake' when we are presented with situations we are not familiar with. It is very easy when we have the time and comfort of our own home (or library) to ponder the definition of road signs and markings. No one can see us get it wrong for starters!

[Andy Capp]

Where do the fines go? Is it to central government fund or does WBC get some or all of it?

Back to council I believe. What we might consider is, did the council install a traffic light system to make money. I don't think so, although I would imagine they are eager to make-up for the short fall in 'expected' traffic fines from other areas.

[Sherlock]

This is fantastic news! Think of it, like the lottery, as a moron tax.