Forum Topic

Start Time: 22-05-2019 13:00:05 End Time: 22-05-2019 13:20:39Agents: MattAgent Matt has joined the chat.[13:00:06] Matt: Hi, how may I help you?[13:01:05] john cameron: hi, I am submitting traffic offences through the website, of drivers making illegal turns against a no entry sign. several hundred make this turn every morning and neither the met nor tfl do anything about it[13:01:39] john cameron: i want to know if these reports supported by photographs of the offence will be properly investigated[13:02:06] john cameron: and what can I do locally in terms of the met in order to bring this to an end before there is a serious accident[13:03:05] Matt: This is not for the Met or tfl. You need to make the local council aware of this. they can issue tickets etc[13:03:24] Matt: Its not something that we deal with i'm afraid[13:03:29] john cameron: these are traffic offences[13:03:38] john cameron: why would it not be the met[13:03:52] john cameron: the met are responsible for traffic offences[13:03:59] john cameron: it is not the council[13:04:05] john cameron: it is a red route[13:04:59] Matt: The met did not put up the sign or make that road on the red route. All these things were dealt with by the local council.[13:05:08] Matt: We do not deal with this.[13:05:22] john cameron: do the met deal with traffic offences[13:05:28] Matt: You need to make the council aware.[13:05:39] john cameron: do the met deal with traffic offences[13:06:22] Matt: Sir I have advised you what you need to do in this instance.[13:06:36] john cameron: do the met deal with traffic offences, yes or no[13:06:46] Matt: The met would not deal in these circumstances.[13:06:57] john cameron: so the met do not deal with traffic offences[13:07:17] john cameron: you are saying that the met are happy for motorists to break the law[13:07:40] john cameron: and when there is a serious accident the met will say it was not our problem[13:07:54] john cameron: this doesn't appear to be a sustainable positions[13:08:32] john cameron: do you have an email address for the Commissioner of the Met[13:09:32] Matt: You have raised a issue and I have directed to the party responsible for the roads who can assist you with your issue. We have no control of this you need to make the councilaware so they can wither put up cameras at the location or bar of the road in some way.[13:10:20] john cameron: so you are confirming that the met do not have responsibility for traffic offences. is that correct[13:11:13] john cameron: what is the point of the met having a website to report traffic offences if you don't do anything about them[13:11:32] john cameron: it seems like a waste of time and money,[13:12:17] Matt: What is it that you want the Met to do in relation to this particular issue ?[13:13:14] john cameron: investigate the traffic offences that I am reporting to you[13:13:48] john cameron: do the met have responsibility for traffic offences[13:14:03] Matt: Continue to complete the form which will go to our traffic unit for review.[13:14:17] Matt: Is there anything else I can assist with ?[13:14:37] john cameron: can you answer my question[13:14:52] john cameron: do the met have responsibility for traffic offences[13:14:57] john cameron: yes or no[13:16:06] Matt: If a road related traffic offence is reported to us our traffic unit reviews these.[13:16:19] Matt: I am not going to argue with you.[13:16:24] john cameron: you are avoiding the question[13:16:48] Matt: I have advised you of what to do and it is up to you if you wish to proceed or not.[13:17:04] john cameron: not arguing, you simply refuse to answer. the met either do or do not have responsibility for traffic offences[13:17:31] john cameron: do you have the email address for the Met Commissioner[13:20:17] Matt: there is no public email address for the commissioner[13:20:32] john cameron: Ok, I am sure I can find it, thanks, byeAgent Matt has left the chat.The chat is ended. (13:20:39

John Cameron ● 2730d

John Cameron3:43 PM (29 minutes ago)to Comm.PO, mayor, GarethPowell, TFLDear CommissionerVirtual no entry/exit junction Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh Road, SW15Earlier today I reported a handful of serious traffic offences, submitted through the Met’s website. When doing so I had a virtual chat with one of your team - Matt.  I was surprised to learn from Matt that these offences (all of the cars in the pictures below if turning are committing an endorsable offence) are not the Met’s concern. I have a copy of the virtual chat if you would like to read it.  This policy seems at odds with the Met’s Total Policing policy. The junction is ‘controlled’ by TFL who take no interest in enforcing the no exit/entry signs, issuing a handful of fixed penalty notices every day. I would suggest that a couple of hundred vehicles disobey the signs every morning.  Assuming that these are fixed penalty endorsable offences (neglect of traffic directions and pedestrian rights) they should bring a significant income to TFL at £100 each, literally tens of thousands of pounds a week.  My concern is not so much TFL’s inability to issue fines - it is one of road safety, which I assumed falls to the Met. This junction is hugely dangerous, with school children (there are five primary schools nearby), pedestrians and cyclists - the Upper Richmond Road is part of the South Circular, so it is a very busy road.  The lack of rigour by TFL and the Met in enforcing the restriction will lead to an accident, it is simply a matter of time. If one stands at the junction, as I did to take these photos, you see near misses regularly.I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the lack of interest by the Met and how this sits with your the Total Policing policy.Kind regardsJohn Cameron

John Cameron ● 2730d

From: John Cameron Date: 29 May 2019 at 15:30:00 BSTTo: Justine GREENING , Leonie Cooper , Leonie Cooper , Cllr.M.Ryder@wandsworth.gov.uk, Steffi Sutters , Simon Hogg , TFL Traffic Enforcement , Cllr.R.Govindia@wandsworth.gov.ukSubject: Fwd: 966-7971-19  VRM WJ60PZHAllTraffic violations Dryburgh Road / Upper Richmond RoadPlease see the reply below from the Metropolitan Police who have confirmed that traffic offences are not their concern. Could someone please confirm to me who is responsible for this junction and the accident that is waiting to happen. ThanksJBegin forwarded message:From: Date: 29 May 2019 at 15:19:55 BSTTo: John CameronSubject: 966-7971-19  VRM WJ60PZH Dear Mr Cameron            ,      Date: 20/05/2019Time:  09:10Location: Dryburgh Road into Upper Richmond Road SW15  Thank you for submitting a witness statement regarding the above incident.The Metropolitan Police Service takes all allegations of bad driving seriously and is committed to road safety and improving driver behaviour. However, before we are in a position to progress any offences, including those reported by members of the public, we must ensure that cases meet certain evidential criteria. After careful consideration of the evidence supplied in this case, I regret to inform you that we are unable to take any further action. In this case the alleged offence is a Local Authority Offence so  we have been unable to pursue this allegation. I appreciate that this decision is unlikely to be the outcome you sought and apologise that we were unable to assist you on this occasion. I can however confirm that details of your report have been shared with our Road Safe team for intelligence purposes. Yours sincerely Traffic Processing ServicesAllegation Unit

John Cameron ● 2723d

From: John Cameron Date: 29 May 2019 at 9:35:34 pm CESTTo: Leonie Cooper Cc: Justine GREENING , "Cooper, Leonie (Cllr)" , "Sutters, Steffi (Cllr)" , "Hogg, Simon (Cllr)" , TFL Traffic Enforcement , "Govindia, Ravi (Cllr)" , "Ryder, Mike (Cllr)" Subject: Re: 966-7971-19  VRM WJ60PZHDear Cllr CooperPlease see below from Cllr Ryder.  There seems to be a fair amount of buck passing in respect of who is responsible for the safety of this junction. The Met say it isn’t them, and Cllr Ryder says it is TFL and the Mayor. If that is correct, and it seem it is, would it be possible for you to respond to my concerns? Why are TFL not enforcing the very blatant disregard of the signage?  How will TFL defend themselves when there is a serious accident, which is simply a matter of time?ThanksJohnOn 29 May 2019, at 9:19 pm, Ryder, Mike (Cllr) wrote:Dear Mr Cameron, it is my understanding that enforcing the restrictions at this junction are a TfL matter, so i think Cllr Leonie Cooper and Mayor Sadiq Khan are still the people to chase...yours, Mike RyderCouncillor Mike RyderConservative councillor for Thamesfield Ward, PutneyWandsworth Borough CouncilFrom: John CameronSent: Wednesday, May 29, 2019 5:30:00 PMTo: Justine GREENING; Cooper, Leonie (Cllr); Leonie Cooper; Ryder, Mike (Cllr); Sutters, Steffi (Cllr); Hogg, Simon (Cllr); TFL Traffic Enforcement; Govindia, Ravi (Cllr)Subject: Fwd: 966-7971-19 VRM WJ60PZH AllTraffic violations Dryburgh Road / Upper Richmond RoadPlease see the reply below from the Metropolitan Police who have confirmed that traffic offences are not their concern. Could someone please confirm to me who is responsible for this junction and the accident that is waiting to happen. ThanksJJohn CameronFrom: Date: 29 May 2019 at 15:19:55 BSTTo: john cameronSubject: 966-7971-19  VRM WJ60PZH Dear Mr Cameron            ,      Date: 20/05/2019Time:  09:10Location: Dryburgh Road into Upper Richmond Road SW15  Thank you for submitting a witness statement regarding the above incident.The Metropolitan Police Service takes all allegations of bad driving seriously and is committed to road safety and improving driver behaviour. However, before we are in a position to progress any offences, including those reported by members of the public, we must ensure that cases meet certain evidential criteria. After careful consideration of the evidence supplied in this case, I regret to inform you that we are unable to take any further action. In this case the alleged offence is a Local Authority Offence so  we have been unable to pursue this allegation. I appreciate that this decision is unlikely to be the outcome you sought and apologise that we were unable to assist you on this occasion. I can however confirm that details of your report have been shared with our Road Safe team for intelligence purposes. Yours sincerely Traffic Processing ServicesAllegation Unit

John Cameron ● 2722d

From: John CameronDate: 29 May 2019 at 9:50:44 pm CESTTo: "Cheung, Henry" Cc: "Sutters, Steffi (Cllr)" , "Power, Kevin" , "Cochrane, Dave" , FOI Wandsworth , Justine GREENING , Leonie Cooper , Simon Hogg Subject: Re: 966-7971-19  VRM WJ60PZHDear HenryThank you for your response below.I don’t think that TFL’s statement that there is “good compliance for enforcement” is sustainable. What evidence did TFL provide to you to back this up?  I presume they gave you some hard numbers?  Can you please provide them?In terms of enforcing the restriction the Council is not doing all they can. WBC removed the physical barrier which led directly to the current situation. So the reality is that WBC are the party who are directly responsible for danger which the junction presents today.I wish WBC to provide to me all the material which you hold in respect of the junction, including the feasibility studies for the cost savings, negotiations with TFL over handing the junction to TFL, all subsequent correspondence with TFL (of any description) in respect of the junction including the correspondence referred to in January 2019, and all recent correspondence. Please regard all of the above as a formal request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).I look forward to an early response.Kind regardsJohn————————On 29 May 2019, at 6:12 pm, Cheung, Henry wrote: Dear Mr Cameron, Thank you for your email, Councillor Sutters has forwarded it to me for a reply. I assume you are referring to the restriction that prohibits access by vehicles into Dryburgh Road from Upper Richmond Road between 07:00-10:00, Monday to Friday. I can confirm Transport for London (TfL) is responsible for enforcement of the above restriction and I wrote to them last week highlighting local concerns that has been reported to the Council recently. Back in Jan 19, TfL confirmed “there is good compliance of the restriction” and their most recent reply was “I’ve asked that it be given priority consideration for enforcement”. I hope you can appreciate the Council is doing all we can to ensure TfL is enforcing this restriction. Kind regards Henry CheungHead of Engineering (Group 3)Serving Richmond and Wandsworth CouncilsTel: 020 8487 5250e-mail  henry.cheung@richmondandwandsworth.gov.ukwww.richmond.gov.uk / www.wandsworth.gov.uk—————————-From: John Cameron Sent: 29 May 2019 15:30To: Justine GREENING; Cooper, Leonie (Cllr); Leonie Cooper; Ryder, Mike (Cllr); Sutters, Steffi (Cllr); Hogg, Simon (Cllr); TFL Traffic Enforcement; Govindia, Ravi (Cllr)Subject: Fwd: 966-7971-19 VRM WJ60PZH All Traffic violations Dryburgh Road / Upper Richmond Road Please see the reply below from the Metropolitan Police who have confirmed that traffic offences are not their concern. Could someone please confirm to me who is responsible for this junction and the accident that is waiting to happen. Thanks J ————————————-From: Date: 29 May 2019 at 15:19:55 BSTTo: john cameronSubject: 966-7971-19  VRM WJ60PZHDear Mr Cameron          ,    Date: 20/05/2019Time:  09:10Location: Dryburgh Road into Upper Richmond Road SW15  Thank you for submitting a witness statement regarding the above incident.The Metropolitan Police Service takes all allegations of bad driving seriously and is committed to road safety and improving driver behaviour. However, before we are in a position to progress any offences, including those reported by members of the public, we must ensure that cases meet certain evidential criteria. After careful consideration of the evidence supplied in this case, I regret to inform you that we are unable to take any further action. In this case the alleged offence is a Local Authority Offence so  we have been unable to pursue this allegation. I appreciate that this decision is unlikely to be the outcome you sought and apologise that we were unable to assist you on this occasion. I can however confirm that details of your report have been shared with our Road Safe team for intelligence purposes. Yours sincerely Traffic Processing ServicesAllegation Unit

John Cameron ● 2721d

From: John Cameron Date: 4 June 2019 at 9:51:43 am CESTTo: "Cooper, Leonie (Cllr)" Cc: Leonie Cooper Subject: Re: Virtual no entry/exit junction Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh Road, SW15Hi LeonieI have not received your previous reply. You may be aware that the barrier was physical and opened/closed by Wandsworth.  A similar barrier at Hallam Road / Lower Putney Common is opened/closed every weekday by Wandsworth.  The same team opened and closed both.  Wandsworth removed the physical barrier at Dryburgh/URR to save cost, but continue to open/close the second barrier, so the ‘saving cost’ reason is clearly nonsense.  Wandsworth removed the barrier to open the road to traffic - and passed the buck to TFL. TFL don’t enforce the barrier, or only do so in a halfhearted way - ie c6 fixed penalty notices / day.I think as many as 200 cars ignore the signs daily, but lets call it 100.  100 fixed notices x £60 = £6,000 / day = £30,000 / week = £1.56m / year. This junction is a ‘cash dispenser’ for TFL if they installed ANPR cameras, to monitor it correctly. TFL use ANPR technology extensively - including the enforcement of the Congestion Charge.  The installation of ANPR at the junction (assuming it is legal) must be technically possible and the ROI would be sensational, the investment would pay for itself in a week.  Obviously those drivers choosing to ignore the cameras will fall dramatically, but there would still be a steady income to help fund TFL’s transport responsibilities. If TFL don’t enforce this there will be a tragic accident sooner or later, it is simply a matter of time. TFL only have to look at the evidence of what is happening daily to see this. If TFL refuse to do this, I am quite happy to do their job for them - I will simply stand in the junction to prevent cars from transgressing. Other residents may also be willing to help with this.  Thank you for taking this up with TFL and I look forward to your reply, and hopefully to TFL gripping this hard in the very near future.Kind regardsJohn

John Cameron ● 2717d

Dear Mr Cameron Our ref: FOI-0509-1920/GH Thank you for your request received by Transport for London (TfL) on 20 May 2019 asking for information about the Enforcement of Virtual Barrier - junction Dryburgh Road / Upper Richmond Road, Putney, SW15 Your request has been considered under the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require.The restrictions in place here is from Monday to Friday from 7am -10am. There is a prohibited turn in both the eastbound and westbound directions on Upper Richmond Road into Dryburgh Road.We have passed your concerns and observations on to our camera enforcement team who will review enforcement of this location with a view of more emphasis to increase compliance. 1. How many fixed penalty notices were issued between Monday 1 April 2019 and July and Friday 17 May 2019Between 1 April and 17 May 2019, we have issued a total of 359 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) to vehicles who were observed performing banned manoeuvres at this junction when prohibited.2. What was the total of the fines for the above datesThe total payment received from these fines is £25,220. This may increase as more PCNs are paid.If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me.If you are not satisfied with this response please see the attached information sheet for details of your right to appeal.Yours sincerelyGraham HurtFOI Case OfficerFOI Case Management TeamGeneral CounselTransport for London

John Cameron ● 2714d

From: John Cameron Date: 9 June 2019 at 12:21:31 pm CESTTo: Leonie Cooper , Leonie Cooper , Steffi Sutters , Simon Hogg , Cllr.M.Ryder@wandsworth.gov.uk, mayor@london.gov.ukCc: TFL Traffic Enforcement , Cllr.R.Govindia@wandsworth.gov.uk, Paul.Martin@richmondandwandsworth.gov.ukSubject: Virtual barrier - Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh RoadDear Cllr CooperVirtual barrier - Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh RoadTransport for LondonTFL’s response to my FOI stated 359 PCN’s and some £25,000 of payments from those fines, an average payment of just over £70/pcn. My understanding is that a PCN fine is £130 with a 50% discount if paid promptly.  The average suggests that most are paid promptly, and TFL point out that the total may rise as more payments are made - so it follows that not all have been paid.However, based on my observations, this is a staggeringly low ‘success rate’ in terms of fining drivers for ignoring the signs, an average of some 10 a day.  In your email of 4 June you pointed out...“TfL has had its entire budget cut for roads by central government. This has removed over £700m per annum, and makes London the only city in the country, and I believe the world, that does not receive any central government support in respect of its transport system.”I believe as many as 200 unlawful turns are made / day, but lets assume it is less, say 100.  If all of these were ‘captured’ and fined, the income for the FOI period above would have been in the order of £250,000, not £25,000. It seems that TFL, (which you suggest needs the money) have left £225,000 on the table, in seven weeks, or over £1.6m in a year. ANPR camera technology is used by TFL to enforce the congestion zone and red route, but it seems that TFL do not enforce or have the cameras in place to enforce this dangerous junction - which would be a ‘virtual cash machine’ if TFL got it’s act together. TFL cannot excuse itself over a lack of budget, as the ROI on rigorous enforcement would claw back any additional costs in a matter of days. In view of this I would ask you to investigate with TFL...1. Why do they not enforce the junction with rigour?2. What steps do they intend to take to do so?3. If they do not intend to do so, given they need the income, why not?It would be interesting to know how many other junctions TFL don’t bother to enforce, and what is the total of ‘lost revenue’ that they are missing out on due to operational inability / inefficiency to enforce the regulations. Wandsworth You will also have seen that Henry Cheung helpfully confirmed that WBC do not hold any information in respect of how the virtual barrier came to be put in place, let alone any paper or feasibility on the ‘financial savings’ by removing the physical barrier.  It seems to me that this is a cover up by WBC as there is no argument for ‘financial savings’.    In view of this can you please, ascertain from Wandsworth1. Why the material is missing, and who would be responsible for it’s loss?2. The justification for the removal of the physical barrier, thereby making it an accident waiting to happen.Thank you.John

John Cameron ● 2712d

From: John Cameron Date: 16 June 2019 at 4:53:03 pm CESTTo: "Cooper, Leonie (Cllr)" , Cllr.M.Ryder@wandsworth.gov.ukCc: Leonie Cooper , Justine GREENING , Steffi Sutters , Simon Hogg Subject: Re: Virtual barrier - Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh RoadDear Cllrs Cooper and RyderHappy to split the responsibilities as suggested.  It seems to me there are some rather fundamental questions which need replying to;TFL  / Mayor of London1. Given the flagrant disregard for the signage and availability of technology (to enforce) the junction should be, for TFL, a ‘cash dispenser’. Fining 5% +/- of  drivers who disregard the signs seems a suspiciously low capture rate. There must be a reason behind this. Why do TFL not robustly enforce the ‘no entry’, thereby generating several hundred thousand a year from it?2. The Dryburgh/ Dealtry blind spot must be known to TFL, as they clearly see drivers exploiting this manoeuvre daily. The ROI on introducing cameras would be off the scale.Why have TFL not introduced cameras to cover the blind spot?  3. There will be an accident at some point, and given the lack of endeavour by TFL to enforce the virtual barrier TFL will have to accept responsibility. TFL’s lack of endeavour is well known to drivers and thereby encourages irresponsible drivers to chance their luck.  How do TFL justify their lack of enforcement, particularly given their responsibility for and commitment to, road safety?Wandsworth1. The virtual scheme was introduced to ‘save money’. There must therefore be feasibility papers / approval processes to remove the physical barrier.  Who prepared these, where are they now, and who gave the final approval for the scheme?2. Given that identical barriers are opened and closed nearby every day, the money saving ‘reason’ is clearly nonsense.  Wandsworth wanted to remove the physical barrier to open the no entry to traffic. Why?Justine Greening has also confirmed that she will endeavour to shed some light on this, so I am copying Justine for her information. At the risk of stating the obvious TFL need to take ownership of the junction, install the necessary technology and use it to capture / fine drivers. Once TFL do so, and assuming they continue to enforce the virtual no entry robustly drivers will quickly get the message.  Until that happens this junction is an accident waiting to happen.Kind regards. John

John Cameron ● 2705d

From: John CameronDate: 22 July 2019 at 9:19:34 pm BSTTo: Leonie Cooper , Leonie Cooper Subject: Fwd: Virtual barrier - Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh RoadDear Cllr CooperAre you able to provided any insight as to the points below?  Have TFL engaged with you as to why they don’t rigorously enforce the junction or what steps they intend to take to do so?When can I expect to receive a response?John—————————-From: John Cameron Date: 8 July 2019 at 6:37:30 pm BSTTo: "Cooper, Leonie (Cllr)" Cc: Leonie Cooper , "Ryder, Mike (Cllr)" Subject: Re: Virtual barrier - Upper Richmond Road / Dryburgh RoadDear Cllr CooperFive temporary cameras have been installed today on the URR/Dryburgh junction. They appear to be placed to cover the blind spot in of Dealtry/Dryburgh and others are much closer to the actual junction. It would now be challenging to turn and not be ‘caught’. I understand that other cameras are monitoring nearby roads, so it may be that this is part of a wider survey. You were endeavouring to find out from TFL the following (in respect of the URR/Dryburgh junction) -1. Why do TFL not enforce the junction with rigour?2. What steps do TFL intend to take to do so?3. If TFL do not intend to do so, given they need the income, why not?Have TFL reacted, can you please provide me with an update?Many thanksJohn——————————On 16 Jun 2019, at 2:24 pm, Cooper, Leonie (Cllr) wrote:Happy to carry on pursuing TfL, but your local Councillors should really pick up your other points with the Council, on your behalf. I think you said it was Mike Ryder who originally suggested you contact me Rio TfL - Mike, perhaps you can pick the Wandsworth side up?Best regards,Cllr Leonie Cooper AMLondon Assembly Member, Merton & WandsworthTwitter: @LeonieC

John Cameron ● 2669d