Forum Topic

Yippee! More traffic cameras.

It would be nice if before more were installed Hounslow could make the ones they have work properly. We are currently fighting a tidal wave of PCNs wrongly issued for accessing Hartington Road, the cause of which seems to be that we changed vehicle. It was all properly registered for the "White List" and for a couple of weeks all was well, until suddenly the PCNs started. Of course there is nobody you can actually talk to and every ticket has to be laboriously appealed. Does anyone know how this can happen? It's as if suddenly  an out-of-date data list is being used. Any advice or wisdom to share?

Bruce Hammal ● 42d36 Comments

Part of the true impact is that journeys where the entirety of the journey was on a road where there were no hold ups, no traffic lights etc, would have increased in duration hypothetically by about 50% ( assuming someone stuck to the speed limit).That's obvious. And if there was no upside from reduced speed limits, you can see why motorists would be opposed to the reduction.Perhaps though, if you were such a motorist and you had a friend or family member injured or killed by a motorist hitting them at 33mph and knew that they would have survived or even escaped injury if the motorist was travelling at a lower speed you might change your viewpoint - you might realise there was an upside after all.Meanwhile, many of those motorists, grumbling about reduced speed limits will be quite accepting of the fact that they are delayed every day by all the other motorists they are sharing the roadspace with.The displeasure may well be shown at the ballot box.And then perhaps we'll see whether 20mph limits genuinely save lives, or whether the downward trend in fatalities plateaus or continues.

Andrew Jones ● 28d

I believe the general consensus of road users is that they don’t need ‘several years’ to know the true impact of the 20mph speed limits. They knew the true impact from day one and they don’t want the limits. They will no doubt continue to voice their displeasure on a daily basis  and show it again at the ballot box.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

That's as may be, however I thought there was already a lot of opposition before the introduction of far more 20 mph roads in Wales.Also, the BBC article is archived from January, so reflects what was happening then.Sky have a similar article on their website from the same period.https://news.sky.com/story/20mph-several-years-needed-to-know-true-impact-of-default-speed-limit-in-wales-13299643If you want to read an article that fits in more with what I imagine your views are then I suggest https://www.gbnews.com/lifestyle/cars/motorists-break-20mph-speed-limitsor the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/243331015137514/posts/589293283874617/?_rdrwhatever you do, don't read https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/22/wales-20mph-speed-limit-cut-road-deaths-why-debate

Andrew Jones ● 28d

Yes, 20 is not plenty’ indicates that a lot has changed since January and the Welsh people want the 20mph limits removed. I have no idea how true this is but the people will have their say at the ballot box.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

I haven't read the report Steve, but I recall reading that the widespread introduction of 20mph limits on the vast majority of Welsh roads that previously had 30mph limits was highly contraversial and attracted a lot of opposition, but I'll repeat the question, how is this BBC report slanted?It's reporting on what the Welsh Government put out back in January.There is reference to the fact this is contentious.There are 491 comments about this subjexct that are within one or possibly two clicks that express both pro and anti 20 mph views.

Andrew Jones ● 28d

If you read the reports on ‘20 is not Plenty’ (Welsh citizens) I think you’ll find that  there is little support for 20mph and the Welsh Government has list the battle as much as they try to catastrophise.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

Steve, seriously how is the (BBC) report slanted? The first bit is about road statistics published by the Welsh Goverment https://www.gov.wales/safest-summer-welsh-roads-new-statistics-showThe article contains plenty of caveats that surely satisfy amnyone's scepticism e.g.Government officials have urged caution in attributing the fall in casualties to the 20mph limit.The Welsh government's chief statistician said in a blog last year that at least three year's worth of collision data would be required for a meaningful comparison to be made.Casualty figures have also been on a downward trend for sometime - the Welsh government said they have "declined steadily over the last decade".The only 'opinion' that I can see that is teh analysis at the end:AnalysisBy Gareth Lewis, BBC Wales political editorThe contrast in language between the man now in charge of transport and the man who drove the 20mph law through might well cause you to slam the brakes on and take a closer look.Even allowing for the caveat of more time needed for a full evaluation, Ken Skates' cautious welcome highlights how toxic an issue 20mph has become for Welsh Labour.It came up time and time again out on the road during the general election campaign – even though it's a Welsh government and not Westminster issue – and a Senedd election is looming.If the evidence does eventually show that the drop in casualties is definitively linked to 20mph then it could cause an issue for the law's political opponents - especially the Conservatives and Reform – should public support for 20mph start to grow.

Andrew Jones ● 28d

I wouldn’t trust a BBC report after the Panorama scandal. The report is slanted and doesn’t take into account reduction in journeys and traffic. There’s no reason for drivers to get fined for driving over 20mph because the cameras are very visible.

Steve Taylor ● 28d

>Probably because the police realise that the 20mph speed limits are just pathetic. Most drivers ignore them and will drive according to traffic flow to keep traffic moving.Pathetic?"First 20mph year sees 100 fewer killed or badly hurt"https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78w1891z03oAnd you might say some people ignore the 20mph limit and travel at 25mph to 30mph, but those same people also ignored the 30mph limit travelling at 35mph to 40mph.Which road would you rather be cycling along?

Paul James ● 29d

That’s why speed cameras are so brilliant ( or awful - take your pick!) … they provide evidence of the law being broken without exercising an opinion as to whether the law is an ass.

Andrew Jones ● 29d

Probably because the police realise that the 20mph speed limits are just pathetic. Most drivers ignore them and will drive according to traffic flow to keep traffic moving.

Steve Taylor ● 29d

...and having had to deal with a driver cutting me up and close passing me at speed the other day and when I caught up with him, I was on a bike, we always do catch up, he was sucking what I presume was laughing gas out of a big green ballon.Priorities though right?

Paul James ● 29d

> Why aren’t the police and local authorities fining these irresponsible, law breaking people?They do. I saw two police officers on bikes active on CHR just the other day pulling people on bikes over for jumping light, riding on the pavement and I read later they were also confiscating illegal electric motor bikes.As much as I support this I would rather they had been further down toward Heathfield and Wellesley pulling over drivers doing 40mph in a 20 though!

Paul James ● 29d

“ cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic”Yes ‘at the time’ 1999,  the Home Secretary was probably right but in 2025 there is no excuse because £billions has been spent on cycle lanes across the country. There is certainly no excuse to riding on pavements in Chiswick. Why aren’t the police and local authorities fining these irresponsible, law breaking people?

Steve Taylor ● 29d

When the fine was introduced for cycling on the pavement i.e. dedicated footway), PCSOs where created at similar time and one of the powers they were given (along with police officers) was to fine people cycling on the pavement.Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, then from 1 August 1999, police officers were formally empowered to issue £20 on‑the‑spot fines for cycling on the pavement. This was later increased to £30, and today the standard penalty is £50, though officers often use discretion and may issue warnings insteadAt the time the Home secretay said:"The introduction of the fixed penalty is not aimed at responsible cyclists who sometimes feel obliged to use the pavement out of fear of traffic and who show consideration to other pavement users when doing so.Chief police officers, who are responsible for enforcement, acknowledge that many cyclists, particularly children and young people, are afraid to cycle on the road, sensitivity and careful use of police discretion is required.”

Paul James ● 29d

Please don't mix them up with proper e-bikes (electrically assisted pedal cycles or EPCAS) which only assist the rider and are pedal cycles, *not ebikes*.That last bit, *not ebikes*, I mean "not electric motorbikes", legal ebikes (just electrically assisted, not electrically powered) are classed as pedal cycles, not electric motorbikes...and electrically assisted pedal cycles are EAPCs (not EPCAS as I wrote).

Paul James ● 29d

>It also needs some wholesale regulatory redefining of e-bikes as mopeds, requiring registration plates and a driving licence."Ebikes" that travel under their own power or above 15mph ARE mechanically propelled vehicles in law, they're not ebikes, they are electric motorbikes, and hence require MOT insurance and certification to ride on highways (not that you're going to get any of those for these things).Please don't mix them up with proper e-bikes (electrically assisted pedal cycles or EPCAS) which only assist the rider and are pedal cycles, not ebikes.The insurance I have for my e-bike for example is invalid if I make modifications like adding a throttle, having it pwoer itself along, or removing the cut out of assistance at 15mph.Similar applies to escooters that are not part of an approved hire scheme.https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs/electrically-assisted-pedal-cycles-eapcs-in-great-britain-information-sheet

Paul James ● 29d

To enforce anything against cyclists, e-bikes, e-scooters and the rest will need more than a few cameras.  It'll need hit squads of enforcement teams quipped with reinforced nets, grappling hooks, electronic disabling tools and pursuit bikes.  Maybe staff can be redirected from catching people who tip coffee dregs down the drains!  It also needs some wholesale regulatory redefining of e-bikes as mopeds, requiring registration plates and a driving licence.

Peter Evans ● 30d

Totally agree. The thing that amazes me is the number of moronic cyclists on pavements who cycle right up against shop fronts so people stepping out of shops are in grave danger of being run down.

Steve Taylor ● 30d

If all they want is to make money, how about fining people cycling on pavements? Why do these rule-breakers think this antisocial behaviour is acceptable? Bikes of all descriptions, electric scooters, even motorbikes are a growing hazard everywhere now.

Maria Isabel Cunha ● 30d

I remember talking to a couple of friends, one a Police Inspector, the other a Chief Inspector, many years ago, not long after these cameras appeared (if you could find them that is, as often they were deliberately hidden), and they told me that the sole purpose of them was to make money. "Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose".

Brian Coyle ● 35d

Surely Labour cannot be so stupid as to impose another 33+ unwanted LTNs?

Steve Taylor ● 37d

The first question is surely will Labour Hounlsow commit to not implementing the 33+ LTN schemes that they have already worked up but not yet put in place.

Sam Hearn ● 37d

"I noticed a new speed camera at Sutton Court Road and the A4. No strips just yet."Is this additional camera at the traffic lights north to south (or v.v), David? There is already a camera in place westbound at the junction on the A4 which I think to date has only recorded red light offences.

Jim Brown ● 41d

Yes, the question is; will Reform or the Conservatives remove the Hartington Road LTN (and other LTNs) if they win the next elections?

Steve Taylor ● 41d

Before you make a political point on this question perhaps you should consider the question I asked earlier i.e. would opposition parties standing at the election in May commit to scrapping these cameras.On whether the use of the money raised is an effective way of eliminating the deficit - I believe it is and the council's willingness to spend a large sum in buying new cameras seems to confirm this. As I understand it a large proportion of money raised from parking and traffic camera fines covers the proportion of subsidy for the Freedom Pass that each borough must pay. This is a very large sum each year and would have to be paid out of other revenue if fine revenue was not available. As for the rest my understanding is a good public sector accountant will be able to arrange that the money can be used in a way that effectively reduces the deficit rather than it being spent on non-essential projects.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 41d

In theory, councils can only spend their traffic fines on:1. Providing or operating public passenger transport services and facilities.2. Highway improvements.3. Local traffic and transport schemes, such as the Freedom Pass for older and disabled Londoners. [Yippee for the Freedom Pass! PME]4. Funding environmental improvements in the area. I guess it must be possible to scour Hounslow's end of year accounts and see more details, though my quick glance on their website wasn't particularly informative. Freedom of Information request, anyone?

Peter Evans ● 41d

David, The thought occurs to me that the amount Hounslow has/will receive from the likes of Forest and Voi possibly doesn’t have to go on transport related spending.The other thought is about Lime. If Hounslow genuinely could enter in a contract with Lime, without any impact on the monies they have/will receive from Forest and Voi over the period of the contract that’s been entered into with these two e-bike firms AND if entering such a contract with Lime would bring in more money to Hounslow, then WHY aren’t Hounslow doing this?What’s stopping them from improving the provision of rental e-bikes to its own residents and raking in more cash? Obstinacy? They don’t want to lose face? Have they just got it in for Lime?

Andrew Jones ● 41d

The worst part it is a blatant way to collect more money Labour are an utter disgrace targeting local communities.

Jayne Thorburn ● 41d

I noticed a new speed camera at Sutton Court Road and the A4. No strips just yet.So if I understand this correctly, additional revenue will go back to transport spending. Let's say...e-bikes. Sorry to harp on it, but surely this negates further the need to implode the e-bike system??? And if one were to join up one's thinking, say if Katherine Dunne did - you know, she in charge of transport for Hounslow - then we would easily be able to take e-bikes anywhere and have extra left over. This tells me Katherine's left hand has no clue what the right is doing.

David Lesniak ● 41d

Does anyone here have information as to how much Hounslow gets from revenue and enforcement and how much it spends on Transport related spending?

Andrew Jones ● 41d

That’s correct. All revenue from parking and enforcement is ring-fenced for transport related spending. Using it to make up shortfalls elsewhere is wishful thinking and an incorrect assumption. It would require a change in the law to use money generated from cameras for other purposes.

Simon Hayes ● 41d

I thought council traffic fines could only be spent on traffic and transport projects and not on general funding such as social care, etc., though I guess there must be ways.

Peter Evans ● 41d

Perhaps the key number to focus on here is that the report suggests that Hounslow's available reserves are significantly less than next year's predicted deficit. With the Chancellor giving stark warnings about the fiscal situation, any council looking for a government bailout may need to prepare for disappointment.This is a national problem, not a Hounslow-specific one and the borough's financial position is probably much better than average but the extra burden of adult social care and SEND provision has critically undermined the balance sheets of most local authorities.Hounslow is doing relatively well in part because of traffic related fine revenue and it now looks like they will be looking to increase this dramaticially (although I suspect we won't learn where the cameras are going until next June).The broader question here is should Labour lose control of the council next May, would the successor adminstration commit to scrapping this programme and ending existing schemes.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 42d

Thank you Iris. I can't immediately remember if that's among the email addresses we've already tried. I'll check. One of the suggested contact points said that the email address was only visited occasionally - meanwhile I'm expecting the PCNs to keep coming.

Bruce Hammal ● 42d

I found traffic in LBH very helpful They do the white list and then a private company processes it. traffic@hounslow.gov.uk. when I had to contact them, they replied within 24 hours

Iris Hill ● 42d