This morning's commute and other commuting stories

So, right on cue comes a fairly typical 'newspaper' (well, the Standard) story about drivers ignoring very clear signage (on which more in a moment), evidently not having paid any attention to what would have been extensive publicity for the change of status of this prominent shopping street--it is sometimes really shocking how little some people care about public affairs--, which unfortunately for them is camera-enforced.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/20000-drivers-fined-14m-in-single-street-in-south-london-a4170931.html

It has long been a problem that (a) many drivers fail to understand combined signs (i.e., signs with multiple parts, often, as here, with a 'regular' sign embedded). True, some are a bit rubbish and too crowded, but the one used here four times (two at each end of the street) manifestly isn't--only (b) it features the 'no motor vehicles' sign, also sometimes known as the 'flying motorcycle' sign. For some unaccountable reason, this sign is apparently not understood by drivers, although it is entirely the correct sign to use here.

As cycle campaigners, we had a long saga over years that the DfT would not authorise the 'except cyclists' plate with the standard 'no entry' sign, which is well understood. Part of the reason why many one-way streets were made fully one-way and did not include a cycle contraflow was that officers wanted to use the 'no entry' sign and not 'no motor vehicles', for the above reason. It took ages for the 'except cyclists' plate to become available, which as expected has not caused any of the problem envisaged, i.e. that it would somehow reduce the status of 'no entry', make it less clear, etc.

It is, of course, very good that Croydon has retained cycle permeability in Surrey Street, and that cyclists can still use the street is the reason for the 'flying motorcycle' sign.

So, despite all of this--and never mind that the average person has probably never heard about most of the above background, it is not relevant to how they should behave--, i.e. that here are drivers who are blatantly ignoring signage and committing driving offences, you get a story in the Standard about how the Council is allegedly just using the sign to make money. The Standard has always run these stories as far back as I can remember--they're basically template stories. Obviously, this article isn't going to have any effect, but it's just part of a general background smell about enforcement that stinks up the debate.

As ever, the article even tries to imply that traders have lost trade--and there's always someone who's happy to be quoted to that effect. If this were the case, schemes like this would be retracted immediately. Instead, it is most likely the case that most traders have done very well out of the change (as they have everywhere else), and the fact that people can no longer drive into the street to park outside the late-night food shop to get a can of Red Bull (!) is utterly irrelevant and misleading 'reporting'.

The story's so rubbish and unfounded that they even have to quote the 'Association of British Drivers', from and about whom I haven't heard anything for years.