Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[RollingJ]

4 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Maybe you should think about it from Cllr Fox’s perspective.

 

A Leader is very busy and has a lot of demands on their time.

 

What is to be gained by giving the moaners a forum?

 

The time for debating it has passed, people have been consulted and they’ve had their say. The decision’s been made and the scheme is being implemented.

 

Time to move on.

 

Thats how I’d guess that politicians would think about it.

Said individual seems to have plenty of time for socialising, though.

[Planner1]

1 minute ago, RollingJ said:

Said individual seems to have plenty of time for socialising, though.

Networking and showing visible support to organisations and businesses is an important part of that job.

 

Doing something positive like that might well be seen as a better option than appearing on a radio show which will only produce negativity and give the moaners a forum.

 

The committee chair has already been on the show. Nothing has changed or is going to. What is the Leader going to add?

[RollingJ]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Networking and showing visible support to organisations and businesses is an important part of that job.

 

Doing something positive like that might well be seen as a better option than appearing on a radio show which will only produce negativity and give the moaners a forum.

 

The committee chair has already been on the show. Nothing has changed or is going to. What is the Leader going to add?

And enjoying free football/food/w.h.y. I'll have a bit of that, thanks.

 

He is accountable to the electorate of Sheffield, but seems rather shy of being so. maybe he could miss half a match and record the interview?

 

 

[Mr Bloke]

9 hours ago, Planner1 said:

If there was a legal way of doing it, many councils around the country would be already. Councillors are as frustrated as anyone with how things work now, but they have to work within the law.

 

I’ve been asked to research the potential for banning out of town licensed cabs from bus lanes on several occasions. I’ve spoken to other authorities across the country about it and the consensus is that there isn’t any feasible way of doing it.

 

When enforcing the rules, councils have to be fair and consistent. What you suggest is neither.

 

It would be very obvious what was happening and any council that did it that way would end up in trouble. Introducing a restriction for the sole purpose of fining some cab drivers you don’t happen to like and allowing those you do like to flout a restriction might well be seen as unlawful.

 

No one does it and there’s a good reason for that. ( and the reason  isn’t that people in all local authorities are being blinkered) 

 

Hmmm...

You really need to get out of this idea that if YOU can't think of something, then it's not possible!

 

HOW exactly do YOU know that no-one does it?

 

Do ALL authorities personally send YOU their clandestine lists of all OFFENDERS who they've NOT issued a ticket to?

 

Let me help you with that one - of course they don't!

 

It's just another ridiculous point off the top of your head to try to fob off the public again!

 

And more to the point...
... HOW does ANYONE know exactly who HASN'T been issued a ticket?

 

No-one knows for what reason any offender may NOT receive a ticket.

 

There will no doubt be many reasons.

 

The offender may have just been "lucky" and not spotted...
... or maybe they claimed they were on "council business"?

[sheffbag]

58 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Maybe you should think about it from Cllr Fox’s perspective.

 

A Leader is very busy and has a lot of demands on their time.

 

What is to be gained by giving the moaners a forum?

 

The time for debating it has passed, people have been consulted and they’ve had their say. The decision’s been made and the scheme is being implemented.

 

Time to move on.

 

Thats how I’d guess that politicians would think about it.

Not quite correct my dear council supporter. He has said that despite 3 weeks to go from when he was invited that he would come on Tobys show but not until the scheme was in place. 

 

He's always made time to appear on the show before yet refuses to come on until after it is in place.

 

the sceptic would say that he is doing this so he can just throw his hands up and say "nowt to do with me now" instead of answering questions before it like

 

"why is the ring road in the scheme when you have had evidence for a year that only one place is above 40 and nothing can be done about it"

"why havent you learned lessons from Manchester in getting the scheme delayed as the business impact will be negative and you arent in a place to hit the required levels yet"

 

50 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

Networking and showing visible support to organisations and businesses is an important part of that job.

 

Doing something positive like that might well be seen as a better option than appearing on a radio show which will only produce negativity and give the moaners a forum.

 

The committee chair has already been on the show. Nothing has changed or is going to. What is the Leader going to add?

The committee chair either lied or is so misinfomed that she shouldnt be representing the council on that show and i would say that to her face and challenge her statements

[Planner1]

17 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Not quite correct my dear council supporter. He has said that despite 3 weeks to go from when he was invited that he would come on Tobys show but not until the scheme was in place. 

 

He's always made time to appear on the show before yet refuses to come on until after it is in place.

 

the sceptic would say that he is doing this so he can just throw his hands up and say "nowt to do with me now" instead of answering questions before it like

 

"why is the ring road in the scheme when you have had evidence for a year that only one place is above 40 and nothing can be done about it"

"why havent you learned lessons from Manchester in getting the scheme delayed as the business impact will be negative and you arent in a place to hit the required levels yet"

 

The committee chair either lied or is so misinfomed that she shouldnt be representing the council on that show and i would say that to her face and challenge her statements

That exactly proves the point I’m making.

 

Decision has been made, it’s happening, no point in discussing it till after it’s in place.

 

Thats how I’d expect a politician to approach it.

 

The committee chair answered those points, she said she’d asked the government to defer our scheme but they said no, as we were further into the process than Leeds or Manchester and the directive to impose the CAZ here had been issued where those other places had not.

 

If you think you can prove that what she said was deliberately incorrect, you should complain to the proper authorities. Politicians are accountable for what they do and say.

[sheffbag]

22 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

That exactly proves the point I’m making.

 

Decision has been made, it’s happening, no point in discussing it till after it’s in place.

 

Thats how I’d expect a politician to approach it.

 

The committee chair answered those points, she said she’d asked the government to defer our scheme but they said no, as we were further into the process than Leeds or Manchester and the directive to impose the CAZ here had been issued where those other places had not.

 

If you think you can prove that what she said was deliberately incorrect, you should complain to the proper authorities. Politicians are accountable for what they do and say.

False and you know it as proven on earlier pages.

 

The committee chair lied on air about the 2 other schemes or didn't know the actual facts in comparison to the argument she was putting across. 

She also never said what grounds they gave for trying to get it removed. Information like that helps the public knowledge and can quell moaning about it

 

Manchester was given the legal directive at the same time as Sheffield and was 3 months away from go live when the govt withdrew the legal obligation allowing  GM more time to develop its scheme until 2026. Sheffield could have challenged for the same using GM as precedant

Leeds also had a legal mandate imposed on it at the same time as Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Birmingham.  Leeds which successfully petitioned that its air was now clean bar one point which it couldnt lower using a CAZ (as the air on the ring road is in Sheffield which SCC knew in early 2022 but has done nothing)

 

 

[Planner1]

49 minutes ago, Mr Bloke said:

Hmmm...

You really need to get out of this idea that if YOU can't think of something, then it's not possible!

 

HOW exactly do YOU know that no-one does it?

 

Do ALL authorities personally send YOU their clandestine lists of all OFFENDERS who they've NOT issued a ticket to?

 

Let me help you with that one - of course they don't!

 

It's just another ridiculous point off the top of your head to try to fob off the public again!

 

And more to the point...
... HOW does ANYONE know exactly who HASN'T been issued a ticket?

 

No-one knows for what reason any offender may NOT receive a ticket.

 

There will no doubt be many reasons.

 

The offender may have just been "lucky" and not spotted...
... or maybe they claimed they were on "council business"?

I know that councils have to act lawfully.

 

What you suggest isn’t lawful.

 

The people I speak to are folk who are responsible for enforcement in other councils and acknowledged industry experts who work directly with the government on developing policy and legislation and work with many local authorities around the country.

 

The enforcement industry is relatively small and people know most of the other people in that area of work. 
 

If that idea were implemented, do you not think that cab drivers speak to each other. Do you think they don’t use social media? Don’t you think that the out of town licensed driver who was in the normal traffic lane wouldn’t notice the locally licensed vehicles using the bus lane and ask them whether they got a ticket ( they usually know each other)? A quick FOI request to the council would prove how the council were enforcing the restriction ( or not).

 

Changing or implementing a traffic restriction to deliberately penalise or deter out of town registered cabs is not a lawful reason to make a traffic regulation order ( in my opinion). Anyone doing it would be highly likely to be found out and there would be repercussions. No well advised local authority would do it. That’s why no-one is doing it ( to my knowledge).

 

Pushing the boundaries in enforcement can end up being embarrassing and costly when it goes wrong, that’s why sensible councils are very cautious in how and why they enforce.

 

Sneer all you like, but the idea isn’t workable in my view.

[Planner1]

2 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

False and you know it as proven on earlier pages.

 

The committee chair lied on air about the 2 other schemes or didn't know the actual facts in comparison to the argument she was putting across. 

She also never said what grounds they gave for trying to get it removed. Information like that helps the public knowledge and can quell moaning about it

 

Manchester was given the legal directive at the same time as Sheffield and was 3 months away from go live when the govt withdrew the legal obligation allowing  GM more time to develop its scheme until 2026. Sheffield could have challenged for the same using GM as precedant

Leeds also had a legal mandate imposed on it at the same time as Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Birmingham.  Leeds which successfully petitioned that its air was now clean bar one point which it couldnt lower using a CAZ (as the air on the ring road is in Sheffield which SCC knew in early 2022 but has done nothing)

 

 

I know that people say things, whether that means it is “proven” is a different matter. 
 

I’d agree with you that the committee chair’s performance wasn’t the best and they could have explained it better.

 

No matter what any of us think, the CAZ is happening here, so maybe the best thing is to look at what’s needed to demonstrate that it’s done it’s job ( as far as it can) and can be decommissioned.

[sheffbag]

49 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

I know that people say things, whether that means it is “proven” is a different matter. 
 

I’d agree with you that the committee chair’s performance wasn’t the best and they could have explained it better.

 

No matter what any of us think, the CAZ is happening here, so maybe the best thing is to look at what’s needed to demonstrate that it’s done it’s job ( as far as it can) and can be decommissioned.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0dwwldz

Quote  - 1:44:56 - Once the govt has issued the directive, weve got the directive, Leeds hasnt, so unfortunately theres no turning back"

 

Lie - Govt turned back on Manchesters directive deferring the legal obligation till 2026. Manchester has since sent plans to Govt for approval for a non charging plan. 

Lie - Leeds was legally mandated and scrapped their scheme once they had proven to the govt that the air was clean (bar one place which the CAZ couldnt effect). Nottingham was also mandated at the same time as Leeds and has scrapped its scheme subsequently. 

 

Quote - 1:50:35 - "we've got it down to acceptable levels in some parts of the city, some parts of the city arent at acceptable levels....... I dont have the map in front of me it does change from day to day"

Fact - 1 part of the ring road is over 40. Sheaf St outside train station. Thats been knowledge since early 2022 and is SCC's own figures.

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by sheffbag