Forum Topic

New Speed Cameras

Ealing has been selected as one of the first boroughs in London to trial Transport for London’s new radar-based speed cameras, as part of a major push to reduce road danger and enforce safer speeds across the capital.Sorry let me correct that....Ealing has been selected as one of the first boroughs in London to trial Transport for London’s new radar-based speed cameras, as part of a major push to increase money drained from motorists.There you go.Sorted.

Colin Goodman ● 24d75 Comments

I'm not sure that residents realise how much additional money Ealing Council needs to provide basic services, as they are required to pay their pension liabilities first.The council requires additional income from parking, parking fines, speeding fines and school zone fines (as mentioned in this forum over the last few weeks). However, if you decide to break the rules, then the Council will chase you for the money it desperately needs to balance its budget.Just a note on speeding, all new cars since 2024 have a speed warning installed. This is mandated and cannot be overruled by the driver. Any person driving a new car is informed when they are speeding, and it's their responsibility to take action; if they don't, they have been given the information, and the choice is theirs.

Bill Trenchard ● 15d

So PJ, it’s ok to use a car. Everyone else mustn’t because they don’t need or want to!!!In your opinion, hypocritical & wrong, hence why lots of people own a car.The roads are perfectly safe without traffic congestting, money making schemes. There’s far more knife incidents, yet nothing is done as it doesn’t raise revenue.Your stories how you stop cars, see Lorry’s slaloming, cars all over the pavement, give Hans Christian Anderson a run for his money.Ltns I proved to you ballsed up traffic. Other drivers who want & need to drive, rid the borough of them & agreed.You never say anything positive about cars, it’s all centred around your needs, desires, wishes. No one can say anything contradictory as you argue against & cite that’s not what happens Oh Iran were trying to shut the oil route btw

Peter Yale ● 16d

What a load of nonsense from Paul, as usual.The LTNs were removed because they were a mistake. They made things a lot worse for a lot of people. Just because a minority of smug idiots thought they were great didn’t make them right. Not noticed any massive protests locally to gage them reinstated, have you?There’s a lot of other twaddle on here from the usual suspects.£450,000 to fix potholes isn’t much across a borough the size of Ealing. They spent £200,000 widening a short stretch of pavement on Widmill Road to accommodate cyclists. Nobody uses it. The council has a duty to maintain the roads and pavements but does a very poor job of it in most areas.And occasionally using a car makes you guilty of hypocrisy. Just do without.

Simon Hayes ● 16d

>So hand in your license, Why would I do that, I use a car ocassioanally if I have to, I really try and avoid it if I can though, and in fact drove a car just once in 2025. I'm mindful though that motor vehicle play an important role in society, but that also, we should also pay attention that not everybody wants or needs to use one all the time.>instead of dictating to the rest of us, who want & need to drive. Sheer hypocrisyYou just hink I'm doing this, but I'm not, I want safe routes for cycling and better environment for all, including people who actually need to drive motor vehicles.>All your posts are negative towards motorists & driving.Wanting better safer roads for people (drivers, walkers, riders, cyclists) is not negative.>You cite absolute cobblers about how fast you can tell a cars speed.You were complaing recently about people breaking the 20mph speed limit near you, how could you tell how fast they were going, they might have been doing 15mph right?>Don’t want cars down your road.What?>As for the Ltn fiasco you refuse to acknowledge.I think it was a MASSIVE mistake, politcally, envionmentally and in may other ways to remove the LTNS.>As usual cherry picked. There were 2 questions, you ignore the unfinished & continuing list, of war against the motoristsPlease add "closure of the strait of hormuz by Donald Trump" to your list of "war on the motorist"...

Paul James ● 16d

So hand in your license, instead of dictating to the rest of us, who want & need to drive. Sheer hypocrisy All your posts are negative towards motorists & driving.You cite absolute cobblers about how fast you can tell a cars speed.Don’t want cars down your road.As for the Ltn fiasco you refuse to acknowledge.As usual cherry picked. There were 2 questions, you ignore the unfinished & continuing list, of war against the motorists

Peter Yale ● 17d

>have you handed in your licence??Whay would I do that, I use a car occasionally.I don't hate cars.I think there are too many cars in use at any one time, too much polltion and road danger etc...

Paul James ● 17d

But they don’t. You only slate cars, all your posts are anti car.It’s purely about money & a war against motorists.Did you see my list firstly, & secondly have you handed in your licence??

Peter Yale ● 17d

>How about knife crime & the number of stabbings every day.knife crime & the number of stabbings every day although obviously serious, compared to death and injury on our roads on a daily basis is tiny.We need to deal with both though Peter.

Paul James ● 17d

They cite accidents as a concern!!!How about knife crime & the number of stabbings every day.Twisted figures, different names to try & disguise or lie.No revenue there, actually costs to imprison the scum

Peter Yale ● 17d

There are NO jaywalking laws in the UK. There was a short lived trial in a couple of areas including the Uxbridge Road in West Ealing where the kerbs were painted red and it was illegal, punishable by a £10 fine, to cross other than at pedestrian crossing. This was dropped as unenforceable after a couple of years

N V Brooks ● 17d

>given the absence of accidents >However when there are few if any accidentsWhich is it Nigel?

Paul James ● 17d

>Jay walking is illegal too,There is no such thing as "jaywalking" in the UK.Show me UK "jaywalking" laws Peter.

Paul James ● 17d

You would say that, it’s anti car rhetoric.Jay walking is illegal too, lots of  silly bye laws.Only motorists are hounded in the war against them

Peter Yale ● 17d

The purpose of these cameras is to reduce speed and therefore reduce accident possibilities. However when there are few if any accidents recorded and the risk is minimal it does beg the question as to whether they are being installed simply to raise revenue.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>People can & have been fined for doing 22/23mphYes becuase it's illegal.What's more, if you get a fine for 22/23mph it the actual speed, the speedo in the car was likely reading 24/25/26 at the time, bang to rights I say.

Paul James ● 17d

In your hypocritical & anti car world, this is twisting the screw on motorists, yet further.People can & have been fined for doing 22/23mphWar against motorists, but you should be ok when you hand in your license

Peter Yale ● 17d

>although it does make the question why a speed camera is neededWouldn't the answer to that be that they are installed on roads where drivers are more likely to speed?

Ben Owen ● 17d

why would the location of a speed camera be important to anybody except those who slow down for them and break the law between them?

Paul James ● 17d

Indeed. Also please be aware that it does not need to flash to capture images, does not need road markings to assess speed and covers ALL westbound lanes. Watch your Speedo folks although it does make the question why a speed camera is needed there given the absence of accidents and the fact that it's a three lane highway with no schools and not a single house immediately adjacent to the road.

N V Brooks ● 17d

Back to topic :-) One of these new speed cameras is on the Westbound Uxbridge Road outside Ealing Hospital just after Hanwell bridge  - Has been upgraded from the previous one.

Kris Smith ● 17d

Clearly no need for any cycling infrastructure. Never been any problem, so all just get on with cycling & driving.No special measures, which usually are detrimental to motorists

Peter Yale ● 17d

>Completed in March 2021I'm looking at pictures of the east pavement in 2008, it's the same width then as it is today, it wasn't widened. The west pavement *was* narrowed though and cycling prohibited signs put up on it.

Paul James ● 17d

Completed in March 2021 as part of the overall CS99 project according to TfL who manage the A205.

N V Brooks ● 17d

When was the pavement on the east side widened?

Paul James ● 17d

Nigel, you can’t have walked or cycled over Kew Bridge because if you did, you would know that neither pavement has ever been widened, and in fact the west pavement was narrowed to allow for an extra space in the road for motor vehicles.Even someone who hasn’t been there would have the foresight to look it up for confirmation, and then have the good grace to acknowledge their mistake.You have been drawn into a small group of very rude people and no longer seem to pause or think for yourself. We never really hear your opinion any more, just an echo of the dismissive childish name calling that was never really very funny in the first place.We all make mistakes, and it is a sign of civility to pause sometimes before pressing ‘submit reply’. Don’t get lost in the rabbit hole of online boorishness. Have you noticed that even the people you want to impress the most are not even taking notice anymore?

Dominik Klimowski ● 17d

To leave room for three lanes of traffic over the bridge it definitely needs two lanes northbound otherwise it would gridlock the South Circular.  The pavement was definitely widened because they found a problem with the balustrates when doing the work.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>East side where there is a shared pedestrian/cycle laneI don't remember that being widened. I remember the west pavement being narrowed.Why would they widen the east side and narrow the west side?

Paul James ● 17d

East side where there is a shared pedestrian/cycle lane clearly marked by signs.

N V Brooks ● 17d

Because Dominik, the village idiot is a hypocritical fantasist and I, along with others, am tired of his continual stream of unsubstantiated bullshit.

N V Brooks ● 17d

>That must be why it was closed for five months to widen it then. The village idiot has spoken, it must be trueWiden what? The east side pavement or the west side pavement?

Paul James ● 17d

Why are you so rude Nigel?

Dominik Klimowski ● 17d

That must be why it was closed for five months to widen it then. The village idiot has spoken, it must be true

N V Brooks ● 17d

>Once again the village idiot conveniently forgets that one side of the bridge had the footpath expanded On the west side of the bridge the footpath was decreased in width a while back and cycling prohibited signs put up.On the east side of the bridge people can cycle on the footpath as there are "Cycle & Pedestrian route" signs. The footpath wasn't expanded.

Paul James ● 17d

Once again the village idiot conveniently forgets that one side of the bridge had the footpath expanded to better accommodate more cyclists as they rush past Kew gardens in a cycle lane provided at significant expense and which is devoid of cycles for the vast majority of the day.

N V Brooks ● 17d

I’m not the one anti car, that’s you.I’m sick of the war on motorists, please refer to a list I started to make.( you usually ignore people’s questions & cherrypick).Will you give up your license???

Peter Yale ● 17d

>Yet every comment you make is anti carDo you want me to find the post where you are complaing about drivers exceeding your 20mph limit?

Paul James ● 17d

Yet every comment you make is anti car (bearing in mind you drive).You also see things no one else does. Slaloming skip Lorrie’s, vehicles on footpath every 2 minutes.

Peter Yale ● 17d

I dont' hate cars peter.I really disklike seeing people driving them over kew bridge at over 30 - 40 mph and even 50mph especially when there is also a mum and her kid riding on the carriagway (they shut the west pavement to cycling because they narrowed it for more motor vehicles).Still, lets see how long it is before it gives up the ghost as well, as has Hammersmith Bridge, Albert Bridge and the a40 westway...

Paul James ● 18d

I should ignore pc james I should ignore pc jamesI should ignore pc james.However it’s the sheer hypocrisy & holier than thou.Absolute twaddle he’s got a built in speed gun.Hates cars, always anti car & argumentative.Loves any traffic schemes, more foolhardy the better.Hates anyone driving, except himself.Silence about handing in his own license

Peter Yale ● 18d

>Driving 23mph in a 20mph is against the law Yup, if you get flashed for doing 23mph you're doing 3mph over the limit which as you say, is illegal.What's more is very likly the speedo is reading 24, 25 or 26 at the time.You don't need superpowers to not let your speedo go above 21mph, you really don't, I don't know why you're suggesting people do need superpowers to maintain basic control of their motor vehicle.Or if they can't do that they can always send their license back.

Paul James ● 18d

"I do, but saying people in a 20 limit knowingly with 25mph on the speedo should be ignored? I don't think that."Neither do I.

Mark Evans ● 18d

>Paul, it is really impressive that you can judge your speed so accurately.Accurantly? Did I say 27mph, 34mph, 42mph and 51mph?It's quite easy to judge if a vehicle is being driven at 20mph vs in the 30s or 40s, and anybody knows kew bridge and that whole area they know damn well people in cars and on motorbikes are speeding in the 30s and 40s and even 50s in a 20mph limit, even if only briefly.I get your argument, I do, but saying people in a 20 limit knowingly with 25mph on the speedo should be ignored? I don't think that.

Paul James ● 18d

Paul, it is really impressive that you can judge your speed so accurately. I don't drive that much so perhaps I could acquire this skill with practice but I think most people are like me and would really struggle to have such an accomplished understanding of their rate of travel.I think however you are missing the point here by raising cases of egregiously bad speeding. This is not what is at issue here - nearly everyone would agree that dangerously fast driving is wrong.What I am trying to get across to you is that if enforcement is focused not on areas of greatest risk but where there is the chance of the highest yield there is possibility of a backlash. You may not be in any peril of getting a fine if cameras are installed with limited leeway in a 20mph zone but those without your superpower will be. Driving 23mph in a 20mph is against the law but you would find it had to make the case that it is dangerous.I believe 20mph zones are great. They have made the area where I live much more pleasant. People drive much more slowly even if quite a few are technically above the limit.However, there was no history of any serious accidents on these roads beforehand and that applies to most places where speed limits have been introduced. They definitely feel safer but it is difficult to prove that they actually are.While the consensus at the moment is that they are a good thing, the arguments against these lower limits are getting louder and not all of them are totally without merit. Aside from the lack of evidence of a reduction of harm at specific locations, it is contended that 20mph zones add to congestion, mean that the bus network is less efficient, cause more pollution in residential areas.I am sure you would confidently rebut each of these but in a few years time we could be in a situation in which Labour doesn't run Ealing Council and there is a Reform government in Westminster. If in the meantime you have thousands of people who have received fines for de minimis offences issued by upgraded speed cameras, you are going to create a powerful constituency for the increase of speed limits.Perfect is the enemy of the good here. Most people can't adhere to your high standards, even though they might try. Their response to being judged harshly for their failure is likely to be to make it easier to succeed which in this case would be an increase in speed limits.

Mark Evans ● 18d

Oh the joy of James stating publicly that he would not engage with me in any debate this of course means that I could insult the village idiot  with impunity especially when he claims that he can judge the speed of a vehicle simply by standing by the side of the road. what an idiot.

N V Brooks ● 18d

Oh yes, Paul ‘speed gun’ James. Expert in gauging how fast everyone is moving.

Simon Hayes ● 18d

I was watching drivers and motor cyclists on kew bridge doing 30 40 and even 50 the other day, even as a mum/guardian and her child were dodging potholes on the northbound side in the carriagway because they narrowed the pavemnt for more cars and made it no cycling.I don't have any sympathy at all for people who get a driving licence then decide the rules aren't for them.I can drive without exceeding 20 (and without "staring at my speedo") , why can't you and others? If you can't comply with the law seriously, consider handing your licence in?

Paul James ● 19d

Once again, it is hard to believe anyone who has driven in London would make such a comment. I try my very best but have not yet learnt how to accurately judge the difference in speed between 20mph and 24mph without looking at the speedometer. Even on Horn Lane where I know there is a camera a slight feathering of the accelerator can raise speed momentarily by a couple of MPH. If there was a minimum tolerance of 2mph for 20mph zones it is highly likely that a large number of people being fined would be aware of the speed limit and genuinely trying to adhere to it.The broader picture is that most people have SatNavs and some drivers  only stick to the speed limit around the camera. Nevertheless most drivers moderate their speed in a 20 mph. There are no cameras where I live and, as I said, the speed reduction has been transformative even though I would guess that the majority of vehicles passing are technically speeding. If you insisting on rigorous enforcement the reaction could lead to the removal of not just the cameras but the limits which would be a huge backward step. I think you are underestimating here the danger of implementing policies that people who have no ill-intent or desire to evade the law will find unfair at a time when populist politics is on the rise.

Mark Evans ● 19d

>where the driver, who was genuinely trying to stay within the limit,Hmm. If you get fined for an actual 22, your speedo would have been indicating 23 to 25 which is well without the range of "genuinely trying to stay within the limit" more like "how far can I push it before I can get fined" or "I'm driving distracted".

Paul James ● 19d

A lot depends on the calibration of these cameras. As far as I can tell, the leeway allowed is a the discretion of the enforcement authority with a minimum of a 10% exceedance. Most police forces currently allow 10% +2mph so for instance 35mph in a 30mph zone.My concern would be the increased accuracy of these new cameras would make councils feel they can reduce the leeway. If they made it just 10% that would be a fine at 23mph in a 20mph zone. For those who say, if you don't want to get fined, don't exceed the speed limit, I can only conclude that they don't drive. I try to keep to the speed limit, I know there is currently a speed camera on Horn Lane policing the 20mph limit and I genuinely believe that I am within the limit when approaching but when I check I often find I need to slow down further. I am a huge supporter of the 20mph speed limit and it has been transformative for the area where I live. However, I fear that if enforcement is ramped up, a large proportion of the fines will be for de minimis infringements where the driver, who was genuinely trying to stay within the limit, made a fractional misjudgement at the wrong time.This will bring in huge sums for the council but will make 20mph limits unpopular and runs the risk of the election of a party campaigning for their removal.

Mark Evans ● 19d

A comment should stand, if it’s posted under a pseudonym?What has the person got to hide, why would they do that.Only reason I can think of is to bolster support for an idea none wants

Peter Yale ● 22d

Your argument should stand, nonetheless.

Sam Seal ● 22d

You are using a fake name, so engagement is pointless.

Simon Hayes ● 22d

Sorry you cannot engage

Sam Seal ● 22d

Really? It doesn’t ring true.

Simon Hayes ● 22d

I apologise if I offended you, I guess I was a little upset by the suggestion of being fake. I'm here to engage with my community and listen to all views.

Sam Seal ● 22d

That’s great for you Sam.

Simon Hayes ● 22d

Fine here thanks, 'Simon'

Sam Seal ● 22d

Or you could expect people to abide by the law. Is that patriarchy?You can always take your fake account elsewhere ‘Sam’

Simon Hayes ● 22d

Thanks Kevin, you're a breath of fresh air.

Sam Seal ● 22d

Isn't it illegal to use a phone while you're driving?

Peter King ● 22d

Don't speed. We all have speedometers, our phones will tell us how fast we're driving. Just stay a couple of miles under. Good drivers can manage that.

Kevin Wilson ● 22d

I shouldn’t waste your time debating this with Dim, Peter. He’s just trying to wind you up.The plastic bag charge isn’t specifically a tax. It’s a purchase, and millions are still sold every year. That’s different to a fine. There’s a website about yellow box junctions that helps those fined for breaking the regulations. It’s an interesting read because a lot of these box junctions are deliberately designed to trap motorists, often being far bigger than necessary or being in the wrong place. Many motorists are getting off the fines because of this.Dim us being, well, dim. He’s following the LCC idea that all drivers are evil and should be punished. He lacks any understanding outside his little smug bubble, which is clearly a character trait of all his type.

Simon Hayes ● 24d

Considering the post is about speed cameras & motorists, carrier bags have nothing to do with it.3rd time, that’s 1 penalty compared to the many in war against motorists (see  list) & substantially higher fines

Peter Yale ● 24d

There's no need to be rude Peter. I made my concerns because this post is specifically about speed cameras. I am raising another sneaky tax which you are not taking seriously. Maybe it doesn't affect you, maybe you can afford to buy multiple bags every time you go shopping, but for many the fines add up.Try to see how the Plastic Bag Tax affects ordinary working people before you cast judgement upon them from on high.

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

You’re getting as knob like as pc James.You got choices as I said.That’s the only thing, look at my list of things just off top of my head.War on motorists, simple

Peter Yale ● 24d

Peter - the Plastic Bag Tax is also entrapment. How often have you gone to the supermarket and forgotten to bring a bag? It happens all the time. It's a war on shoppers.Also, lottery tickets were once £1, now £2!It's sneaky, and I'm not having it. Those 40ps add up you know!

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

It’s nonsense to try & compare the two. You don’t need a bag, can take  1 with you, or a rucksack, box, just carry stuff.The 1 tax, I repeat motorists are attacked at any & every turn,I will list examples ( yet again).Yellow boxBus laneTraffic signals No right/left/u turnCongestion Pollution LtnsParking Some fool will pipe up with obey the rules, but a lot are so sneaky it’s a trap.And it’s certainly not 40p, it’s many ££££ entrapment, a days pay for lotsPeople trying to go about their business

Peter Yale ● 24d

It’s not one bag Peter, it’s a 40p fine for each bag you use!And it’s not my nonsense, it’s the supermarket giants. Why are you not up in arms about it? It’s literally a stealth tax. I mean, how else do we carry our shopping home? In our pockets???

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

Yawn. Car drivers are evil and must be punished. Paul, Ben and Dim all drive cars occasionally so they must be evil too. At least that’s the logical conclusion from their incessant whingeing here and elsewhere.Maybe Dim is impoverished because his driving skills are so poor he’s been almost bankrupted by fines. He should tell us, much as he likes to tell us other riveting anecdotes about his life.However, plenty of other vehicles use our roads and many of them are guilty of speeding offences. Even buses. Maybe they should be banned. Imagine being squashed by one of them when you are pootling along on your bike paying no attention to what’s around you. Horrific.

Simon Hayes ● 24d

Unlike cyclists who demand road space.And some motorists are fined for being a millimetre inside or out of a box.There’s unlimited reasons motorists can & are fined. Constant attack on them

Peter Yale ● 24d

Zero penalty for motorists who abide the rules

Angela Klimowska ● 24d

As I have said, motorists are constantly penalised,Your one bag nonsense, is the limit of penalties

Peter Yale ● 24d

This reminds me of the time supermarket giants introduced a fine for using their plastic bags, bags I had happily been taking gratis, and squirreling away in a cupboard under my sink, to be put into landfill later.I was absolutely fuming.Since that day I vowed never to let them drain any more of my hard-earned money, and have taken my own bag instead. I suggest you all do the same and join me in the fight against the war on happy shoppers.

Dominik Klimowski ● 24d

I’m glad you posted this Colin, but I will say it how it is.A continuous war on motorists.It will be a cash cow to raise revenue for those doing 22/23 mph.TfL completely ignore stabbing, phone & watch thefts.Yet another in the list of anti car schemes

Peter Yale ● 24d