The new design of German car parks

I have seen the future

The two photos below were taken at a new parking garage in Munich. The actual space that the facility occupies is approximately only 20% of a comparable facility with the traditional design that is used primarily in the US. Not only is the German structure less expensive to build, but vehicles are also "retrieved" in less time and without the potential of being damaged by an attendant.

Council is accused over parking plan

Council is accused over parking plan

Apr 28 2006

Lisa Jones, South Wales Echo

Protesters battling against plans to introduce controlled parking zones across Cardiff have accused the council of introducing taxation 'by the back door'.
That was the claim from people who descended on County Hall to hand in an 11,000-plus signature petition to executive member for transport, Elgan Morgan ahead of the council's meeting.
The measures would introduce pay-and-display bays on busy shopping streets and nearby side streets, replacing the current voucher system, but also proposes residents pay extra for permits to park in their own streets.
The scheme would be run by a private company.
Groups of traders from Albany Road, Cowbridge Road, Wellfield Road and Whitchurch Road, have all been gathering signatures in opposition to the plans, which they say would kill off trade. The protesters are concerned the charges could be just the start of hitting motorists in their pockets.
'We don't want this scheme. It is privatisation by the back door,' said Heath Parry, a railway worker, of Canton. 'In Brighton they pay £80 to park outside their houses. It started out at £5. Once there, charges never disappear.'
Terry Phillips of Severn Grove, Pontcanna, said: 'I'm totally against this plan. What we need is proper enforcement, not charging. The traders are going to be hit and we will have businesses moving out of areas.'
Carol Boxall of Lionel Road, Canton, said: 'We don't want this scheme. In our street we will have less parking for residents because of yellow lines and pay-and-display meters.'
Jon Elias, who works in Millennium Travel on Crwys Road, said: 'If you are going to buy a paper, you won't want to pay to park.
'Sue Watts of Millennium Travel added: 'The money raised from this scheme will go to the council.'
Elgan Morgan said: 'The petitions will be considered as part of the consultation. It's good to see so many people engaged in the consultation. We will try to find a solution that will help traders and residents all over Cardiff.'

Dundee collects £400,000 in parking fines

Evening Telegraph and Post

27 April 06

Fixed penalty notices slapped on the windscreens of motorists in Dundee earned the local authority £400,000 in a single year, figures released by the Scottish Executive revealed today.
The council issued 21,570 tickets in 2004/05. Some were written off, but thousands are still outstanding.
In comparison, Perth & Kinross issued 12,818 tickets, but also collected £400,000 from fines, so as with council tax, the city’s neighbour proved more adept at collecting money it is due.
The figures show Dundee and Perth and Kinross councils are minor players compared to Edinburgh and Glasgow, where £12.6 million worth of parking tickets were issued the same year.
A total of 513,700 fixed penalty notices for parking infringements were issued in 2004/05, which, together with revenue from vehicle removals, raised £14.4 million from motorists.
The statistics, which cover the councils that operate civil penalty schemes, are contained in the Executive’s annual report on criminal proceedings in Scottish courts.
The report shows convictions rose by 1% to 134,500 compared with the previous year. Increases in convictions for crimes such as shoplifting, handling an offensive weapon, vandalism, drugs and speeding were only partly offset by decreases for non-sexual crimes of violence, housebreaking and motor vehicle theft.
A 186% rise in speeding offences over the last ten years gives a clear indication of the ever-increasing use of speed cameras across the country and the willingness of police to leave speed limit enforcement to them.
In 1995, there were 67,343 speeding offences of which 15,049 were detected “automatically”. The year 2004/05 saw a total of 193,240 speeding offences with 160,132 as a result of automatic detection. Cameras and other such devices now detect 83% of speeding motorists as opposed to 10% a decade ago.
Other main findings of the report include:
l Of persons proceeded against in court in 2004/05, 89% were convicted;
l The number of custodial sentences imposed in 2004/05 was 16,500. More than 80% of these were for six months or less;
l In 2004-05, the number of convictions resulting in a community sentence was 17,000. These were mainly probation orders — 9400, and community service orders — 5400. The average length of community service orders imposed in 2004-05 was 148 hours. Other community sentences in 2004-05 included restriction of liberty orders — for more than 1300 convictions — and drug treatment and testing orders — just under 800 convictions
l In 2004-05, 63% of all convictions resulted in a fine or compensation order as the main penalty, compared with 71% in 1995-96. Excluding company fines, the average fine in 2004-05 was £218; the average value of compensation order imposed was £287.
l Peak age for convictions in 2004/05 was 18: 7% of all males and 1% of all females of this age were convicted at least once in 2004/05 for a crime or offences such as common assault or breach of the peace
l The average fine imposed for motor vehicle offences with a charge proved in 2004-05 was £182. The average length of driving ban imposed was 20 months
l Almost 11,000 conditional offers were made in respect of the new offence introduced in December 2003 of driving while using a mobile telephone

Council pays £2,800 to chase 10p parking fee on 'free site'

Telegraph
By Paul Stokes(Filed: 26/04/2006)

A judge was left "speechless" after being told that a council that has pursued a motorist for an unpaid 10p parking charge is now allowing everyone to park free in the same place.

Nick Newby, a former Royal Marine, has so far attended six hearings in a case that has cost the public more than £2,800.
He says that he saw no pay- and-display sign at the entrance to the car park which he used while going to the library in Mirfield, West Yorks, in February last year.
Mr Newby, 45, was angry to find a £30 excess notice on his windscreen when he returned. He refused to pay and was later fined £50 and ordered to pay £250 towards the costs incurred by Kirklees council in bringing the case.
Mr Newby, from Gomersal, near Bradford, appealed against the conviction and the matter has reached the High Court in Leeds.
After being told by the council's barrister that the car park was now a free site, Judge Rodney Grant said: "I am speechless."
Legal discussion lasting a full day led to the case being adjourned to be heard by him later this year.Geoff Bell, the council's chief legal officer, said that requests for information by Mr Newby, who is conducting his own defence, had cost the legal department £1,235 and the highways department £1,491. The council will consider "how best to move forward".

Traffic wardens told to be nicer

Sunday Times
Isabel Oakeshott, Deputy Political Editor
TRAFFIC wardens are to be told by the government to stop victimising motorists.

Attendants will have to curb the petty habit of ticketing motorists who have overstayed by a minute, or whose wheels stray just an inch over the line.
Ministers facing local elections next month have finally awoken to the fact that many motorists are infuriated by the behaviour of wardens who are under pressure to extract maximum revenue from drivers.
Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, has written to MPs admitting that many motorists’ complaints about the way they are treated “may be merited”.
A transport department memo sent to members of the Commons transport select committee accuses local authorities of employing wardens without proper training and allowing staff to reject valid appeals against fines. It also calls for an end to “confusing” and “incomprehensible” parking restriction signs.
The committee is investigating parking enforcement across England amid a backlash against the behaviour of some wardens as recent figures show fines in 2003-04 surging past £1 billion for the first time.
Complaints include wardens issuing tickets without stating the date or even the street where offences are supposed to have occurred and slapping tickets on cars while their owners are trying to find a functioning pay machine.
In Birmingham city centre, £60 fines were issued after council staff painted yellow lines around vehicles while they were parked. In Newcastle, wardens last year issued almost £200,000 of tickets in the five streets surrounding the Royal Victoria Infirmary, while on the streets around Manchester Royal Infirmary the figure was over £180,000, from 3,000 tickets.
Wardens have become so zealous in some areas that many are attacked by enraged drivers. In Newham, east London, wardens have been given police protection after 21 attacks in 13 months. Their colleagues in Havering, a nearby borough, have been issued with stab-proof vests to protect them from irate motorists.
In a 20-page submission to the committee, the Department for Transport says that it is recommending a softer approach to parking enforcement and is drawing up new statutory guidelines.
Among the parking practices they have identified are penalty charge notices slapped on cars where disabled badges are displayed upside down and blanket ticketing of cars in bad weather when yellow lines are obscured by snow.
The £1 billion collected in parking fines generates a surplus of £439m after costs. By law, councils are supposed to plough the money into improving transport systems.
However, the document admits there is “not much information” about what happens to the extra cash, leading to public suspicion that “authorities are only in it for the money”.

Parking: 'Has the council gone mad?'

Rugby Today

ANGRY residents in a Rugby street have united to condemn new parking proposals under consideration.

More than 200 homeowners in Oxford Street have added their names to a letter of protest against the plan, set to come in force in October.
Under the suggested scheme, which is part of a general shake-up of parking in the town, residents will pay £15 for a yearly parking permit.
The letter of objection was organised by Nic Powell, who has lived in the street for more than 15 years.
He said: "I'm not a political activist but this is local government going mad.
"The whole thing is a farce and this demonstrates the depth of feeling on one street about this scheme."
The proposals are part of a shake-up of parking arrangements in Rugby, with Warwickshire County Council taking over responsibility of monitoring parking.
Supporters say the changes will benefit businesses and residents by increasing the turnover of cars in the town and prevent vehicles occupying the same space for long periods.
It's also hoped that the scheme will relieve traffic congestion around the town centre.
However, after hearing of the scheme Nic decided to carry out his own survey of the street earlier this month.A total of 204 people added their names to the letter of objection, while only two residents questioned by Nic gave nominal support to the scheme.
Nic said: "I knew the deadline for objections was coming up and I wanted to do something.
"There isn't a problem here for the council to solve and most of the residents feel if there should be a permit it should be free and they shouldn't have to pay to park.
"However, Mr. Powell is worried that the proposals could pose a threat to businesses in Oxford Street.
"For those guys who work in the area, unless they live over the shop, they will not be able to buy a parking permit for people to park outside the shop," he said."Their customers may have to park in the Cattle Market which is crazy, given there is no daytime parking problem in the area."
Mr. Powell said he has submitted the letter to the council as part of their consultation into the scheme, which finished last week.
20 April 2006

Time to show parking chiefs what we think

Ham & High 24
editorial@hamhigh.co.uk
20 April 2006

Following the taxi drivers' protest outside the town hall last Thursday, it is now up to us, the voters of Camden, to show what we think of the council's parking and traffic enforcement practises, many of which would not be out of place in a totalitarian state.
For example; I am sure from the experiences of a member of my own family and, from the stories that we regularly read in the local press, that the council has a deliberate policy of driving disabled people out of the borough.
Could this have anything to do with saving money on social services?
I have no particular political affiliation but may I urge through the pages of your newspaper, all of Camden's voters to use their vote on May 4. We cannot survive another Labour administration elected by a minority of residents.

Peter Wilson I am very sorry for the elderly disabled lady who was visited by bailiffs (Ticket bailiffs raid disabled pensioner, H&H April 14). It does sound rather heavy-handed. However her daughter's explanation that the parking rules are "too complicated for her to understand" begs the question of whether someone who is so confused should be driving at all, particularly in London where it is vital to have your wits about you at all times.Dorothy Macedo

Parking fines: Highway robbery

A crash victim, a hearse, even a pet... all have got parking tickets. What is the penalty scheme really for - to clear the roads or make councils pots of money?
By Paul Rodgers The Independent online
Published: 16 April 2006
Bugsy, a brown and white lop rabbit, was sitting placidly in his hutch by the kerb in Salford, Greater Man- chester, while the owner of the Eccles Pet Store and Aquarium, Clifford Chamberlain, moved his van off a yellow line after spotting a parking warden. And there the trouble began. The warden, either frustrated by Mr Chamberlain's getaway or encouraged by the wheels on the hutch, slapped Bugsy with a £60 ticket.
The notorious case of the illegally parked bunny won Mr Chamberlain an award for the craziest parking ticket of 2003. It was almost as silly as the fine given to 2004's winner, Nadhim Zahawi, a Wandsworth councillor and the chief executive of pollster YouGov, who received a £100 fixed-penalty notice on his crashed scooter while he was being loaded into an ambulance with a broken leg.
And it doesn't stop there, as the grieving relatives of Marie Fourlla discovered. They emerged from her funeral service at St Charles Borromeo Catholic Church in Westminster to find their cortège had been ticketed. Leverton and Sons, undertakers for the late Princess of Wales, said this had happened to them half a dozen times. Lambeth council gave Tom Tennant and Sheron Green tickets after workers painted yellow lines along the roads where they were already parked. Derek Scott stopped to ask one Westminster warden for directions and was ticketed by a second warden with him. Doctors' cars, ambulances and fire engines have all fallen foul of overzealous attendants.
Parking-ticket madness is now the cause of nationwide anger. And to feel it, you only have to go to one of the places where drivers pay for their transgressions, such as the flagship of Wandsworth's chain of Parking Shops, on the fifth floor of a 1970s-style annexe to the borough's town hall. Ironically, the complex is surrounded by a red route. Parking in the council's courtyard is by permit only. It is not clear where "customers" can leave a car while at the "shop".
William Millgate, 33, a plumber, tells a typical story. On a shopping expedition to Putney, south-west London, he left his grey BMW in what he thought was a pay-and-display bay on a street where a parking warden was patrolling. When he returned, he had a ticket. "I'd parked in a residents' bay by mistake," says Mr Millgate. "It wasn't the warden's job to warn me, but he could have." Austin Ince, 46, an electrical engineer, has an even more absurd tale. He was having work done on a wall overlooking his elderly neighbour's driveway, so she parked on the street across the entrance. "I can understand them issuing the ticket. She was on a yellow line," he says. "But you'd think that once the ludicrous situation was explained - that the only person she was blocking was herself - they'd have rescinded it."
Thanks to fines like these, paid by Mr and Mrs Angry Average Briton, the nation's councils are coining it. An estimated eight million tickets were issued in 2004, raising £1bn - 70 per cent more than in 1998. The combined profit in England was £440m, almost double the 1998 figure. Westminster topped the league tables in 2004, issuing more than one million tickets, clamping 45,000 vehicles and towing 20,000. Of the £65m it raised from parking in 2003, more than half was profit. No wonder critics claim that the persecution of motorists has become big business for local authorities.
So is the anger justified, or are we just a bunch of whingers? Have parking fines become a stealth tax, or are they an essential tool for smoothing traffic flow and increasing safety on Britain's crowded streets? To get to the answers we must, appropriately, reverse into the question.
The first parking restrictions were introduced in London in the 1920s. Yet it was not uncommon to find cars double- and even treble-parked in the 1940s. One study found that between 1947 and 1948, traffic accidents rose by 8 per cent, except in areas with parking controls, where they fell by 31 per cent. After meters were installed in London's Manchester Square in 1958, the number of parked cars halved and traffic speeds rose by 16 per cent. Even today, most people have little sympathy for the idiot who leaves his car on a red route at rush hour, and nothing but contempt for the driver who endangers children's lives by parking illegally outside a school.
But the proliferation of rules between the 1960s and 1980s created an onerous duty for the police, consuming time and money that could have been spent on tackling more serious crimes. By the 1980s, enforcement was rare except for the worst breaches. Chief constables wanted to get out of the parking business.
The result was the Road Traffic Act 1991, which decriminalised parking violations, making them an issue for councils, which crucially got to keep any profit they made. By 1996, all of London had switched to the new system and some 140 councils across the country have now decriminalised. Police can push reluctant councils into taking over simply by announcing that they will stop issuing tickets. Leicester is in the middle of such a transition, which is taking longer than the six months' notice given by its Chief Constable. The result has been a degree of chaos, says John Mugglestone, the Tory leader of the city council. "Even the dustbin wagons are having trouble getting round corners because of illegally parked cars."
With the emphasis on incentives over the past decade, the initial blunder made by most councils is at least understandable. Contractors were given performance targets, often measured by the number of tickets written. In the first year, these were easy to meet. So many drivers were used to the lax enforcement under the police that offenders could be found on almost any street.
By year two of the schemes, however, motorists had mostly learnt their lesson. Gross violations fell, and parking wardens had to apply the letter of the law ever more stringently in order to meet their quotas. Better enforcement and more compliance should have led to a declining number of tickets. Instead, the figures soared. The number of penalty charge notices in London rose from four million to nearly six million between 2000 and 2004. "The contractor is under the cosh to provide more and more tickets," says Kevin Delaney of the RAC Foundation.

The hyperactivity of today's parking attendants has resulted in a sharp backlash. Websites such as appealnow.com have been spawned that offer to help people fight tickets. And campaigners have successfully challenged the regulations that underlie parking restrictions. Called Traffic Regulation Orders, these documents specify exactly when, where and under what circumstances tickets can be issued. Many bear little relationship to the signs and lines on the streets. In the past couple of years, councils up and down the country have been forced to repay thousands of improperly issued fines.
But parking problems are not about to go away. The number of vehicles on Britain's roads is rising steadily, from 24.5 million when the 1991 Act was passed, to 31.3 million in 2004. The number of parking spaces is not keeping up. Multistorey car parks built in the Sixties are being pulled down. Where planners used to insist that developers provide two off-street bays for each flat built, now they often limit parking spaces to one. And annual off-street parking charges on some estates have risen much faster than the price of on-street residents' permits, pushing cost-conscious residents' cars on to the road, and reducing the number of bays available for others.
But many councils and contractors are trying to improve. Manchester was one of the worst offenders when Bugsy hit the headlines, but is now being lauded: incentives for writing tickets were dropped when it switched its contract to NCP. It rewarded the company if the number of successful appeals was low, encouraging NCP to get the ticketing right first time. Wheel-clamping was dropped, on the grounds that it kept cars on the street even longer. Westminster, too, has improved, issuing its wardens with digital cameras that make it easier to support legitimate tickets and harder to claim non-existent offences.
But many councils still have a long way to go, as any local paper can show. Christine Parker was one of three to appear in last week's Camden New Journal expressing her "dismay and frustration at the incompetence of traffic wardens". She has been fined twice for parking in disabled spaces, even though her car has a permit clearly displayed. The view of the council, she writes, is that "if the traffic warden did not see it, it was not there". For angry motorists, that sort of attitude isn't good enough.
Ticket tactics: What to do when you are booked
READ THE TICKET CAREFULLY: It should give the date, time and place of the offence and the date of notification. It should identify your vehicle, the rule that has been broken and tell you how to deal with the ticket. If it fails to do these things, it may be invalid.
GATHER YOUR EVIDENCE: If you have a camera phone, take pictures. Ask any witnesses to sign brief statements.
UNOFFICIAL CHALLENGE: Within 14 days, write to the council explaining, simply, why the penalty should be waived.
NOTICE TO OWNER: If the council rejects the first representation, it will inform the vehicle's owner by post, giving another 14 days to pay the discount rate. After that, it will issue a notice to owner.
APPEAL: The "notice to owner" details the grounds on which the owner can appeal. If your case doesn't fit into these categories, you can still challenge the ticket. You have 28 days to file.
ADJUDICATION: If the formal appeal is turned down, you can now turn to the adjudicators, independent lawyers paid for by a 55p levy on every ticket issued. They will talk to you and a representative of the council in person, or deal with evidence you've posted in, and reach an impartial decision. In more than half of cases they back the motorists.
CONTACTS: In metropolitan London, visit www.parkingandtrafficappeals.gov.uk; outside London, visit www.parkingappeals.gov.uk

CLAMPED
Moments after a warden slaps a ticket on, the clampers arrive. Ironically, this means the car will be illegally parked for even longer

2 REMOVED
Towing cars that are blocking traffic is one thing, but when all you've done is overstayed the meter, the cost is over the top

3 CHARGE
The congestion charge has cut traffic in London, but drivers have been wrongly ticketed when cameras have been left on at night

4 PAY AND DISPLAY
Stick your receipt upside down or on the wrong bit of window and you will earn a ticket

5 LINE PAINTERS
Beware! If they paint yellow lines beside your parked vehicle, the traffic wardens will not be far behind

6 HELPFUL SHOP ASSISTANTS
With the warden around the corner, it is a race to your car. But helpful store staff may bring your purchases to you

7 CCTV CAMERAS
Pull into a parking bay, read the sign, realise you can't stay, pull out again. You may still be posted a ticket by an automatic camera

8 WARDEN WARNINGS
Some shops have started installing cameras that let patrons watch out for approaching parking wardens

9 PARKING ATTENDANT
Underpaid, even if they are on commission. They have so little room for discretion that it is not worth arguing with them

10 BROKEN METERS
Don't expect any sympathy if they don't work. Leaving a note saying you paid won't let you off a ticket

11 RUSH HOUR RESTRICTIONS
It may be OK to park here now, but not in half an hour. Some bays change status as often as five times a day

12 WHEELCHAIR ACCESS
A dip in the kerb usually means access for vehicles or the disabled, even if it is not marked. Park here at your peril

13 LOOK OUT!
One of the best defences against unfair ticketing comes from drivers warning each other that parking attendants are near

14 RESIDENTS' PERMITS
Being entitled to buy a permit doesn't mean you can park wherever you want. Make sure your permit is displayed properly

15 RED ROUTES
Don't even think about stopping here in rush hour. If you do, you deserve the fine you will almost certainly get

16 DOUBLE YELLOW LINES
Old, faded and patched lines may not be legally valid, but you will still have the hassle of disputing a ticket

17 DISABLED BAYS
Even with a blue badge visible, disabled drivers are often given tickets for using the bays reserved for them

18 HIDDEN SIGNS
Keep a sharp eye out when parking for signs obscured by trees or lorries. Not seeing the sign is never an excuse

LOADING
Don't take too long bringing that piano down the stairs. Parking wardens are not renowned for their patience

Peterborough Today

PETERBOROUGH City Council could be facing a financial headache spiralling into thousands of pounds if more people find that the parking tickets they received could be "invalid".
Following several high-profile cases in England, an independent adjudicator from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PTAS) ruled that if a ticket does not have a "date of notice" written on it, it cannot be enforced.One motorist challenged his ticket with Peterborough City Council, and was refunded his fine as a "goodwill gesture" and he is now urging others to try the same.John Price (59) had parked near Peterborough District Hospital after a family emergency at 5am on February 9.
When he returned to his car some seven hours later, he discovered he had been given a fine.
Despite feeling aggrieved at the ticket, he agreed to pay the £30. But he was encouraged to challenge the fine by a member of the Association of British Drivers because the ticket did not have "date of issue" printed on it.
When Mr Price, a church warden, queried it, he was refunded his cash.
Today he said: "They were scared stiff I would rip them to pieces at court. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of motorists who have been fined in the Peterborough area through these illegal tickets. The council should do the decent thing and pay back all the people who have been fined. If I made a mistake on my insurance paperwork then I would be fined. All those people who have coughed up £30 or £60 have been fined illegally."
The city council said it has now changed the wording on the tickets, and claims the decision on the Barnet case (see side bar) was not legally binding and people would have to challenge their ticket on an individual basis.
A spokesman added: "People who have paid the fine would have admitted liability, so it would be hard to then appeal against the tickets."
If anyone feels they have got a justifiable cause to contest the legality of a PCN (penalty charge notice) they will have to take it to an adjudicator."

But another campaigner, Neil Herron, is urging people to appeal their ticket if it was issued before the February 23 change.And he claims anyone with outstanding fines that were issued before that date cannot be forced to pay it.Mr Herron, who helped force Sunderland Council into an independent review of parking charges, said: "Everybody should appeal, but it shouldn't be down to them. It's up to the local authority to put their hands up, apologise and refund the money. "The authority will have become aware that there was a problem in May last year, but has continued issuing tickets."Issued against the law"
An independent adjudicator from the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PTAS) said that two tickets given to Hugh Moses in Golders Green, Barnet, last year were not issued in accordance with Section 66 of the Road Traffic Act 1991, which says the penalty charge notice (PCN) should state the date of issue.The tickets only stated the date of the parking infringement, not the date on which the ticket was issued. The adjudicator, Timothy Thorne, argued this was against the law, even though PCNs are almost always issued while the car is illegally parked.Barnet Council requested a review of the case, but PTAS said the ruling would not be overturned or reviewed.
14 April 2006

Motorists wait for fines refund

BBC News

10 April 06

Drivers in Devon are waiting to have fines repaid nearly six months after speeding convictions were ruled unsafe.
More than £100,000 is due to be repaid after errors in the use of a mobile speed camera at Starcross in Devon.
Between November 2002 and March last year, 1,800 drivers were wrongly convicted, but the first cheques were only sent out on Monday.
The court service which is repaying the money said it hopes to have all cases settled within six to eight weeks.
The Devon and Cornwall safety camera partnership which operated the cameras at Starcross said its first priority was to remove the penalty points from drivers' licences.
All the paperwork has now been passed to the Courts Service which has taken on five extra staff to help process the refunds.

Evening Times

Evening Times

April 06

Almost 190,000 Glasgow motorists were hit with parking tickets last year - raising £5.5 million in fines. But the massive number is 52,000 lower than the total caught by city council parking attendants the previous year.

And its almost £1.5m less than Edinburgh raised in fines in 2004/5.

The Glasgow figure of 189,955 tickets issued compares with 249,022, parking fines handed out in Edinburgh, which raised £6.9m.

In 2003/04 Glasgow raised £6.1m through 252,000 parking tickets, while Edinburgh raised £7.1m.

Motorists who are caught parking illegally are fined £30, which increases to £60 if not paid within 14 days.

City council land services director Robert Booth said: "Traffic patrollers are there to ensure there is free-flowing traffic in the city and to avoid driver frustration."

But Neil Greig, head of policy in Scotland for motoring organisation the AA, said: "Are the thousands of tickets issued, and the millions of pounds raised, improving traffic management in towns and cities?
" I think the answer from most drivers would be 'no'.
"Most drivers think parking tickets are all about raising revenue."

Meanwhile, new figures from the Executive show in 2004/05 the average court fine imposed for a driving offence was £182, and the average driving ban was 20 months.

Police issued 280,900 fixed penalty fines, of which 69% were for speeding.

A police crackdown on people not wearing seatbelts saw 133 caught in Strathclyde in just one day.

More than a decade after the law was tightened to include back-seat passengers the law is still being ignored, officers said.

A Scotland-wide awareness day on Monday netted nearly 400 people not strapped in.

Parking fines chaos

Scarborough today

SCARBOROUGH'S on-street parking scheme was plunged into fresh controversy today after the Government refused to grant the borough council power to issue tickets for all parking offences.
Scarborough Council had hoped it would be granted decriminalised parking powers from today which would allow it to take over from police the issuing of fines to people who park illegally on yellow lines.
But concerns have been raised that the lines and signs which make up the on-street scheme do not follow the law and cannot be enforced – despite the council spending around £50,000 on a consultant to help prepare for decriminalisation.
The Department for Transport has refused to grant decriminalised parking powers until the issues are resolved.
The council already enforces all Scarborough on-street parking bays and was initially hoping to take over the police responsibilities last summer, but has been forced to alter a number of its lines and signs which has seen the switchover pushed back a number of times.
The latest concerns have been raised with the Department for Transport by Keith Hughes, who was Scarborough's top traffic policeman for five years and made a successful complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about the scheme in 2004 after his daughter was given a fine. The ombudsman found the council guilty of maladministration.
He said: "The council has messed this up big time and they are now trying to make excuses that it is not their fault.
"They put the scheme in place while I was still working for the police and we knew immediately that the lines and signs were wrong, but they would not listen to us when we tried to tell them that.
Since my last complaint they have spent several months and thousands of pounds trying to put it right – and it's still wrong, which means there are lots of places round the town where people can park improperly and no-one can touch them for it.
"The police have also been getting rid of their traffic wardens in preparation for the council taking over, so now we are in a situation where no-one really is going round issuing tickets and the motorists who park on yellow lines will only get a ticket if it is issued by a police officer."
Scarborough Council said the delay was also down to an administrative hold-up at the Department for Transport and hoped the powers would be granted in the summer.
Mr Hughes believes it will take until summer next year to put the problems right.
John Riby, Scarborough Council's head of engineering and procurement, said the council does not believe it has been proven in law that there are any major problems with the lines and signs.
He said: "The concerns that have been raised with the DfT have only latterly been referred to us.
"We have asked the consultant to come back and look at the areas where Mr Hughes has raised concerns. It is only right that, having had a consultant in, we have to give that consultant the right to respond."