Trapped and fined: Furious Derby dad slams 'unfair' bus lane enforcement

A livid dad says he feels he has been “trapped” by a controversial bus lane in Derby city centre after being fined by the council.

Father-of-two Francis Hancock has been in dispute with Derby City Council for the past few months after cameras caught him travelling through Corporation Street in September.

The Mickleover resident appealed the fine of £70, claiming the signage on the approach from Full Street was inadequate and “not clear enough”. But it is understood the local authority later refused his appeal, meaning he had to pay a reduced fine of £35.

Derby City Council has defended the quality of signage and says the bus lane restriction is providing environmental benefits to the area.

But Mr Hancock is one of thousands of motorists who have been fined by the council in recent years for driving on Corporation Street.

Love Derby? Us too! So sign up for our newsletter now

The restriction, first introduced in 2020, is for the road to be used only by buses, taxis, cyclists and pedestrians between 7am and 7pm. Cameras and approved signage are in place to warn motorists near the road.

It has been previously reported that the city council had raised £1.7 million in just over a year from the CCTV-monitored bus lane. Within that time, more than 50,000 fines were issued to motorists.

The 48-year-old accepted there was a sign on Full Street next to a tree. But he feels it is “not clear enough” given the consideration that a motorist should be looking straight at the road while driving. He claims there were no road markings or additional signs to suggest a bus lane was on the other side of the island.

He also claims there is also no signage at the start of Full Street near St Michael’s Church indicating there is a bus lane ahead.

Mr Hancock said he feels the council is putting income ahead of pedestrian safety. He said: “I told the council it felt like entrapment. Before you know where you are, you are on it (the bus gate) and it is too late.

“I think it is too easy for people to fall into this trap. Apart from a sign near the tree, the signage is not clear enough (on Full Street).

“In the end I paid the £35 under duress, but just how many £35s are the council getting? I’d love to know how much money the council has received.

“If lots of people are getting £35 fines then this needs to be highlighted. That bus lane is there for the safety of pedestrians. But if so many people are falling into this trap, then it is not working – the restriction is not fit for purpose.”

Mr Hancock said he had spoken to another motorist about the restriction who told him on camera they had been “confused” by it.

However, the council says the restriction has “successfully reduced traffic in the area” and signage around it has been examined independently.

A spokesperson for Derby City Council said: “The signage on Corporation Street goes above and beyond what is necessary to meet the regulatory requirements. This has been tested by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, where two separate independent adjudicators concluded the restriction is clearly marked and signed.

“The restriction has also successfully reduced traffic in the area and the scheme is a key part of removing unnecessary traffic from the city centre and reducing air pollution, creating an improved environment for pedestrians and for the use of adjacent public spaces. It also has critical benefits for public transport, improving journey reliability and punctuality, removing the historic congestion, and meets the priorities of the National Bus Strategy.

“Derby City Council follows national legislation in respect of appeals and if the council and registered keeper of a vehicle disagree then the case can be referred to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for adjudication. Any revenue generated as a result of PCNs is used to directly improve highways and transport within the city.”

Mr Hancock claimed he felt “bullied” into paying the fine because he was threatened with further enforcement action if he didn’t pay up – despite his beliefs about signage.

A council letter to him stated: “You should be made aware that if the matter remains outstanding at that time the council will apply to the court for authority to issue a warrant to the Enforcement Agents (previously known as bailiffs).”