Dangerously situated Scamera Vans!!

[scoobiewrx]

Safety concern over speed camera van
A ROAD safety group has expressed concern at photographs showing a police road safety camera van obscuring a pedestrian crossing.
www.northamptontoday.co.uk/getedimage.aspx?ImageID=595560
The pictures were taken by a Chronicle & Echo reader who spotted the vehicle in Red House Road, Moulton Park, on Monday morning.
The officer was stationed there to encourage motorists to slow down and catch those that did not on film.
But, having seen the pictures, safety groups said there was a definite danger to pedestrians caused by the position of the van.
A spokeswoman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (ROSPA) said: "We haven't come across anything like this before.
"It is essential that enforcement vehicles are not positioned in a way which might endanger road users. They shouldn't make it difficult for motorists to see pedestrians and shouldn't stop pedestrians seeing cars."
The Northampton man who photographed the van on Monday said he contacted the Chron because he was so surprised that a police vehicle would be allowed to park so near to a crossing.
The man who asked not to be named, said: "It was a pretty silly place to put the van and I told the young man inside.
"I was told the lights would stop the vehicles so pedestrians would know when to cross but I know in the real world that doesn't always happen.
"The only way you could see from that position is to stick your head out and risk getting it knocked off by a lorry."
Sgt Nick Gough, of the Safety Camera Team, said: "We have recently been operating speed checks in this area, following concerns from people who regularly use the road.
"Several changes to signs and the pedestrian crossing facility have been made in recent weeks. Following a site inspection of the safety camera van at this location it has been agreed that in future it will be positioned further away from the pedestrian crossing.
"Obviously road safety is our prime concern, and we try to take all aspects of this into consideration whenever we are involved in our operations on the county's roads."

----------------------------------------

I see them parked up in all sorts of dodgy places but it never occured to me to take a pic and give the scamera van operator a rollocking, excellent!!

Edited by scoobiewrx on Thursday 26th October 14:59

[mechsympathy]

Road safety bloke said:

Several changes to signs and the pedestrian crossing facility have been made in recent weeks.

And they only noticed they were parked on a pedestrian crossing when someone pointed it out to them. FFS, what utter muppets

Edited by mechsympathy on Friday 27th October 10:34

[Parrot of Doom]

Thats pathetic. The person in that van has no idea whatsoever about safety.

Another step in the right direction methinks.

[eccles]

i don't really see why its a danger, you walk up to the crossing , press the button, when the green man flashes at you, you just glance left or right and cross if its clear, having a van parked a few yards away won't make any difference to the pedestrian, and if it distracts a driver that much that he can't see a red light, then there's a good chance he/she shouldn't be on the road anyway.

[gozomark]

eccles - are you saying that you think its a sensible place to park ??? would you park there ?

[scoobiewrx]

eccles said:

i don't really see why its a danger, you walk up to the crossing , press the button, when the green man flashes at you, you just glance left or right and cross if its clear, having a van parked a few yards away won't make any difference to the pedestrian, and if it distracts a driver that much that he can't see a red light, then there's a good chance he/she shouldn't be on the road anyway.

I agree that if they go through the red light then they could potentially hit a pedestrian regardless of what was or wasn't in the way, and yes, they shouldn't be on the road. This is though a regular occurance, how many times have you seen that happening, and having the scamera van obscuring the lights and also pedestrians waiting to cross standing infront of the van, would only worsen the situation. Pedestrians wouldn't see what was coming and drivers wouldn't see the pedestrians. The van shouldn't be there in the first place and the bloke that parked it there is clearly an absolute and total plonka and shouldn't be doing the job in the first place. Period!!

Edited by scoobiewrx on Friday 27th October 10:52

[justinp1]

Even more proof that 'safety cameras' are more about spin than safety!

Also noted this nugget of false information:

'The officer was stationed there to encourage motorists to slow down and catch those that did not on film.'

So, if you flash your headlights further up the road to warn others to slow down too, that wont be a problem then!? Hmm we kno wthe answer to that one - they are not there to encourage motorists to slow down, otherwise by just the fact they catch people they are failing miserably! They are there to extract £60 from people!

Also ...catch those that did not (slow down) on film...

So they only film the people that are speeding then....? Ahem...

[eccles]

gozomark said:

eccles - are you saying that you think its a sensible place to park ??? would you park there ?

i'm not saying its a sensible place to park, i'm just sick of people saying "this is dangerous" or "thats dangerous" when in the real world, to the majority, it won't make a blind bit of difference.
the numpty who gets distracted by the van, or the nano second it takes to glance at their speedo, will probably get unstuck anyway.

yes i agree its probably not the wisest place to park, but its not going to lead to the slaughter of thousands of innocent children either.

[jasandjules]

eccles said:

yes i agree its probably not the wisest place to park, but its not going to lead to the slaughter of thousands of innocent children either.

No, and nor will almost any speeding... But that isn't what the police would have you believe.

MY main concern with that photo was the visibility of the traffic lights. Wonder what would happen if they went red, 2-3 school kids start to cross, and the motorist didn't see them (as they are behind the van) and didn't see the red light obscured by the van. It is a crossing place after all, I thought they were meant to not park within 15-20ft of such a place "for safety".....

[victormeldrew]

eccles said:

gozomark said:

eccles - are you saying that you think its a sensible place to park ??? would you park there ?

i'm not saying its a sensible place to park, i'm just sick of people saying "this is dangerous" or "thats dangerous" when in the real world, to the majority, it won't make a blind bit of difference.
the numpty who gets distracted by the van, or the nano second it takes to glance at their speedo, will probably get unstuck anyway.

yes i agree its probably not the wisest place to park, but its not going to lead to the slaughter of thousands of innocent children either.

That's really not the point though is it? The van is meant to be enforcing the rules of the road, not breaking them, which makes it total hipocrisy. Crossings like that have zig-zag zones for a reason, and the muppet in this van either blatantly disregarded this (cynical muppet) or really hadn't a clue why they were there (ignorant muppet). Either way it totally exposes the "safety camera" myth.

[Fer]

eccles said:

i don't really see why its a danger, you walk up to the crossing , press the button, when the green man flashes at you, you just glance left or right and cross if its clear, having a van parked a few yards away won't make any difference to the pedestrian, and if it distracts a driver that much that he can't see a red light, then there's a good chance he/she shouldn't be on the road anyway.

So why do we need zig zag lines befre the crossing? It is up to the pedestrian to check the lights and cross anyway.

[GKP]

Isn't parking on the zig zags a three pointer?

[eccles]

jasandjules said:

eccles said:

yes i agree its probably not the wisest place to park, but its not going to lead to the slaughter of thousands of innocent children either.

No, and nor will almost any speeding... But that isn't what the police would have you believe.

MY main concern with that photo was the visibility of the traffic lights. Wonder what would happen if they went red, 2-3 school kids start to cross, and the motorist didn't see them (as they are behind the van) and didn't see the red light obscured by the van. It is a crossing place after all, I thought they were meant to not park within 15-20ft of such a place "for safety".....

now this is the kind of thing i'm on about.
2-3 kids start crossing, driver doesn't see them as they are behind the van......well in that case the full force of the law should apply as the driver is clearly driving on the pavement, or he's just driven through a van!
you can see the traffic lights in the photo, and thats taken directly behind the van, so if you were in the road in a car for instance, you'd be seeing even more of the lights! from the photo it looks a nice , wide straight road, no nasty bends for the crossing to hidden behind.

the vans not parked on the zig zags, he's on the verge next to them, so perhaps someone would like to point out the relevant laws that say where, and where you can't park in relation to zig zags.

[Peter Ward]

GKP said:

Isn't parking on the zig zags a three pointer?

I guess this is the point. Is he actually parked on the zigzags or not? My guess is it's just a clever wheeze to park off the road and therefore not be considered -- going by the letter of the law -- to be parked on them.

But honestly! Parking right in the sightline of pedestrians wanting to cross, and on the side of the road next to the oncoming traffic, it's crazy. It really is asking for trouble. The operator should have been sacked.

[jasandjules]

It is just sadly further proof that safety is waaay down the list in terms of nicking speeding motorists..... Even worse when they try and defend it !

[scoobiewrx]

The story i posted clearly states the police as saying "following a site inspection of the Scameravan at this location it has been agreed that the scameravan should be situated further away from the crossing". Even the police have admitted they are in the wrong therefore i won't argue with them as i think that is the right decision.

They could have said B_LL_X, we won't move it, but they didnt, so what does that say.

[jasandjules]

scoobiewrx said:

They could have said B_LL_X, we won't move it, but they didnt, so what does that say.

IT says the driver was wrong to park there in the first place. And very stupid to do so.

[rich 36]

Its this again right




fills me with confidence, this behaviour

[vipers]

Fer said:

eccles said:

i don't really see why its a danger, you walk up to the crossing , press the button, when the green man flashes at you, you just glance left or right and cross if its clear, having a van parked a few yards away won't make any difference to the pedestrian, and if it distracts a driver that much that he can't see a red light, then there's a good chance he/she shouldn't be on the road anyway.

So why do we need zig zag lines befre the crossing? It is up to the pedestrian to check the lights and cross anyway.

To tell those muppets that they cant park there......... not that some seem able to read and absorb the highway code anyway.

The Highway Code states that:-You MUST NOT park on a crossing or in the area covered by the zig-zag lines

[Dino D]

eccles said:

and if it distracts a driver that much that he can't see a red light, then there's a good chance he/she shouldn't be on the road anyway.

That no help to the pedestrian when he gets squashed...