Letting other drivers know of approaching Scamera vans
Discussion
walm said:
I think we all understand that speed limits are there for the lowest common denominator of car/driver.
As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.
That's just a variation of the theme.As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.
Ah, but the hazard level is much higher than normal due to the presence of the camera - a sharp increase in unpredictable behaviour, amongst other things.Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.
Ah, but the hazard level is much higher than normal due to the presence of the camera - a sharp increase in unpredictable behaviour, amongst other things.The law, responsibility and reasonable behaviour don't allow for or accommodate big boys who know better so hazard? No.
The hazard my friend is you and your irresponsible, ignorant and defiant attitude.
Pete317 said:
walm said:
I think we all understand that speed limits are there for the lowest common denominator of car/driver.
As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.
That's just a variation of the theme.As PH driving gods we can all be 100% safe at 80mph but there are some morons out there for which 70 is THEIR limit.
Hence we put the limit at 70.
It's been proven time and time again that the 85th percentile is possibly the safest speed to drive at on a given stretch of road, but this only makes the road safer, it doesn't generate tax revenue, hence the reduction in speeds to the now very silly low levels that we are witnessing across the country.
We now have stupidly low limits on parts of the main A60 into Nottingham which defy logic, reasons being given for the new lower limits are due to road accidents, but the accidents have occurred at vastly higher speeds by lunatics at the wheel driving stolen cars or by inexperienced boy-racers who would drive faster no matter what the posted speed limits were.
Do 40mph limits along the main A60 towards Nottingham make any sense to the vast majority of drivers, when for many years the road was NSL before dropping to 50mph and now 40mph in many parts.
I actually think the average speed cameras do an excellent job of curbing excessive speed and would like them installed across Nottinghamshire, but only if rational speed limits were in place, they also serve a useful purpose to keep a watchful eye on criminals and terrorists by tracking the movement of vehicles within their range and could probably used for statistical purposes to calculate traffic flow.
Average speed cameras are probably cheaper to operate longer term than the fleet of inefficient speed camera vans plus the two operators, one operator sits on his backside looking through the gun whilst the other one sits on his backside probably making cups of coffee, hardly an efficient use of taxpayer money is it?
Doing away with the safety camera vans would also allow motorists to concentrate on driving instead of having to peer into the distance and check the speedometer every few seconds especially which driving downhill, just in case a camera van is parked up in a bus lane, on a verge, or perhaps on someone's front lawn!
tapereel said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.
Ah, but the hazard level is much higher than normal due to the presence of the camera - a sharp increase in unpredictable behaviour, amongst other things.As cited earlier in the thread a doctor giving evidence at a North Wales inquest into the road death of the man he had hit and killed at 30mph said:
I was aware that this was a speed enforcement area so I was monitoring my speed carefully. When I looked up, there he was.
Drivers also in terms of inappropriately slow limits, scamvanned or not.Suffolk Coroner at a road death inquest said:
This is the Coroner's Verdict re Frank Gray deceased. I accept Dr Biedrzycki's report as to the medical cause of death and it follows from that that I find that the injury causing death is: "1(a) Multiple Injuries". I now come to the most important part of my Verdict and that is the legal cause of death, what is called on the Verdict form "Conclusion of the Coroner as to the Death". Quite plainly, I only have one reasonable Verdict open to me there and that is one of Accidental Death. Part 3 of my Verdict which I have deliberately skipped until now is the time place and circumstances at or in which the injury was sustained, I find that that was between 6 and 6.10am on the 4th November 1996 on the A134 road at Bradfield Combust, circumstances: "due to a road traffic accident". I have had reported to me three fatal accidents on this road and these three fatal accidents follow very shortly after certain speed limits have been imposed on this road at Alpheton, Bradfield Combust and Sicklesmere. I think that there is a very high probability indeed that this tragic fatality has the speed limits as a contributory cause.
The reference there bwing to recently reduced limits as too low.tapereel said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.
Ah, but the hazard level is much higher than normal due to the presence of the camera - a sharp increase in unpredictable behaviour, amongst other things.The law, responsibility and reasonable behaviour don't allow for or accommodate big boys who know better so hazard? No.
The hazard my friend is you and your irresponsible, ignorant and defiant attitude.
Pete317 said:
tapereel said:
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
Funnily enough though you'll no doubt see far less warning to slow down away from locations where evidence of speeding is being amassed.
Ah, but the hazard level is much higher than normal due to the presence of the camera - a sharp increase in unpredictable behaviour, amongst other things.The law, responsibility and reasonable behaviour don't allow for or accommodate big boys who know better so hazard? No.
The hazard my friend is you and your irresponsible, ignorant and defiant attitude.
One way to view it in terms of 'hazard' is that why has the scam van parked where it has.... surely to target a known hazard? (An accident black spot for example).
So slowing down in the particular area of a scam van is what the 'safety partnership management' are expecting or wishing to achieve in order they can attempt to show their effectiveness in reducing accidents.
BUT...obviously that line of thought only plays out IF the scam vans are there for safety and not revenue.
La Liga said:
The consultation to raise the motorway speed limit to 80 MPH resulted in the conclusion there'd likely be a greater number of deaths IIRC.
That's an output from a statistical model used by DfT which in its operation and conclusion took previous data and research and stood it on its head.Commentators backing the statistical model outputs, via a proess which didn't confine itself to motorway type roads, said things like "it's simple but careful before-and-after comparisons in situations where speed has changed for some reason, usually because the limit has changed" then went on to conclude that there would be 25 more motorway deaths per year.
Research prior to the era of political correctness and demonisation of vehicle speed showed totally the opposite result, for example the Martin Parker study data (like the DfT model, not restricted to mways) led to the conclusion that lowering posted speed limits even by as much as 20 mph, or raising speed limits by as much as 15 mph, had little effect on vehicle speed.
In addition, data collected indicated that lowering speed limits to the 50th percentile did not reduce accidents, but did significantly increase driver violations of the speed limit. Conversely, raising posted speed limits did not significantly increase either speeds or accidents. So much for the so-called safety justification for moving from 85%ile to 50%ile.
As a result of this and other studies, the credibility of the DfT model (and its output) is severely limited.
More: Parker (1997) was just prior to the p-c acceleration and demonisation of vehicle speed which took off after the murder of valid statistical analysis in road safety considerations that took place following the speed camera revenue hypothecation trials of 1999-2000. Before the Parker study there was similar research which reached similar conlusions (to Parker).
For example Spitz (1984) quantified the impact of speed limit changes and reported that the 85th percentile speed of traffic increased less than 0.4 mph in 40 zones where speed limits were raised. This was less than the 0.7 mph increase observed at comparison sites which had no speed limit change! In 10 locations where speed limits were lowered, speeds actually increased, on average by 1.1 mph. Clearly putting speed limits further into disrepute does not lower vehicle speed.
People with little understanding of research will try to impose sell-by dates on it, the reality is that these days research - paid for mostly by government - finds what the government wants to see, otherwise the funding stops. I may get flamed for mentioning climate research but that wouldn't be the first time or the last...there is actually no money at all available to UK researchers specifically setting out to disprove the manmade climate change myths, as verified by a ministerial reply in Hansard.
For parallel shifts in the road safety context, examine TRL reports going back decades - some of us have been reading them throughout that timescale. Take the incidence of al Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) as studied in motorway roadworks with average speed cameras, and free flowing motorways, in TRL 595.
Good old trafpol.
The summary table as above is based around figures in the third section of the report. Data in the report is given as rate figures expressed in PIAs per million vehicle kilometres with a lower figure representing lower incidence of PIA crashes. Increases and decreases were measured against 'no speed camera' open motorway data.
The last time I posted anything like that I had a series of requests for additional info (fine) together with some personal-type replies which, being a sensitive soul as PHers will appreciate, cut me to the very quick. As I'm now heading off to a client's site, anyone wishing to have a pop can do so in the knowledge of no immediate response being forthcoming - so fill yer boots
however it might, with luck, not come to that 
For example Spitz (1984) quantified the impact of speed limit changes and reported that the 85th percentile speed of traffic increased less than 0.4 mph in 40 zones where speed limits were raised. This was less than the 0.7 mph increase observed at comparison sites which had no speed limit change! In 10 locations where speed limits were lowered, speeds actually increased, on average by 1.1 mph. Clearly putting speed limits further into disrepute does not lower vehicle speed.
People with little understanding of research will try to impose sell-by dates on it, the reality is that these days research - paid for mostly by government - finds what the government wants to see, otherwise the funding stops. I may get flamed for mentioning climate research but that wouldn't be the first time or the last...there is actually no money at all available to UK researchers specifically setting out to disprove the manmade climate change myths, as verified by a ministerial reply in Hansard.
For parallel shifts in the road safety context, examine TRL reports going back decades - some of us have been reading them throughout that timescale. Take the incidence of al Personal Injury Accidents (PIAs) as studied in motorway roadworks with average speed cameras, and free flowing motorways, in TRL 595.
| Effect on PIAs | Roadworks | Open motorway |
|---|---|---|
| Analogue speed cameras | 55% increase | 31% increase |
| Digital speed cameras | 4.5% increase | 6.7% increase |
| Police patrols | 27% reduction | 10% reduction |
Good old trafpol.
The summary table as above is based around figures in the third section of the report. Data in the report is given as rate figures expressed in PIAs per million vehicle kilometres with a lower figure representing lower incidence of PIA crashes. Increases and decreases were measured against 'no speed camera' open motorway data.
The last time I posted anything like that I had a series of requests for additional info (fine) together with some personal-type replies which, being a sensitive soul as PHers will appreciate, cut me to the very quick. As I'm now heading off to a client's site, anyone wishing to have a pop can do so in the knowledge of no immediate response being forthcoming - so fill yer boots
however it might, with luck, not come to that AA999 said:
One way to view it in terms of 'hazard' is that why has the scam van parked where it has.... surely to target a known hazard? (An accident black spot for example).
"locations where there is public concern about the speed of vehicles but not necessarily a serious accident problem"In other words, anywhere they like.This would explain some of the glorious positions I seem them in.The best I know of is at the bottom of a dip.Drivers may creep over the limit there for just a few seconds simply to get up the incline on the other side.Their vehicles slow due to the hill anyway (almost always under the limit for HGV's) when climbing, but that doesn't matter for the t
ts in the van.They are in a pixel perfect position to tag and bag you for your two second crime.As several senior police officers said "placing cameras on stretches of road without a history of accidents is like shooting fish in a barrel”. It all points back to the biggest supplier of scameras suggesting they were blank chequebooks and that there would be so much money, you wouldn't know what to do with it.The perfect sales pitch for our trustworthy Governments and councils.Is it any wonder we saw thousands of cameras spring up all around the country? Still, it's not about the money, it's only about your safety......unless of course the funding / earning potential changes and then it becomes all about the money and your safety can go f
k itself 
Even one of the first officers involved with speed cameras suggested they were only ever to be used to catch the absolute worst drivers and agreed the system in place now is simply money related.
Bless all those who still try to defend it though.Keep trying, it's comedy gold.
Surely the idea is enforcement should be anywhere, so that you never feel confident about not being caught where transgressing.
If you only enforce in (for arguments sake) 1000 known locations, the limit is only likely to be observed in those locations.
There is no point having a limit where that limit would never be enforced should somebody be caught transgressing it.
If you only enforce in (for arguments sake) 1000 known locations, the limit is only likely to be observed in those locations.
There is no point having a limit where that limit would never be enforced should somebody be caught transgressing it.
Which was all well and good before the powers that be realised drivers were becoming 'camera aware' and reduced the amount of leeway given and lowered limits etc.
Never fear, though! If you see your targets dropping and wallets becoming lighter, neglect the safety aspect once again and turn your attention to parking and bus lane fines instead for a healthy source of income.
Never fear, though! If you see your targets dropping and wallets becoming lighter, neglect the safety aspect once again and turn your attention to parking and bus lane fines instead for a healthy source of income.
Digby said:
Which was all well and good before the powers that be realised drivers were becoming 'camera aware' and reduced the amount of leeway given and lowered limits etc.
Never fear, though! If you see your targets dropping and wallets becoming lighter, neglect the safety aspect once again and turn your attention to parking and bus lane fines instead for a healthy source of income.
Eh Never fear, though! If you see your targets dropping and wallets becoming lighter, neglect the safety aspect once again and turn your attention to parking and bus lane fines instead for a healthy source of income.
It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.
If they are moved around enough you could never be camera aware enough, it would be easier just to observe the limit.
If you are observing the limit you don't have to worry where any camera for detecting speed may be.
Well, as I said, they were only ever supposed to catch those who seriously flouted the rules.This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the authorities knew that being over any limit by a small margin wasn't an issue.They didn't expect humans to focus on speed 100% of the time - why would they? Back then, they were effectively static, electronic police officers in that they were not interested unless you really took the piss.
They were also only supposed to be used where there was a history of incidents.
So when did this all change? Pretty much when they were told they could keep some of the money and invest in more cameras.We went from a reasonably sensible system to one of altered stats, rejected FOI requests, covert operations, target driven ideologies and a relentless pursuit of cash.
Anyone thinking the camera explosion had our safety as its primary goal is deluded.As I said once before, some big names have come forward over the years to agree with all I have said and I see no reason to dismiss their words and accept those of people on a car forum (many of whom have a vested interest)
They were also only supposed to be used where there was a history of incidents.
So when did this all change? Pretty much when they were told they could keep some of the money and invest in more cameras.We went from a reasonably sensible system to one of altered stats, rejected FOI requests, covert operations, target driven ideologies and a relentless pursuit of cash.
Anyone thinking the camera explosion had our safety as its primary goal is deluded.As I said once before, some big names have come forward over the years to agree with all I have said and I see no reason to dismiss their words and accept those of people on a car forum (many of whom have a vested interest)
Digby said:
Well, as I said, they were only ever supposed to catch those who seriously flouted the rules.This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the authorities knew that being over any limit by a small margin wasn't an issue.They didn't expect humans to focus on speed 100% of the time - why would they? Back then, they were effectively static, electronic police officers in that they were not interested unless you really took the piss.
They were also only supposed to be used where there was a history of incidents.
So when did this all change? Pretty much when they were told they could keep some of the money and invest in more cameras.We went from a reasonably sensible system to one of altered stats, rejected FOI requests, covert operations, target driven ideologies and a relentless pursuit of cash.
Anyone thinking the camera explosion had our safety as its primary goal is deluded.As I said once before, some big names have come forward over the years to agree with all I have said and I see no reason to dismiss their words and accept those of people on a car forum (many of whom have a vested interest)
It's never been the case that restrictions have been in place to only prosecute speeders who 'seriously' flout the rules. You've never had to focus on speed 100% of the time either. You might choose to, but you don't need to. You only need to worry about the speed limit where it's possible to safely exceed it & then it actually requires no more than a cursory glance at times where you have spare capacity, due to their being no immediate danger (or of course you shouldn't be travelling at the speed limit).They were also only supposed to be used where there was a history of incidents.
So when did this all change? Pretty much when they were told they could keep some of the money and invest in more cameras.We went from a reasonably sensible system to one of altered stats, rejected FOI requests, covert operations, target driven ideologies and a relentless pursuit of cash.
Anyone thinking the camera explosion had our safety as its primary goal is deluded.As I said once before, some big names have come forward over the years to agree with all I have said and I see no reason to dismiss their words and accept those of people on a car forum (many of whom have a vested interest)
Ironically if we choose to speed but don't want to get caught we make it harder for ourselves
It was/is the case fixed cameras should only be used where government guidelines are satisfied, that came to the fore with hypothecation to reassure the public, but guidelines change over time (just as hypothecation went). That's also quite natural & applies to most things not just those camera guidelines. There are still guidelines that should be followed, they just keep evolving.
As a wider issue thought speed enforcement can take place anywhere, anytime & always has been able to.
Common with any issue you'll see names on either side of the argument. People tend to dismiss those that don't suit their purpose. In some regard we all have an interest of some sort in the issue or we wouldn't be discussing it, but I personally don't have any vested interest in speed enforcement let alone cameras. Can you tell me who those posting here who do have a vested interest are (just out of personal interest) & to what extent that tied interest is?
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 8th August 09:22
Pete317 said:
vonhosen said:
It doesn't matter what the limit is, because whatever it is it would be safe to exceed it a good proportion of the time. They are meant to be conservative by design.
So we have a law which is designed to be observed Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff