The new Average speed cameras on the A40 /westway West Lond
Discussion
covboy said:
My thinking is (probably too simplistic) on the “multiple” speed sections is they could take the maximum for the distance between the last camera on (say) the 40mph stretch and the end of that section, then start again at the change (say 30mph) to the next camera. Thus being able to get an average speed between the two cameras – Which would be lower than the 40, but higher than the 30. Depending on distances, you could possibly travel the whole stretch initially below the limit , but then above the limit? Can any confirm/deny my logic ?
(ETA Which is what some people do now in the single limit areas - It's just more difficult to work out )
Of course that is right, as long as the interval in which he goes slowly and then quickly is between two cameras (rather than crossing a camera in the middle and so being tested over two sections).(ETA Which is what some people do now in the single limit areas - It's just more difficult to work out )
Edited by covboy on Thursday 27th August 09:51
It is like on the motorway - you pass camera 1, stop for 10 minutes and then drive at 140 for 10 minutes, giving an average speed of 70mph when you pass camera 2 20 mins later (although you would need to pass camera 2 at 70 because they are also provide "spot" figures than can be used to prosecute). Not very sensible, but it is possible.
7db said:
They have placed two cameras within 50 yards at Perivale westbound -- across the limit change from 40 to 50. That tell me that they don't believe they can enforce across the limit change ... However this is not mirrored on the Eastbound side
I agree. It seems that, Westward, they are treating the 40 as one section, and they start a separate section from where the 50 starts.This suggests they will do the same Eastward and that, therefore, there is at least 1 more camera to be installed before Hanger lane. Perhaps they will move the start of the 40 as well to match where they put that camera.
This is also consistent with a "go live" of around mid Sept, as TfL's reply has hinted at.
The whole thing is a f
king racket, the viable limits and the differences between the west and east bound just make it easy to catch you out and make money. You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44, you just get a fine a 44!! They now do the same thing with parking, one side of the road has a slightly different no parking time to the other, result people get caught out. Revenue generation, nothing more. No doubt sello tape and smuck will be along soon to tell us that we are all wrong!!!! What's is most unfair, is that it is the old that get caugh most as they find it confusing and are not quite so vigilant. My 87 yr old mother was do for 34 in a 30 !!! It's just a disgrace.
king racket, the viable limits and the differences between the west and east bound just make it easy to catch you out and make money. You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44, you just get a fine a 44!! They now do the same thing with parking, one side of the road has a slightly different no parking time to the other, result people get caught out. Revenue generation, nothing more. No doubt sello tape and smuck will be along soon to tell us that we are all wrong!!!! What's is most unfair, is that it is the old that get caugh most as they find it confusing and are not quite so vigilant. My 87 yr old mother was do for 34 in a 30 !!! It's just a disgrace. Edited by number 46 on Thursday 27th August 16:16
number 46 said:
The whole thing is a fking racket, the viable limits and the differences between the west and east bound just make it easy to catch you out and make money. You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44, you just get a fine a 44!! They now do the same thing with parking, one side of the road has a slightly different no parking time to the other, result people get caught out. Revenue generation, nothing more. No doubt sello tape and smuck will be along soon to tell us that we are all wrong!!!! What's is most unfair, is that it is the old that get caugh most as they find it confusing and are not quite so vigilant. My 87 yr old mother was do for 34 in a 30 !!! It's just a disgrace.
Do you feel the same way about the drink driving limit?king racket, the viable limits and the differences between the west and east bound just make it easy to catch you out and make money. You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44, you just get a fine a 44!! They now do the same thing with parking, one side of the road has a slightly different no parking time to the other, result people get caught out. Revenue generation, nothing more. No doubt sello tape and smuck will be along soon to tell us that we are all wrong!!!! What's is most unfair, is that it is the old that get caugh most as they find it confusing and are not quite so vigilant. My 87 yr old mother was do for 34 in a 30 !!! It's just a disgrace. Edited by number 46 on Thursday 27th August 16:16
How about the driving vision limits?
School/university exams?
Election results?
My favourite part about the explanation for the 'trial' is that it's purely to replace the existing cameras and not to create some draconian 24 hour zone of compliance.
Basically, it doesn't have to achieve anything, the old cameras have already taken the credit for the drop in casualties, all the new ones have to do is make sure that road deaths don't increase...
Basically, it doesn't have to achieve anything, the old cameras have already taken the credit for the drop in casualties, all the new ones have to do is make sure that road deaths don't increase...
To answer an earlier question, the reason they're doing it is they've (i.e. TFL) decided they need to reduce the number of KSIs by 40% by 2020 - it's in the linky on p1. The madness isn't limited to speed cameras.
This time last year they were running a public consultation to upgrade the existing zebra crossings at a fairly busy 4-armed roundabout on the A316 (Manor Circus, if you know it) to Toucan crossings; i.e. 4 more sets of traffic signals, and a grand total of 7 sets of signals in less than half a mile of A316. Their justification was that it would make crossing the road safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The statistics: 6 serious injuries in 18 months at this junction. Given the traffic volumes, that's a pretty good record, I reckon.
Standard practice for cyclists at this junction: ride up, check for traffic, ride across. Do we really think a cyclist is going to stop, dismount, press a button, wait, cross over, re-mount? Of course not. As for pedestrians - there is a credible case for stating that a collision could occur where a pedestrian has started to cross safely but is struck by a driver exiting the roundabout and not paying attention, but the presence of a red light after the roundabout does not address this failure mode.
The safest way to address pedestrian and cyclist KSIs at this junction is to dig up the roundabout, turn it into a 4 way signal controlled junction with integrated crossing points. However, it is located on top of a railway bridge so that would be an enormously complicated job and much more expensive than 6 sets of traffic lights, some barriers, a JCB rental, some paving slabs and some paint.
The other justification was improving cycling safety in London. What this stretch of A316 really needs to inmprove cycling safety and efficiency is cycle priority at side roads, removal of street furntiture and clutter so drivers emerging from side roads (note - all cul-de sacs) can see them coming, and removal of the need for cyclists to cross 4 crossings at Richmond Circus in order to continue on the A316 cycle route. They mainly use the main road, which is a space-limited DC going from 30 to 40 just after Richmond Circus. Not a great place to cycle.
TFL. Fantastic traffic planning. The consultation results were due out in January, I asked for them in March (not made public yet) but was told 'still examining the results', which I take to mean the locals of which I am one all told them to F.O.
This time last year they were running a public consultation to upgrade the existing zebra crossings at a fairly busy 4-armed roundabout on the A316 (Manor Circus, if you know it) to Toucan crossings; i.e. 4 more sets of traffic signals, and a grand total of 7 sets of signals in less than half a mile of A316. Their justification was that it would make crossing the road safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The statistics: 6 serious injuries in 18 months at this junction. Given the traffic volumes, that's a pretty good record, I reckon.
Standard practice for cyclists at this junction: ride up, check for traffic, ride across. Do we really think a cyclist is going to stop, dismount, press a button, wait, cross over, re-mount? Of course not. As for pedestrians - there is a credible case for stating that a collision could occur where a pedestrian has started to cross safely but is struck by a driver exiting the roundabout and not paying attention, but the presence of a red light after the roundabout does not address this failure mode.
The safest way to address pedestrian and cyclist KSIs at this junction is to dig up the roundabout, turn it into a 4 way signal controlled junction with integrated crossing points. However, it is located on top of a railway bridge so that would be an enormously complicated job and much more expensive than 6 sets of traffic lights, some barriers, a JCB rental, some paving slabs and some paint.
The other justification was improving cycling safety in London. What this stretch of A316 really needs to inmprove cycling safety and efficiency is cycle priority at side roads, removal of street furntiture and clutter so drivers emerging from side roads (note - all cul-de sacs) can see them coming, and removal of the need for cyclists to cross 4 crossings at Richmond Circus in order to continue on the A316 cycle route. They mainly use the main road, which is a space-limited DC going from 30 to 40 just after Richmond Circus. Not a great place to cycle.
TFL. Fantastic traffic planning. The consultation results were due out in January, I asked for them in March (not made public yet) but was told 'still examining the results', which I take to mean the locals of which I am one all told them to F.O.
number 46 said:
schmunk said:
Do you feel the same way about the drink driving limit?
How about the driving vision limits?
School/university exams?
Election results?
What the funk are you talking about??How about the driving vision limits?
School/university exams?
Election results?
Are you so keen for other boundaries to be easily crossed without enforcement or consequences?
Blurred Lines, eh?
7db said:
gdaybruce said:
Speaking of Hanger Lane. what's with the 30 limit through the underpass? Absolutely no one slows down to 30 if the road's clear. The other evening I had a police car behind so actually did slow to 30. He sat behind me for 50 yards before deciding he'd had enough and pulled out and passed me!
I wrote to TfL about this limit. It isn't legally signed, the sign being on one side of the road only -- they didn't seem to mind about that. That probably isn't fatal to prosecutions involving the 40 either side but might open a of light to the skilled. The limit is there in case the lights in the tunnel fail while they are being upgraded, I was told.John
number 46 said:
You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44,
Well that's not true. By and large, the faster you're going, the greater the danger. If an incident unfolds in front of me, I'd rather be doing 40 than 44.If there's so little difference between 40 and 44 as you state, then just do 40 and avoid prosecution.
number 46 said:
What's is most unfair, is that it is the old that get caugh most as they find it confusing and are not quite so vigilant. My 87 yr old mother was do for 34 in a 30 !!! It's just a disgrace.
What actual evidence do you have for this. I've not read anything to suggest old people are getting a disproportionate number of speeding fines.number 46 said:
schmunk said:
Do you feel the same way about the drink driving limit?
How about the driving vision limits?
School/university exams?
Election results?
What the funk are you talking about??How about the driving vision limits?
School/university exams?
Election results?
Just fail the entrance exam to Oxford, wtf, let them in anyway.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
number 46 said:
What's is most unfair, is that it is the old that get caugh most as they find it confusing and are not quite so vigilant. My 87 yr old mother was do for 34 in a 30 !!! It's just a disgrace.
What actual evidence do you have for this. I've not read anything to suggest old people are getting a disproportionate number of speeding fines.That was something of a daft argument, I have to say.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
number 46 said:
You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44,
Well that's not true. By and large, the faster you're going, the greater the danger. If an incident unfolds in front of me, I'd rather be doing 40 than 44.If there's so little difference between 40 and 44 as you state, then just do 40 and avoid prosecution.
When a vehicle is travelling at or above the maximum safe speed, then going faster will increase the risk of a crash.
But, when the same vehicle is travelling below the maximum safe speed, then going faster cannot increase the risk of a crash. In fact, faster can only decrease the risk (up to the maximum safe speed).
The real question, though, is "do speed cameras prevent more fatal or serious injury collisions than they contribute to?"
Dave Finney said:
Surely both are sometimes true, depending on the circumstances?
When a vehicle is travelling at or above the maximum safe speed, then going faster will increase the risk of a crash.
But, when the same vehicle is travelling below the maximum safe speed, then going faster cannot increase the risk of a crash. In fact, faster can only decrease the risk (up to the maximum safe speed).
The real question, though, is "do speed cameras prevent more fatal or serious injury collisions than they contribute to?"
...and that proves you are bonkers.When a vehicle is travelling at or above the maximum safe speed, then going faster will increase the risk of a crash.
But, when the same vehicle is travelling below the maximum safe speed, then going faster cannot increase the risk of a crash. In fact, faster can only decrease the risk (up to the maximum safe speed).
The real question, though, is "do speed cameras prevent more fatal or serious injury collisions than they contribute to?"
TwigtheWonderkid said:
number 46 said:
You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44,
Well that's not true. By and large, the faster you're going, the greater the danger. If an incident unfolds in front of me, I'd rather be doing 40 than 44.If there's so little difference between 40 and 44 as you state, then just do 40 and avoid prosecution.
V8 Fettler said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
number 46 said:
You are no more in danger driving past a yellow box on a post at 40 or 44,
Well that's not true. By and large, the faster you're going, the greater the danger. If an incident unfolds in front of me, I'd rather be doing 40 than 44.If there's so little difference between 40 and 44 as you state, then just do 40 and avoid prosecution.
On a deserted m/way you could have a blowout, or some catastrophic mechanical failure, or a deer could run out. I can't think of a situation where you'd say, after the event, "I wish I'd been going faster."
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Maybe. What is certain is that 80mph on a deserted m/way isn't as safe as 70mph on a deserted m/way. And 29mph in urban driving isn't as safe as 25mph.
On a deserted m/way you could have a blowout, or some catastrophic mechanical failure, or a deer could run out. I can't think of a situation where you'd say, after the event, "I wish I'd been going faster."
Do you have evidence for your certainty? If speeding on a deserted m/way is not as safe as 70mph, then we would expect a greater % of single vehicle crashes to have speeding as a contributory factor, than the % of miles driven above the speed limit on m/ways.On a deserted m/way you could have a blowout, or some catastrophic mechanical failure, or a deer could run out. I can't think of a situation where you'd say, after the event, "I wish I'd been going faster."
There are many factors that contribute to injury collisions but speeding is not a major factor (around 5%). Even for fatal collisions, the vast majority (86%) occur when no-one is speeding. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence seems to suggest that motorists are more likely to be involved in an injury collision when they are within the speed limit, compared to when they are speeding.
http://speedcamerareport.co.uk/01_speeding.htm
While at first this may seem counter-intuitive, the reason may be obvious when you think about it. Consider 2 roads, both with a speed limit of 30 mph. Road 1 has children walking, a cyclist and a parked car. Road 2 has no pedestrians, cyclists etc. Where do drivers speed? Road 2 obviously. Where do the collisions occur? We expect most might occur where there are other road users, ie road 1, where drivers are not speeding.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff