The new Average speed cameras on the A40 /westway West Lond

The new Average speed cameras on the A40 /westway West Lond

Author
Discussion

giggity

846 posts

160 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
Not sure if this is live yet.

This is what I had seen the TOSSERS from Siemens up to today on the A40 just past Wood Lane...



Utter st.

Ken Figenus

5,680 posts

116 months

Wednesday 7th October 2015
quotequote all
And Siemens are happy to do great deals with no deposits required... Just a slice of the revenue put their way. I saw the glossy brochure! Achtung!

Guybrush

4,330 posts

205 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
giggity said:
Agreed.

It's befome a joke, I certainly think its deliberate from TFL and they do poorly organised road works. Hanger Lane tunnel, Fore Street Tunnel, and closing entire lanes for st like cutting grass and picking litter.

As long as London comes to a standstill they're happy.

The cameras are all about money. Someone should put bin liners over them all.

Just incase anyone doesn't know these new cameras are rear facing - the are yellow mounted high up but on a black pole, you will see a white reference marker pained on the road like a dash or similar and at nighttime you will see the 3 lanes are clearly illuminated to make sure they catch you.

Even at 4am you have to sit slowly at 40. fking bullst. And the Tories said the war on motorists was over. fking bullst and lies.

Get the London roads out of the hands of TFL, it's a conflict of interest.

So manly badly phased lights too!
All designed to create congestion - it's happening everywhere. And when on the rare occasions it's nice and clear, the cameras are ready to catch you posing no danger at all. It's all about revenue raising, enforcing control and creating congestion for later 'solutions' to be found, all wrapped up in a cloak of BS righteousness.

schmunk

4,399 posts

124 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all

Ken Figenus

5,680 posts

116 months

Thursday 8th October 2015
quotequote all
Maybe a healthy layer of Alcan's finest also helps protect one from naivety...? Its true that they dont always work in the ordinary decent motorist's favour I tell thee - they may on ocassion have other agendas that may dominate thoughts and decisions - the voices told me to Google this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/rev...

GPSHead

657 posts

240 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?

vonhosen

40,202 posts

216 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
GPSHead said:
Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?
I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.

schmunk

4,399 posts

124 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
It reminds me of the lyric from King of the Road:

"...every lock that ain't a lock when no-one's around."

V8 Fettler

7,019 posts

131 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
GPSHead said:
Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?
I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.
With a broad brush: the UK used to have the safest roads in the world, then scameras arrived, now we no longer have the safest roads in the world.

The above analysis is flawed, but only as flawed as the analyses used to support the introduction of speed cameras.

DonkeyApple

54,934 posts

168 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
Guybrush said:
All designed to create congestion - it's happening everywhere. And when on the rare occasions it's nice and clear, the cameras are ready to catch you posing no danger at all. It's all about revenue raising, enforcing control and creating congestion for later 'solutions' to be found, all wrapped up in a cloak of BS righteousness.
Ok. That is certainly on view and in sure it is one that finds strong support among the Freemen. But I would be interested to have it explained how restricting the speed differentials in heavy traffic restricts flow and this leads to congestion?

For me the annoyance is that I make a point of using both these roads 'off peak' and have benefitted from being able to push the boundaries over the years. I have now lost that small advantage on my weekly commute but I don't see how the average speed cameras would have a negative impact during rushhour or when all the vegetables decide to go shopping with money they don't have.

Guybrush

4,330 posts

205 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
That old commie Livingstone played the old 'create the conditions' trick when he manipulated the conditions for introduction of the London 'congestion' charge, with badly phased traffic lights and other congestion creating schemes. Lower speed limits (many way too low) have not reduced accidents, but they have created more revenue. If any idea seems stupid, there's usually a hidden agenda (or those involved really are stupid, which I don't entirely believe).

DonkeyApple

54,934 posts

168 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
V8 Fettler said:
With a broad brush: the UK used to have the safest roads in the world, then scameras arrived, now we no longer have the safest roads in the world.

The above analysis is flawed, but only as flawed as the analyses used to support the introduction of speed cameras.
Trouble is that at the same time as cameras were being introduced we, as a society, were also starting our big journey of massive consumer debt to allow the electorate to buy everything they want and to be happy.

Frankly, I'd argue that the arrivals of Scameras is probably a coincidence and that the real issue is the massive rise of car ownership, thickos able to get hold of a car, 7 day a week party lifestyles, non testable drugs etc etc.

Our whole society has changed from one where people stayed out late just one, maybe two nights a week and staggered around drunk or drugged late at night and people did their shopping within a restricted set of hours to one where people are out 7 days a week both partying and shopping etc at all hours.

Most of us are old enough to remember the days before Sunday opening and that highlights the difference.

In short, more cars, more retards, more paths crossing and more journeys per car.

I do suspect that the complete cultural change, the fact that we actually live in a completely different world today compared to 20 odd years ago is a far more powerful driver of statistics than scameras.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
vonhosen said:
GPSHead said:
Any comments on this from Devil2575, JumboBeef, herewego, Vipers, Countdown, EmmaT2014, Pinocchio et al? Sorry if I've missed any...these days, SP&L is enriched with so many heroes who care about our safety. But they seem strangely shy on this thread. Is anyone prepared to say that they believe it necessary, safety-wise, to have these cameras on 24/7, and to have the speed limits the A40 has (again, 24/7)?

Those who so doggedly defend cameras in general terms should not be cowardly about popping up to defend this particular example. Either that or they should admit that in this particular case (and, presumably, others), they do not believe cameras to be necessary. For each of them, it must be one or the other; which is it?
I think you've got it the wrong way around.

The cameras are simply to enforce the legal limit. Legal limits apply 24/7 365.
That would be no different if you had a traffic car following you down the toad.

You can argue for different limits, but if a lower limit is required on that road at some point, unless you are going to have variable limits the lower limit is likely to remain all the time. Variable limits require greater investment than lower limits.

Arguing for non enforcement of a legal limit is a non starter really, you've got to go for no legal limit or a change to the limit itself.
Yes, the law's the law's the law.

It's nice when one can always divert to either the limits or the law, depending on which suits - it just means you can assert rather than debate.

Reminds me of the VW boss putting the blame for the emissions testing fiasco on a couple of software engineers rolleyes

ETA: When you have 24/7 enforcement of a limit which is set below the speed which most drivers would choose in its absence then there's arguably something wrong with both the limit and its enforcement


Edited by Pete317 on Friday 9th October 11:27

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
Guybrush said:
All designed to create congestion - it's happening everywhere.
How do they create congestion? I live in West London and use the road daily. Most of the time you cannot reach those speeds anyway. Due to already well established congestion. And when you can, people driving slower generally reduces congestion, as you need to leave less space between vehicles thus you can get more vehicles on the road. Plus you get fewer tailbacks as a result of less braking.

It'll certainly be a bit of a pain coming out of town at 3am, but that aside, it's no big deal.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And when you can, people driving slower generally reduces congestion, as you need to leave less space between vehicles thus you can get more vehicles on the road.
...which then spend much more time on the road.
You can get even more cars on the road if the're all parked.

TwigtheWonderkid said:
Plus you get fewer tailbacks as a result of less braking.
Oh come on now! Surely you can think a bit harder than that.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
Pete317 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And when you can, people driving slower generally reduces congestion, as you need to leave less space between vehicles thus you can get more vehicles on the road.
...which then spend much more time on the road.
You can get even more cars on the road if the're all parked.

TwigtheWonderkid said:
Plus you get fewer tailbacks as a result of less braking.
Oh come on now! Surely you can think a bit harder than that.
Ahh bless.

You really don't understand much about the science of traffic flow at all, do you.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pete317 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
And when you can, people driving slower generally reduces congestion, as you need to leave less space between vehicles thus you can get more vehicles on the road.
...which then spend much more time on the road.
You can get even more cars on the road if the're all parked.

TwigtheWonderkid said:
Plus you get fewer tailbacks as a result of less braking.
Oh come on now! Surely you can think a bit harder than that.
Ahh bless.

You really don't understand much about the science of traffic flow at all, do you.
Let's just say that I probably understand a lot more than you think, and you probably understand a lot less than you think.

TwigtheWonderkid

43,248 posts

149 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
Pete317 said:
Let's just say that I probably understand a lot more than you think,
Believe me, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you've hugely exceeded my expectations of you.

Pete317

1,430 posts

221 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pete317 said:
Let's just say that I probably understand a lot more than you think,
Believe me, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you've hugely exceeded my expectations of you.
I'll bet you say that to all the girls cool

DonkeyApple

54,934 posts

168 months

Friday 9th October 2015
quotequote all
Pete317 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Pete317 said:
Let's just say that I probably understand a lot more than you think,
Believe me, if you can walk and chew gum at the same time, you've hugely exceeded my expectations of you.
I'll bet you say that to all the girls cool
Ooooh, it was going well. A quality rally was unfolding between both of you but when met with his last rerun you just hit yourself in the face with your own racket. Such a shame. wink