Orwell bridge 60 mph 5000 on camera no accidents
Discussion
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/no_accidents_since_came...
Since they introduced a 60mph limit on Orwell bridge at easter with average speed cameras, 5000 were caught but none had accidents leading to closure of the bridge.
what would happen if they changed the limit to 70mph?
Since they introduced a 60mph limit on Orwell bridge at easter with average speed cameras, 5000 were caught but none had accidents leading to closure of the bridge.
what would happen if they changed the limit to 70mph?
saaby93 said:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/no_accidents_since_came...
Since they introduced a 60mph limit on Orwell bridge at easter with average speed cameras, 5000 were caught but none had accidents leading to closure of the bridge.
what would happen if they changed the limit to 70mph?
5000 is a tiny and incredibly insignificant number compared with the number of people using it daily.Since they introduced a 60mph limit on Orwell bridge at easter with average speed cameras, 5000 were caught but none had accidents leading to closure of the bridge.
what would happen if they changed the limit to 70mph?
So I'm guessing that the limit has been set just about right.
saaby93 said:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/no_accidents_since_came...
Since they introduced a 60mph limit on Orwell bridge at easter with average speed cameras, 5000 were caught but none had accidents leading to closure of the bridge.
what would happen if they changed the limit to 70mph?
How many accidents were there before they introduced the cameras & limits?Since they introduced a 60mph limit on Orwell bridge at easter with average speed cameras, 5000 were caught but none had accidents leading to closure of the bridge.
what would happen if they changed the limit to 70mph?
c60,000 a day use the bridge.
So nearly 7.38m vehicles and only 5,000 reported for speeding (or less than 0.07%)
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 2nd December 23:54
RogueTrooper said:
Willy Nilly said:
It's wind that causes issues on the bridge, is it not? So a speed camera will sort that out
If you're travelling slower when affected by side wind, you won't go so far off-course as you would if travelling at a higher speed.Quick google and a measure on google maps suggests the reduced limit is about 3 miles long.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160607...
So we're talking about free-moving traffic taking 180sec at 60mph or 159sec at 70mph - 21 seconds difference.
In the previous five years, there were 93 collisions, with 151 casualties including 1 fatality - obviously, we have no idea if they were directly related to speeds between 60 and 70mph... but that's a rough average of one collision every three weeks, one casualty every fortnight. There's been none since April this year - that rough average would suggest about 12 collisions and 20 casualties should be expected.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160607...
So we're talking about free-moving traffic taking 180sec at 60mph or 159sec at 70mph - 21 seconds difference.
In the previous five years, there were 93 collisions, with 151 casualties including 1 fatality - obviously, we have no idea if they were directly related to speeds between 60 and 70mph... but that's a rough average of one collision every three weeks, one casualty every fortnight. There's been none since April this year - that rough average would suggest about 12 collisions and 20 casualties should be expected.
From the article
Suffolk Police and Crime Commissioner Tim Passmore pressed for the speed limit to be introduced in a bid to reduce the number of accidents, and welcomed the fall in the number of speeding offences.
He said: “It does sound as if the message is starting to get through – but 839 speeding motorists is 839 too many.
“Speeding is one of the main factors in accidents and there is a reason why there is a speed limit on the bridge.”
b
ks
Suffolk Police and Crime Commissioner Tim Passmore pressed for the speed limit to be introduced in a bid to reduce the number of accidents, and welcomed the fall in the number of speeding offences.
He said: “It does sound as if the message is starting to get through – but 839 speeding motorists is 839 too many.
“Speeding is one of the main factors in accidents and there is a reason why there is a speed limit on the bridge.”
b
ksTooMany2cvs said:
Quick google and a measure on google maps suggests the reduced limit is about 3 miles long.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160607...
So we're talking about free-moving traffic taking 180sec at 60mph or 159sec at 70mph - 21 seconds difference.
In the previous five years, there were 93 collisions, with 151 casualties including 1 fatality - obviously, we have no idea if they were directly related to speeds between 60 and 70mph... but that's a rough average of one collision every three weeks, one casualty every fortnight. There's been none since April this year - that rough average would suggest about 12 collisions and 20 casualties should be expected.
But if those accidents were caused by people driving at 71+ then the same reduction could have been achieved by enforcing the 70 limit.http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160607...
So we're talking about free-moving traffic taking 180sec at 60mph or 159sec at 70mph - 21 seconds difference.
In the previous five years, there were 93 collisions, with 151 casualties including 1 fatality - obviously, we have no idea if they were directly related to speeds between 60 and 70mph... but that's a rough average of one collision every three weeks, one casualty every fortnight. There's been none since April this year - that rough average would suggest about 12 collisions and 20 casualties should be expected.
My only issue is that they introduced two changes at once - both the cameras and the 60 limit.
It would have been a good idea IMO to try just the cameras first.
mcford said:
On the west bound carriageway just before the bridge there is a petrol station, the exit slip road from this is quite short and just before the bridge, it's the drivers impatience and their inability to use a slip road correctly that causes the accidents.
nearly right... it' also got the downhill towards the PFS exit, then a sharp uphill afterwards. so its the TRUCKS pulling out can't get up to speed - which causes a slow moving roadblock. people panic brake and travel too close Add in the fact there is no street lighting because the snails in the nearby wildlife area will go blind... plus the oncoming traffic being angled such as to dazzle you... makes for a bit of a boiling pot of conditions.The answer is not to reduce the speed limit, but instead to put a longer exit slip (or close the PFS to trucks), install those anti-dazzle bollards in the central reservation, then install street lighting.
But that COSTS money instead of MAKING money doesnt it.
A book worth reading, Road Accidents: Prevent or Punish, is one of the most important books ever written about road safety, and should be compulsory reading for everyone involved in the formulation of road safety policy. Although it was written nearly thirty-five years ago, the attitudes and prejudices J.J.Leeming. He describes where accident investigation often reveals the REAL cause is poor road topology. And as the previous poster pointed out, this requires SPENDING money to correct, so it won’t happen.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff