Avg. speed cameras at A34 at Milton, Oxfordshire
Discussion
A colleague noticed something rather unusual about the bright yellow average speed cameras on the northbound approach to the Milton Park intersection of the A34 - they appear to have no power cables to the camera units. They have a wireless aerial sticking out, but that's it. Not to be confused with the blue traffic monitoring cameras which do appear to have power cables.
They look similar to those described on the "New Street Furniture" slide of this presentation by Vysionics:
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Its_Time_For_20/P...
This describes "A new generation of columns/mounts" which are of "lightweight construction", "Smaller but distinctive" and "Passively safe". They have a "SPECS3 VECTOR fully integated module" with "No roadside cabinet"
In the SPECS3 VECTOR specification sheet on the Vysionics web site, it talks of 48VDC or 90-240VAC supplied via a column box providing 48V DC to the camera unit. 25W typical consumption. Different cameras shown have very distinctive black flexible conduit between the column and the camera.
The new generation 'Street furniture' cameras have a very lightweight and thin looking U bracket and no cable or apparent means of power delivery between the column and the camera.
(edit) There are wires from the gantry to the cameras, its just that they are much thinner than the type with the thick black flexible conduit. The 'Argos catalogue' school of marketing phtography obviously applies.
They look similar to those described on the "New Street Furniture" slide of this presentation by Vysionics:
http://www.20splentyforus.org.uk/Its_Time_For_20/P...
This describes "A new generation of columns/mounts" which are of "lightweight construction", "Smaller but distinctive" and "Passively safe". They have a "SPECS3 VECTOR fully integated module" with "No roadside cabinet"
In the SPECS3 VECTOR specification sheet on the Vysionics web site, it talks of 48VDC or 90-240VAC supplied via a column box providing 48V DC to the camera unit. 25W typical consumption. Different cameras shown have very distinctive black flexible conduit between the column and the camera.
The new generation 'Street furniture' cameras have a very lightweight and thin looking U bracket and no cable or apparent means of power delivery between the column and the camera.
(edit) There are wires from the gantry to the cameras, its just that they are much thinner than the type with the thick black flexible conduit. The 'Argos catalogue' school of marketing phtography obviously applies.
Edited by garyjc on Friday 29th May 14:15
Edited by garyjc on Friday 29th May 14:16
This photograph clearly shows the power cable. The other mockups are like the photos in an Argos catalogue where they conceal the power lead to make the item look less cumbersome and maybe trick you into buying something thinking that it's cordless.
I'm confused by the confusion.
My guess (assuming we are counting cables into the camera rig) is that the cameras are now being run using PoE (Power over Ethernet), It makes perfect sense.
With Ethernet, or what is often called "Internet" in layman's terms your have a rated cable of 8 cores.
These cores are twisted into pairs. So, obviously we are left with 4 twisted pairs. Two of these pairs are used for data transmission, one pair transmits (talks), the other pair receives (listens).
This leaves 2 pairs free (admittedly generally in 10/100 Mbit applications - techniques are in place for GBit networks which utilise all 4 pairs and still provide PoE), so these 'free' pairs are used to send power to the end electrical requiring device.
As to the voltage requirement for these devices, and their current drain/requirement, it is becoming easily achievable, if you want to read the specifications you could read this.
But essentially, those cameras work.
Hope that helps
My guess (assuming we are counting cables into the camera rig) is that the cameras are now being run using PoE (Power over Ethernet), It makes perfect sense.
With Ethernet, or what is often called "Internet" in layman's terms your have a rated cable of 8 cores.
These cores are twisted into pairs. So, obviously we are left with 4 twisted pairs. Two of these pairs are used for data transmission, one pair transmits (talks), the other pair receives (listens).
This leaves 2 pairs free (admittedly generally in 10/100 Mbit applications - techniques are in place for GBit networks which utilise all 4 pairs and still provide PoE), so these 'free' pairs are used to send power to the end electrical requiring device.
As to the voltage requirement for these devices, and their current drain/requirement, it is becoming easily achievable, if you want to read the specifications you could read this.
But essentially, those cameras work.
Hope that helps
Starfighter said:
speedking31 said:
What does the graph on page 5 mean 
It shows that around 50% of vehicles checked were in excess of the post 20mph limit and around 2% were above 30mph.- assuming that the curves are normal bell curves based on normally distributed data (which I doubt).
flemke said:
Starfighter said:
speedking31 said:
What does the graph on page 5 mean
It shows that around 50% of vehicles checked were in excess of the post 20mph limit and around 2% were above 30mph.- assuming that the curves are normal bell curves based on normally distributed data (which I doubt).
tapereel said:
flemke said:
Starfighter said:
speedking31 said:
What does the graph on page 5 mean
It shows that around 50% of vehicles checked were in excess of the post 20mph limit and around 2% were above 30mph.- assuming that the curves are normal bell curves based on normally distributed data (which I doubt).
Wiki article on Consent of the Governed said:
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism.
You might want to read and think about the full article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_govern...
flemke said:
tapereel said:
flemke said:
Starfighter said:
speedking31 said:
What does the graph on page 5 mean
It shows that around 50% of vehicles checked were in excess of the post 20mph limit and around 2% were above 30mph.- assuming that the curves are normal bell curves based on normally distributed data (which I doubt).
Wiki article on Consent of the Governed said:
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism.
You might want to read and think about the full article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_govern...
tapereel said:
flemke said:
tapereel said:
flemke said:
Starfighter said:
speedking31 said:
What does the graph on page 5 mean
It shows that around 50% of vehicles checked were in excess of the post 20mph limit and around 2% were above 30mph.- assuming that the curves are normal bell curves based on normally distributed data (which I doubt).
Wiki article on Consent of the Governed said:
In political philosophy, the phrase consent of the governed refers to the idea that a government's legitimacy and moral right to use state power is only justified and legal when consented to by the people or society over which that political power is exercised. This theory of consent is historically contrasted to the divine right of kings and has often been invoked against the legitimacy of colonialism.
You might want to read and think about the full article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_govern...
a), are ignorant of it, the explanation for which must be that the LA has done an inadequate job of displaying it, or
b), are aware of it but choose to "be defiant" of it?
Where precisely in your explanations does "the consent of the governed" come in?
Dammit said:
So you think it's not constitutionally appropriate to introduce any law which is not supported by the majority?
In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
A crucial distinction is belied in your first sentence: "to introduce any law".In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
My interpretation of the expression "to introduce" is to put before Parliament for debate and vote, after which a bill may become a law, which only then would be imposed on the governed.
The basic idea of Parliament is obviously to try to represent the will of them who elect the Members of Parliament in the first place. It does not always work out that way, for a number of reasons, but that is the idea.
If I am not mistaken, the overwhelming majority of people who used to smoke in pubs no longer smoke in pubs.
Similarly, road traffic accidents involving drink driving have fallen very substantially since realistic blood alcohol limits were imposed.
These empirical facts are clear evidence of laws that, at least after they were imposed (and regardless of the extent of popular support for them before they were imposed, which I believe you greatly underestimate), are generally respected. This demonstrates the consent of the governed.
In the specific example of 20 mph speed limits, most of the people I speak to think they usually are inappropriate. Beyond my personal sample set, it is clear from the OP's citation that half of drivers show through their actions that they believe 20 mph limits sometimes to be inappropriate. This demonstrates a substantial absence of consent of the governed.
Most of the laws and the rules and requirements backed by the force of law are not themselves Acts of Parliament but rather are statutory instruments, by which a nameless, unelected person buried somewhere in the bureaucracy has - perhaps with the best of intentions but nonetheless beyond debate or scrutiny - chosen to impose strictures on a vast population. Lack of accountability to the governed is inconsistent with and indeed has often flouted the consent of the governed.
Returning again to 20 mph limits, I think the fundamental flaw with many and perhaps most of them is that the reason that they were imposed was not safety in the usual RTA sense, but was rather some combination of sentiments about global warming, air quality, physical exercise, the decline of the high street, NIMBYism and other socio-political issues. Diverse views on those topics are welcome, but it seems wrong to impose safety-related sanctions (penalty points) on drivers for their non-safety-related indiscretions.
Dammit said:
So you think it's not constitutionally appropriate to introduce any law which is not supported by the majority?
In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
Too many negatives in your question.In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
Are you suggesting that the "no smoking in public places" and the "no driving while drunk" laws do NOT have public support?
Because if you are I think you are mistaken.
flemke said:
Dammit said:
So you think it's not constitutionally appropriate to introduce any law which is not supported by the majority?
In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
A crucial distinction is belied in your first sentence: "to introduce any law".In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
My interpretation of the expression "to introduce" is to put before Parliament for debate and vote, after which a bill may become a law, which only then would be imposed on the governed.
The basic idea of Parliament is obviously to try to represent the will of them who elect the Members of Parliament in the first place. It does not always work out that way, for a number of reasons, but that is the idea.
If I am not mistaken, the overwhelming majority of people who used to smoke in pubs no longer smoke in pubs.
Similarly, road traffic accidents involving drink driving have fallen very substantially since realistic blood alcohol limits were imposed.
These empirical facts are clear evidence of laws that, at least after they were imposed (and regardless of the extent of popular support for them before they were imposed, which I believe you greatly underestimate), are generally respected. This demonstrates the consent of the governed.
In the specific example of 20 mph speed limits, most of the people I speak to think they usually are inappropriate. Beyond my personal sample set, it is clear from the OP's citation that half of drivers show through their actions that they believe 20 mph limits sometimes to be inappropriate. This demonstrates a substantial absence of consent of the governed.
Most of the laws and the rules and requirements backed by the force of law are not themselves Acts of Parliament but rather are statutory instruments, by which a nameless, unelected person buried somewhere in the bureaucracy has - perhaps with the best of intentions but nonetheless beyond debate or scrutiny - chosen to impose strictures on a vast population. Lack of accountability to the governed is inconsistent with and indeed has often flouted the consent of the governed.
Returning again to 20 mph limits, I think the fundamental flaw with many and perhaps most of them is that the reason that they were imposed was not safety in the usual RTA sense, but was rather some combination of sentiments about global warming, air quality, physical exercise, the decline of the high street, NIMBYism and other socio-political issues. Diverse views on those topics are welcome, but it seems wrong to impose safety-related sanctions (penalty points) on drivers for their non-safety-related indiscretions.
tapereel said:
flemke said:
Dammit said:
So you think it's not constitutionally appropriate to introduce any law which is not supported by the majority?
In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
A crucial distinction is belied in your first sentence: "to introduce any law".In which case we'd still be smoking in pubs and driving home pissed, I submit.
My interpretation of the expression "to introduce" is to put before Parliament for debate and vote, after which a bill may become a law, which only then would be imposed on the governed.
The basic idea of Parliament is obviously to try to represent the will of them who elect the Members of Parliament in the first place. It does not always work out that way, for a number of reasons, but that is the idea.
If I am not mistaken, the overwhelming majority of people who used to smoke in pubs no longer smoke in pubs.
Similarly, road traffic accidents involving drink driving have fallen very substantially since realistic blood alcohol limits were imposed.
These empirical facts are clear evidence of laws that, at least after they were imposed (and regardless of the extent of popular support for them before they were imposed, which I believe you greatly underestimate), are generally respected. This demonstrates the consent of the governed.
In the specific example of 20 mph speed limits, most of the people I speak to think they usually are inappropriate. Beyond my personal sample set, it is clear from the OP's citation that half of drivers show through their actions that they believe 20 mph limits sometimes to be inappropriate. This demonstrates a substantial absence of consent of the governed.
Most of the laws and the rules and requirements backed by the force of law are not themselves Acts of Parliament but rather are statutory instruments, by which a nameless, unelected person buried somewhere in the bureaucracy has - perhaps with the best of intentions but nonetheless beyond debate or scrutiny - chosen to impose strictures on a vast population. Lack of accountability to the governed is inconsistent with and indeed has often flouted the consent of the governed.
Returning again to 20 mph limits, I think the fundamental flaw with many and perhaps most of them is that the reason that they were imposed was not safety in the usual RTA sense, but was rather some combination of sentiments about global warming, air quality, physical exercise, the decline of the high street, NIMBYism and other socio-political issues. Diverse views on those topics are welcome, but it seems wrong to impose safety-related sanctions (penalty points) on drivers for their non-safety-related indiscretions.
https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements/end...
There are a couple there that, it could be argued, relate to moral turpitude rather than practical safety. Everything else is related to safety.
tapereel said:
...oh Heydecker! Points are safety related. You've convinced me. Back to you.
Is it impossible for you to resist your feeble sarcasm? You might be laughing, but one senses that in doing so you would be alone.The Mad Monk said:
Too many negatives in your question.
Are you suggesting that the "no smoking in public places" and the "no driving while drunk" laws do NOT have public support?
Because if you are I think you are mistaken.
No, I am saying that neither of those laws were widely supported by smokers and drinkers when they were introduced - they were fiercely resisted.Are you suggesting that the "no smoking in public places" and the "no driving while drunk" laws do NOT have public support?
Because if you are I think you are mistaken.
Flemke - your conversations are probably highly coloured by the person with whom you are talking not actually understanding why the 20 mph limit is there.
99% of the posters on Pistonheads simply/only see it as an infringement of their human rights, after all.
This is either a failure of communication, of understanding (or will to understand) or, I suspect, all three.
Dammit said:
The Mad Monk said:
Too many negatives in your question.
Are you suggesting that the "no smoking in public places" and the "no driving while drunk" laws do NOT have public support?
Because if you are I think you are mistaken.
No, I am saying that neither of those laws were widely supported by smokers and drinkers when they were introduced - they were fiercely resisted.Are you suggesting that the "no smoking in public places" and the "no driving while drunk" laws do NOT have public support?
Because if you are I think you are mistaken.
Flemke - your conversations are probably highly coloured by the person with whom you are talking not actually understanding why the 20 mph limit is there.
99% of the posters on Pistonheads simply/only see it as an infringement of their human rights, after all.
This is either a failure of communication, of understanding (or will to understand) or, I suspect, all three.
Our point of departure for this discussion was, however, the local authority-gleaned data showing that roughly 50% of drivers in the sample 20 mph zone exceeded that speed limit. These were the data that mattered. If half those persons covered by a particular law choose to break that law, it hardly shows widespread acceptance of that law. This was my point about lack of consent by the governed.
Maybe there has indeed been a failure by local authorities to communicate the rationale for various 20 mph zones. If so, the burden is on the LAs to justify them, not for drivers to go off and do their own independent research and draw their own inferences.
The justifications that I mentioned above (global warming, air quality, et al) cover a fairly wide territory, and comprise pretty much every justification that I have heard an authority give for a 20 mph limit. If there are other justifications, it would be helpful if you could share them with us.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff