Have Norfolk Police told the SCP all of this ?
Discussion
What an interesting link!
Particularly interesting when you read how these accidents happen. Only one of the links cites excessive speed / losing control on a bend as a reason. And there would never be a camera put up there because I imagine 99.999999 percent of the cars coming around that turn aren't "speeding" so the accounts wouldn't add up.
It would be very interesting to hear what Bryan Edwards of the Norfolk Highway Robbery department has to say when he's told even the police acknowledge that he's barking up the wrong tree.
Think I'll ask him and find out!
SM
Particularly interesting when you read how these accidents happen. Only one of the links cites excessive speed / losing control on a bend as a reason. And there would never be a camera put up there because I imagine 99.999999 percent of the cars coming around that turn aren't "speeding" so the accounts wouldn't add up.
It would be very interesting to hear what Bryan Edwards of the Norfolk Highway Robbery department has to say when he's told even the police acknowledge that he's barking up the wrong tree.
Think I'll ask him and find out!
SM
Very interesting indeed - good find 
These are classic examples of where improvements to junction layouts and/or signage will improve things, but I'd bet that nothing of the sort will actually happen.
No doubt the SCP will come out with their standard one dimensional response, i.e "durrrrrr, lets lower the limit and put a camera in"
What else could he say, he has to justify his own existence somehow
These are classic examples of where improvements to junction layouts and/or signage will improve things, but I'd bet that nothing of the sort will actually happen.
No doubt the SCP will come out with their standard one dimensional response, i.e "durrrrrr, lets lower the limit and put a camera in"
What else could he say, he has to justify his own existence somehow
What is also interesting is that what was the previous 1 year to 6 months ago high risk sites (listed at the bottom) are all different from the last 6 months high risk areas. And even the previous 6 months before that. Stats here show 30 odd locations across the last 18 months.
Conclusion: the top 30 or so accidents dont always happen in the same place within 18 months.
And with "A high risk area" being defined as a place where "several crashes have happened", its "fair" to conclude that these are also the places where the most PICs are? How many of these sites have speed cameras?
Photos suggest none.
Conclusion: the top 30 or so accidents dont always happen in the same place within 18 months.
And with "A high risk area" being defined as a place where "several crashes have happened", its "fair" to conclude that these are also the places where the most PICs are? How many of these sites have speed cameras?
Photos suggest none.
It is interesting to find out how few have the word excess speed mentioned.
It is also interesting to find out that this is always 'excess speed for the conditions', thus perhaps poor control or experience from the driver, not breaking a speed limit.
How do the powers that be look to stop these few crashes happening in future? Increased driver training, making drivers aware of localised hazards, or changing road layout? Or... some speed cameras?
It is also interesting to find out that this is always 'excess speed for the conditions', thus perhaps poor control or experience from the driver, not breaking a speed limit.
How do the powers that be look to stop these few crashes happening in future? Increased driver training, making drivers aware of localised hazards, or changing road layout? Or... some speed cameras?
i have to admit that there could be a little difficulty over how the accidents keep moving around over time. However, look at the bigger picture: what were the accident "hot spots" now have cameras, and there aren't any accidents there any more. Therefore, all this page proves is that the cameras are doing their job. And the Partnership's role is to reduce KSIs at camera sites -- looks like its achieving its aim. Now, what did I miss? 
njwc said:Seconded
Very interesting indeed - good find
justinp1 said:Out of the 25 given examples, 'speed' is mentioned only twice, in both cases they are referred to 'excess speed for the conditions'
It is interesting to find out how few have the word excess speed mentioned.
It is also interesting to find out that this is always 'excess speed for the conditions', thus perhaps poor control or experience from the driver, not breaking a speed limit.
So much for the 1/3 rule!
It's interesting to note just how frequently the cause of 'Disobeying Junction Control' appears.
'Inattention' Isn't really surprising.
Peter Ward said:
i have to admit that there could be a little difficulty over how the accidents keep moving around over time. However, look at the bigger picture: what were the accident "hot spots" now have cameras, and there aren't any accidents there any more. Therefore, all this page proves is that the cameras are doing their job. And the Partnership's role is to reduce KSIs at camera sites -- looks like its achieving its aim. Now, what did I miss?
A classic example of "regression to the mean" !
Peter Ward said:AFAIK most of them dont have fixed cameras......
i have to admit that there could be a little difficulty over how the accidents keep moving around over time. However, look at the bigger picture: what were the accident "hot spots" now have cameras, and there aren't any accidents there any more. Therefore, all this page proves is that the cameras are doing their job. And the Partnership's role is to reduce KSIs at camera sites -- looks like its achieving its aim. Now, what did I miss?
IMHO if these are genuine blackspots and not just random aggregations then a big flashing sign saying 'accident blackspot' would be far more effective and would cause a lot less bad feeling than a camera. But then the Empire wouldnt get its funding would it ?
njwc said:
AFAIK most of them dont have fixed cameras......
IMHO if these are genuine blackspots and not just random aggregations then a big flashing sign saying 'accident blackspot' would be far more effective and would cause a lot less bad feeling than a camera. But then the Empire wouldnt get its funding would it ?
I know the spot labelled "Norwich: Constitution Hill / Wall Road" as I used to go to school right next to it and my parents still live very close to it. I can say with confidence that this definitely was an accident blackspot and it does not have a camera.
This used to be a simple cross roads. Constitution Hill is one of the radial roads coming straight out of Norwich, and Wall Road crosses it. There were frequent crashes here due to drivers pulling out of Wall Road and getting hit by traffic already on Constitution Hill.
Relatively recently they changed the cross roads into a mini roundabout (not that there is really enough space in the junction for a mini roundabout to be placed) and put a 20 limit in place on Constitution Hill past the school right up to the junction. I believe these changes have reduced the number of accidents, but the 20 limit is regularly exceeded, and often drivers on the main road will ignore the mini roundabout and drive straight across as if it wasn't there.
If you look at the details for the site (www.norfolk.police.uk/article.cfm?artID=6127&catID=726&bctrail=0,529) the police list "Changing lanes on entering roundabout." as a 'main manoeuvre'. Quite honestly I have no idea what this means. There is barely enough space for one lane around the island (in a normal car it is virtually impossible to turn right without being forced to drive over the central island) so changing lanes is out of the question.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff