Wednesday 4th January 2006

Talivans don't emerge in the dark

Daytime technology puts drivers at risk

---

Talivans: daytime creatures

The Safe Speed road safety campaign reports that it's been investigating the operation of mobile speed cameras vans -- the dreaded 'talivans' -- and has discovered that they don't come out at night.

All, or almost all, of the mobile speed camera vans in use around the country use a laser speed meter coupled to a video camera and video recorder. The speed meter measures the speed and the camera records vehicle number plates for later prosecution. But, according to the campaign, it's difficult or impossible to get good video pictures of number plates with the equipment in use.

Fixed speed cameras do not suffer from the same problems. Gatso and Truvelo cameras use flash photography, and the SPECS system had built-in infra-red illumination.

But for many camera partnerships the 'weapon of choice' is the mobile camera van. At least half of all current speeding tickets originate with mobile camera vans, and they don't work at night.

While many motorists might travel at night to avoid the risk of mobile camera vans, the risk of crashing increases at night -- it's less safe in other words.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "The serious concern here is that when people switch to travelling at night to avoid the cameras they face increased crash risks. Any increase in night-time crashes would be likely to be well away from any camera site.

"This is one more side effect where the speed camera appears to work, yet road safety actually gets worse. Crashes are down at the camera site because people have chosen not to travel when the camera is active. But because those same people travel instead in more dangerous conditions and crashes increase elsewhere.

"Drivers find mobile camera vans especially threatening. It is not uncommon to see dangerous panic braking on our roads because an innocent contractors van is parked in a lay by. Drivers cannot tell the difference until it may be too late.

"We must stop all speed camera operations because the side effects are killing us. Road safety will not be restored while a single speed camera remains on our roads."

• www.safespeed.org.uk

^{Image courtesy www.speedcam.co.uk}

[Sgt^Roc]

This guy is using common since and above all intelligence to decipher the causes of accidents something that is all to lacking in the camera partnership’s policies.

[bunglist]

Unfortunately common sense will never win as it does not make any money for Gordon Browns massive black hole he calls the economy.

[mondayo]

I noticed this in my town a few months ago....in fact me and my friends were joking about how there can be no accidents at night or on Bank Holidays, as our local van is never ot then!

[plucas1]

Oh come on people! Speed cameras are dangerous because they don't come out at night?? Give me a break. Mr Smith used to be a voice of common sense and has done a lot of good making sure the motorist's view is heard, but lately he seems to have lost the plot and is demanding speed camera removal based on the thinnest of justifications.

IMHO he is only doing his credibility more harm than good by this shotgun approach to speed camera rants.

[deltafox]

plucas1 said:

Oh come on people! Speed cameras are dangerous because they don't come out at night?? Give me a break.

The point which you appear to have missed is that they dont care about our "safety" at night, only in the day.

plucas1 said:

Mr Smith used to be a voice of common sense and has done a lot of good making sure the motorist's view is heard, but lately he seems to have lost the plot and is demanding speed camera removal based on the thinnest of justifications.

Deaths rising under the gaze of the speed camera racketeers isnt a "thin" justification at all though, is it?

plucas1 said:

IMHO he is only doing his credibility more harm than good by this shotgun approach to speed camera rants.

Pauls credibilty could never fall to the lowest depths of that of the scameraships though.

[Peter Ward]

What figures are available to show the causes of night-time crashes?

I'm not doubting Paul if he says there are more crashes at night, but:
- what are their causes?
- do they result in more or less KSIs?
- are they in the same proportion as daytime crashes across motorways/A-roads/in town/etc?

I've always felt that the police's insistence that driving at night is more dangerous than in the day, and that therefore speed limits cannot be raised "out of hours", is at best only half the truth. I like driving at night when it's quieter.

Now I know there are some specific issues, such as:
- truck drivers on motorways nodding off at about 5am
- in-town drunks falling off the pavement at chucking out time
- boy racers showing off in the evening, again probably in town
...but there are specific. I have always assumed that if we took these out of the equation we would find that driving at night is safer. Am I wrong?

Seeking information, not picking an argument with Paul!

[eccles]

plucas1 said:

Oh come on people! Speed cameras are dangerous because they don't come out at night?? Give me a break. Mr Smith used to be a voice of common sense and has done a lot of good making sure the motorist's view is heard, but lately he seems to have lost the plot and is demanding speed camera removal based on the thinnest of justifications. IMHO he is only doing his credibility more harm than good by this shotgun approach to speed camera rants.

have to say i agree with you there.
lets have proof or evidence please!...i'm sure if a scamera partnership published an article with such vague facts (or lack of facts), then he'd be jumping all over them.

[james_j]

If the revenue cameras were out at night drivers would be no safer.

It's just that driving at night is statistically less safe and, if the camera businesses are to be believed (which they're not) then they would operate at night more often than the daytime.

So, the point is, is using the camera businesses' own argument, that they're only there for our safety () they would be out at night.

[rsvmilly]

deltafox said:

plucas1 said: Oh come on people! Speed cameras are dangerous because they don't come out at night?? Give me a break. The point which you appear to have missed is that they dont care about our "safety" at night, only in the day.

I support PS and chipped in when he was fundraising, but saying people might change their journeys to evening or night to avoid mobile cameras is stretching the imagination a bit far IMO.

It is true to say that there has never been a better time than now to drink-drive, though. So long as you don't speed - that's the main thing!

[james_j]

rsvmilly said:

I support PS and chipped in when he was fundraising, but saying people might change their journeys to evening or night to avoid mobile cameras is stretching the imagination a bit far IMO.

I'm not so sure.

Already we are going to be spied upon and generally monitored when using motorways. The average dodgy geyser won't take long to work out that it's best to use the back roads - and at night.

[rsvmilly]

james_j said:

rsvmilly said: I support PS and chipped in when he was fundraising, but saying people might change their journeys to evening or night to avoid mobile cameras is stretching the imagination a bit far IMO. I'm not so sure. Already we are going to be spied upon and generally monitored when using motorways. The average dodgy geyser won't take long to work out that it's best to use the back roads - and at night.

The point made above was that Scameras don't operate at night so if you follow their 'logic' then their 'benefit' cannot help the safety of night driving, which is accepted as more dangerous than daytime.

Any dogdy geezer simply drives within the speed limits, at any time of day or night to avoid detection. I don't believe that the cover of night would be used any more (or less) to cover the criminals tracks.

Clarkson may have been correct that scameras are not a money spinner but he didn't take account of the huge saving than must have been made by reducing police numbers. Trying to automate the policing of the roads just doesn't work.

[eccles]

[quote=rsvmillyquote]The point made above was that Scameras don't operate at night so if you follow their 'logic' then their 'benefit' cannot help the safety of night driving, which is accepted as more dangerous than daytime.

quote]


i think you're wrong there, the point was people are driving at night to avoid the risk of cameras during the day, not that cameras arent helping make the roads safer at night.

[TimDarracott]

I Saw for the first time a mobile camera van at night on a straight stretch of dual carrigeway with a 40mph limit. I have NEVER EVER witnessed or driven past the aftermath of a crash there! (I use the route everyday on my daily commute)

The actual image capturing device was black all over the van was white with safety camera partnership graphics starting about a quater way down the sides of the van and covering the back. Not so bad if the vans rear was facing the direction of the traffic.

But it wasn't as i drove past down the opposite side of the carrigeway i witnessed atleast 2 people being caught.

To the oncoming traffic it just looked like a regular white van! Aren't these things meant to be easy to see?

Yes we all know we shouldn't speed but imho the carrigeway should be atleast a 50mph zone anyway. I can think of many other places locally where that camera were to be used would be much more effective in cutting accident rates!

Bottom line is; they are all money grabbing fockers with no real intention of cutting accident rates!

[rsvmilly]

[redacted]

[eccles]

so the van was on a dual carriage way....facing the wrong way!....thats clever!

mind you'd have to be a bit daft not to slow down for any white van parked up at the side of the road, day or night.

[stevesingo]

For the infornation of all, Cumbria Police have just purchased a night ScamraVan

Steve

[mybrainhurts]

stevesingo said:

For the infornation of all, Cumbria Police have just purchased a night ScamraVan Steve

Thought you were Steviebaby, of Cumbria Scamerati fame, until I saw your car details.

Said Stevie was bragging here about his night kit a long time ago. Was he fibbing...?

[stevesingo]

stevesingo said:
For the infornation of all, Cumbria Police have just purchased a night ScamraVan

Steve



Thought you were Steviebaby, of Cumbria Scamerati fame, until I saw your car details.

Said Stevie was bragging here about his night kit a long time ago. Was he fibbing...?

Is Steviebaby an operator of these Dick Turpins.

The info came from the local leftwing, nambypamby small minded Rag.

Steve

[safespeed]

rsvmilly said:

I support PS and chipped in when he was fundraising, but saying people might change their journeys to evening or night to avoid mobile cameras is stretching the imagination a bit far IMO.

See:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=231560&f=10&h=0&p=1

ledfoot said:

I always do long journeys at night to avoid the scamerati pratnerships. It seems to work !!

Not to mention that I have done it myself...

[safespeed]

Peter Ward said:

What figures are available to show the causes of night-time crashes? I'm not doubting Paul if he says there are more crashes at night, but: - what are their causes? - do they result in more or less KSIs? - are they in the same proportion as daytime crashes across motorways/A-roads/in town/etc? I've always felt that the police's insistence that driving at night is more dangerous than in the day, and that therefore speed limits cannot be raised "out of hours", is at best only half the truth. I like driving at night when it's quieter. Now I know there are some specific issues, such as: - truck drivers on motorways nodding off at about 5am - in-town drunks falling off the pavement at chucking out time - boy racers showing off in the evening, again probably in town ...but there are specific. I have always assumed that if we took these out of the equation we would find that driving at night is safer. Am I wrong? Seeking information, not picking an argument with Paul!

It is quite hard to evaluate. There are a lot of variables. There are more drunks at night. More sleepy drivers at night (at least proportionately). And quieter roads tend to be more dangerous (i.e. doubling traffic does not double crashes). Then general visibility at night is of course less, and the chance of animal strikes is higher. The proportion of single vehicle crashes at night is much higher.

As a broad generalisation it seems to be accepted that risk values double at night. Of course I can't tell you that your risk value will double. There is some information in RCGB, but it isn't really possible to do a broad based evaluation from it.