Who said there wasn't any more fixed scams being installed!
Who said there wasn't any more fixed scams being installed!
Author
Discussion

Frederick

Original Poster:

5,897 posts

250 months

Wednesday 12th July 2006
quotequote all
...as they were obviously lying through their teeth!

The A1079 York Road between Pocklington and Hull has been recently infested with truvelo cameras incase anyone goes that way infrequently, pretty much a pair every mile.

I'm not sure if they're live as they all seem to be pointing one way (rather than one doing one side and vice versa) but they're live on the Snooper Enigma database. They've turned a good, quick road into one that is a right royal pain - you simply can't overtake as the cam pairs are too close on the safest overtaking spot (the old Roman road section before Bishops Burton), and there's just simply too many sites on the section leading to Hull...

Of course, tis all in the name of Safety, isn't it?

vonhosen

40,597 posts

247 months

Wednesday 12th July 2006
quotequote all
WHO SAID THERE WASN'T ANY MORE FIXED SCAMS BEING INSTALLED?

Who did say that & where ?

Frederick

Original Poster:

5,897 posts

250 months

Wednesday 12th July 2006
quotequote all
I'm reasonably certain that there was a piece in the media (of course, spoonful of sugar has been taken with regard to it) that the government were favouring less installations of fixed cameras over talivans... seems I may be wrong, or if I'm right, it hasn't filtered down to the East Riding of York Council.

Frederick

Original Poster:

5,897 posts

250 months

Wednesday 12th July 2006
quotequote all
(oh and apologies for the heinous grammatical error in the title, it should have been "weren't" but I've just got home from a 300+ mile round trip and as such I'm a bit tired...)

Edited by Frederick on Wednesday 12th July 22:21

safespeed

2,983 posts

304 months

Wednesday 12th July 2006
quotequote all
There was a moritorium in place on new speed camera site approvals from about April last year to January this year (?).

The Observer credited me with the achievement.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leader

Edited by safespeed on Wednesday 12th July 23:36

V8 Archie

4,703 posts

278 months

Wednesday 12th July 2006
quotequote all
I vaguely remember that at the time it was suggested that this didn't stop existing cameras being moved (or replaced).

shuvitupya

3,338 posts

247 months

Thursday 13th July 2006
quotequote all
Looks like new cameras going in on the A452 Kenilworth Road, near Stonebridge,Warwickshire, in the new 50mph limit.
The posts were being cemented in place this afternoon.
This was a 70mph Dual Carriageway, and everyone ignores the flashing 50mph signs, but the police do blitz this road sometimes.

Flat in Fifth

48,882 posts

281 months

Thursday 13th July 2006
quotequote all
We've just got two new Gatsos in our local town.

The most dangerous time is when the local high school is kicking out and 20 mph is a bit quick.

WildCat

8,369 posts

273 months

Thursday 13th July 2006
quotequote all
They also testing those all singing .. dancing ones somewhere too. The ones which take photo of driver, video of driver - und have those pressure doo-dahs under surface of road because people emergency brake at cam site...

Und still not meeting accident criteria either... but then they never did in first place really Submarinated one's targets are the same ones which the police used back in the 50s/60s .... at the stretches where people may open up engines a bit.. per the elderly locals...

Flat in Fifth

48,882 posts

281 months

Thursday 13th July 2006
quotequote all
WildCat said:
und have those pressure doo-dahs under surface of road because people emergency brake at cam site...

New one on me frankly, and the intention and practical application of that device in law is??

james_j

3,996 posts

285 months

Thursday 13th July 2006
quotequote all
Most businesses need to expand...

aw51 121565

4,773 posts

263 months

Friday 14th July 2006
quotequote all

Major Bloodnok

1,561 posts

245 months

Friday 14th July 2006
quotequote all
aw51 121565 said:

I notice a certain lack of actual numbers or references to primary data on that page. Not that I'm suggesting anything untoward, of course...