carbon emmisions and gatsos..........

[bryan35]

just done some quick sums.............

Gatsos 6000units x 85w each = 510kW
4,467,600kWh per year
coal = 910g/kWh carbon emissions

4,065,515 Kg of carbon

=approx 4065 tonnes of carbon emmisions per year.

[imbecile]

Plus the needless braking and acceleration they cause. Also burning tyres isn't that good, and there's probably poisonous stuff in the film for them. Add in the maintenence of the cameras and their manufacture etc and they probably produce 50 000 tons.

[Parrot of Doom]

Don't forget to add the energy loss as its being transmitted across the grid.

[petea]

Parrot of Doom said:

Don't forget to add the energy loss as its being transmitted across the grid.

....and power stations are only about 30 - 40 % efficient in the first place...

[GreenV8S]

The environmental cost of powering the cameras themselves is just the tip of the iceberg. There will be loads more kit behind the scenes, and all the services that were involved in manufacturing, installing and operating them, and the costs that their victims incur, and of course it all has to be decomissioned one day. Still, we must think of the children ...

[ruleshistory]

imbecile said:

Plus the needless braking and acceleration they cause. .

Can't say the cameras cause that -- it's down to dopes who are incapable of thinking more than two seconds ahead.

[Einion Yrth]

ruleshistory said:

imbecile said:

Plus the needless braking and acceleration they cause. .

Can't say the cameras cause that -- it's down to dopes who are incapable of thinking more than two seconds ahead.

True, but it wouldn't be happening if the bloody things weren't there.

[timsta]

ruleshistory said:

imbecile said:

Plus the needless braking and acceleration they cause. .

Can't say the cameras cause that -- it's down to dopes who are incapable of thinking more than two seconds ahead.

Can you see the camera?


Source: www.speedcam.co.uk

[Dino D]

Of course I can see the camera!!!
















I only took about 30sec...no problem when you cruising at 60mph then!!

[Dino D]

The counter argument to these emmissions could easily be that 'we saving on trafpol driving around in cars....'

[smeggy]

bryan35 said:

just done some quick sums.............

Gatsos 6000units x 85w each = 510kW

In perspective:

just 1 in 10 people needlesly leaving just 1 incandescent light on 24/7:
60m*0.1*100W = 600MW

[GreenV8S]

ruleshistory said:

imbecile said:

Plus the needless braking and acceleration they cause. .

Can't say the cameras cause that -- it's down to dopes who are incapable of thinking more than two seconds ahead.

Don't think they are all dopes, there is a perfectly understandable reaction to make sure you are under the limit and then double check what the limit is and your speed, and slow down 'just in case' if there is any doubt at all that your speed is sufficiently under the limit to be safe from persecution. Given that ime most people routinely exceed the speed limit most of the time when it is safe to do so, it's hardly surprising that lots of people feel the need to slow down at cameras. And once free from that threat, with no other good reason to drive slower than necessary, they will speed up again.

[imbecile]

timsta said:

ruleshistory said:

imbecile said:

Plus the needless braking and acceleration they cause. .

Can't say the cameras cause that -- it's down to dopes who are incapable of thinking more than two seconds ahead.

Can you see the camera?


Source: www.speedcam.co.uk

That looks misleading to me, because presumably you could see it if you were on the curve, especially if that bend starts earlier.

For difficulty in seeing cameras at night, the ones in Notts (I think) are evil as they don't seem to use the same yellow paint as everyone else - it doesn't reflect like the normal stuff. See A1 around Elkesley (they remain quite obvious due to the lighting though) and the northbound bit near the end of the Newark bypass, there's a very hard to see at night truvelo under a bridge.

[catso]

Dino D said:

The counter argument to these emmissions could easily be that 'we saving on trafpol driving around in cars....'

And that the number of drivers disqualified offsets any emissions.........

[GreenV8S]

imbecile said:

That looks misleading to me, because presumably you could see it if you were on the curve, especially if that bend starts earlier.

It looks to me as if the camera is completely hidden behind that grey panel, and would be completely out of sight to anybody on the carriageway. I wonder if that panel was put there specificially to hide the camera.

[imbecile]

GreenV8S said:

imbecile said:

That looks misleading to me, because presumably you could see it if you were on the curve, especially if that bend starts earlier.

It looks to me as if the camera is completely hidden behind that grey panel, and would be completely out of sight to anybody on the carriageway. I wonder if that panel was put there specificially to hide the camera.

I imagine that that camera would be visible from a typical driver's position on the carrigeway. Especially when you consider that that curve probably extends a fair way back.

[timsta]

GreenV8S said:

imbecile said:

That looks misleading to me, because presumably you could see it if you were on the curve, especially if that bend starts earlier.

It looks to me as if the camera is completely hidden behind that grey panel, and would be completely out of sight to anybody on the carriageway. I wonder if that panel was put there specificially to hide the camera.

No, they wouldn't do that. That's just devious.

[flemke]

GreenV8S said:

imbecile said:

That looks misleading to me, because presumably you could see it if you were on the curve, especially if that bend starts earlier.

It looks to me as if the camera is completely hidden behind that grey panel, and would be completely out of sight to anybody on the carriageway. I wonder if that panel was put there specificially to hide the camera.

Indeed, it is pretty pathetic when drivers are expected to identify an anonymous grey pipe as being associated with a speed camera, instead of being associated with road signs, stand pipes, fenceposts, electricity busbars and a hundred other features of normal life in an industrialised country.

[flemke]

timsta said:

Source: www.speedcam.co.uk

This image is a perfect example of how the SCPs make matters worse.

I would gladly defer to von hosen or another professional on PH, but in this image I the amateur see:

- road surface that appears to be polished and low-grip,
- road intentionally narrowed, presumably increasingly traffic density on what once was dual-lane thoroughfare,
- awkward edge on the side of the top surface, potentially catching a tyre
- negative Z-axis
- bend reducing forward view
- possibility of debris such as grass cuttings straying onto road surface
- junction on left

In other words, there are plenty of reasons why this could be a danger point that could catch out an unsuspecting driver - especially one who is carrying too much speed into what at first glance could seem to be a benign piece of road.

This is exactly the situation in which the camera SHOULD BE HIGHLY VISIBLE, in order to ensure that even the clueless spot it in time to get their speed down for the danger ahead.

So what do the SCP do?
Of course, they make the camera almost invisible, eliminating its potential role in RTA reduction whilst maximising its potentiality as an instrument of revenue generation.

[herewego]

The picture does however show how clearly the speed limit is shown. Some people seem to think the camera is more important than the speed limit.