Government in full retreat
Discussion
From Today's Daily Express:
Note Damian Green's comment about the government being in full retreat.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
Note Damian Green's comment about the government being in full retreat.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
I have been through that area a good few times in the last year or so, and I don't agree that it is placed incorrectly.
You are going from a 50mph speed limit into a smaller road with very little room for pedestrians and so the 30mph limit is justified.
There is a speed camera sign about half a mile up the road so you can't say you haven't been warned.
If motorists start complaining about properly* sited ones like this then no-one is going to listen when we complain about the real revenue-only ones.
What should be exposed is all the cameras on nice new open stretches of dual carriageway where is it relatively safe to do 100mph+!
* I don't know the KSI history of this area so my assumption that it is properly sited is based on the perceived dangers of the narrow road, the bridge, the built up area, the potential for pedestrians to be in the road and the curve in the road through the bridge.
>> Edited by m-five on Friday 5th March 12:16
You are going from a 50mph speed limit into a smaller road with very little room for pedestrians and so the 30mph limit is justified.
There is a speed camera sign about half a mile up the road so you can't say you haven't been warned.
If motorists start complaining about properly* sited ones like this then no-one is going to listen when we complain about the real revenue-only ones.
What should be exposed is all the cameras on nice new open stretches of dual carriageway where is it relatively safe to do 100mph+!
* I don't know the KSI history of this area so my assumption that it is properly sited is based on the perceived dangers of the narrow road, the bridge, the built up area, the potential for pedestrians to be in the road and the curve in the road through the bridge.
>> Edited by m-five on Friday 5th March 12:16
Good. The Speed Camera debate is now firmly on the National agenda.
It does make me laugh though.
The Transport Minister Jamieson says 100% of cameras are correctly placed.....because the scamera partnerships say so.
Is this man a complete cretin, did he not know he would get crucified for this statement?
Its kinda like asking potential alleged burglars "Are you being a good boy and not robbing old dears"
Robber: "Oh yesh shire, three bags full shire, oh yes good as gold, as good as this gold byere in my swag bag in fact"
It does make me laugh though.
The Transport Minister Jamieson says 100% of cameras are correctly placed.....because the scamera partnerships say so.
Is this man a complete cretin, did he not know he would get crucified for this statement?
Its kinda like asking potential alleged burglars "Are you being a good boy and not robbing old dears"
Robber: "Oh yesh shire, three bags full shire, oh yes good as gold, as good as this gold byere in my swag bag in fact"
m-five said:
I have been through that area a good few times in the last year or so, and I don't agree that it is placed incorrectly.
You are going from a 50mph speed limit into a smaller road with very little room for pedestrians and so the 30mph limit is justified.
There is a speed camera sign about half a mile up the road so you can't say you haven't been warned.
If motorists start complaining about properly* sited ones like this then no-one is going to listen when we complain about the real revenue-only ones.
What should be exposed is all the cameras on nice new open stretches of dual carriageway where is it relatively safe to do 100mph+!
* I don't know the KSI history of this area so my assumption that it is properly sited is based on the perceived dangers of the narrow road, the bridge, the built up area, the potential for pedestrians to be in the road and the curve in the road through the bridge.
>> Edited by m-five on Friday 5th March 12:16
It may well be in an appropriate site, but that doesnt mean its appropriately sited. Surely if it were more visible, it would serve to slow people down - rather than just to catch them.
m-five said:
I have been through that area a good few times in the last year or so, and I don't agree that it is placed incorrectly.
And what about the 1,000 a year that the camera actually catches? If it worked to reduce speed it wuldn't catch any would it?
And what about TRL548 that tells us that vehicle activated signs are three times more effective than speed cameras at reducing speeds in areas of danger?
So scrap the gatso, and put a vehicle activated speed warning sign on the approach side of the bridge. That'd make the road safer if speed reduction is warranted.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
And what about the 1,000 a year that the camera actually catches? If it worked to reduce speed it wuldn't catch any would it?
I think that this is one our best arguments against speed cameras. Basically, if any speed camera anywhere catches a driver, it hasn't done its job.
What I'm trying to say is that when you enter the archway the camera is visible enough for people to slow down to 30mph in the 20 yards or so before they would be snapped, they don't so they are either blind (which means they should be off the road anyway), not arsed (which means they probably don't have a licence), or stupid!
While I don't agree with these revenue cameras on the whole, there is some use for some of them. It's just that in my opinion this (and other cameras on the entrance to villages) is not as blatant a revenue generator as some of the others on clear, straght dual-carriageways, and makes those arguing for their removal seem as some sort of speed freaks that want to drive through every village at 80mph.
I admit to regularly speeding, but only where I consider it sensible to do so - I've never been flashed and I put that down to good observation and average driving skills.
If I don't know the area then I will travel at a more appropriate (slower) speed until I can assess the conditions and then adjust my speed appropriately.
I agree that the camera does not do what is was intended (i.e. slow down people in the first place) if they are receiving penalty notices and that 'most' are purely revenue generation but I bet they won't speed through it the next time they go that way - so it will reduce the number of speeders there (by at least 1000 I assume).
(in Liverpool most are sited is plain view from at least 400m away and usually near pedestrian crossings, near schools. etc - probably for fear of getting them nicked
)
>> Edited by m-five on Friday 5th March 13:35
While I don't agree with these revenue cameras on the whole, there is some use for some of them. It's just that in my opinion this (and other cameras on the entrance to villages) is not as blatant a revenue generator as some of the others on clear, straght dual-carriageways, and makes those arguing for their removal seem as some sort of speed freaks that want to drive through every village at 80mph.
I admit to regularly speeding, but only where I consider it sensible to do so - I've never been flashed and I put that down to good observation and average driving skills.
If I don't know the area then I will travel at a more appropriate (slower) speed until I can assess the conditions and then adjust my speed appropriately.
I agree that the camera does not do what is was intended (i.e. slow down people in the first place) if they are receiving penalty notices and that 'most' are purely revenue generation but I bet they won't speed through it the next time they go that way - so it will reduce the number of speeders there (by at least 1000 I assume).
(in Liverpool most are sited is plain view from at least 400m away and usually near pedestrian crossings, near schools. etc - probably for fear of getting them nicked
) >> Edited by m-five on Friday 5th March 13:35
Paul Smith: 100% agree. The picture does indicate a situation where reengineering is not simple and a 30 limit is appropriate to reduce the potential hazards at this complex section of road.
A flashing speed sign would slow people down and make them safer, while a camera simply catches out those who haven't slowed down and are therefore less safe.
What would be nice is for the partnerships to be allowed to fund the flashing signs from camera fines. They could then erect them at justified blackspots, get rid of all cameras everywhere, and then disband themselves having done a good job at last. The net result should be safer blackspots (ref TRL study) and a happier population.
A flashing speed sign would slow people down and make them safer, while a camera simply catches out those who haven't slowed down and are therefore less safe.
What would be nice is for the partnerships to be allowed to fund the flashing signs from camera fines. They could then erect them at justified blackspots, get rid of all cameras everywhere, and then disband themselves having done a good job at last. The net result should be safer blackspots (ref TRL study) and a happier population.
The thing that worries me about flashing speed signs is that a) people use them to calibrate their speedos (OK - ish) and b) some loonies see how BIG a reaeding they can get on them - much LESS OK. If one knew they might be backed up by a BiB, then it would alter perceptions among the SMALL minority that need to be restrained/caught.
jatrichardson said:
The thing that worries me about flashing speed signs is that a) people use them to calibrate their speedos (OK - ish) and b) some loonies see how BIG a reaeding they can get on them - much LESS OK. If one knew they might be backed up by a BiB, then it would alter perceptions among the SMALL minority that need to be restrained/caught.
We sould certainly be careful in quoting a TRL study that happens to support our view, without understanding the facts behind it.
If drivers just treat these signs as a challenge then clearly they're not going to fix the problem. However, if the TRL's study methods were valid and they still got a more appropriate response from these than with cameras then I think we can believe that the loonies are in a minority.
Which is what most of us would say. Catch the loony minority and leave the sensible majority alone. Don't lump the safe speeders in with the loony minority.
There are multiple types of signs. Some have the speed limit displayed (very very bad), some have smilies/frowns, some have both, some give you messages, and some can be set to combine all of the above factors.
It would be interesting to find out from that TRL report which type was the most effective.
It would be interesting to find out from that TRL report which type was the most effective.
Peter Ward said:
If drivers just treat these signs as a challenge then clearly they're not going to fix the problem.
The current signs stop displaying a speed above a certain threshold to prevent the boy racers from trying to get on the high score table.
The full report is a free download from here:
www.trl.co.uk/static/dtlr/pdfs/TRL548.pdf
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
jatrichardson said:
The thing that worries me about flashing speed signs is that a) people use them to calibrate their speedos (OK - ish) and b) some loonies see how BIG a reaeding they can get on them - much LESS OK. If one knew they might be backed up by a BiB, then it would alter perceptions among the SMALL minority that need to be restrained/caught.
Have we any stats and proof of this of the loony fringe behaving like this? After all we do not have that many of these things to make such a sweeping statement about behaviour and attitude towards them! we do, however, have too many scameras, and evidence of them being at fleecespots as opposed to blackspots! Agree that we need the trafpols on the road to stamp out the loony element - they can do far more efficiently than any digital or electronic device anyway!
Hear from the cousin (who is a Road Safety nerd in Germany) that they appear to work fairly well where set up over there! Asked him if the loonies do as you describe - am waiting for his answer!
And M-five& jwo - are you saying that it is safe to slam on the brakes in the 20 yards or so when you notice the camera on approach? Looking at the picture, the sharp bend and the archway - I would have adjusted speed etc to meet conditions anyway - but the numpty slamming on the anchors just as he notices the scam?
Think flashing speed limit and flashing slow sign sign BEFORE the archway would be far safer option at this site from just looking at the picure!
WildCat said:
And M-five& jwo - are you saying that it is safe to slam on the brakes in the 20 yards or so when you notice the camera on approach? Looking at the picture, the sharp bend and the archway - I would have adjusted speed etc to meet conditions anyway - but the numpty slamming on the anchors just as he notices the scam?
Why would you need to slam on unless you were going ridiculously over the limit anyway, 20 yards should be enough to slow down safely from 50mph to 30mph (it is in my M5
) Most of the responsible drivers on here would have taken into account the road conditions, the bridge, the bend, the built up area and adjusted the speed to suit - however if you didn't you would get a nice reminder within 14 days!
Don't know if anyone's noticed, but I do like playing devil's advocate - personally I think a new world record should be attempted to see how many cameras will fit in Dicky Brunstrom rectum - and then stuff another one up there just for good measure
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff