Residential 20mph SPECS
Discussion
Probably what CC was trying to post....
Networks of speed cameras will be used to catch drivers breaking the 20mph limit in residential areas, it has been reported.
The cameras, which will be placed at the exit and entrance points to neighbourhoods, are being introduced as an alternative to road humps, according to The Times.
The idea, currently being tests trialled in Camden, north London and Belfast, involves calculating the average speed a car has travelled.
Cameras transmit information to a central control centre, which then issues penalties.
The system has been designed to catch "camera surfers", who slow down briefly as they pass conventional speed cameras and then speed up again, the newspaper said.
The trials have so far proved the technology to be reliable.
Local councils were expected to use the cameras in 20mph zones to try and reduce the number of crashes caused by drivers speeding up and slowing down.
In the trial areas, the proportion of drivers complying with the limit has increased by a third.
Rob Gifford, parliamentary transport safety council director, said: "Replacing humps with these new cameras will benefit law-abiding motorists as well as making streets safer and more attractive.
"Drivers will stop rat-running through neighbourhoods where they know their speed will be monitored."
The cameras were expected to be approved for use by the Home Office in November.
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13528461,00.html
Networks of speed cameras will be used to catch drivers breaking the 20mph limit in residential areas, it has been reported.
The cameras, which will be placed at the exit and entrance points to neighbourhoods, are being introduced as an alternative to road humps, according to The Times.
The idea, currently being tests trialled in Camden, north London and Belfast, involves calculating the average speed a car has travelled.
Cameras transmit information to a central control centre, which then issues penalties.
The system has been designed to catch "camera surfers", who slow down briefly as they pass conventional speed cameras and then speed up again, the newspaper said.
The trials have so far proved the technology to be reliable.
Local councils were expected to use the cameras in 20mph zones to try and reduce the number of crashes caused by drivers speeding up and slowing down.
In the trial areas, the proportion of drivers complying with the limit has increased by a third.
Rob Gifford, parliamentary transport safety council director, said: "Replacing humps with these new cameras will benefit law-abiding motorists as well as making streets safer and more attractive.
"Drivers will stop rat-running through neighbourhoods where they know their speed will be monitored."
The cameras were expected to be approved for use by the Home Office in November.
www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13528461,00.html
smeggy said:
Networks of speed cameras will be used to catch drivers breaking the 20mph limit in residential areas, it has been reported.
I understood that 20 limits could not be prosecuted with cameras because they were not homologated at that low speed? Has that changed?
smeggy said:
The system has been designed to catch "camera surfers", who slow down briefly as they pass conventional speed cameras and then speed up again, the newspaper said.
I don't think I've ever seen a speed camera in a 20 limit.
smeggy said:
Local councils were expected to use the cameras in 20mph zones to try and reduce the number of crashes caused by drivers speeding up and slowing down.
I can't imagine many accidents are caused by "drivers speeding up and slowing down". What are these people on?
smeggy said:
"Drivers will stop rat-running through neighbourhoods where they know their speed will be monitored."
Not true. Just because a road's speed is monitored does not prevent it from being an attractive short cut. I regularly use backstreets to avoid gridlocked junctions and long-cycle traffic lights, but I don't exceed the speed limit while I do it.
Overall, I guess I don't have a problem with SPECS instead of speed humps, and they should be better than chicanes, pinch points and other rubbish that just makes roads more dangerous. But the message I've heard for years is that it's the housing estates that need cameras to catch the boy racers and criminals, and I wonder whether SPECS will ever be placed here, or would even be effective. It seems more like another threat aimed at the mature business driver who needs to get somewhere on time and tries to avoid the jams.
I just found this in the Times article:
It seems that only now, when there's they're considering use of alternatives, does the truth come out about the disastrous nature of speed humps. 500 deaths/year is way above anyone's claim of the lives saved by humps. Who did the risk assessment? Who decided that this was a good investment? Who should be sacked???
Times said:
The Transport Research Laboratory found that air pollution rose significantly on roads with humps. Carbon monoxide emissions increased by 82 per cent and nitrogen oxide by 37 per cent.
The London Ambulance Service has also claimed that humps cause up to 500 deaths a year because its crews are delayed in reaching cardiac arrest victims.
The London Ambulance Service has also claimed that humps cause up to 500 deaths a year because its crews are delayed in reaching cardiac arrest victims.
It seems that only now, when there's they're considering use of alternatives, does the truth come out about the disastrous nature of speed humps. 500 deaths/year is way above anyone's claim of the lives saved by humps. Who did the risk assessment? Who decided that this was a good investment? Who should be sacked???
Peter Ward said:
I just found this in the Times article:
It seems that only now, when there's they're considering use of alternatives, does the truth come out about the disastrous nature of speed humps. 500 deaths/year is way above anyone's claim of the lives saved by humps. Who did the risk assessment? Who decided that this was a good investment? Who should be sacked???
Times said:
The Transport Research Laboratory found that air pollution rose significantly on roads with humps. Carbon monoxide emissions increased by 82 per cent and nitrogen oxide by 37 per cent.
The London Ambulance Service has also claimed that humps cause up to 500 deaths a year because its crews are delayed in reaching cardiac arrest victims.
The London Ambulance Service has also claimed that humps cause up to 500 deaths a year because its crews are delayed in reaching cardiac arrest victims.
It seems that only now, when there's they're considering use of alternatives, does the truth come out about the disastrous nature of speed humps. 500 deaths/year is way above anyone's claim of the lives saved by humps. Who did the risk assessment? Who decided that this was a good investment? Who should be sacked???
Who should be done for criminal/corporate negligence more like!!!!
It's amazing how the ££££ signs change the outlook
Edited by cptsideways on Thursday 15th June 09:55
jasandjules said:
Funny how we only have 3000 (I know that is 3000 too many) deaths a year on the roads (IIRC) but 500 are killed by speed humps delaying ambulances?!?!?!?!?? My word.
The claim was 500 are killed by humps delaying ambulances annually IN LONDON ALONE.
However the head of the London Ambulance Service actually 'withdrew' his claim. I wonder what pressures he came under?
). I feel running out and kicking in the side of any car I see going down our narrow street at over 20 mph.Do I understand this correctly?
Somebody can enter a neighbourhood at point A, drive like a total prat around the neighbourhood using any road/route, then exit at point X, and as long as the average speed including stops they set between point of entry and point of exit is less than 20 mph using the shortest route, they will be OK?
Well that makes me feel safer already........ not.
And our taxes pay these people?
Somebody can enter a neighbourhood at point A, drive like a total prat around the neighbourhood using any road/route, then exit at point X, and as long as the average speed including stops they set between point of entry and point of exit is less than 20 mph using the shortest route, they will be OK?
Well that makes me feel safer already........ not.
And our taxes pay these people?
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 15th June 11:14
Yugguy said:
Sweet if it stops those 
boy racers that screech past then it suits me.
boy racers that screech past then it suits me.But I think that's the point -- it won't.
If you use the road as a short cut then you will be passing the 2 cameras in the "government-prefered" way and will be done.
If you use the road between the cameras for burn-ups, wheelies, do-nuts, street racing and general DLAP then you won't go near the cameras and so won't be done. In fact, removing humps etc could make the road more liable to abuse in this way.
That's why I say that this is not aimed at those who cause the pain, but at those who simply exercise their right to use a public road to get from A to B. Of course, if you drive below the speed limit you should be ok, and in residential areas that's clearly what we should all be doing so no argument there. But it's the principle that you address all speed-related issues with a one-size-fits-all solution that is so frustrating.
cooperman said:
7db said:
Of course those people are still subject to a S3 driving-like-a-prat charge as they are now.
But they won't be caught for 'DLAP' as the cameras will then be seen as the only enforcement required in that area.
Why is there a whole thread going on about S59, then? Can I get the coppers to go away by asking them to put a speed camera in?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff