Speed camera placement
Discussion
There are two roads near my house that have both seen a spate of accidents recently. Both roads have alternating 30mph and NSL zones and both have had accidents only in the NSL zones. On one road the accidents have all been caused by late braking for sharp bends (or possibly no braking at all in some instances), and on the other a pedestrian has been killed walking home from the pub (there are no street lights and no pavements on the NSL stretch, both of which could be contributing factors).
The response has been increased activity by the local camera vans. What really beggars belief though is that the vans are exclusively monitoring speed in the 30mph zones. In the ten years I have lived in this area there have been no accidents at all in the 30mph zones but plenty in the NSL zones, so why do you think activity is being concentrated there?
The response has been increased activity by the local camera vans. What really beggars belief though is that the vans are exclusively monitoring speed in the 30mph zones. In the ten years I have lived in this area there have been no accidents at all in the 30mph zones but plenty in the NSL zones, so why do you think activity is being concentrated there?
They have to have a good bit of straight road for a speed check. They can’t check people’s speed through a tight bend and it may not be possible to exceed the speed limit through the bends anyway?
I imagine they expect that people speeding through the 30s will also be driving too fast along the NSLs.
Are they stopping speeders for a word or just sending NIPs?
I imagine they expect that people speeding through the 30s will also be driving too fast along the NSLs.
Are they stopping speeders for a word or just sending NIPs?
Unbelievable - it sounds, on the face of it, that in this case the scamera vans have the chance to actually do what they proclaim to be their raison d'etre and "enforce speed to make the roads a safer place for us all" yet they still go to the 30 limit where according to the OP there isnt the same degree of problem and enforce the limit there.
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
FrootBat said:
Unbelievable - it sounds, on the face of it, that in this case the scamera vans have the chance to actually do what they proclaim to be their raison d'etre and "enforce speed to make the roads a safer place for us all" yet they still go to the 30 limit where according to the OP there isnt the same degree of problem and enforce the limit there.
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Don't you think that the people driving too fast in the 30s will also likely be driving too fast in the NSLs?
herewego said:
FrootBat said:
Unbelievable - it sounds, on the face of it, that in this case the scamera vans have the chance to actually do what they proclaim to be their raison d'etre and "enforce speed to make the roads a safer place for us all" yet they still go to the 30 limit where according to the OP there isnt the same degree of problem and enforce the limit there.
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Don't you think that the people driving too fast in the 30s will also likely be driving too fast in the NSLs?
It is not easy to exceed the speed limit in the NSL sections, hardly anyone does, not even the locals (such as I). The accidents happen below the speed limit so enforcement there would change nothing. Enforcement in the 30 zones changes nothing either as the accidents don't happen there. Maybe inappropriate speed in the NSL's is to blame, but there is no suggestion that it is in excess of the proscribed limit (think narrow, winding, country road with short straights leading to sharp bends, the longer straight parts of the road have the 30 limits).
What is happening is that 'safe' driving in excess of the speed limit is being punished, whilst dangerous driving below the speed limit is allowed to continue. What message does that send out?
Edited by david_s on Friday 23 February 11:43
herewego said:
FrootBat said:
Unbelievable - it sounds, on the face of it, that in this case the scamera vans have the chance to actually do what they proclaim to be their raison d'etre and "enforce speed to make the roads a safer place for us all" yet they still go to the 30 limit where according to the OP there isnt the same degree of problem and enforce the limit there.
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Don't you think that the people driving too fast in the 30s will also likely be driving too fast in the NSLs?
I think that is a hugely rash assumption to make, and a ridulous proposition to defend the placement of these camera vans if you truly believe their sole purpose is to improve road safety and reduce injury.
If they are truly concerned about road safety and you believe that speed is the main cause of injury / death / accidents / what-have-you then you should be focussing on where the problem is, not up the road where there havent been any incidents on the offchance you might stop someone who would otherwise be speeding.
To put it into a different light and remove the 'speeding' element that some find the constant need to justify enforcement of, it is the equivilent of the police having intelligence an armed raid will be mounted on, say, a jewellers on Bond Street in London, and them then deciding to mount a surveillance operation on a jewellers on Tottenham Court Road
To put it into a different light and remove the 'speeding' element that some find the constant need to justify enforcement of, it is the equivilent of the police having intelligence an armed raid will be mounted on, say, a jewellers on Bond Street in London, and them then deciding to mount a surveillance operation on a jewellers on Tottenham Court Road 
david_s said:
herewego said:
FrootBat said:
Unbelievable - it sounds, on the face of it, that in this case the scamera vans have the chance to actually do what they proclaim to be their raison d'etre and "enforce speed to make the roads a safer place for us all" yet they still go to the 30 limit where according to the OP there isnt the same degree of problem and enforce the limit there.
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Taking the situation at face value as described that is a clear indicator that safety is not the primary aim of the 'safety' camera partnerships as the locations in this instance would not seem to be motivated by a desire to 'reduce speed' (as we all know the greatest scourge of our time).
Don't you think that the people driving too fast in the 30s will also likely be driving too fast in the NSLs?
It is not easy to exceed the speed limit in the NSL sections, hardly anyone does, not even the locals (such as I). The accidents happen below the speed limit so enforcement there would change nothing. Enforcement in the 30 zones changes nothing either as the accidents don't happen there. Maybe inappropriate speed in the NSL's is to blame, but there is no suggestion that it is in excess of the proscribed limit (think narrow, winding, country road with short straights leading to sharp bends, the longer straight parts of the road have the 30 limits).
What is happening is that 'safe' driving in excess of the speed limit is being punished, whilst dangerous driving below the speed limit is allowed to continue. What message does that send out?
Edited by david_s on Friday 23 February 11:43
I didn't say exceeding speed limits, I said driving too fast. If they're driving too fast in the NSLs they're probably driving too fast in the 30s. Speed check vans raise the profile of the speeding and send out a watch your speed message, especially to those who are caught.
herewego said:
They have to have a good bit of straight road for a speed check. They can’t check people’s speed through a tight bend and it may not be possible to exceed the speed limit through the bends anyway?
So...
How does the presence of a speed limit in any way aid safety?
It's the ones selecting a suitable speed independent of any hint given by the limit who are NOT crashing.
Speed limits kill!
fluffnik said:
herewego said:
They have to have a good bit of straight road for a speed check. They can’t check people’s speed through a tight bend and it may not be possible to exceed the speed limit through the bends anyway?
So...
How does the presence of a speed limit in any way aid safety?
It's the ones selecting a suitable speed independent of any hint given by the limit who are NOT crashing.
How do you know that? Surely the ones crashing are the ones who are selecting an unsuitable speed.
herewego said:
fluffnik said:
herewego said:
They have to have a good bit of straight road for a speed check. They can’t check people’s speed through a tight bend and it may not be possible to exceed the speed limit through the bends anyway?
So...
How does the presence of a speed limit in any way aid safety?
It's the ones selecting a suitable speed independent of any hint given by the limit who are NOT crashing.
How do you know that? Surely the ones crashing are the ones who are selecting an unsuitable speed.
Unsuitable but entirely legal, in direct contrast to those prosecuted for adopting a suitable but illegal speed.
herewego said:
fluffnik said:
How does the presence of a speed limit in any way aid safety?
It's the ones selecting a suitable speed independent of any hint given by the limit who are NOT crashing.
How do you know that? Surely the ones crashing are the ones who are selecting an unsuitable speed.
...and those that are not decieved by the posted limit do not crash.
Either limits represent a speed above which risk will increase rapidly or they are dangerous disinformation.
In the situation described it is reasonable to assume that the end of the 30 limit represents a reduction in hazard whereas the opposite is true.
Speed limits kill!
david_s said:
What is happening is that 'safe' driving in excess of the speed limit is being punished, whilst dangerous driving below the speed limit is allowed to continue. What message does that send out?
"Time to sack the management of all those bodies participating in the SCP"
...that includes council Chief Execs and Chief Constables.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff