Discussion
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2...
Its amazing, I'm all for improvements to the A14, especially a ban on lorries overtaking. They seem to be attributing the problem to the road, buty no-one has picked up on the fact that every crash they mention involves a lorry.
Its amazing, I'm all for improvements to the A14, especially a ban on lorries overtaking. They seem to be attributing the problem to the road, buty no-one has picked up on the fact that every crash they mention involves a lorry.
The last safety improvement they thought of was putting a GATSO in just where the A11/A14 eastbound merge. What a masterstroke of planning that was.
Presumably the idea is that with people concentrating on trying to merge safely they'll not have enough concentration left to make sure they're not speeding so it'll gather plenty of speed tax. Unfortunately the side effect is that now you're dealing with the dangers of the merge by looking behind you into your blind spots and the danger of the panic braking by looking in front. Sadly you can't do both at the same time.
Hopefully someone will be held to account over the inevitable deaths that have already and will certainly result. It'd sure be sweet to see one of the speed camera bosses in stir over it. I mean driving tax is one thing, killing people whilst collecting it is quite another.
SM
Presumably the idea is that with people concentrating on trying to merge safely they'll not have enough concentration left to make sure they're not speeding so it'll gather plenty of speed tax. Unfortunately the side effect is that now you're dealing with the dangers of the merge by looking behind you into your blind spots and the danger of the panic braking by looking in front. Sadly you can't do both at the same time.
Hopefully someone will be held to account over the inevitable deaths that have already and will certainly result. It'd sure be sweet to see one of the speed camera bosses in stir over it. I mean driving tax is one thing, killing people whilst collecting it is quite another.
SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 27th September 09:13
I think it's simply because there are so many trucks on the A14 that accidents happen. When you have nose to tail arctics in both lanes it becomes a nightmare to see ahead or to notice much else at all really. It's density of HGV traffic and the amount of side exits IMO that's causing the problem
Apache said:
I think it's simply because there are so many trucks on the A14 that accidents happen. When you have nose to tail arctics in both lanes it becomes a nightmare to see ahead or to notice much else at all really. It's density of HGV traffic and the amount of side exits IMO that's causing the problem
Rubbish! It's SPEED. SPECS will sort it out...SM
supermono said:
Apache said:
I think it's simply because there are so many trucks on the A14 that accidents happen. When you have nose to tail arctics in both lanes it becomes a nightmare to see ahead or to notice much else at all really. It's density of HGV traffic and the amount of side exits IMO that's causing the problem
Rubbish! It's SPEED. SPECS will sort it out...SM
From my experience, speed never was the problem but too many trucks on an overstretched road was. The SPECS are live now so we'll see if it helps
supermono said:
The last safety improvement they thought of was putting a GATSO in just where the A11/A14 eastbound merge. What a masterstroke of planning that was.
Presumably the idea is that with people concentrating on trying to merge safely they'll not have enough concentration left to make sure they're not speeding so it'll gather plenty of speed tax. Unfortunately the side effect is that now you're dealing with the dangers of the merge by looking behind you into your blind spots and the danger of the panic braking by looking in front. Sadly you can't do both at the same time.
Hopefully someone will be held to account over the inevitable deaths that have already and will certainly result. It'd sure be sweet to see one of the speed camera bosses in stir over it. I mean driving tax is one thing, killing people whilst collecting it is quite another.
SM
I drive through that A11/A14 merge every day, someone set fire to camera at one point and they took there time replacing it because it was right on the edge of the limit as to where they can place them. Presumably the idea is that with people concentrating on trying to merge safely they'll not have enough concentration left to make sure they're not speeding so it'll gather plenty of speed tax. Unfortunately the side effect is that now you're dealing with the dangers of the merge by looking behind you into your blind spots and the danger of the panic braking by looking in front. Sadly you can't do both at the same time.
Hopefully someone will be held to account over the inevitable deaths that have already and will certainly result. It'd sure be sweet to see one of the speed camera bosses in stir over it. I mean driving tax is one thing, killing people whilst collecting it is quite another.
SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 27th September 09:13
Its only going to get worse as winter approaches and people are trying to merge, in bad weather.
Apache said:
supermono said:
Apache said:
I think it's simply because there are so many trucks on the A14 that accidents happen. When you have nose to tail arctics in both lanes it becomes a nightmare to see ahead or to notice much else at all really. It's density of HGV traffic and the amount of side exits IMO that's causing the problem
Rubbish! It's SPEED. SPECS will sort it out...SM
From my experience, speed never was the problem but too many trucks on an overstretched road was. The SPECS are live now so we'll see if it helps
How you can relate the speed kills message to any of the recent accidents baffles me.
Guam said:
AS I posted on another thread the "Scumera" partnership ARE the problem now on the A14 it was bad enough with the Gatso the specs now will and are causing hideous problems on there and I agree with one poster sooner or later will result in a fatality. We know it they know it and I would be stunned if any BIB on here that know that stretch of road would disagree.
You cannot merge safely with a dual carriageway without matching speed + a margin for safety conceivably that could get you done, otherwise you try to merge while everyone on the road is fixated on the speedo and they run into you.
Stupid Stupid Stupid!!!
Cheers
Tom
Would be interesting to get the BiB opinion of the A14 and its dangers as they see themYou cannot merge safely with a dual carriageway without matching speed + a margin for safety conceivably that could get you done, otherwise you try to merge while everyone on the road is fixated on the speedo and they run into you.
Stupid Stupid Stupid!!!
Cheers
Tom
I 'waged war' on the Highways Authority over this a few months ago. I got the usual spin from their Mr. Andy Jobling (or should that be 'Jobsworth') that the SPECS cameras were a valuable tool for accident reduction,but since then we have seen no reduction. Thus, they wasted £2.5 million on nothing at all.
The A14/M11 junction must surely be the worst engineered major road junction in the entire country and to even think of putting a Gatso there is just stupidity. To have actually done is is 'reckless endangerment' as the Americans call it.
This was my letter to 'Jobsworth:
Andy.Jobling@Highways.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir,
I understand from the East of England TV News that the SPECS cameras on the A14 are due to go 'live' this week.
However, one must wonder what exactly these average speed cameras are intended to achieve. From information available locally it would appear that over the past 4 years only four, yes 4, accidents on that stretch of the A14 actually involved vehicles travelling in excess of the 70 mph speed limit. Now, the expenditure of c.£2.5million to address the causation of one accident per annum is, in itself, a strange thing on which to spend our, yes OUR money, but the cameras won't even address this. Let me, therefore, consider first of all what the cameras can and cannot do:
SPECS Average Speed Cameras can:
Detect cars driving at an average speed in excess of the 70 mph limit over monitored sections, so long as each vehicle monitored does not change lanes between successive cameras. If a lane-change is made the type-approval does not allow the recorded speed to be used for prosecution.
SPECS Average Speed Cameras CANNOT:
Detect: motorcycles, foreign vehicles, vehicles with obscured front number plates, vehicles with broken front number plates, dangerous driving, driving too close to the vehicle in front, careless driving, drunken driving, driving under the influence of drugs, driving an unsafe vehicle, vehicles with an unsafe load, using a mobile telephone whilst driving and failure to maintain proper control of a vehicle. There may be others, but that will do for now!
The A14:
The reasons for the high accident rate on the A14 are relatively easy to perceive to anyone with any driving experience and/or engineering qualifications. It is arguably the worst-engineered road in the country. To best qualify this statement one only has to look at the part of that road from the A14/M11 junction to the St. Ives exit. The 2-lane M11 joins the 2-lane A14 in a really unsafe manner. Then, immediately after this merge the 4 into 3 lanes meets the exit for the crematorium, followed by the Fen Drayton exit. At this point the faster A14 traffic is trying to access the outside or centre lanes, whilst the M11 traffic, particularly the HGV's is moving over to the left, as are those exiting at Fen Drayton. Almost immediately after the Fen Drayton exit, one reaches the Bar Hill exit at which the 4-into-3 goes into 2-lanes. It would, indeed, be hard to design a more dangerous and stupid road layout or one more inviting of accidents. Then, over the section from Cambridge to Huntingdon, the exits are, in the main, too many and too short with no provision for queuing traffic exiting and the on-ramps are too short to allow for firm acceleration leading to smooth and safe merging.
The correct solution to the road safety issues on that stretch would be to reduce the number of exits and entrances, eliminate the crematorium exit by creating a parallel road back from Bar Hill, close the Fen Drayton exit and make a parallel road again back from Bar Hill, close one of the exits/entrances at St. Ives and improve the lengths and widths of the remaining exit at the B1040. Consider closing one other exit and further improve the A14/A141 junction and ramps at Huntingdon.
Of course, this won't happen, will it, as it's far too simple to do except for the money to do it. Thus money is seen as more important than lives here.
Instead of positive actions to reduce casualties, we have as an alternative the SPECS cameras. Let me make an observation and ask a question. I am from an aviation background and have not only been a pilot, but have worked in some areas of flight safety. In aviation, before we embark on a solution to a flight safety issue, we thoroughly examine the causes and evolve a solution to address the causes directly. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of responsibility and could/would kill people. Before making the decision to install SPECS cameras, what investigations were made and what were the specific findings? Was the accident causation investigated, with the 4 speed-limit breaking accidents in 4 years statistic coming to light, or was the decision a 'knee-jerk' reaction to increased accident figures. If it was the former, then the decision had no logic within the facts and thus was a bad and wrong decision. If the latter, then it just reeks of incompetence and stupidity (or a political stunt). Either way, some people in your organisation should be questioned and, at worst, dismissed for wasting public (i.e. OUR) money on this useless stunt. What is clear is that the entire scheme will provide just 2 benefits: Jobs for those issuing tickets and cash for the coffers from many safe drivers.
The most amazing thing is, perhaps, that by themselves, the SPECS cameras won't even stop drivers from exceeding the posted speed limit, and I'm not just counting those who are exempt there (see above for exemptions). Let me give you a scenario. A car driver is behind two HGV's, one just overtaking the other, as the initial camera on one monitored stretch is passed. Let's say that the monitored stretch is 3 miles. Lets say that the overtaking HGV is travelling at 50 mph and the car follows at that speed for 1 mile. At 50 mph that mile takes 1min 12 seconds. Now, for the allowable 3 miles at 70 mph average, an elapsed time of 2min 34 seconds is permitted. So in order not to exceed the 70 mph average speed between monitoring points, our car driver can cover the remaining 2 miles in 1 min 20 seconds. That is a speed of 92.3 mph. Thus our driver will not 'trip' the SPECS by driving at 92.3 mph for 2 miles. Remember, the majority of good cars now have a computer which reads average speed and if a driver re-sets this at each camera and does not exceed the displayed average, he will not be vulnerable to being caught. Police patrols won't really bother as they will leave the SPECS to do their job. Indeed, one might expect them to be so instructed since prosecution more than once for a single offence is not permitted. So, in addition to the already exempt vehicles, we can now add those held up by slower vehicles between monitoring points.
Now, in aviation, where we have pilot-error as a crash causation we attempt to reduce the pilot's work load by simplifying his tasks and reducing, where possible, his monitoring of some metrics. Here, however, with the SPECS, you are actually increasing the driver's work-load in what is already established as a 'high-work-load' area. To call this foolish is being kind! One should reduce the driver's work load in order for him/her to concentrate on the most important specific tasks. Watching the speedometer is not one of those, since exceeding the speed limit is really not an established causation factor, as has been shown. Indeed, when I drove on that stretch last week I was amazed to see the new overhead matrix signs displaying "Watch Your Speed". Not, you will note: "Watch where you are going" or "Concentrate on your driving", or "Be aware of faster vehicles overtaking you", or "Keep to the left lane except when overtaking", or, indeed, any positive road safety message. The only message was that however good or badly one was driving, watching the speedometer was the most important thing to do! Crazy? Oh, yes, really crazy!
To add insult to injury, you and your colleagues have now spent £2.5 million or OUR money in perpetrating this unbelievable folly; money which could be spent on other public services rather than trying to prevent less than one accident per annum on that stretch of road. As an OAP I am afraid to go into hospital in case I contract MRSA or C-Difficile and I would rather the cash have been spent on minimising the causes of that infection in Hinchingbrooke Hospital. I live in Earith which has a very obscure road junction along our High Street. Of course, these spiteful and useless cameras will have the effect of deterring traffic from the A14 and through our village making it even more difficult to turn right out of Colne Road.
This entire scheme is a complete disgrace, a waste of public money and a cynical attempt to convince people that road safety is taken seriously when it's clearly the potential for cash-takings from those cameras which is most attractive. As a 66-year old Grandfather I resent money being invested in a no-hope scheme when that money could have been put to better use, or is it just that the potential income from the fixed penalty notices just so attractive that it cannot be overlooked.
If you choose to reply to this I have no doubt that I'll receive a letter containing all the lies, spin and obfuscation which attach to our so-called road-safety policy these days. The fact remains that if vehicles breaking the speed limit account for, say, 4% of all accidents ( I believe this is an official figure from the Transport Research Organisation), then this is the maximum improvement which camera schemes can achieve in overall casualty terms. Any illusion of improvements at specific sites are most probably what we in aviation call a "Regression to the Mean".
Your faithfully,
The A14/M11 junction must surely be the worst engineered major road junction in the entire country and to even think of putting a Gatso there is just stupidity. To have actually done is is 'reckless endangerment' as the Americans call it.
This was my letter to 'Jobsworth:
Andy.Jobling@Highways.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir,
I understand from the East of England TV News that the SPECS cameras on the A14 are due to go 'live' this week.
However, one must wonder what exactly these average speed cameras are intended to achieve. From information available locally it would appear that over the past 4 years only four, yes 4, accidents on that stretch of the A14 actually involved vehicles travelling in excess of the 70 mph speed limit. Now, the expenditure of c.£2.5million to address the causation of one accident per annum is, in itself, a strange thing on which to spend our, yes OUR money, but the cameras won't even address this. Let me, therefore, consider first of all what the cameras can and cannot do:
SPECS Average Speed Cameras can:
Detect cars driving at an average speed in excess of the 70 mph limit over monitored sections, so long as each vehicle monitored does not change lanes between successive cameras. If a lane-change is made the type-approval does not allow the recorded speed to be used for prosecution.
SPECS Average Speed Cameras CANNOT:
Detect: motorcycles, foreign vehicles, vehicles with obscured front number plates, vehicles with broken front number plates, dangerous driving, driving too close to the vehicle in front, careless driving, drunken driving, driving under the influence of drugs, driving an unsafe vehicle, vehicles with an unsafe load, using a mobile telephone whilst driving and failure to maintain proper control of a vehicle. There may be others, but that will do for now!
The A14:
The reasons for the high accident rate on the A14 are relatively easy to perceive to anyone with any driving experience and/or engineering qualifications. It is arguably the worst-engineered road in the country. To best qualify this statement one only has to look at the part of that road from the A14/M11 junction to the St. Ives exit. The 2-lane M11 joins the 2-lane A14 in a really unsafe manner. Then, immediately after this merge the 4 into 3 lanes meets the exit for the crematorium, followed by the Fen Drayton exit. At this point the faster A14 traffic is trying to access the outside or centre lanes, whilst the M11 traffic, particularly the HGV's is moving over to the left, as are those exiting at Fen Drayton. Almost immediately after the Fen Drayton exit, one reaches the Bar Hill exit at which the 4-into-3 goes into 2-lanes. It would, indeed, be hard to design a more dangerous and stupid road layout or one more inviting of accidents. Then, over the section from Cambridge to Huntingdon, the exits are, in the main, too many and too short with no provision for queuing traffic exiting and the on-ramps are too short to allow for firm acceleration leading to smooth and safe merging.
The correct solution to the road safety issues on that stretch would be to reduce the number of exits and entrances, eliminate the crematorium exit by creating a parallel road back from Bar Hill, close the Fen Drayton exit and make a parallel road again back from Bar Hill, close one of the exits/entrances at St. Ives and improve the lengths and widths of the remaining exit at the B1040. Consider closing one other exit and further improve the A14/A141 junction and ramps at Huntingdon.
Of course, this won't happen, will it, as it's far too simple to do except for the money to do it. Thus money is seen as more important than lives here.
Instead of positive actions to reduce casualties, we have as an alternative the SPECS cameras. Let me make an observation and ask a question. I am from an aviation background and have not only been a pilot, but have worked in some areas of flight safety. In aviation, before we embark on a solution to a flight safety issue, we thoroughly examine the causes and evolve a solution to address the causes directly. To do otherwise would be a dereliction of responsibility and could/would kill people. Before making the decision to install SPECS cameras, what investigations were made and what were the specific findings? Was the accident causation investigated, with the 4 speed-limit breaking accidents in 4 years statistic coming to light, or was the decision a 'knee-jerk' reaction to increased accident figures. If it was the former, then the decision had no logic within the facts and thus was a bad and wrong decision. If the latter, then it just reeks of incompetence and stupidity (or a political stunt). Either way, some people in your organisation should be questioned and, at worst, dismissed for wasting public (i.e. OUR) money on this useless stunt. What is clear is that the entire scheme will provide just 2 benefits: Jobs for those issuing tickets and cash for the coffers from many safe drivers.
The most amazing thing is, perhaps, that by themselves, the SPECS cameras won't even stop drivers from exceeding the posted speed limit, and I'm not just counting those who are exempt there (see above for exemptions). Let me give you a scenario. A car driver is behind two HGV's, one just overtaking the other, as the initial camera on one monitored stretch is passed. Let's say that the monitored stretch is 3 miles. Lets say that the overtaking HGV is travelling at 50 mph and the car follows at that speed for 1 mile. At 50 mph that mile takes 1min 12 seconds. Now, for the allowable 3 miles at 70 mph average, an elapsed time of 2min 34 seconds is permitted. So in order not to exceed the 70 mph average speed between monitoring points, our car driver can cover the remaining 2 miles in 1 min 20 seconds. That is a speed of 92.3 mph. Thus our driver will not 'trip' the SPECS by driving at 92.3 mph for 2 miles. Remember, the majority of good cars now have a computer which reads average speed and if a driver re-sets this at each camera and does not exceed the displayed average, he will not be vulnerable to being caught. Police patrols won't really bother as they will leave the SPECS to do their job. Indeed, one might expect them to be so instructed since prosecution more than once for a single offence is not permitted. So, in addition to the already exempt vehicles, we can now add those held up by slower vehicles between monitoring points.
Now, in aviation, where we have pilot-error as a crash causation we attempt to reduce the pilot's work load by simplifying his tasks and reducing, where possible, his monitoring of some metrics. Here, however, with the SPECS, you are actually increasing the driver's work-load in what is already established as a 'high-work-load' area. To call this foolish is being kind! One should reduce the driver's work load in order for him/her to concentrate on the most important specific tasks. Watching the speedometer is not one of those, since exceeding the speed limit is really not an established causation factor, as has been shown. Indeed, when I drove on that stretch last week I was amazed to see the new overhead matrix signs displaying "Watch Your Speed". Not, you will note: "Watch where you are going" or "Concentrate on your driving", or "Be aware of faster vehicles overtaking you", or "Keep to the left lane except when overtaking", or, indeed, any positive road safety message. The only message was that however good or badly one was driving, watching the speedometer was the most important thing to do! Crazy? Oh, yes, really crazy!
To add insult to injury, you and your colleagues have now spent £2.5 million or OUR money in perpetrating this unbelievable folly; money which could be spent on other public services rather than trying to prevent less than one accident per annum on that stretch of road. As an OAP I am afraid to go into hospital in case I contract MRSA or C-Difficile and I would rather the cash have been spent on minimising the causes of that infection in Hinchingbrooke Hospital. I live in Earith which has a very obscure road junction along our High Street. Of course, these spiteful and useless cameras will have the effect of deterring traffic from the A14 and through our village making it even more difficult to turn right out of Colne Road.
This entire scheme is a complete disgrace, a waste of public money and a cynical attempt to convince people that road safety is taken seriously when it's clearly the potential for cash-takings from those cameras which is most attractive. As a 66-year old Grandfather I resent money being invested in a no-hope scheme when that money could have been put to better use, or is it just that the potential income from the fixed penalty notices just so attractive that it cannot be overlooked.
If you choose to reply to this I have no doubt that I'll receive a letter containing all the lies, spin and obfuscation which attach to our so-called road-safety policy these days. The fact remains that if vehicles breaking the speed limit account for, say, 4% of all accidents ( I believe this is an official figure from the Transport Research Organisation), then this is the maximum improvement which camera schemes can achieve in overall casualty terms. Any illusion of improvements at specific sites are most probably what we in aviation call a "Regression to the Mean".
Your faithfully,
Festisio said:
Mr Bridge said:
He wants a raft of safety measures put in place.
They include an overtaking ban for lorries,
ExcellentThey include an overtaking ban for lorries,
I see the only solution as more police patrols and regular safety checks on the lorries that frequent the A14, including checks on the drivers.
Festisio said:
Mr Bridge said:
He wants a raft of safety measures put in place.
They include an overtaking ban for lorries,
ExcellentThey include an overtaking ban for lorries,
Apache said:
Festisio said:
Mr Bridge said:
He wants a raft of safety measures put in place.
They include an overtaking ban for lorries,
ExcellentThey include an overtaking ban for lorries,
Yuo have a point re: merging - maybe that would be an allowed exception to the rule (which probably won't be passed ever anyway)
Festisio said:
Apache said:
Festisio said:
Mr Bridge said:
He wants a raft of safety measures put in place.
They include an overtaking ban for lorries,
ExcellentThey include an overtaking ban for lorries,
Yuo have a point re: merging - maybe that would be an allowed exception to the rule (which probably won't be passed ever anyway)
whyohwhy said:
Would be interesting to get the BiB opinion of the A14 and its dangers as they see them
I called one up as they were commissioning that camera a few years ago and couldn't care less -- I think I was talking to someone high enough up (he called me back after I left a message) and defended it to the hilt, though not from any kind of practical viewpoint but that it'd been approved by the Home Secretary. It's nonsense on stilts that that camera could POSSIBLY reduce accidents. There was some hoo-har about it, and this bloke thought I was jumping on the bandwagon, which I was not. It was just common sense. Something to do with Paice IIRC?SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 27th September 11:42
supermono said:
whyohwhy said:
Would be interesting to get the BiB opinion of the A14 and its dangers as they see them
I called one up as they were commissioning that camera a few years ago and couldn't care less -- I think I was talking to someone high enough up (he called me back after I left a message) and defended it to the hilt, though not from any kind of practical viewpoint but that it'd been approved by the Home Secretary. It's nonsense on stilts that that camera could POSSIBLY reduce accidents. There was some hoo-har about it, and this bloke thought I was jumping on the bandwagon, which I was not. It was just common sense. Something to do with Paice IIRC?SM
Edited by supermono on Thursday 27th September 11:42
Cooperman said:
I 'waged war' on the Highways Authority over this a few months ago. I got the usual spin from their Mr. Andy Jobling (or should that be 'Jobsworth') that the SPECS cameras were a valuable tool for accident reduction,but since then we have seen no reduction. Thus, they wasted £2.5 million on nothing at all.
The A14/M11 junction must surely be the worst engineered major road junction in the entire country and to even think of putting a Gatso there is just stupidity. To have actually done is is 'reckless endangerment' as the Americans call it.
This was my letter to 'Jobsworth:
Andy.Jobling@Highways.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir,
I understand from the East of England TV News that the SPECS cameras...
Very well written letter, though I can't help but feel it'll just be ignored. Have you had any replies?The A14/M11 junction must surely be the worst engineered major road junction in the entire country and to even think of putting a Gatso there is just stupidity. To have actually done is is 'reckless endangerment' as the Americans call it.
This was my letter to 'Jobsworth:
Andy.Jobling@Highways.gsi.gov.uk
Dear Sir,
I understand from the East of England TV News that the SPECS cameras...
Apache said:
Festisio said:
Mr Bridge said:
He wants a raft of safety measures put in place.
They include an overtaking ban for lorries,
ExcellentThey include an overtaking ban for lorries,
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff