Good news! a realisticaly sited Speed Camera.
Discussion
Given that revenue cameras have not been proven as any kind of safety aid, I doubt that this one will be any different.
However, as the speed past a school is rarely above 10mph at dropping-off and pick-up time, I doubt it will extract any money off anyone either. (Unless it's late at night when there's no-one around.)
However, as the speed past a school is rarely above 10mph at dropping-off and pick-up time, I doubt it will extract any money off anyone either. (Unless it's late at night when there's no-one around.)
There is a beauty near me (Corporation Rd, Audenshaw).
Long straight road.
It has
Speed bumps.
A camera.
A 20mph limit.
This is the section that goes past a special school.
What a great choice
All the pupils are delivered by a responsible adult, many by minibus. There is also a drop off zone on the school grounds.
As schools go this is about as safe as anything, there is not even a slight parking problem in the drop off/pick up window.
So we all have to parade down a safe stretch of road with all manner of calming all year round - this zone ends with terraced housing (at one end) with the tiniest excuse for a front garden (metre and a half ish) corresponding with an increase in the posted limit. At the other end is a kiddie heaven of an ex council estate including a small playground that opens just about onto the road.
Are these road planners on drugs?
Unbelievable.
Long straight road.
It has
Speed bumps.
A camera.
A 20mph limit.
This is the section that goes past a special school.
What a great choice
All the pupils are delivered by a responsible adult, many by minibus. There is also a drop off zone on the school grounds.
As schools go this is about as safe as anything, there is not even a slight parking problem in the drop off/pick up window.
So we all have to parade down a safe stretch of road with all manner of calming all year round - this zone ends with terraced housing (at one end) with the tiniest excuse for a front garden (metre and a half ish) corresponding with an increase in the posted limit. At the other end is a kiddie heaven of an ex council estate including a small playground that opens just about onto the road.
Are these road planners on drugs?
Unbelievable.
especially after the "twisted logic" thread IIRC I hear what you are saying and in reality it will be less of a revenue puller than a Scamera sited just over the brow of a hill on a fast moving Dual carriageway with no immediate threat to the public.
But like it or not Speed/Safety cameras are here to stay, and like has been pointed out in another thread ,if the 'pro' and 'anti' speed camera movements can get some common ground it would be a step forward just to limit the amount of cameras to areas where they are greatly needed.
It needs *constant* pressure from a movement to put a different point of view across other than the Veiw that keeps getting pushed by the 'pro'camera movements.
But like it or not Speed/Safety cameras are here to stay, and like has been pointed out in another thread ,if the 'pro' and 'anti' speed camera movements can get some common ground it would be a step forward just to limit the amount of cameras to areas where they are greatly needed.
It needs *constant* pressure from a movement to put a different point of view across other than the Veiw that keeps getting pushed by the 'pro'camera movements.
ZR1427 said:
...But like it or not Speed/Safety cameras are here to stay, ... get some common ground it would be a step forward just to limit the amount of cameras to areas where they are greatly needed.
(1) I will not accept that revenue cameras are here to stay. Indeed, some have even been removed from areas wheter they have not generated enough revenue, so they are in no way a permenent feature. We must never accept that anything is inevitable.
(2) You suggest that there may be areas where revenue cameras are "greatly needed". Where has there ever been a location where a revenue camera is greatly needed? They have been proved not to be a safety aid.
james_j said:
...But like it or not Speed/Safety cameras are here to stay, ... get some common ground it would be a step forward just to limit the amount of cameras to areas where they are greatly needed.
(1) I will not accept that revenue cameras are here to stay. Indeed, some have even been removed from areas wheter they have not generated enough revenue, so they are in no way a permenent feature. We must never accept that anything is inevitable.
(2) You suggest that there may be areas where revenue cameras are "greatly needed". Where has there ever been a location where a revenue camera is greatly needed? They have been proved not to be a safety aid.
Only need to look at Lancashire - home of over 300 scams, plus speed awareness course - which targets the 1-5 over 30! Yet deaths have increased! Serious injuries have increased!
They also admit that drink drive accidents are UP! And that many of their accidents were down to "driver inattentiveness" and NOT SPEED PER SE!
Read about NURSE who had been on that speed course on another forum a while back! She said that she worked in A&E in Lancs. She said that she was seeing more incoming RTAs through "speedo gawping" than any other cause!
Lancs appears to reduce speed limits and whack up a scam to enforce it, and have admitted to "interpreting the guidelines rather loosely" on "prestontoday!"
Planet Dave asked: "are road planners on drugs?"
So now we know why our Welsh weird one wants to legalise hard drugs!
As stated on numerous threads - only way to improve road safety awareness FOR ALL is to:
1. Introduce "skills refresher" courses for all motorists (does not mean re-do the test unless absolutely "necessary!"
2. Introduce a compulsory test for cyclists.
3. A more hard-hitting campaign showing potential dangers for pedestrians.
4. If possible, introduce fines for cyclists and pedestrians who endanger themselves and car-users by their dangerous behaviour!
Of course - that last bit would be nigh on impossible to police - even with ID cards!
WildCat said:
Read about NURSE who had been on that speed course on another forum a while back! She said that she worked in A&E in Lancs. She said that she was seeing more incoming RTAs through "speedo gawping" than any other cause!
Ooooh! I want to talk to her! Can anyone point me at the thread / forum / contact details?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
safespeed said:
Read about NURSE who had been on that speed course on another forum a while back! She said that she worked in A&E in Lancs. She said that she was seeing more incoming RTAs through "speedo gawping" than any other cause!
Ooooh! I want to talk to her! Can anyone point me at the thread / forum / contact details?
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
She posted under name of Lucy (or Lancashire Lucy) and she posted something about this on the bogush "It's Your Duty" site under thread "third gear advised!"
Cannot remember when exactly - twas a bit back!
In Australia there are variable spped limits outside schools.
During the start/finish hours and lunch hour the speed limit drops to 25.
The rest of the time the speed limit is 40.
It works too, no speed cameras either.
Perhaps its because everyone respects it.
(The sign states the times at wich the lower speed limit should be adhered to)
During the start/finish hours and lunch hour the speed limit drops to 25.
The rest of the time the speed limit is 40.
It works too, no speed cameras either.
Perhaps its because everyone respects it.
(The sign states the times at wich the lower speed limit should be adhered to)
Saftey cameras have not been proved not to work.
I know of many cameras placed that have reduced the overall speed in the area.
Once placed correctly thay can and do reduce peoples speed and this ultimately has a reduction in accidents.
Where I work (South West London) there are many cameras that were placed after fatal or serious accidents have occured. Since a camera being placed there have been none. Coincidence?
I know that cameras are hated on this site and that some are indeed (or appear) to be placed solely for revenue, but don't knock all of them.
A correctly placed camera could one day prevent your child from being killed.
All we ask is that people drive more carefully and responsably. Cameras are just one aid to help improve driving.
monster1 said:
Saftey cameras have not been proved not to work.
I know of many cameras placed that have reduced the overall speed in the area.
Once placed correctly thay can and do reduce peoples speed and this ultimately has a reduction in accidents.
Where I work (South West London) there are many cameras that were placed after fatal or serious accidents have occured. Since a camera being placed there have been none. Coincidence?
I know that cameras are hated on this site and that some are indeed (or appear) to be placed solely for revenue, but don't knock all of them.
A correctly placed camera could one day prevent your child from being killed.
All we ask is that people drive more carefully and responsably. Cameras are just one aid to help improve driving.
If cameras did work, after a decade we should be able to see a real benefit in the national figures. But the national figures are terrible. See this web page:
www.safespeed.org.uk/effects.html
On occasion there might be a local benefit from a speed camera, but the TRL tell us clearly (in TRL548) that vehicle activated warning signs are three times more effective at 1/3rd of the cost.
One important effect that must be considered is "regression to the mean". We place speed cameras where there have been accident and accidents reduce. But did the camera cause the reduction? See this page:
www.safespeed.org.uk/rttm.html
Cameras have a wide range of negative side effects including reduced respect for law and a poorer Police / public relationship.
I see from your profile that you are a traffic officer - and, sincerely, good luck to you. Perhaps you might like to ask yourself when you attend accidents: "could a speed camera really have prevented this accident?". You won't be able to answer "yes" very often - well under 1 in 20 I bet. Then follow it up with: "WOULD a speed camera have prevented this accident?". Then notice how you virtually never once answer YES to both questions twice at the same location.
Best Regards,
Paul Smith
Safe Speed
www.safespeed.org.uk
monster1 said:
Saftey cameras have not been proved not to work.
I know of many cameras placed that have reduced the overall speed in the area.
Once placed correctly thay can and do reduce peoples speed and this ultimately has a reduction in accidents.
Where I work (South West London) there are many cameras that were placed after fatal or serious accidents have occured. Since a camera being placed there have been none. Coincidence?
I know that cameras are hated on this site and that some are indeed (or appear) to be placed solely for revenue, but don't knock all of them.
A correctly placed camera could one day prevent your child from being killed.
All we ask is that people drive more carefully and responsably. Cameras are just one aid to help improve driving.
Lets go over your points one at a time.
SPEED cameras (thats what they are) have been proven NOT to work. Why are the figures UP in almost every area where theyre installed? Call a rise in fatals a success do you?
If speed cameras are "working" slowing drivers down, explain why expected persecutions are predicted to exceed 3 million this year?
If theyre slowing drivers down, youd not be persecutiong this many drivers as itd be on a FALL! Not hard to grasp is it?
So the overall speed comes down and the accident rate remains as it was...... Obviously the accident causation isnt related to speed.
What do you define as a "correctly placed" speed camera?
What relationship does exceeding a speed limit have in respect to having an accident? Ill tell you...not much.
I can have an accident everyday of the week if i just close my eyes and do 20 mph everywhere....wow, i wasnt speeding officer but look at all the crashes ive had.
Dont "knock" all of them? Why the hell not? Theyre a cynical revenue raising device that impact negatively on the environment and the people around them. Their net contribution to road safety is negligible (ksi's UP remember) while their net contribution to revenue generation is astoundingly good!
Depends WHEN the camera was placed now dosent it?
If it was placed after a series of collisions due to a cold snap, icy road, lots of crashes cos drivers couldnt get round the corner, then yes, you "could" claim it a success, but thats not taking into account that for the rest of the time theres no ice exists on that road.
Not exactly honest to claim the scamera reduced the crash level is it?
Stats Monster, you can twist them as much as you like to fit the situation.
What does driving carefully have to do with driving slowly?
Sweet F/A!(french).
I can do 120 and still be driving "carefully".
Driving carefully has very little to do with driving slowly, and driving dangerously has very little to do with driving fast!
Foe example, drive as slowly as you like in your 38 tonne articulated, but if you dont pay attention, youl go right over that granny on the zebra crossing! Still, it wouldnt matter, you wernt speeding.....
Thats the thing about speed, looks dangerous but isnt.
Drive swift drive safe, but above all drive to your own limits, not one on a sign.
deltaf said:
What do you define as a "correctly placed" speed camera?
Drive swift drive safe, but above all drive to your own limits, not one on a sign.
Cameras that are put outside schools or heavily populated estate roads for a start.
Ime not too HP about Speed Cameras,but believe me ive seen idiots drive at horrendous speeds past schools and through estate roads and the thought of a child or anyone getting hit by one of these idiots does not bear thinking about.
Deltaf you have fantastic faith in the the Human race if for one moment you think you can rely on everyone to be a good judge of their own driving and limits.
How many drivers this morning can you honestly say would fall into this category?
The whole scam about speed cameras is that they are "believed" to be sited for safety reasons.
I dont buy it for a second.
Its a fact that most accidents occur within the speed limits, so i cannot for the life of me understand what point a speed camera can possibly address.
Hows it going to affect the outcome of a sub speed limit accident? It wont will it?
If we entertain for just one moment the DFT's figures on the one third figure being correct(not) then turn the scene around a little.
66% of accidents have NO connection to speed!
FACT! Thats if you believe the one third lie.
Why the concentration on speed as a "major factor" ?
In the grand scale of things, its nothing! Its just a measurable parameter.
Now we all know that the one third figure is just plucked/tweaked out of thin air, and is closer to 7%.
So 93% of accidents have NO connection with speed.
So the question still stands: What function is a speed camera to perform, when most accidents occur WITHIN the speed limits?
Theres no logical reason for them.
Its only when you look at their "other" function that the proliferation of these infernal spies becomes crystal clear.
Theyre dammed good at stealing money from folks!
And whys that? Cos people dont slow down for them! So that on its own proves the folly of speed cameras in ANY scenario! They simply DONT work!
Its inconceivable to me that anyone could argue they work at slowing drivers down, when more and more are "predicted" to be screwed over by them.
If they "work" then thered be LESS prosecutions for speeding.
Its inescapable. You simply cannot argue with that point. Of course it could be claimed that more scameras out there increase the prosecution rates, and so it would be.
But the whole premise of scameras is that they "WILL SLOW DRIVERS DOWN", when they dont, see again the rising numbers of drivers bent over by them.
This point cant be dwelled on long enough in my mind as its central to what this speed camera screwup is all about.
"Facts" based on a lie, propped up by spin, bluster and deception.
Theres a speed camera not far from me on a road thats seen a number of accidents before the camera was installed.
The local papers all praised it to the hilt, the residents proudly proclaimed how "marvellous" it was that no one had had any accidents after it was installed.
Oh really? Well, what about the head-on with the rover 214 and the ford fiesta that occured in full view of it? Or the guy who went thru the wall in full view of it? Or the guy who missed the junction and ploughed straight on thru the fence over the main drag?
Or the guy just last week that crashed RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT just last week??
Speed cameras are a sham and a lie. There is NO place for them on OUR roads.
They dont slow cars down and they dont slow me down.
So they do not work.
My faith in others is well founded when you look at how many miles are covered each day and how few accidents actually occur.
Things could be improved though, but not by speed cameras
I dont buy it for a second.
Its a fact that most accidents occur within the speed limits, so i cannot for the life of me understand what point a speed camera can possibly address.
Hows it going to affect the outcome of a sub speed limit accident? It wont will it?
If we entertain for just one moment the DFT's figures on the one third figure being correct(not) then turn the scene around a little.
66% of accidents have NO connection to speed!
FACT! Thats if you believe the one third lie.
Why the concentration on speed as a "major factor" ?
In the grand scale of things, its nothing! Its just a measurable parameter.
Now we all know that the one third figure is just plucked/tweaked out of thin air, and is closer to 7%.
So 93% of accidents have NO connection with speed.
So the question still stands: What function is a speed camera to perform, when most accidents occur WITHIN the speed limits?
Theres no logical reason for them.
Its only when you look at their "other" function that the proliferation of these infernal spies becomes crystal clear.
Theyre dammed good at stealing money from folks!
And whys that? Cos people dont slow down for them! So that on its own proves the folly of speed cameras in ANY scenario! They simply DONT work!
Its inconceivable to me that anyone could argue they work at slowing drivers down, when more and more are "predicted" to be screwed over by them.
If they "work" then thered be LESS prosecutions for speeding.
Its inescapable. You simply cannot argue with that point. Of course it could be claimed that more scameras out there increase the prosecution rates, and so it would be.
But the whole premise of scameras is that they "WILL SLOW DRIVERS DOWN", when they dont, see again the rising numbers of drivers bent over by them.
This point cant be dwelled on long enough in my mind as its central to what this speed camera screwup is all about.
"Facts" based on a lie, propped up by spin, bluster and deception.
Theres a speed camera not far from me on a road thats seen a number of accidents before the camera was installed.
The local papers all praised it to the hilt, the residents proudly proclaimed how "marvellous" it was that no one had had any accidents after it was installed.
Oh really? Well, what about the head-on with the rover 214 and the ford fiesta that occured in full view of it? Or the guy who went thru the wall in full view of it? Or the guy who missed the junction and ploughed straight on thru the fence over the main drag?
Or the guy just last week that crashed RIGHT IN FRONT OF IT just last week??
Speed cameras are a sham and a lie. There is NO place for them on OUR roads.
They dont slow cars down and they dont slow me down.
So they do not work.
My faith in others is well founded when you look at how many miles are covered each day and how few accidents actually occur.
Things could be improved though, but not by speed cameras
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff