Another Partnership cockup - A379 Devon
Another Partnership cockup - A379 Devon
Author
Discussion

puggit

Original Poster:

49,817 posts

278 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/devon/4383188.stm

[quote=bbc]
Speed convictions may be quashed

Drivers caught speeding on a Devon road could have their convictions quashed.

Mobile speed cameras often operate on the A379 at Starcross between Exeter and Dawlish.

But four cases have been dismissed because of road sign problems. Those previously convicted may get fines returned and licence points erased.

The Devon and Cornwall Safety Camera Partnership, which runs the cameras, says it is reviewing what action it will take in response to these cases.

Speeds not challenged

Mobile speed cameras have been used frequently in recent years on the busy and narrow stretch of the A379.

But the signs telling drivers of speed limits have been deemed as set too far apart.

A judge involved in the four cases dismissed charges, saying the signage and traffic orders were fatally flawed.

The four drivers were doing up to 44mph (71k/ph) in the 30mph (48k/ph), according to the cameras.

[b]This judgement may result in anyone being found guilty of speeding in the area since June 2002 being able to get their conviction dropped.[/b]

This could run into thousands and may include holidaymakers who regularly use the road en-route to Dawlish Warren or Dawlish.

Devon County Council, which is in charge of road signs, said it would wait for a full written judgement before making any comment.

[b]The Safety Camera Partnership pointed out the drivers did not challenge the speeds recorded.[/b]

It defended the use of cameras in the area, saying they had helped reduce injuries on this stretch of road to zero between 2003 and 2004. [/quote]

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

274 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
scammingb'stards said:
they had helped reduce injuries on this stretch of road to zero between 2003 and 2004.

?? There isn't any time between 2003 and 2004 for accidents to occur in
00:00:00 01/01/04 directly follows 23:59:50 31/12/03

trax

1,601 posts

262 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
"The Safety Camera Partnership pointed out the drivers did not challenge the speeds recorded."

As if people do challenge the speed. They are bullied and threatened into admtting their guilt, of course most accept the fine, they dont knoe any better, thats what the Partnerships rely on.

As far as no deaths occuring on that road, does that mean they are admitting that accidents and deaths on a particular road is directly contolled by their safety cameras? That would also mean that where accidents and deaths have increased on safety camerad roads, (and they mostly do), they have caused these, and more to the point, killed people?

justinp1

13,363 posts

260 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
trax said:
"The Safety Camera Partnership pointed out the drivers did not challenge the speeds recorded."

As if people do challenge the speed. They are bullied and threatened into admtting their guilt, of course most accept the fine, they dont knoe any better, thats what the Partnerships rely on.

As far as no deaths occuring on that road, does that mean they are admitting that accidents and deaths on a particular road is directly contolled by their safety cameras? That would also mean that where accidents and deaths have increased on safety camerad roads, (and they mostly do), they have caused these, and more to the point, killed people?


I agree. People do not challenge the speeds as it cost them days of their lives to appear in court, and costs of around £1500 for magistrates court and an appeal, only to find that the system covers over its own mistakes and shafts you.

This is the quality of the spin doctors at work, no-one has seen this yet:

It defended the use of cameras in the area, saying they had helped reduce injuries on this stretch of road to zero between 2003 and 2004.

Notice that no mention of kills or serious injuries are made. I am quite sure if they had gone down they would have mentioned it. This means they would have stayed the same or in fact increased. The only figures available which could be twisted to support their false hypothesis is the number of injuries, and again they have not even attempted to say how this tenuous link was made...

The Definition of 'Brainwashing':

brain·wash·ing (brān'wŏsh'ĭng, -wô'shĭng)
n.
Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person's basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.


funkyrobot

18,789 posts

258 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
Something similar (to the signage problem) has happened recently in a town near me called Boston.

As you enter the town from where I live you go over two small roundabouts then go down a very long stretch of road (about a mile i would say) lined with houses (albeit set back and not literally on the path) and side streets. This long straight road takes you up to another roundabout and the town centre.

For years and years its been a 40mph limit down this stretch of road starting at the first roundabout. Recently overnight the speed limit changed to a 30 limit, why? I don't know, I hardly ever see accidents on here as its straight.

The problem with this is that the 30 limit now starts at the first roundabout and its signposted, but it isn't satellite sign posted at all down the long stretch of road. No speed limit signs whatsoever for about a mile.

So if you visit this town for the first time in ages, miss the new limit that is signposted just as you enter the roundabout (always a good place to put a speed limit eh!!) you will probably trundle down the road at 40 as its wide and open and can easily handle this.

However, if mr speed camera is there you are going to be snapped. Are there any signs suggesting a 30 limit down this road? Nope, non whatsoever.

Amazing isn't it!

Mr Whippy

32,453 posts

271 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
trax said:
"The Safety Camera Partnership pointed out the drivers did not challenge the speeds recorded."

As if people do challenge the speed. They are bullied and threatened into admtting their guilt, of course most accept the fine, they dont knoe any better, thats what the Partnerships rely on.

As far as no deaths occuring on that road, does that mean they are admitting that accidents and deaths on a particular road is directly contolled by their safety cameras? That would also mean that where accidents and deaths have increased on safety camerad roads, (and they mostly do), they have caused these, and more to the point, killed people?


Many good points.

Drivers can't win...
...they refute the claims they were speeding, and they are either let go, or the scameraships lie in court to convict them.

If they don't argue the toss, they must accept they were speeding so far as the scamerships are concerned regarding the fact the road wasn't properly signed.


Then where camera's "appear" to have reduced accidents, they MUST have reduced them, and where they haven't, suddenly the other factors that cause accidents are blamed.


How they can operate like this is beyond me. Clearly powers above are allowing them to operate with relative impunity, and when they do cock up, they are not being scrutinised officially.

Clearly for the money in that case. Wouldn't surprise me if Blunkett gets 10%

Dave

james_j

3,996 posts

285 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
"The 'Safety' Camera Partnership pointed out the drivers did not challenge the speeds recorded."

So if drivers don't challenge the speeds recorded they must be guilty?

That's interesting. These people could easily be called scum.

They're asking for more challenges then aren't they.

rodney59

424 posts

278 months

Tuesday 1st November 2005
quotequote all
funkyrobot said:
Something similar (to the signage problem) has happened recently in a town near me called Boston.

As you enter the town from where I live you go over two small roundabouts then go down a very long stretch of road (about a mile i would say) lined with houses (albeit set back and not literally on the path) and side streets. This long straight road takes you up to another roundabout and the town centre.

For years and years its been a 40mph limit down this stretch of road starting at the first roundabout. Recently overnight the speed limit changed to a 30 limit,


I noticed this on a visit last week compared to Christmas 2003. The road is very w i d e.
But remember there are street lamps. And street lamps mean 30mph unless otherwise.

streaky

19,311 posts

279 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2005
quotequote all
funkyrobot said:
Something similar (to the signage problem) has happened recently in a town near me called Boston.

As you enter the town from where I live you go over two small roundabouts then go down a very long stretch of road (about a mile i would say) lined with houses (albeit set back and not literally on the path) and side streets. This long straight road takes you up to another roundabout and the town centre.

For years and years its been a 40mph limit down this stretch of road starting at the first roundabout. Recently overnight the speed limit changed to a 30 limit, why? I don't know, I hardly ever see accidents on here as its straight.

The problem with this is that the 30 limit now starts at the first roundabout and its signposted, but it isn't satellite sign posted at all down the long stretch of road. No speed limit signs whatsoever for about a mile.

So if you visit this town for the first time in ages, miss the new limit that is signposted just as you enter the roundabout (always a good place to put a speed limit eh!!) you will probably trundle down the road at 40 as its wide and open and can easily handle this.

However, if mr speed camera is there you are going to be snapped. Are there any signs suggesting a 30 limit down this road? Nope, non whatsoever.

Amazing isn't it!
Are there street lights along the stretch of road? If so, then "30" repeater signs may well not be required - Streaky

Einion Yrth

19,575 posts

274 months

Wednesday 2nd November 2005
quotequote all
streaky said:


Are there street lights along the stretch of road? If so, then "30" repeater signs may well not be required - Streaky

Or, indeed, permitted.