RE: 'Sneakiest' Camera in Britain Moved
Wednesday 18th December 2002
'Sneakiest' Camera in Britain Moved
42 more cameras on their way
Discussion
That camera was indeed a sneaky bu99er, however, whilst I hate the bloody things, that one does border a tree lined park. Thich runs directly onto a fairly main road and more than once I have seen kids running directly at the road so speed restrictions are certainly neccessary (a fence would help too!)
How about pedestrian training? The roads are for cars. Pavements/verges are for pedestrians.
That camera was indeed a sneaky bu99er, however, whilst I hate the bloody things, that one does border a tree lined park. Thich runs directly onto a fairly main road and more than once I have seen kids running directly at the road so speed restrictions are certainly neccessary (a fence would help too!)
When pedestrians want to use roads, they need to take care.
It's that simple
That camera was indeed a sneaky bu99er, however, whilst I hate the bloody things, that one does border a tree lined park. Thich runs directly onto a fairly main road and more than once I have seen kids running directly at the road so speed restrictions are certainly neccessary (a fence would help too!)
The camera has been moved about 40 yards North and is clearly visble now
There were not any road markings for the 'new' camera when I went past at the weekend. EDIT: To add they have also moved the camera on the downhill stretch from Woodingdean to Rottingdean -Its no longer after the sweeping blind bend on the downhill run.
>> Edited by Marcos Maniac on Wednesday 18th December 16:30
Interesting they have just done this with a similar camera in Enstone, Oxfordshire. In this case the camera has moved to the opposite side of the road. It is now place ~300m before a school. The effect being that people drive at 30 past the camera and then accelerate towards the primary school..... Another great piece of thinking....
This is revenue generation, pure and simple. But let's think about this comparison of stopping distances between 30 and 35mph that craigw mentioned. All speed limits have factors of safety built into them. The local authorities aren't going to post limits that are at the ragged edge of safety. If the difference in stopping distance between 30 and 35 is the difference between danger and safety, the limit needs to be reassessed. In addition, you can't possibly account for all scenarios.
The statement: "People should realise if they speed, they are breaking the law and risking an accident." is typical of government and law officials who try to convince the public that going 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit has instantly made you dangerous and more prone to an accident. Rubbish. Like I said, it's revenue generation, that's all. But beware Britain, the next thing you'll see is what they tried in the US, mobile photo radar. They bolt a radar/camera box onto the front bumper of a police car so that it can be taken anywhere, any time. When they did that in the states, the number of tickets issued in a one hour period were staggering - so was the hue and cry from the people. It's only going to get worse if the people don't take action and curb the safety-nazis.
The statement: "People should realise if they speed, they are breaking the law and risking an accident." is typical of government and law officials who try to convince the public that going 5 or 10 miles per hour over the speed limit has instantly made you dangerous and more prone to an accident. Rubbish. Like I said, it's revenue generation, that's all. But beware Britain, the next thing you'll see is what they tried in the US, mobile photo radar. They bolt a radar/camera box onto the front bumper of a police car so that it can be taken anywhere, any time. When they did that in the states, the number of tickets issued in a one hour period were staggering - so was the hue and cry from the people. It's only going to get worse if the people don't take action and curb the safety-nazis.
It is staggering the differences though. I've just done the maths as I didn't believe it, but a car travelling at 35mph would indeed be still doing 18mph (not 21 as they said on the program
) in the distance that a car travelling at 30mph took to stop - and that is without thinking distances.
This does mean that you have a lot less chance of hurting some stupid kid that hasn't fully grasped that roads are for cars etc, by sticking at the speed limit.
Of course, 30mph vs 25 mph = 16.6mph at the lower stopping distance, and 25mph vs 20 mph = 15 mph etc, so where do you draw the line?
) in the distance that a car travelling at 30mph took to stop - and that is without thinking distances. This does mean that you have a lot less chance of hurting some stupid kid that hasn't fully grasped that roads are for cars etc, by sticking at the speed limit.
Of course, 30mph vs 25 mph = 16.6mph at the lower stopping distance, and 25mph vs 20 mph = 15 mph etc, so where do you draw the line?
craigw said: CraigA, I agree, of course roads are for cars, but try telling a six year old chasing a ball that. I'm sure we all saw (can't remember if it was 5th Gear/Driven) where the differences between braking at 30 and 35 mph were shown, staggering I thought.
Quite. But the guy sticking to the limit might be staring at the speedo he's stupidely using to control his driving when a kid steps out and he may then just run the kid over as he isn't looking where he's going.
The other guy doing 35 and clearly not looking at the speedo just steers around the kid when the kid steps out.
Are you seriously telling me that if a pedestrian steps in front of you, then you'd just slam on the breaks and see whether or not you stopped in time?
Also, if the guy doing 35 is a decent driver he'd have been looking ahead and would have seen the kid before he stepped out.
I don't look at my speedo but if there's kids at the side of the road, I'm looking at them from a long way away and approach with my foot already hovering over the break pedal.
In the case where there's also a speed camera by the side of the road, you'll find drivers going past staring religously at their speedo completely unaware of any other hazards ahead.
"The local authorities predict a decrease in deaths and serious injuries of 30 a year once all the cameras have been installed."
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story? These predictions can't possibly be based on anything other than pure optimism as speed cameras have repetedly been showen to have at best a neutral affect on accidents.
I say neutral at best because speed cameras do actually cause accidents. You remember the article on Piston Heads about the guy on a motorbike who was killed when the bikes in front of him suddenly braked harshly on seeing a camera.
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story? These predictions can't possibly be based on anything other than pure optimism as speed cameras have repetedly been showen to have at best a neutral affect on accidents.
I say neutral at best because speed cameras do actually cause accidents. You remember the article on Piston Heads about the guy on a motorbike who was killed when the bikes in front of him suddenly braked harshly on seeing a camera.
daydreamer said: It is staggering the differences though. I've just done the maths as I didn't believe it, but a car travelling at 35mph would indeed be still doing 18mph (not 21 as they said on the program
This does mean that you have a lot less chance of hurting some stupid kid that hasn't fully grasped that roads are for cars etc, by sticking at the speed limit.
Of course, 30mph vs 25 mph = 16.6mph at the lower stopping distance, and 25mph vs 20 mph = 15 mph etc, so where do you draw the line?
I do hope you took into account wind resistance (which increases logarithmically with speed I believe)
This means that all else being equal you will have four times the air braking effect, if you are travelling twice as fast.
What about the varying coefficients of friction as the pads heat up in an emergency stop?
That dosent stay static, so dont believe all the hype.
If pedestrians stayed off the roads thered never be any of em killed, so the solution is pretty obvious if expensive(wont be implemented unless profits can be shown) and that is education, especially for pedestrians.
That dosent stay static, so dont believe all the hype.
If pedestrians stayed off the roads thered never be any of em killed, so the solution is pretty obvious if expensive(wont be implemented unless profits can be shown) and that is education, especially for pedestrians.
If they can't be told, then they should be supervised.
craigw said: CraigA, I agree, of course roads are for cars, but try telling a six year old chasing a ball that.
The world is a dangerous place - the sooner kids learn this, the better.
I'm pretty sure that I had a healthy respect for roads/cars by that age...
Maybe so - the problem with kids is that they are not that easy to control. My ex's 4 year old was a lovely girl, but even with constant attention, once in a hundred / once in a thousand times she would let go of someones hand. Could so easily have been by a road etc. etc. etc. My earlier post (which is in the process of being systematically torn apart) stated that I was surprised at how much the extra 5mph starting speed effects speed at a distance.
I'm a shocking offender when it comes to speeding - but I do have a lot of respect for 30 limits (which I stick to by knowing how fast 30 is, rather than driving on the spedo).
Before eveyone comes back - banning SUV's around schools would possibly give a greater safety benefit. Having said that though, how would anyone feel if they were just over the limit and hit a youngster. I don't think that thinking they shouldn't have been there will ease the burdon I'm afraid.
I'm a shocking offender when it comes to speeding - but I do have a lot of respect for 30 limits (which I stick to by knowing how fast 30 is, rather than driving on the spedo).
Before eveyone comes back - banning SUV's around schools would possibly give a greater safety benefit. Having said that though, how would anyone feel if they were just over the limit and hit a youngster. I don't think that thinking they shouldn't have been there will ease the burdon I'm afraid.
daydreamer said: Maybe so - the problem with kids is that they are not that easy to control.
Every parent's excuse. I don't remember being allowed to run about all over the roads - I do remember being taught to cross roads safely though.
It's not the only solution, but it does help.
I suspect that most pedestrian injuries occur at low inital speeds, with little time to react - purely because of the small proportion of fatalities.
Maybe so - the problem with kids is that they are not that easy to control. My ex's 4 year old was a lovely girl, but even with constant attention, once in a hundred / once in a thousand times she would let go of someones hand
There are some marvelous things out there called reins. I had them when I was a child, even if they let go of your hand and run out they get pulled back in. I'm sure they're still available.
Also the cure for the six year old running after ball into road is a simple one its called a fence. I've seen parks use this amazing invention you put up a set of railings along the edge of the park that way a child can't run from the park into the road. Unfortunately they cost money (a lot less than a camera) but have no way of gaining revenue, they just are a safety measure. Far better to not have a fence put up a camera ignore accidents and make a few bob
Face simple facts hitting a child at virtually any speed will not do that child any good. I would argue that knocking over a child at 20mph and causing brain damage is as bad as knocking over a child at 35mph and killing them. The statistics fail to mention this they just concentrate on death.
Poor road design does not mean the motorist is to blame. When I was young I was taught how to cross the road properly, as I said before that I had reins, now I still cross the road safely. When I rode my bike my parents made it plain and simple. At night I wore a high reflection bib or belt affair and had lights, or I lost the bike. Yet how many children have I seen lately without either reflective material or lights? Guess who gets the blame in an accident.
There is only two places IMHO where cameras have a place and that is outside schools and in housing estates. Both are where there is a large concentration of children/people and its hard to fence off. Equally I would ban parking outside schools for 500yrds each way. That would stop mommie dropping "little dears" off and blocking my view of a hazardous situation.
I do get fed up sometimes of the "its someone elses fault" generation. Perhaps its time we realised that we should be responsible for our own and other peoples safety and accepted the consequences of our own stupid actions rather than blaming some third party.
>> Edited by smeagol on Thursday 19th December 01:02
errr, by the time the 30mph car has stopped, aren't you still doing 5mph? or is that simplistic? explain to me please, so I understand. The rate of retardation of modern brakes surely means that another 5mph can't add that much more. I need a graph to illustrate this. Any takers? (or is this your log/squared functions again?)
Basically, you prove it to me, and I'll get me pipe & slippers ready. And a tissue box for the parcel shelf.
C
Basically, you prove it to me, and I'll get me pipe & slippers ready. And a tissue box for the parcel shelf.
C
Carl, take a look at www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=24314&f=23&h=0 where the deceleration formula is covered.
The kinetic energy at 35 mph is 1.36x the kinetic energy at 30mph, and it's that ratio that determines the difference in stopping distance. (All other factors being equal)
The kinetic energy at 35 mph is 1.36x the kinetic energy at 30mph, and it's that ratio that determines the difference in stopping distance. (All other factors being equal)
If all speed cameras must be clearly visible for forces cashing in on hypothecation (money from fines and your chicks for free), why can police forces use carefully obscured radar guns and "safety camera vans"? I can't think of anything "sneakier" than that.
By the same token, why are the Welsh police allowed to put a [hidden] van over perfectly open stretches of the M4? They're no more an accident black spot than my attic.
By the same token, why are the Welsh police allowed to put a [hidden] van over perfectly open stretches of the M4? They're no more an accident black spot than my attic.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff