Arrive Alive refuse to install camera shock!

[puggit]

http://icnorthwales.icnetwork.co.uk/news/regionalnews/content_objectid=13845574_method=full_siteid=50142_headline=-We%2Dcan%2Dt%2Dhave%2Da%2Dcamera%2Duntil%2Dsomeone%2Ddies-name_page.html

[dazren]

Beverley Lee in the article said:

"It's bad enough during the daytime, but at night it's worse and lorries go belting through at 70-80mph."

Utter bollox I'd wager.

DAZ



>> Edited by dazren on Thursday 22 January 16:51

[suggs]

Clearly there is a chasm between the perception of the locals and the reality of what is hazardous. I'll wager that when ensconsed in the insulated environment of their Shoguns they bomb down that street at speeds which appear dangerous to the pedestrian.

[gh0st]

So they put a speed camera up, someone speeds through and narrowly misses and / or kills someone, they get a nip 30 days later....

Prevention anyone? Or gaining some cash quickly

[Apache]

"Clwyd West AM Alun Pugh, who described the decision as "bizarre", has written to Transport Secretary Alistair Darling calling for rules to be changed to protect pedestrians."

This is what this is all about, a change in the law to put the damn things where they want. Damn! these fu**ers fight dirty,

[Richard C]

Pentrefoelas is one of those villages where a 40 mile/h in the village itself is not unreasonable. But, thanks to the power of local councils, the 40 limit is totally unreasonably extended by about 1.1...1.3 miles either side of the village into "no hazard" open countryside.

And these idiots can't see why no-one respects the limit ???
Arrive Alive of course are entirely happy with the status quo.

The police volunteers who spend their Sundays and other days lurking in vans and peeing in buckets urk in a layby just outside the limit on the Bettws side zapping folk who have had enough of the stupidity that prevails. A fixed camera would cost them dearly.

[pbrettle]

Beverley Lee said:

"It's bad enough during the daytime, but at night it's worse and lorries go belting through at 70-80mph."

dazren said:

Utter bollox I'd wager.

Absolutely right - if lorries are driving through at 70-80MPH then you dont need to resort to a speed camera. A nice little call to the DfT and they send an investigator round to the haulage company - they then get audited and any cases of the drivers of trucks speeding then get prosecuted..... its quite simple, cheaper and MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than some damn speed camera.

Alternatively (as you say) utter Bollox....

>> Edited by pbrettle on Thursday 22 January 17:06

[mondeoman]

Nothing stopping them installing one of the flashing signs advising of th elimit - much more effective than a camera AFAIK

[ATG]

Unless something radical has happened recently to make the road more dangerous, then by virtue of the fact that there haven't been any serious accidents which no one denies, then the road is ... uhm, err ... safe.

They may not like the traffic hammering past their houses; that is reasonable. They may feel it is dangerous; that appears to be irrational.

[pbrettle]

mondeoman said:

Nothing stopping them installing one of the flashing signs advising of th elimit - much more effective than a camera AFAIK

According to the TRL - its Three (thats 3, the number three, une / deux / Trois - the big number THREE) times more effective than a speed camera....

[Apache]

Run that by me again?

[Apache]

dazren said:

Beverley Lee in the article said: "It's bad enough during the daytime, but at night it's worse and lorries go belting through at 70-80mph." Utter bollox I'd wager. DAZ

F**K OFF!!!, you can't find one doing that speed on the motorway!

[streaky]

pbrettle said:

mondeoman said: Nothing stopping them installing one of the flashing signs advising of th elimit - much more effective than a camera AFAIK According to the TRL - its Three (thats 3, the number three, une / deux / Trois - the big number THREE) times more effective than a speed camera....

So a speed camera is ONE THIRD as effective, according to TRL. Wonder how that "one third" will be spun? - Streaky

[cortinaman]

Apache said:

dazren said: Beverley Lee in the article said: "It's bad enough during the daytime, but at night it's worse and lorries go belting through at 70-80mph." Utter bollox I'd wager. DAZ F**K OFF!!!, you can't find one doing that speed on the motorway!

ive been passed by several m.s.a.s cassins lorries on the m6 and the m1 north and southbound whilst sitting at an indicated 90mph in either escort or transit vans.

i know that these are the irish trunkers though!

[Kinky]

I cannot believe for one second that someone would be so braindead and stupid to drive through a village at 80mph.

K

[agent006]

Articulated lorries from the UK and most of EU are electronically limited to 56mph (90kph). So, yes, it's utter bollocks.

[cortinaman]

agent006 said:

Articulated lorries from the UK and most of EU are electronically limited to 56mph (90kph).

as much as the d.o.t would like everyone to believe that this is true,it isnt.this system is easily overidden on most artics and it is sometimes as easy as removing a fuse(iirc the fuse is located above the driver in the newer scania artics).the lorries at my old work (daf 130 turbo's) were fitted with a simple on/off switch down by the gear selecter which the driver could yank out if you were pulled up by the police/d.o.t

i worked for the company in question in 1999,i doubt if things have changed much regarding restriction systems since then.

[Apache]

Not doubting you for a minute cm but why do these things end up racing each other at 65 mph +/- .0005 mph?

[agent006]

Well, an un-tampered with truck won't supply power once it's going at 90kph. Obviously, each truck's definition of what 90k is can be rather different.

[griffter]

streaky said:

So a speed camera is ONE THIRD as effective, according to TRL. Wonder how that "one third" will be spun? - Streaky

3 times less likely to distract a driver?