Safe Speed Forums

Comment #1: The signs look far too high.

Comment #2: I suspect the speed limit would be invalid with the incorrect signs in place, even if they are in addition to the normal signs.

Comment #3: It is true that the local "rate payers" won't be charged, but if the bill is sent to the partnership they will be returning less cash to the treasury, so the tax payer is disadvantaged. One would hope that the signs are stored until they are needed elsewhere, but this is the public sector we are talking about.

http://www.hartlepooltoday.co.uk/ViewAr ... ID=1831178

Signs blunder puts brakes on speed cameras

A SCHEME to snap motorists speeding has been held up after incorrect speed camera signs were installed.
The Mail reported recently how King Oswy Drive and Elwick Road, in Hartlepool, were to get mobile cameras.

Signs indicating cameras were deployed on the roads were put up over a month ago, but no one has yet been caught. Authorities realised the wrong signs had been put up and are unable to deploy cameras until they have been replaced.

Mick Bennett, public relations manager for the Cleveland Safety Camera Partnership, said Hartlepool Borough Council had wrongly put up the signs after a "misunderstanding of highway regulations" and the partnership noticed there was a problem the day they were put up.

He added: "Having had new speed camera warning signs placed on two roads, King Oswy Drive and Elwick Road, the partnership became aware that remedial work was required. "We will not be putting a speed camera on that road until the problem is put right. We are well within the rules to operate the cameras even if the signs are wrong but, in the spirit of fair play, we won't be putting a camera there."

He said the blunder would not affect the rate-payer and added: "The council will re-charge the partnership and we in turn will re-charge the Government,who will reimburse us from speeding fines."
The signs show the incorrect image of a silhouetted camera with a blue border. The correct signs should show a camera on a white background with a black border, as the blue signs should only be used if a fixed speed camera is in operation on the particular road.

Now Hartlepool Borough Council, which is responsible for the drawing up of plans, designs, and specifications of the signs, has vowed to rectify the problem within the next few weeks.

A spokesman for the council said: "An error was made in interpreting the legislation governing these signs and unfortunately the wrong signs were put up. Before any enforcement action commences the correct signs will be erected."

Motorists have also complained that the new signs are too small, too high and that some have been obscured by trees.
The council acknowledges that some of the signs had been put up too high and said some heights would be reviewed.

Once the sites are up and running Hartlepool will have 15 speed camera sites - 14 mobile and one fixed. -Roads currently targeted are: The Front, in Seaton Carew, Seaton Lane, Easington Road, Coronation Drive, Throston Grange Lane, Powlett Road, Catcote Road, Winterbottom Avenue, Wynyard Road, Raby Road, Oxford Road and Station Lane.
There is also a fixed camera site on the A689.

The partnership's statistics show that 44 people have been injured in the last three years on the two roads. They also show that, on King Oswy Drive, 35 per cent of drivers exceed the 30mph speed limit while in Elwick Road the percentage is 60 per cent.

Eh?
Those photos are of sign 880 .
These are used allll over Poole and Bournemouth for mobile sites.

_________________
Andrew.

Translation ---We could legally operate there , but we wouldn't get any money - sod off-we know a duff deal when we see it






translation - "would not affect the rate payer directly, but that the ratepayer ,at the end of the day (ie the motoring public, probably of Hartlepool) would pay.
So now that's some more money they will have to collect.


And i aint mentioned their claim to fame.(Suspect the survivors are in charge)

TSRGD 2002 says:




Note the emphasised part in part 2b of that rule - sign 880 must only be used where a camera has been installed, which implies a fixed camera. Compare that to part 1 of the rule which misses out the "has been installed" part of the text and merely refers to places where cameras are used... The signs 878 and 879 referred to in part 1 are the black on white versions - - thus it seems as if the article is correct. One wonders if Poole and Bournemouth will soon be seeing an explosion of sign-swapping activity

_________________
Chris

Dont know if they still exist ,but on a road(s) near Reading a different system was used - they stuck up the 87x type with a white background to warn of cameras and used the same sign with a yellow backing for mobiles.But this was in early days -haven't been back there for a while.

Article in a free paper (sister paper to CET)(Quotation by Mr Rumble as well) about fitting the signs on NSL roads in Warks - now is as per the Hartlepool Kick up or in advance of installing fixed cameras??

My guess - is the former - any idea how to find out -or has anyone got any more info on this ??


(Will try to scan article later - it one of the usual SCP blurbs --2 inch wide x a page )

Edit - scanned -i had to cut paste & fiddle ---it says "new signs" and at the approach to fixed and mobile -on blue background.-no mention on SCP site .
Not too hot --might have to type it out manually



From bit posted on signs manual - looks like they have done a Hartlepool -

Actually it's sign 880.1 not 880.
Linky

_________________
Andrew.

Is this a "NEW " SIGN AS PER guidlines as said by Rumble in "NEW DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT GUIDLINES PERMIT" or just another guff by the oft guffed Mr Rumble

What i take from his text is that ONE SIGN will be placed .

From the posts on the signing regs - that is not allowed .

And i cannot find any rference to the bit about "NEW GUIDLINES " ON THE NET

Thats why i said "help" -- or are Warks residents being landed with the cost of yet another "HARTLEPOOL " C**KUP


In that case , i know of a county man with both barels open waiting to load shot and with a good aim

Thanks - looked ,but couldn't find it on net - that would make the Hartlepool thing a real mess( sort of does the left arm know it has a hand attached) as my reading of the dft doc says that 880 can now be used for bothtypes of camera.

Now as to unlit roads ---how is it to be lit ??( not being funny - just that some signs have dedicated lighting ,but nothing shown for this one )

I don't think there any special lighting requirements above any other signs. Most are "can be lit, doesn't have to be, but if it isn't then it must be reflectorised". They are only warning signs.

_________________
Andrew.

Thanks Andy ---dave