Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Thu Oct 17, 2019 04:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New scamera site
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 00:37 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
Mrs. Mole saw a talivan on the A5086 near Lamplugh this afternoon. Just thought I'd mention it to you chaps. Interestingly, although it was on their schedule, they don't seem to have got round to adding it to their list of scamera van sites!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 01:13 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
They have a new agenda Mole, it's called "Make someone's day" :lol:
You would'nt want them to spoil it by letting the intended victims know WHERE they will be would you??

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New scamera site
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 09:38 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Mole wrote:
Mrs. Mole saw a talivan on the A5086 near Lamplugh this afternoon. Just thought I'd mention it to you chaps. Interestingly, although it was on their schedule, they don't seem to have got round to adding it to their list of scamera van sites!


Its a 15% site under the speed complaints protocol so is not listed as a core site, however it will be the schedule which comes out a fortnight in advance.

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:22 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
A what?????

What on earth is a 15% site when it's at home?

"Speed complaints protocol"????

Do explain please!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:28 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
It really is amazing. You folk are setting yourselves up as experts in road safety and as opponents to the DfT system and you don't even have a knowledge of RULE 1.

Get with it!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:33 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
JJ wrote:
It really is amazing. You folk are setting yourselves up as experts in road safety and as opponents to the DfT system and you don't even have a knowledge of RULE 1.

Get with it!


This forum is open to the public. Why don't you afford the public the courtesy they deserve and answer the question? You are, after all, a public servant of sorts, and you would do well to remember that.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 11:34 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:42
Posts: 155
JJ wrote:
It really is amazing. You folk are setting yourselves up as experts in road safety and as opponents to the DfT system and you don't even have a knowledge of RULE 1.

Get with it!

Rather than being an offensive dweeb why don't you just inform the man?
AIUI mole (please feel free to correct me JJ)
Guidelines require n casualties within x years at a site, where d percent of drivers exceed the posted limit, except for 15% of sites which may be placed purely for revenue raising purposes, sorry I meant 'where some 120 year old NIMBY has copmplained about motorist making progress'.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 13:51 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Einion Yrth wrote:
JJ wrote:
It really is amazing. You folk are setting yourselves up as experts in road safety and as opponents to the DfT system and you don't even have a knowledge of RULE 1.

Get with it!

Rather than being an offensive dweeb why don't you just inform the man?
AIUI mole (please feel free to correct me JJ)
Guidelines require n casualties within x years at a site, where d percent of drivers exceed the posted limit, except for 15% of sites which may be placed purely for revenue raising purposes, sorry I meant 'where some 120 year old NIMBY has copmplained about motorist making progress'.


Must admit I thought you would have all got to grips with this one since we have debating safety cameras for the last 2 years ( I was been polite using debate) under the rules of the safety cameras we are alowed to enforce for 15% of the total time spent at core sites at other locations. for instance if we have spent 100 hours at core sites in a month then we can spend 15 hours at other sites known as exceptional sites.

These Exceptional sites are selected using the speed complaints protocol. This is a system where a complaint from the member of the public is investigated by the police Traffic Management officers and if found to be suitable, will be checked for excessive speed and collisions we will try to assist assist. These sites are included in our weekly schedule and will be signed using temporary camera signs.

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 15:53 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:42
Posts: 155
JJ wrote:
An answer to mole's question

Thank you JJ, now that wasn't so hard was it?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 17:11 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 22:21
Posts: 925
JJ wrote:
for instance if we have spent 100 hours at core sites in a month then we can spend 15 hours at other sites known as exceptional sites.


It must be a right nightmare having to spend 15 hours a site where few people are exceeding the limit because it's unsafe. Good job you can rush off to the 'core' sites which has proven revenue raising capacity. I suppose one benefit might be that you discover a new hidded gem of a site which, while presenting no danger and having no history of collisions is a nice little earner.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 16, 2005 23:19 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 18:54
Posts: 4036
Location: Cumbria
JJ wrote:
It really is amazing. You folk are setting yourselves up as experts in road safety and as opponents to the DfT system and you don't even have a knowledge of RULE 1.

Get with it!


Oh well, I guess that's what you get for biting your lip and asking nicely!



Still since you mentioned "experts" JJ, did you hear the one about the bunch of "experts" who spent 2 years fleecing motorists in Cumbria in the name of "safety" and actually saw deaths RISE????

Good joke eh! :lol:

oh my aching sides....


Now, for what its worth, let's get a few things straight shall we?

1. Road safety is a complex subject and comprises MANY fields of expertise. People who try to fool themselves into thinking that theirs is the only field of expertise that's important...

...well, we've been seeing what happens to them for the last two years, haven't we?

2. Well, since you mention it, YES, I do consider myslef to have certain "expertise" in ONE of the relevant fields but the "letter" of the law on scamera placement isn't that field.

3. Unlike your notsogoodselves, we don't get paid (by large numbers of completely harmless motorists) to know these rules. We all have real jobs to do and have to try and fight for justice in our spare time.

So there, you go. Run along now and don't bother trying to lecture any of us on "safety" until you've achieved some!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 14:15 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Capri2.8i wrote:
JJ wrote:
for instance if we have spent 100 hours at core sites in a month then we can spend 15 hours at other sites known as exceptional sites.


It must be a right nightmare having to spend 15 hours a site where few people are exceeding the limit because it's unsafe. Good job you can rush off to the 'core' sites which has proven revenue raising capacity. I suppose one benefit might be that you discover a new hidded gem of a site which, while presenting no danger and having no history of collisions is a nice little earner.


I told you what we do. we do not do as you state again thats your opinion not ours.

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 14:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 09:51
Posts: 90
JJ,

Quote:
I told you what we do. we do not do as you state again thats your opinion not ours.


Well....

If you always do what you've always done,
you will always get what you've always got.

i.e. no reduction in fatalities QED.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 16:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 15:52
Posts: 461
Quote:
JJ said: RULE 1: we can stick them where we see fit, but usually in the most profitable position for a cash grab. You know we're not interested in the public's safety, our record on killing people makes that plain enough.
Now, if you dont like what we do, tough! Lets have a look in your wallets.....



Yeah i know he didnt actually SAY it, but he may as well have. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 21:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2004 15:05
Posts: 1225
Location: Glasgow
Einion Yrth wrote:
Rather than being an offensive dweeb [JJ] why don't you just inform the man?
<<snip>>
Guidelines require n casualties within x years at a site, where d percent of drivers exceed the posted limit, except for 15% of sites which may be placed purely for revenue raising purposes, sorry I meant 'where some 120 year old NIMBY has copmplained about motorist making progress'.


then JJ wrote:
under the rules of the safety cameras we are alowed to enforce for 15% of the total time spent at core sites at other locations. for instance if we have spent 100 hours at core sites in a month then we can spend 15 hours at other sites known as exceptional sites. These Exceptional sites are selected using the speed complaints protocol. This is a system where a complaint from the member of the public is investigated by the police Traffic Management officers and if found to be suitable, will be checked for excessive speed and collisions we will try to assist.


Sounds like the spun and unspun version of the same thing to me. I'll leave you all to work out who I think the spin-doctor is!

Incidentally, Einion - spend enough time here and you will learn to recognise the 'two faces' of JJ.

:wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 21:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:54
Posts: 27
JJ wrote:
Must admit I thought you would have all got to grips with this one since we have debating safety cameras for the last 2 years ( I was been polite using debate) under the rules of the safety cameras we are alowed to enforce for 15% of the total time spent at core sites at other locations. for instance if we have spent 100 hours at core sites in a month then we can spend 15 hours at other sites known as exceptional sites.


So thats why I never see you on my regular route passing 5 CSCP sites, you'll all up the Lakes clocking up the tourists to make some cash


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 22:25 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
With apologies to Bing Crosby!

"Busy Doing Nothing"

We're busy doing nothing, working all day through,
we're trying to find lots of things not to do.
We're busy going nowhere, isn't it such a crime ?
we'd like to be unhappy but we never do have the time.

I have to watch the river to see that it doesn't stop,
and stick around the rosebuds so they'll know when to pop.
Better keep those crickets cheerful,they're really a solemn bunch,
farso, farso. I never have the time for lunch.

I'd like to meet a turtle, and teach him how to swim,
then I have to shine the dew-drops, they're looking rather dim.
Meet my friend the robin and buy him a brand new vest.
Farso, farso, I never have time to rest.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 17, 2005 23:02 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 22:21
Posts: 925
JJ wrote:
we do not do as you state again thats your opinion not ours.


I suspect I'm not alone in this opinion. It is certainly is my expierence of Lancashire and W.Yorkshire SCP as well as my infrequent visits to Cumbria. Never I have I seen a talivan in a position where speed in excesse of the speed limit would be a hazard. Its not like you can do anything about dangerous driving. What use is trying to send a NIP to an unregisterd car for grossly excessive speed though a residential area? Not that you'd be in a residential area anyway. Best to stick to the wide open single carriagways with few hazards eh?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 09:25 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff

Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 15:38
Posts: 413
Capri2.8i wrote:
JJ wrote:
we do not do as you state again thats your opinion not ours.


I suspect I'm not alone in this opinion. It is certainly is my expierence of Lancashire and W.Yorkshire SCP as well as my infrequent visits to Cumbria. Never I have I seen a talivan in a position where speed in excesse of the speed limit would be a hazard. Its not like you can do anything about dangerous driving. What use is trying to send a NIP to an unregisterd car for grossly excessive speed though a residential area? Not that you'd be in a residential area anyway. Best to stick to the wide open single carriagways with few hazards eh?


In the main residental areas are 30mph or even 20 mph zones accidents tend to be slight with the occasional serious or worse. The criteria which we have to work to would not allow us operate in thses areas, as accidents do not cluster, we do have a number of sites in cumbria at Milnthorpe road, appelby road, shap road and burton road for instance that does meet the DFT criteria. Get government to change the rules and you would see us in more of these areas.

JJ


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:16 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 10:42
Posts: 155
JJ wrote:
Get government to change the rules and you would see us in more of these areas.

JJ

I personally don't want to see you at all, since your inception road deaths in Cumbria would appear to have risen - good job, not.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.693s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]