Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Apr 25, 2018 07:34

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 01:20 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 01:11
Posts: 3
recieved a notice of intended prosecution dated 24th November for an incident at his speed camera on 19th October
feel poor signage has contributed to this how should I proceed as I feel angry as this is a clear money raising exercise

this article from the Hull Daily Mail should give you an overview

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/3-417-drivers-caught-A1079-speed-cameras-just-25-days/article-2851537-detail/article.html

Admin Edited to add article :

Speed cameras' amazing haul of 3,417 drivers on one stretch of road in just 25 days

(photo) - A speed camera on the A1079.

DRIVERS have been criticised after it emerged 3,417 were caught speeding on a notorious stretch of road in just 25 days.

The motorists were caught in a 30mph zone along the Beverley section of the A1079, with some reaching speeds of 65mph.
Usually 60mph, the limit had been reduced to 30mph on the 1,150 metre stretch while a new roundabout was being installed, forming part of a new access route for Swift Caravans.
Mick Harris, Safer Roads Humber project manager, said drivers needed to pay more attention to speed limits.

But angry motorists who were caught speeding said there should have been more warning.
Mr Harris said: "On average, more than 130 motorists a day were putting themselves and others in danger as they travel through roadworks. This is despite the extensive coverage we have had pleading for motorists to slow down."
The 30mph restriction was in place until Thursday, October 21, to protect both the workforce and all road users.
Bill Walsh told the Mail his wife was caught going 48mph. She was fined £60 and received three points on her licence.
Mr Walsh said: "More than 3,000 is an appalling number of people and shows drivers were not adequately warned.
"It just seems stupid that so many people were caught, yet nothing more was done to warn motorists about the 30mph speed limit."

Last month the council put out an appeal reminding motorists of the temporary speed restrictions.

Pat Kent, from Willerby, was caught speeding on the way to meet a friend who had been involved in a car accident. It was the day before the speed limit was put back up to 60mph.
Ms Kent said: "I cannot get my head around the facts. There was not enough time to slow down for the camera and the 30mph signs should have lit up on a night. It was highly dangerous."
However, Mr Harris has said drivers were given "ample warning".
He said: "The first warning signs were placed 470 metres ahead of the safety cameras. There were actually five sets of signs in advance of the cameras warning drivers of the reduced speed limit and the road works.
"If motorists fail to see or take notice of the signs what else are they failing to observe whilst driving?
"Next time it could be another vehicle or pedestrian. I would urge all motorists to drive safely and appropriately within the speed limit at all times, as they are set to protect not only themselves but others too."

While the work took place the highest speed detected was 65mph, which will result in the driver being referred to court, while the average speed was 40mph.
In September, the Mail reported on the contractors putting up the signs in the wrong place, though East Riding Council told the Mail no-one was caught speeding during this time.

Andrew Howard, head of road safety for the AA, said: "That is an awful lot of people caught in a short space of time.
"It is a difficult one though in terms of the signs. If the signs were a long distance before the speed cameras then people would think there wasn't going to be any cameras.
"The amount of people does lead to the question, why wasn't the signage beefed up?"

A spokeswoman for the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) said: "It is disappointing so many motorists did flout the speed limit, which was there for a short amount of time.
"The 30mph zone was introduced to protect the workers, so the point to reduce the speed was important."

Following the completion of the roundabout, the road returned to the national speed limit. The roundabout forms part of a new access route for Swift Caravans, which have funded all the works. This new access will relieve Cottingham of all traffic associated with the caravan company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 01:42 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Are you the registered keeper and owner, or is the vehicle leased or owned by your employer?

You should take this over to http://www.pepipoo.com where they are better qualified to give legal advice.

Meanwhile, I'd guess that with over 3000 drivers ignoring the speed limit, there must have been carnage on the road. How many highway engineers met their deaths? :cry:
It's a shame that the authorities thought so little of them not to make the signage really obvious! :x

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 09:56 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Eastyorkshireman wrote:
recieved a notice of intended prosecution dated 24th November for an incident at his speed camera on 19th October
feel poor signage has contributed to this how should I proceed as I feel angry as this is a clear money raising exercise

this article from the Hull Daily Mail should give you an overview

http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/news/3-417-drivers-caught-A1079-speed-cameras-just-25-days/article-2851537-detail/article.html

Yes the article does give you an overview of just how unfair this was.

The Camera Manager says that there was 5 sets of signs in the 470m before the camera. A quick calculation of the 4 gaps between those signs shows a sign interval of an average 117.5m.

At 60mph; the fastest speed on a dual carriageway for a car that only leaves 4.36s between signs and 17.44s from the first sign to the camera.
At 60mph this doubles to 8.92s between signs and 34.88s between the first sign and the camera.
Is this enough time for you to be able to react and how fair is that?

Now to the question of lighting the signs. There are strict conditions that require lighting of signs, this relates to the type of road, the position of the signs in the system of signs and the street lighting at the location. If these are not met then no lights are required.
Even if no lights were on the scene and it was dark it is difficult to imagine missing 5 sets of retro-reflecting signs illuminated by a dipped or main beam not being seen by all but the most visually challenged or unobservant of motorists.

Considering the reason behind the limit and its obvious provision of signs and the number who have chosen to ignore the limit, probably purposefully, then rather than providing more signs it perhaps needs more severe sanction to make it more effective. There is no doubt that many who passed through this and were caught over the limit and a generous margin past it have done so because they see no need for the lower limit. If they choose to ignore the signs and the possibility of £60 and 3 points or worse then perhaps it's time to make the fines relate to the speed at £60/mph over the speed limit or for a ban to be imposed immediately. After all, if you choose to think you know better or are not observant enough to see a sign placed at 4.36 second intervals on 5 occasions as you drive past; THINK! Should you really be driving among other people you are prepared to put at risk.

By all means give the newspaper article a run in court but the court will be instructed to ignore it as it is hearsay unless you get those in it to appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:20
Posts: 258
the link reads that the roadworks were paid for by swift caravans, lets hope none of their customers were caght


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 21:06 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
GreenShed wrote:
the most visually challenged or unobservant of motorists.



Perhaps some of them had observed that there were no workmen there? Then again they failed to see a bright orange camera...

It would be interesting to know what proportion of the tickets were handed out while workmen were actually on site and how far before the point at which you really needed to slow down the camera was.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 21:55 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
It would also be interesting to see where the cameras were placed in relation to the roadworks. Does anyone have any photos/information?
It would also be interesting to see what the layout of the roadworks looked like - was a 30 limit really appropriate?
It seems to me that the fact so many people were being caught indicates that there was more to this than meets the eye.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 00:06 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Eastyorkshireman wrote:
recieved a notice of intended prosecution dated 24th November for an incident at his speed camera on 19th October

Unless the OP was driving a leased vehicle, or one registered to another keeper, then there would appear to be such a back log of tickets, that they issued one out of time? :scratchchin:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 00:16 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
GreenShed wrote:
Even if no lights were on the scene and it was dark it is difficult to imagine missing 5 sets of retro-reflecting signs illuminated by a dipped or main beam not being seen by all but the most visually challenged or unobservant of motorists.

Considering the reason behind the limit and its obvious provision of signs and the number who have chosen to ignore the limit, probably purposefully, then rather than providing more signs it perhaps needs more severe sanction to make it more effective. There is no doubt that many who passed through this and were caught over the limit and a generous margin past it have done so because they see no need for the lower limit. If they choose to ignore the signs and the possibility of £60 and 3 points or worse then perhaps it's time to make the fines relate to the speed at £60/mph over the speed limit or for a ban to be imposed immediately. After all, if you choose to think you know better or are not observant enough to see a sign placed at 4.36 second intervals on 5 occasions as you drive past; THINK! Should you really be driving among other people you are prepared to put at risk.

The purpose of the limit was to ensure the safety of the road workers.
Sending offending drivers a FPN in the post a week or so later shows scant regard for the safety of those workers!
If their safety was in such danger of being compromised, to do NOTHING other than fine the offending drivers after the event is a contravention of health and safety law! This calls for an HSE investigation, and those responsible for failing to protect the workforce by IMMEDIATE intervention should be punished severely. :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 00:25 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Very good point, Ernest.

You want to make sure that the workforce is adequately protected, and if that requires something like 60-foot high flashing signs, so be it.
Not a few inadequate speed limit signs which are evidently easy to miss.

Unless the motive is to make money, of course :roll:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:25 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 13:54
Posts: 1711
Location: NW Kent
Pete317 wrote:
Very good point, Ernest.

You want to make sure that the workforce is adequately protected, and if that requires something like 60-foot high flashing signs, so be it.
Not a few inadequate speed limit signs which are evidently easy to miss.

Unless the motive is to make money, of course :roll:


To give the benefit of the doubt safety rather than cash was probably the motive. It does show that cameras do not necessarily slow traffic and, assuming there were no incidents, actually make the site safer for the workers.

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 13:22 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Toltec wrote:
Pete317 wrote:
Very good point, Ernest.

You want to make sure that the workforce is adequately protected, and if that requires something like 60-foot high flashing signs, so be it.
Not a few inadequate speed limit signs which are evidently easy to miss.

Unless the motive is to make money, of course :roll:


To give the benefit of the doubt safety rather than cash was probably the motive. It does show that cameras do not necessarily slow traffic and, assuming there were no incidents, actually make the site safer for the workers.

I don't doubt that safety WAS the motive - but it just shows how little understanding is shown of the problem causes and effects.

By law, you are not allowed to leave safety to chance in the workplace - proper training has to be in place, and if failings are shown up which could lead to death or injury then work must cease until they are addressed, or the danger must be negated in some manner which is 100% effective.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 18:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Some points:
1. The speed limit is not an option dependent upon workers being present. If you find it hard to spot the limit and observe it why be given an option to observe FFS?
2. The level of speed appropriate has been decided for you, observe it.
3. If you want to make it a H&S issue for court disposal then the motorist missing, ignoring, defying or manipulating the speed limit should be considered for prosecution for disregard of H&S legislation NOT those who have taken reasonable precautions to regulate and manage the risk to health. I'm all for it, as I said earlier, increase the penalties, this can be done by prosecuting the most serious offence with the more harsh sanction.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 18:41 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
GreenShed wrote:
3. If you want to make it a H&S issue for court disposal then the motorist missing, ignoring, defying or manipulating the speed limit should be considered for prosecution for disregard of H&S legislation NOT those who have taken reasonable precautions to regulate and manage the risk to health. I'm all for it, as I said earlier, increase the penalties, this can be done by prosecuting the most serious offence with the more harsh sanction.

So far, the motorists have not infringed the H&S law, only motoring law, AND they have (presumably) all been punished, if not prosecuted!

The issue being discussed was whether motoring law was a suitable substitute for H&S law - which clearly it was not.

Increasing the penalty would have had NO affect on the safety of the workers - unless you are implying that a large number of drivers decided that it was worth £60 and three points to scare the shit out of the highway workers present, and that a higher fine and instant ban might have overcome that line of decision taking!
Your line of thinking on this is amazing for one who claims to have safety in mind! :loco:
Punishing law breaking is no substitute for genuine safety measures! :thumbsup:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 19:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4363
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
GreenShed wrote:
The level of speed appropriate has been decided for you...

This really sums up the underlying difference between your thinking and ours. You believe that a remote third party can better decide on the safe speed than an experienced driver on the spot. You are wrong.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 19:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Toltec wrote:
To give the benefit of the doubt safety rather than cash was probably the motive.


Easy on, guys, I never said it was the motive :oops:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 20:31 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
GreenShed wrote:
The level of speed appropriate has been decided for you, observe it.


By people who presume to know better than the majority of drivers as to what constitutes an appropriate speed for the conditions at the times and places of which they cannot have prior knowledge. :roll:

Have you never heard of the "reasonable man principle"?
It's highly unlikely that a significant number of drivers will drive at dangerous speeds for whatever conditions they encounter, so why not just go with the 85th percentile and be done with it?
Unless you can show that there's a much stronger link between speed and danger than can be intuitively known to the average driver. If that is the case then it must be an almost unique concept in human experience.

GreenShed wrote:
I'm all for it, as I said earlier, increase the penalties


How's that going to improve safety along that stretch of road? Especially seeing that those most likely to be caught are those unfamiliar with the road, and therefore the 'temporary' limits and cameras, and so likely never to use that particular road again for the duration of the roadworks - if ever.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Last edited by Pete317 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 21:55, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 21:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9235
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
GreenShed wrote:
Some points:

3. If you want to make it a H&S issue for court disposal then the motorist missing, ignoring, defying or manipulating the speed limit should be considered for prosecution for disregard of H&S legislation NOT those who have taken reasonable precautions to regulate and manage the risk to health. I'm all for it, as I said earlier, increase the penalties, this can be done by prosecuting the most serious offence with the more harsh sanction.


I think you will find that, like the Captain of a vessel , the person setting up the safe system is at all times responsible for the safety of those involved in that safe system of work . Even a near miss is sufficient to bring in the safety officials .Although individuals have the right to question and set up safe system , at the end of the day ,the buck stops with the INDIVIDUAL responsible for setting up and maintaining that safe system. In a lot of cases -even at low speeds ,there is little to prevent a worker straying into the path of a vehicle ( or indeed vice versa) .

Perhaps that was the function of the speed camera .



And again , on the topic of cameras - I seem to remember that use of cameras in road works was stopped . Power supply problems was quoted as the cause - as it was mooted that the accuracy of frequency and voltage was not reliable enough .


Quote:
Toltec wrote:
To give the benefit of the doubt safety rather than cash was probably the motive.


Easy on, guys, I never said it was the motive :oops:


Great way of making road works "self financing " though :wink:

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 21:55 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pete317 wrote:
By people who presume to know better than the majority of drivers as to what constitutes an appropriate speed for the conditions at the times and places of which they cannot have prior knowledge. :roll:


It is not unreasonable to suppose that the safety assessors for the work in question, who are on site for perhaps sixty hours a week, is more conversant with the danger to his workmen than are any number of passing motorists who are in the vicinity for a minute or two.

Quote:
Have you never heard of the "reasonable man principle"?
It's highly unlikely that a significant number of drivers will drive at dangerous speeds for whatever conditions they encounter, so why not just go with the 85th percentile and be done with it?


That is certainly true for the open road. But in a road work situation I doubt if most motorists would be able to quickly decide the safe speed. A "reasonable man" takes heed of advice.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 22:29 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
dcbwhaley wrote:
It is not unreasonable to suppose that the safety assessors for the work in question, who are on site for perhaps sixty hours a week, is more conversant with the danger to his workmen than are any number of passing motorists who are in the vicinity for a minute or two.


If that was indeed the case then don't you think they would want the traffic to be positively prevented from exceeding the safety threshold (whatever that is)
rather than simply fining drivers who are found to be exceeding that threshold - and two weeks later at that?

Quote:
That is certainly true for the open road. But in a road work situation I doubt if most motorists would be able to quickly decide the safe speed.


Are you suggesting that drivers lose their ability to set an appropriate speed as soon as they're confronted with unusual or out of the ordinary conditions?
Do you need to be told what speed to do whenever you encounter a horse, bicycle, obstruction, pothole, narrowing, unfamiliar bend, flood, etc etc? Do you even know exactly what speed you're doing when you go round a corner or turn into your driveway, for example?

Quote:
A "reasonable man" takes heed of advice.


Then why don't they have advisory speeds at roadworks, like we always used to have, rather than putting rigorously-enforced hard limits in place right from the outset?

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 22:48 
Offline
Supporter
Supporter
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 13:45
Posts: 4041
Location: Near Buxton, Derbyshire
Pete317 wrote:
If that was indeed the case then don't you think they would want the traffic to be positively prevented from exceeding the safety threshold (whatever that is)rather than simply fining drivers who are found to be exceeding that threshold - and two weeks later at that?


How do you positively prevent vehicles from exceeding a certain speed?

Quote:
Are you suggesting that drivers lose their ability to set an appropriate speed as soon as they're confronted with unusual or out of the ordinary conditions?

No their ability but their willingness. As evidenced by the OP.

Quote:
Do you need to be told what speed to do whenever you encounter a horse, bicycle, obstruction, pothole, narrowing, unfamiliar bend, flood, etc etc? Do you even know exactly what speed you're doing when you go round a corner or turn into your driveway, for example?

No. But those are not "unusual or out of the ordinary conditions"

Quote:
A "reasonable man" takes heed of advice.


Quote:
Then why don't they have advisory speeds at roadworks, like we always used to have, rather than putting rigorously-enforced hard limits in place right from the outset?
[/quote]
Because most drivers are not "reasonable" in that they tend to ignore advice which contradicts their preconceptions.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown


Last edited by dcbwhaley on Wed Dec 01, 2010 09:47, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 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 : 0.252s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]