Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 15:39

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 22:51 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
dcbwhaley wrote:
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.



Quite honestly , I've come to the conclusion that on road work situations the "LIMIT" ( POSSIBLY decided by blokes in nice dry offices , away from danger ) is preached to the public ( and amplified by the so called road safety professionals AKA SCP) AS safe ( AS LONG AS IT IS NOT EXCEEDED) , is a design parameter . Great ,till things go WRONG .

Not only me ,but over the past few years , a lot of other like minded individuals. Minimum qualification -something awarded by Network rail - allowing us to take a group out on the rail network with open lines - AT UP TO 125MPH- COSS ( charge of site safety) . On other occasions, we've had blokes with higher tickets on board ( allowing them to take a part of the rail network and set up a worksite --so their experience /input must be worth more than a passing glance ).All of us have been horrified at the protection of workforce , etc/etc . In short ,if the standards seen on the roads had been observed on a safe system/ worksite on rail territory ,then we would have expected a suspension of work ,till safety had been restored / or all blokes were taken off track . And that's just to protect the work force - never mind the steps taken to protect the safety of the travelling public .
As preached to those of us attending the many safety courses - "NO SYSTEM IS FOOL PROOF - AND ACCOUNT MUST BE MADE OF THE NEED TO REVIEW THE SYSTEM TO REMOVE ANY FURTHER RISK " .
Now ,can anyone tell me how sending some one an advice that some day in the past ,they exceeded a set limit , allows anyone ( and lets forget the fictional "Back to the future " blokes) to review the current safe system . (Only suggestion ,I've got ,is to have all cameras /speed indicators (on a work site) linked to a central control and if the "hits" exceed a certain level , pull the blokes off site , call in police and shut the road )

Because as the bit in () says - the SAFE SYSTEM IN OPERATION HAS FAILED ,and needs to be reviewed ,not allowed to continue and make money .

_________________
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 23:20 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 17:20
Posts: 258
no doubt the roadworkers employers have under some H&S requirement have a statutory duty of obligation to protect he workforce, reduce the limit, you must wear hard hats and hi viz, no charge of coporate manslaughter if it goes bad. Going back to my earlier post about Swift Caravans how can they pay for road improvements, a set up like this must cost millions, unless of course Swift caravans provided a brekie van


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 23:35 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
dcbwhaley wrote:
How do you positively prevent vehicles from exceeding a certain speed?


If your chosen safety measures are ineffective then you have probably not chosen wisely.

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


Methinks you read a wee bit too much into the OP.

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


I think you know exactly what I mean. What then would you consider to be "unusual or out of the ordinary conditions"? I reckon I encounter more roadworks than horses in the course of my travels.

Quote:
Because most drivers are not "reasonable" in that they tend to ignore advice which contradicts their preconceptions.


Is that demonstrable fact, or is it pure conjecture, perhaps borne out of your preconceptions?

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


Last edited by Pete317 on Tue Nov 30, 2010 23:59, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 23:57 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Speaking of safety experts supposedly setting out so-called 'appropriate' limits to 'protect the workforce', I'm also reminded of motorway roadworks - you know the kind where they have the workforce (in the unusual event of them actually being on site) are 'protected' behind a line of concrete blocks, while the motorway traffic is limited for several miles either side of the site to 50 or even 40mph, enforced with the obligatory average speed cameras.
What these so-called 'safety experts' evidently fail to realise is that, whereas those concrete blocks are, in most cases, adequate protection against cars travelling at normal motorway speeds, they provide scant protection against an HGV travelling at 40 or 50mph.
And bunched-up traffic on the motorway is good for safety how? :roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 01:16 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
:welcome: Eastyorkshireman

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

If there are many people which it sounds like there are then a collective approach maybe the best way forward.
(I am not a lawyer and cannot advise you.)

There are a number of issues that surround this situation.

The roundabout works are likely to have been 'obvious' so why were so many not recognising a hazard.
Many motorists see roadworks and almost instinctively slow to 40 or 50 mph - the fairly standard drop limits, so why were some so very unaware.
What is the traffic volume for this road ?
Were people looking for the camera and missed the signs to inform of the speed ?
Has anyone got any photos of the approach and the works ?
When the Council realised that motorists were not slowing why did they not place a Police Patrol (proven in TRL 595 as the best solution to reduce PIA (Personal Injury Accidents) at motorway roadworks).
Why carry on with the same process, unchanging recognising that people were disobeying in their 1000's ?
Perhaps the road was on a left hand curve approaching the 'incident' and attention was to the incident missing both the camera and warning signs - is that possible in this specific road situation.
No one bar illegal, paperless trail motorists, convinced immune, under influence, thefts, TWOC etc deliberately speed through a camera. So why would so many get it wrong ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 01:19 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I think Greenshed's replies are a stark illustration of a system that tries to deal in "should do" and fails miserably to deal with "does do". Even if we were to accept the premise that the penalties handed out by cameras, long after the fact, make those in receipt of them "slower drivers", it is quite clear from the numbers caught in this instance that they are an abject failure as a prophylactic measure even against speed, and they quite clearly do nothing to directly stop workers being hit by vehicles of any speed.

I wonder if this is the point where Greenshed makes up lies to support his failed argument, again!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 02:32 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
I reckon the roundabout might be a medium / mini one and that will cost far less of course. I am curious that the Caravan place paid for this - although they must be one of the largest in the Country ! I dare say it is cheaper to keep the locals happy, than moving operations!
GreenShed wrote:
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?
?FFS?
I agree that legally the temporary lower speed limit for roadworks is expected to be obeyed, and for the most part most people do. There is a case of cry wolf however and people can be very frustrated when there is either nothing to slow for (a regular all too common observation these days) and I am not just talking about whether workers are present or not, but the needless miles of full carriageway reduced limit for nothing other than slowing area and filtering 'room'. It appears to be totally needless and even more so when the roads are not at peak traffic times.
Variable limits are often a joke in their application and considering all the 'technology at their disposal it is a disgrace'.
- We need to teach how to better recognise danger and manage risk as well as judge better.
GreenShed wrote:
2. The level of speed appropriate has been decided for you, observe it.
That isn't really right, it is a speed by which it is expected to be generally best for the 'whole' motoring sector during that specific period. It has not been specifically selected for each individual, and this is also part of the problem, it dumbs down the ability of all to the lowest common denominator. Now for genuine roadwork reasons it is fair and reasonable and especially for the general motoring population.
However roadworks now 'caterpillar' along roads and take weeks/months to complete and are often far 'longer than necessary in the eyes of the motoring public. A drying concrete 'soft' bridge was a prime example as miles either side were coned off.
Now if that was the whole reason why not 100yds after the bridge, reverted back to the standard speed limit (Motorway I believe it was, so 70mph).
GreenShed wrote:
3. ... increase the penalties, this can be done by prosecuting the most serious offence with the more harsh sanction.
Have you proof of any kind that that would work at all ?
What works reliably at road works are Police presence. Those that are well over the limit are tugged immediately and will remember that stop far into the future and what they are told too. It is personal direct immediate proportional and appropriate guidance or enforcement that takes most circumstances into consideration.
GreenShed wrote:
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.

... err really ? ! Try 70mph for dual carriageways ! Here. :)
That of course throws out your calculations, unless this d/carriageway was already reduced to 60mph? (Not checked the calculations ...) You have assumed too that no tall vehicles have obscured all motorists, along with no incidents or potential hazards occurring that may have averted their attention and observations !
But something more has to have occurred here for this number to be over.
GreenShed wrote:
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.
The Council is under a legal obligation to the Government - a lot more than strict conditions IMHO ! :)
Unlikely to have street lighting on a d/c but not impossible but most 60mph or 70mph have no street lighting unless at a junction. As this was close to a town it might be that it was with additional signs and repeater signs to show the speed limit. (Street lighting further than 250m apart too.)
GreenShed wrote:
Considering the reason behind the limit and its obvious provision of signs and the number who have chosen to ignore the limit, probably purposefully,
... you are not taking the conditions into consideration at all - why?
Why assume that people have 'deliberately' chosen to disobey? That makes you sound terribly harsh - like you are at war with the 'enemy' really. Understanding how to help people drive / ride better and more safely surely ought to be your aim n'es pa ?
GreenShed wrote:
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.
All you teach with that if I may say appalling attitude is that the camera and the speed are the most and only important 'thing' to consider and observe above all else. How does that help anyone observe better, drive to conditions, take into account the environment and prepare and consider all potential and developing hazards ?
Your assumption that they did it deliberately is unproven or have you asked them all ?
Of course not, you just cannot perhaps envisage events of driving that will obscure a few signs. A lorry might do this - not at the high speeds but several lorries all slowing for the roadworks might though. Many motorists are now very familiar with lorries all bunching and going much slower than the rest of the traffic, so a not unusual sight. By the time they see the roadworks and especially a forward facing camera it is just too late. It is perfectly possible.
GreenShed wrote:
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.
Well we could argue that if 1000's of motorists disobeyed and no one lost a life then that proves that, it cannot after all, have been that dangerous or were they all just terribly 'lucky'? Hardly.
I cannot agree with them all disobeying the intended lower speed, we encourage all motorists to obey the laws of the road; but considering all this punishment has been dolled out relentlessly on the motoring population, and people still admit to speeding, then does that not make you wonder what is really going on ? That it may just be more complicated and involved than you first thought ?

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 11:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 01:11
Posts: 3
Thank you for all the comments regarding this
It is a hire car
the incident took place at round 9am & I can honestly remember passing no signs to indicate I was in a 30mph zone, the first time I encountered I sign was the one that is positioned after the camera, the NIP says I was doing 37mph & as you can see this is positioned where one would be slowing.
I feel very angry about this as I have never had this happen before.
the words entrapment, misled & fraud spring to mind!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 13:48 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
RobinXe wrote:
I wonder if this is the point where Greenshed makes up lies to support his failed argument, again!


I think this is the point where he disappears from sight - only to pop up on a new thread somewhere else.
Could be wrong, tho' :tumbleweed:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 13:54 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Eastyorkshireman wrote:
... & as you can see this is positioned where one would be slowing.


I'm afraid I don't see. Is there a picture, link or something which I'm missing?
I take it you mean, the camera's positioned where one would be slowing for the :30: sign? Where is (was) the camera in relation to the roadworks? Are (were) the roadworks visible from the camera site?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 04, 2010 09:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 01:11
Posts: 3
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
:welcome: Eastyorkshireman

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

If there are many people which it sounds like there are then a collective approach maybe the best way forward.
(I am not a lawyer and cannot advise you.)

There are a number of issues that surround this situation.

The roundabout works are likely to have been 'obvious' so why were so many not recognising a hazard.
Many motorists see roadworks and almost instinctively slow to 40 or 50 mph - the fairly standard drop limits, so why were some so very unaware.
What is the traffic volume for this road ?
Were people looking for the camera and missed the signs to inform of the speed ?
Has anyone got any photos of the approach and the works ?
When the Council realised that motorists were not slowing why did they not place a Police Patrol (proven in TRL 595 as the best solution to reduce PIA (Personal Injury Accidents) at motorway roadworks).
Why carry on with the same process, unchanging recognising that people were disobeying in their 1000's ?
Perhaps the road was on a left hand curve approaching the 'incident' and attention was to the incident missing both the camera and warning signs - is that possible in this specific road situation.
No one bar illegal, paperless trail motorists, convinced immune, under influence, thefts, TWOC etc deliberately speed through a camera. So why would so many get it wrong ?


Thanks for the info I will try & answer the questions in order
the roundabout works were not obvious as the "roadworks were at least half a mile further on from the camera, the photograph in the newspaper article is the camera in question & you cannot see any roadworks in it!
There were no police patrols present & my incident was two days after the roadworks were supposed to have been completed
Cannot get any photos of proof of signage although I honestly dont remember seeing a 30mph sign until I sawthe one placd "after" the camera ,as these roadworks ended on 21st October & he speed will have reverted to the national speed limit
cannot answer as to why they carried on.
The NIP says I was doing 37mph although I was slowing to enter what I hough was the start of the temporary 30mph zone his came as a shock to me & I feel cheated at what I feel is a decietful process by these people


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 31 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.744s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]