Safe Speed Forums

Up to 1000 metres, but in practice it's seldom more than 600m.

The normal 'snapping' range for this particular site was 90 to 110 metres, by which time the van would have been in full view, as per this image from 110 metres - the van position is where the patrol car is.



Ernest and I and various others had discussions about this site (A591 at Ings) on CSCP forum some time back. It certainly wasn't the best site for view of the camera van, but there are fixed cameras there now.

A camera operator should take three seconds to assess the speed of a vehicle before corroborating that opinion of excess speed using the laser.
In reality the van was always easy enough to see, but it's positioning was a bit unexpected.

Having seen the majority of CSCP camera locations, I'm sure they didn't try to conceal their vans.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

Well look at the rear photo, the bridge is barely wide enough for the van. I am reminded of the roads in Postman Pat.

Even the little rabbit runs through the farms on the other side of aylesbury are wider than that bridge (and bloody good fun NSL roads often with great visibility )

Oh I have looked. The aerial photo on Multimap makes it pretty clear how narrow it is. Looks to me like it's narrower than one lane of the A413 there. Whatever it is and whether or not the scammers are allowed to be there, it's a seriously antisocial place to park up. On the other hand, since it looks like they'd have to back out the way they came it would have been pretty funny if some chavs had dumped an old £25 wreck at the end of the bridge and stopped 'em getting out.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

AIUI, the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 applies here. This is a consolidation of other instruments:
However, there is a provision:But, would a court decide that scamera operation constituted "saving life"?

I found the text on Bushley & District Footpath Association's website - click the link for the full text.

_________________
Will

"or any other like emergency" therefore this law is clearly about responding to an immediate danger to a person's life, eg. a paramedic could drive over that bridge to attend to someone in the field. (unless of course, there was a talivan in the way)

I'd say no emergency, but if they get a magistrate like the eejit who clobbered Stuart Harding they'd be laughing.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I think that I may have spotted a "minor" conflict of interest:

AFAICT, the local authority responsible for the upkeep of the bridleway would normally take action WRT driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on that bridleway. Also AFAICT, most camera partnerships include those authorities - although I'm not sure about Thames Valley. So, the local authority may, in effect, be prosecuting itself if action were to be taken against the talivan for illegal driving on the bridleway

_________________
Will

To be fair - the arguement on the CSCP forum was the result of a bold statement from the Manager, who responding to a post from a camera victim who alleged the camera was not easily seen, said that all the CSCP vans were in plain view, brightly marked, and EASILY seen. He went on to pour scorn on the person who made the initial claim, with words like "If you cannot see a brightly coloured van with hazard stripes on the back, parked on the side of the road in plain sight, you deserve to get a ticket for being so stupid as to show such lack of observation".
I offered him the chance to correct himself, by pointing out that at Ings, the Van position was overgrown, but as usual, he jumped in with both horns glowing bright red, and denied my claim.
The problem was that as the argument progressed, he got more and more rabid - including alleging that when my photograph was taken the van was not there!!
Despite the arguments which developed regarding forming an opinion of speed, Steve DID finally acknowledge the problem of the foliage which grew up AND hung down in front of the van, (more so than in my picture early on in the discussion) and arranged to have it cut back - which had been done by the time your picture was taken - where there is now [then] a neatly mown strip in front of your firm's Volvo.

Even now, set back from the road as it is, there is every chance that anyone who is below the AVERAGE standard of observation while motoring could overlook the camera van. However, these drivers are the very ones whose lack of observation needs to be addressed, as their lack of observation skills lead both them and other road users confronted by their stupid actions into difficulties. However, they are hardly likely to respect that reminder of their incompetance coming in the post a week or so later!
The CSCP are on occasion STILL using Talivans at Ings - due in part to a lack of operational use of the fixed cameras I am told!!

Last week your colleague Tiny Tim was monitoring Plantation Bridge/Ratherheath hill. When I came back from Kendal, he had a coach pulled over!! If he gets performance related pay, he should get a bonus for saving so many lives in one go!!
Surprisingly, the drivers in front of me who had let their speed wonder over the 60 limit down the hill, and pulled away from me, having braked by the filling station when they finally saw him, then managed to maintain the posted limit all the way to Bannerigg, excepting the jerk in a Chelsea taxi who tried to overtake before the [Rabbit Farm] bend at the end of Ings!!

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

In reality, would I be being a little cynical if I thought they just constantly point and shoot?
How else would they get people going 1 or 2 miles over the limit?

We know it has sod all to do with safety and money is the name of the game, and if it was my business to make as much money as possible I know I'd just snap away.

I actually think it's about neither safety nor money, and is in fact mainly intended to deter people from driving, to reduce congestion and environmental impact. Tony Blair has said that global warming is the single most important issue we face. Given that the net income to the government from speed enforcement is miniscule (a huge percentage of the takings in fines is spent on staff and equipment costs), and we know that there has been little, if any, positive impact on safety, it seems more likely to me that a positive environmental impact is the real aim.

I'd like to think not. When I operated the cameras I honestly had no pressure placed on me to maximise numbers. I therefore tried to snap those I thought deserved the ticket.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

couple

If there had been bumps in this area of road, they have been outside the 40 limit area by up to a mile or so.
Check out the first picture of the whole site - there is another camera postition at the far end on the right, watching vehicles entering the 40 limit from the far end.

The road was originally three lane, then the center lane was hatched end to end, and finally remodelled by a centre median, with protected lanes for the right hand village turning and the filling station.
The end result is TOURISTS often make the wrong turn into the 1st of the protected lanes instead of the filling station lane, and either pull back out to make it to the next inlet, or drive into the oncoming traffic until they make the forcourt - just a couple of yards away!! Despite this there have been no big prangs, just a little rubber left behind.
There was a KSI in 2002 - local man, under the 40 limit had a heart attack at the wheel, and bounced off one side of the road, veered across, and ended up, upside down over a ditch.
My brother-in-law was driving through, and was struck on the front wing, by a local lady pulling out of the side road, claiming she did'nt see his bright red Rover 216!
Outside the limit at the far end, two motorcyclists were killed - under 40 mph, a Czech minibus driver clipped the kerb, and bounced out across the road into their path. Local used THIS accident to justify asking for a 40 limit!!! No speed causation though.

I drive this road twice a day, six days a week minimum, or ride my bike along the cycle track, and to be honest, the 40 limit is just there to appease the local villagers, and has done NOTHING for the safety of the village, but has caused a few race-away accidents (THE TRAFFIC ISLANDs AT EACH END HAVE each BEEN DEMOLISHED BY CARS TRYING TO OVERTAKE!!) and frustrated drivers taking risks in the NSL away from the limit.
Down the road 3/4 mile away, one 5 vehicle shunt was the result (allegedly) of the first two vehicles trying to avoid a badger in the road (which had been dead over an hour!!).

This accident had no injuries - but could easily have been worse - just 700 yards away from the talivan position, where there were two accidents within 24 hours. The other ended with a Ford Ka on it's roof. In both cases, only one vehicle involved - "Now THAT'S Lucky".

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

It's a footpath. Look at the bridge further down, that has a bridleway crossing (longer dashed line).

I didn't get my map reading badge in the Scouts for nothing you know.

You can't be certain of whether it's a footpath, bridleway, RUPP, or BOAT from any OS map. Every OS map that I've seen has a disclaimer in the legend similar to, "The representation of a road is no evidence of the existence of a right of way." To determine the status of any right of way, you need information from the Definitive Map (note the singular and the capitals), which is held by the local Rights of Way Officer.

Some other sources of help (which although not completely authoritative, are usually up to date) are local offroad clubs and the Ramblers Association.

_________________
Will

Neither did I, though that was 1982 or something round then so I can hardly claim that it's still fresh in my mind. Far from it. I just pulled a Landranger map off the shelf and looked at the legend . Anyhow, footpath or bridleway is really beside the point. Either way I think the sneaky sod in the talivan should have found somewhere else to set up shop.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Easy to say, but in the real world there are lots of situations where you wouldn't see the van until you are right on top of it, such as when the van is hidden over the crest of a hill, or you are overtaking an HGV which is blocking your view of the van.

It's also possible that your attention could be focussed on another hazard such as a car about to pull out in front of you or a pedestrian about to cross the road. Slowing down for these hazards doesn't help you if you've already been snapped!

The talivan in these photos looks like it's one of the small ones (TVP use both Transit-sized and compact vans), and every time I've seen them they've had amber lights. IIRC the larger vans have blue lights, but as I haven't seen them as often as the smaller ones I can't be sure.




I thought the Coastguard were classed as an emergency service?

I think you're right. I saw a pic of one of the smaller ones this morning, and sure enough, amber lights just as you say. No wonder my dad's hitting the brakes for recovery vans these days. I thought I'd seen blue lights on them before, but either I got that wrong or it was one of the larger ones.


Well, certainly Mrs Gatsobait copped the hump with the AA when they were putting themselves about as the 4th emergency service (well, not quite but you know what I mean). She got a bit stroppy about HMCG being the 4th emergency service (she left before the Glenda changed it, but copped the hump about that as well - very traditional about these things is Mrs GB ) not a breakdown service.

From what I understand, and I don't pretend to speak with any authority here, the Coastguard is an emergency service but their vehicles don't have the same legal exemptions as plod/fire/ambulance. I think either Cotswold or IanH posted a bit of the legislation that says they can ignore limits for police purposes, and while I think it also mentioned fire engines and ambulances I don't think CG vehicles were there. Mrs GB definitely said they weren't supposed to exceed the limit, but I imagine they did quite a lot knowing full well that the police would turn a blind eye unless they took the mick. I'd hope that the police still show the same discretion towards to Coastguard, but I don't have much faith that the scameras give them any more latitude than the rest of us.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Stevei, take a look at the long range photo of the camera site at Ings.

Straight bit of road, NSL on either side. Avge. 70,000 vehicles a day pass through the stretch of the A591, with no accident history of accidents caused by speeding.
A group of local residents decide after a pair of motorcyclists were killed [doing less than 45, by a Czech minibus driver, clipped the kerb, and bounced out into their path] OUTSIDE OF THE AREA now limited, that a 40 mph limit would be a good idea.
Highways Authority agree [WHY???] because all of a sudden, there is a speed camera site, operated by a partnership to which they are party. Locals now find it harder to exit side roads because traffic bunches as it enters the limit, and vehicles whose BEST fuel consumption (least polluting) is given as 56 mph are deliberately slowed for no good reason, and no benefit - EXCEPT to the camera partnership. Unnecessary slowing of vehicles is bad enough, but when they are at or around their optimum efficiency, it is clearly against the environmental stance the government likes to portray! The Highways Authority claim to be listening to local residents - WHY??? They should be employing common sense and experts, not men in pubs!!

No matter how miniscule the amount returned to the treasury is in your eyes, the truth is, a significant amount of money is collected AT NO COST TO THE GOVERNMENT, and then they attempt to take credit from saying they are tackling road safety head on!
The governments record on environmental issues is a giant smokescreen, which you appear to have been blinded by. They subsidise Wind energy set up, while offering no such subsidy to water power, AND allow the operators to be charged for extraction of water which is immediately returned to the source!! Only their stance on smoking is as blatant - if it kills, why not ban it? They ban anything else which causes the least risk of injury, let alone death - but like cameras, the money is just too good to give up!

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