Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Oct 27, 2025 23:46

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Cambridge News wrote:
Cutting speed limit means cameras will go - warning
Here
chris.havergal@cambridge-news.co.uk
Home - Speed camera SPEED cameras at a notorious junction would be dismantled if the limit there was cut - to avoid "accusations of money making".
Villagers believe slashing the maximum from 70mph to 50mph each side of the Odsey turning of the A505, near Royston, would reduce the number of crashes and potentially save lives.
Campaigners have received support from councillors and MPs Andrew Lansley and Oliver Heald.
But speed camera bosses say the devices were installed at the site in 2007 and warn they would be taken away if the limit went down to 50mph.
In a report to go before councillors on Monday, area highways chief Richard Jones said he had consulted officers from the Hertfordshire Safety Camera Partnership.

He says: "Their view is the measures already carried out have successfully reduced the collision trend identified.
"Therefore, if the speed limit was reduced and the cameras remained, the partnership would be open to accusations of money making.
"In such circumstances it would not be possible to justify keeping the cameras."

Mr Jones will tell members of the North Hertfordshire highways partnership joint member panel that speed limits should not be used to solve problems linked to isolated hazards such as a junction.
But Cllr Tony Turner, chairman of Steeple Morden Parish Council, disagreed.
He told the News: "I think the main problem with this is that the top priority for the highways people is maintaining traffic flow along the A505, a major eastwest trunk route.
"The safety of those trying to join it or cross takes a rather distant second place in their view."
Cllr Turner added: "Neighbouring Bedfordshire Highways seem quite happy to have a 50mph limit on the A1 north of Biggleswade, even though it's a more modern stretch of road with much better sightlines.
"I don't hear anyone citing that as having set a dangerous precedent or accusing highways of doing it just to make money out of speed cameras - well, not any more than they do of speed cameras in general."
Mr Jones says there were two crashes which caused injury in the 18 months after the cameras were installed, neither of which was linked to turning movements into Station Road.
Hertfordshire police supports a 70mph limit.


This is horrendious situation to trade what maybe a valid speed limit (Police here have no problem with the limit as stated), for camera removal, this total disregard for proper road safety is the pinnacle of how little they appear to understand the issues and how much disregard they have for intelligent road safety.
I do agree with the camera removal.
I do think better engineering is called for to make proper improvements as necessary, as well as clear road user instructions if there is confusion or local falling road user standards (i.e. public info films).

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Aerial view link

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:34 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Thanks for the map link that's very helpful.

I can see immediately that (from that image - to maybe different 'today') :
all bushes and maybe some trees need to be removed from the central section,
that the removal of the camera will stop distracting drivers on the junction approach,
ensuring that there is correct, excellent and clear signage.

It looks like a 'bad layout' but I'd rather drive it to truly appreciate it from all angles and approaches.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 14:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Quote:
Mr Jones says there were two crashes which caused injury in the 18 months after the cameras were installed, neither of which was linked to turning movements into Station Road.
Hertfordshire police supports a 70mph limit.


Maybe he has just answered his own question...perhaps just removing the cameras would cut accidents but no, the accident reduction will will praised up as being due to speed limit cuts.

The Dept for Transport (2006) guidelines state that speed reductions should not be used to try and alleviate bad roads without first trying an engineering remedy...unfortunetly councils and councillors have a habit of ignoring these guidelines for their own misguided attempts ("cutting the speed limit will cure the problem every time")

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 20:17 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
graball wrote:

.unfortunetly councils and councillors have a habit of ignoring these guidelines for their own misguided attempts ("cutting the speed limit will cure the problem every time")


Possibly bean counting in action - cameras/reduced limits reassure the gormless public and at the same time often( possibly ?) cost less in real terms ( taking into account the return to the Treasury).Also looks good on Councillors CV comes election times simply because the motoring public don't or won't use their vote .( But then - there's not a lot of choice at present between the parties)

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 10:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I am aware of some Councillors that do not want Cameras - but they get over-ruled, which must be very frustrating for them.

There are one or two people I know around the Country that visit and tell Councils the problems with Cameras, which I am sure is helping.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 18:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 04:10
Posts: 3244
I know the road well. There are 3 speed cameras on the Baldock - Royston stretch. 2 on the Baldock-bound carriageway and 1 on the Royston-bound carriageway. The road is a dual carriageway, but narrow. Because the trees/hedges are so close to the carriageway on the Royston-bound lanes. It is also prone to rapid icing when the temperature drops because the foliage keeps the air from moving...a very deceptive road....you go from good road to bad road very fast...too many dips as well. I'm always glad to be off that stretch because everyone drives too fast for what it is....,and I mean fast....also, don't drive on it if your tax/insurance/mot are out of date....an unmarked car will be on you VERY fast...you'll note as you drive along it that the speed cameras are accompanied by infrared lights.....the Baldock radio monitoring station is about 300 metres off the Baldock-bound carriageway....

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 22:29 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
I am aware of some Councillors that do not want Cameras - but they get over-ruled, which must be very frustrating for them.



I've got one - just waiting to get the chance to say "I TOLD YOU SO " - suspect he might be a lurker on here - I've often put this site his way- but like IG +MATES , he has to be ultra cautious . .

_________________
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 Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 17:18 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
From the aerial view, that doesn't actually look like a "bad" camera install

It's immediately before a minor road merging with no traffic lights, visiblity from the minor road is good for a fair distance, but then there is a bend which will eventually cut off visibility. I'd say there's enough visibility for an average driver to judge if it's safe to pull out despite 70mph traffic.

Collisions there are going to happen for two reasons.

1) Incompetent drivers pulling out from the minor road without checking far enough down the road to ensure it's safe (bonus points if they are making a right turn)

2) Some nobber on the major road doing a ridiculous speed, such that they hit the person pulling out even though they were invisible to the person pulling out. (bonus points if they are so arrogant they decide "I have right of way, he shouldn't've pulled out)

Whilst there's not much a camera can do for #1 it's current position should serve well to reduce the incidence of #2 providing it is signed and clearly visible from a distance.


In short, it is actually worthwhile IMO to try and enforce compliance with the limit at that particular junction, and this camera should do that.


It sounds like the SCP agree that the 70 limit is fine so long as people obey it, and I would suggest that those calling for a 50 limit may be the kind of people who struggle with situation 1) above, since the SCP will take all the flak if the limit is reduced I'm not surprised that they want to protect themselves from accusations and possibly discourage a needless limit reduction.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 23:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
The problem does not 'just' rest with 'speed', making someone slow down as you suggest will not make them 'start t pay any more attention and anticipate that someone might be pulling out and because they maybe distracted by paying attention to the camera's presence they are not then thinking about the road layout, side roads, what might appear in the next 200 yds etc.

If better information was getting to drivers about these problems and the potential hidden dangers of junctions and the essential need to consider all possibilities the driver would then 'instinctively' be assessing better and allowing for these possibilities.
If the road is 'prone' to accidents then any ideas on any engineering solutions - like making the side road hedges reduced so that potential traffic can more easily be seen, and so better for road safety, no cameras necessary !
When road engineering solutions are necessary why try and just stick on a plaster that just covers up the real problems !

The road users ability to judge and control their own vehicle, to the best of their ability, must never be underestimated as the best and most consistent solution, and as a large part of intelligent road safety. If you can help a road user understand that this slightly hidden side road is a problem here, and in doing so educate, then when they are traveling elsewhere they will be better able to predict.
As they start to instinctively become better 'aware', when another slightly hidden side road appears, and the problems that it might bring, are thought about, so they ease off the throttle, keep their eyes on the road and all the potential possibilities / hazards and allow for a vehicle to pull out. In other words they have thought and prepared - Think.

No camera might be present elsewhere to slow a driver down, but it is a far bigger issue to help a driver be prepared for every type of side road and every situation.

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


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 01:01 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
My point was more that occasionally there are situations where a fixed speed is actually necessary.

The faster traffic moves on the major road, the greater distance you need to be able to see in order to judge if it's safe to pull out or not. If you fix that speed at 70mph then this road may well be safe to pull out into, if you were raise the limit to 100mph then you wouldn't be able to see far enough and if some idiot doing 100mph were to come around that bend, see you and slam on the anchors they wouldn't be able to stop in time.

Now a good driver wouldn't be doing 100mph because they can't see far enough to stop, but if you force them to do 70, admittedly a camera is a pretty blunt instrument to do this, then you make the junction safe for people pulling out. Lowering the limit to 50 wont help because 70 is already fine, and putting the camera half a mile down the road where there is no junction wont help either because it may well be safe to do 100 at that point.

This is about the closest you can get to a camera that's actually useful, well positioned and may actually save a few lives, put it this way it certainly isn't one I'd use on any publicity material about camera abuse.


Personally I say good on Herts camera partnership for basically saying to the whiny residents, "sorry, your idea is stupid, you are stupid and we're having no part in it" even if their motivation is because they know they'll get the flak when the limit it drops, it means at least they know that to lower this limit and enforce it is the wrong thing to do.


I agree that in an ideal world, a programme of driver education, training and idiot removal would give better results as then everybody would be slowing down there even if the limit were 100, but right now this isn't happening and even if it were it would still take time.

Don't worry BTW. I haven't gone all pro-camera on you, I do believe that used right they can have uses, it's just only is a few specific situations and the other 99.99% of them should be removed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 541 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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.022s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]