Safe Speed Forums

I have been reading the [url=http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/downloads/foi_files/Steer_Grp_27-10-05_(Open).pdf]Minutes from Steering Group Meeting 27-10-05[/url]



Interesting. I haven't seen them around for a while, maybe this is why.



What is this Startraq? I guess this is the Startraq web site:
[url=http://www.startraq.com]
"Convayor belt justice" photo from Startraq web site.[/url]
So rather than having 3 red light "safety" cameras they would prefer to spend their money on a system for automating prossecutions. How very safe.


Nice to know.


Why do people damage SIDs and not real cameras? People are wierd. I guess DSCP won't be replacing theirs because it doesn't make them any money.

And from the [url=http://www.dorsetsafetycameras.org.uk/downloads/foi_files/Op_Group_01-11-05_(Open).pdf]Minutes from Operational Group Meeting 1-11-05[/url]


So put up camera signs at the same time as they install those rubber tubes across the road in order to scare people into thinking that they are connected to cameras?
They are going to reduce the speed limit along that part of the road. I don't see any reason for it. Cameras would cause accidents there, people drive too close as it is, a lower speed limit will make them drive closer, cameras will make people hit the brakes at random. I'm pretty sure they want a low speed limit and cameras on that road because it's the main road in to Dorset from most of the country. They'll be raking it in. (more than they are already)

_________________
Andrew.

I smell a serious rat there. The speed survey is presumably to determine if traffic speeds allow the speed limit to be reduced. Putting up speed camera signs (which is not allowed if there are no cameras - see netting off rules) will make people slow down and give a lower average traffic speed.

I imagine it is because the device often has a little detector unit on top and people think it might have given them a ticket.

My suggestion would be to attach a small signs on the back which say something like "this device is for warning purposes only". They've put one on my route to work and I fear it will be stolen or damaged soon, might be worth an email to the council. Trouble is, the locals who demanded action would only have a photo of them in the paper with the headline "nasty motorists damage our new safety sign".

Gareth

What's the new limit going to be?

From the new NSL signs on road to Wimborne, and new 40 signs on the road to Poole, I deduce either 50 or 60. I'm guessing 50.

Of course if it was a dual carriageway in outhampton, there'd be no ambiguity: the new limit would be 30!

The signs were very well taped up. Maybe I'll have to go and remove some to see what they say. The best way to remove plastic bags is with a flame thrower, right?
I was thinking 60 would be sensible most of the time (but of course 70 is perfectly safe at times too)
Therefore it's going to be 50 or 40.
I have no respect for the people who set speed limits and since they reduced Sandford from 40 to 30 and the Holes Bay road from 70 to 50 (for no apparent reason) I have decided to ignore the whole lot of them. They don't make sense. Windy single track country lane with a junction on a blind bend with no warning signs at all, speed limit 60. Yeah. Right.

_________________
Andrew.

Can someone point me at the rules regarding camera signs and cameras - I'm interested in what actually constitutes "no cameras" in relation to positioning/frequency of signs.

It can't be 40, as there is a shiny new 40 sign (to accompany the tatty old 40 sign) on the road up to Sainsbury's. It is too big to be a repeater, so the new limit cannot be NSL or 40. My money is definitely on 50, sadly. I will ignore it, likewise

Hmmm... I've just been looking through the latest rulebook at Arrive Alive and the 'no signs unless there are cameras' rule seems to have been abolished. It was, however, one of the orignial ministerial promises and ensured that signs actually meant something.

Here's something very interesting in that document:

Rule 4.2: Site Conspicuity

...Mobile vehicles from which enforcement may take place must be liveried...

...the livery used on either the camera operator,
equipment or the mobile vehicle must be clearly visible to approaching drivers.

So no un-liveried motorbikes, and no vans unless they are sideways on AND the livery is clearly visible.

I'm sure all partneships always keep to that rule.

Aha! I wonder when/how it disappeared? I asked because Staffordshire (where I live) is full of roads where cameras are much less evident than the vast number of signs. (It has loads of cameras as well but that's another issue)

I'm quite sure it was there last year. (i.e. the handbook published in 2003). I hadn't noticed that it had gone before, and I'm surprised. I wonder if it's there somewhere and we're missing it? That said, I have looked quite carefully...

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

That document is preposterous. It is primarily concerned with financial information - the section on "Conversion rates" sounds like they should be working in retail marketing.

The worst bit is the section on when there is an expected deficit the partnership is liable for financing that deficit. This is obviously when they send out the mobile vans to get you @ 35 from 800 ft away while parked in a bus stop disguised as a builders van.

Disgraceful.

Startraq eh?

Isn't it scaring anyone that a whole industry is springing up based solely on automated speed limit enforcement?

Why, oh, why do people continue blindly paying up unjust fines and fuelling this madness?

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken