Safe Speed Forums

Cameras are in view

I have lost track of the times that motorists convicted of speeding on the county’s roads have accused the safety camera partnership of hiding its vans.
Maybe it is a psychological denial of the fact that they were not paying close attention to the road that they want to pass that blame on to a third party, usually us.
As ever, the truth is far from this common allegation. All safety camera sites have to comply with strict conspicuity rules laid down by the Department for Transport.
Also, as the laser beam only travels in a straight line, if it can detect a motorist, that driver should be perfectly capable of seeing the van.
To assist motorists keep to the speed limit on that stretch of road, there are 30mph speed limit signs and signs indicating that the safety camera vans operate in the area. [What sign is that then?]
The Milnthorpe Road site has been “live” for almost four years so Kendal residents should be well aware that camera vans operate there.
We pride ourselves on having what may be the brightest liveried vans in the UK to enable drivers to spot the vehicles, but even with this assistance some motorists fail to notice them. We have people who are unable to see the vans even after they have driven within feet of them getting caught going away
While the vans are highly liveried I wonder what point is being made by saying they are not visible.
Could it be concluded that those who say this are saying they would only observe the speed limit when speed enforcement is visible and otherwise they would not consider that necessary?
I should hardly need to point out that if the level of attention is so low as not to spot the van, this lack of overall awareness and potential hazards could lead to a collision in which people may be killed or seriously injured.

Recently i drove down the A46 ( Warks ) , coming of a corner i find a SCAMVAN on a bridge - forunately i was only doing less than 10%+2 over NSL- BUT if i had been exceeding enforcement limits - could i have been assured that i would have had a chance to slow down - I dought it - van was positioned as to get any driver at about 500 yds any more than "just above LIMIT.

So get honest the "STEVES " OF THIS WORLD - is it safety or cash???

We pride ourselves on having what may be the brightest liveried vans in the UK to enable drivers to spot the vehicles, but even with this assistance some motorists fail to notice them

Recently i drove down the A46 ( Warks ) , coming of a corner i find a SCAMVAN on a bridge - forunately i was only doing less than 10%+2 over NSL- BUT if i had been exceeding enforcement limits - could i have been assured that i would have had a chance to slow down - I dought it - van was positioned as to get any driver at about 500 yds any more than "just above LIMIT.

So get honest the "STEVES " OF THIS WORLD - is it safety or cash???

To the Editor, Westmorland Gazette: re letters Nov. 24th

Dear Sirs.
Kevin Tea has failed to recognise the certain fact that drivers who are NOT exceeding the speed limit, are slowing down needlessly, AND braking at the point at where they see a camera or camera van. These are NOT motorists that are driving in excess of the limit, or who are ignorant of it. He (Mr Tea) has obviously spent too long with his head stuck in the sand if he fails to grasp this simple fact.
Of course they have nothing to fear from the camera but human nature makes them overly cautious – it’s like showing caution when you come across a snake in the grass – most people naturally try to give them a wide berth, even though Britain’s only poisonous snake is rarely seen or proven fatal! After all, if ALL drivers were perfect, then Mr Tea would be quickly out of a job!
The threshold of prosecution at 30 mph of 10% + 2 mph, is small enough to present a risk of quickly straying over the limit – mostly in complete safety – since the “topographical nature of the county” means not many roads around here are flat enough to exclude vehicle speed “picking up” as you go downhill.
We know there are some below average drivers on our roads, because that is how averages are arrived at – and they keep having accidents despite the efforts of the Cumbria “Safety” Camera Partnership. So surely even Kevin Tea should see that they do not all fit into his Utopia where drivers pass by his cameras at or just below the posted limit, with barely a second thought!

I can't believe they're still trotting out the tired old "if we can see you, you can see us" line.

It's patently ridiculous.

If I look through the bathroom keyhole, I can see my wife. Can she see me?!

No need for alarm over laser beams

Your reader’s letter regarding laser classification systems and the application to the lasers used in speed enforcement systems (Letters, December 1) may cause readers undue alarm. While Class 1 and Class 2 laser equipment were mentioned by your correspondent, the classes were not explained.
I can explain why there is no cause for concern over the use of laser light. Laser systems are classified by the International Electromechanical Commission Technical Committee standard IEC 60825-1 adopted in Europe as EN 60825-1. Class 1 and 2 laser systems, more correctly class 1, 1M, 2 and 2M, are laser systems that are classified as being safe to use and are allowed to be sold to the general public. The products so classified require no training to be given in their use.
Class 1 products are often referred to as ‘eye safe’ laser products with the power and risk to health so low that children’s toys are allowed to be in this class. Class 2 lasers use visible light and are classified safe as long as the viewer of the visible light averts their eyes with their natural reaction to bright lights.
The M in class 1 and 2 indicates that a hazard may result if the laser light is observed through a magnifying instrument such as binoculars but not spectacles. Typical examples of class 1 and 2 laser systems are laser printers, compact disk players, barcode scanners and laser pointers used in schools and colleges; these items are not, as far as I know, causing undue concern to the public or significant reportable incidents.
The laser in all of the speed enforcement equipment we use is classified as class 1, as is the product, and therefore presents no hazard according to the British Standards Institute and International Electromechanical Commission Technical Committees.
I hesitate to add that it is the same class as that of a child’s toy but do so to show that there is no concern for harm to health implied in the letter of December 1, even though it may cause some jocular retort.
It should come as no surprise that due consideration has been given by experts to assess, classify and render safe our operations. No heed should be paid, therefore, to the lay information expressed last week as it is erroneous.

Steve Callaghan
Manager, Cumbria Safety Cameras