camera operator wrote:
i suggest you check that
I don’t see how your link invalidates my comment about the practicality of a variable limit. Regardless of how it has been realised, once installed, it is easy peasy to change the limit, just like the M25. We already have a reasonable solution (as far as speed cameras go anyway).
camera operator wrote:
your google link shows one 50mph repeater and one average speed camera sign, no other repeaters no specs system visible
If you zoom in you can see the specs pole in the distance in that shot I gave you. You can click on the arrows to move backwards and forwards as you wish, or move the little man in the lower map back and forth as necessary. The second camera is a fair way down that clean, straight, flat, non-contraflowed/narrowed road -
here.
camera operator wrote:
bullshit and you know it, project managers have a duty of care to protect their workforce, hard hats, hi viz jackets, TM and reduced limit are all involved its called the health and safety at work act, failure to comply can mean a trip to the big house
No BS here.
I agree with you about their duty of care, but that doesn’t invalidate my earlier claim in any way. They have been duped, conned into buying into a bad system even though they mean well and are trying to do things right. I used to be pro-camera because I fell for the illusion for RTTM; I doubt I was the only one to make that mistake.
camera operator wrote:
as i said your example has got nothing to do with casualty reduction all i read is easing of congestion, travel time etc, it appears the HA has utilised Surrey SCP office systems
The use of the camera is nothing to do with casualty reduction? I’ve never heard that one before!
camera operator wrote:
what is the accident history there? is there an accident history there?
In the three years prior to the camera being introduced (2007), there was at least one fatality at that junction (late 2005, at that junction), I have no figures for SI. I know there have been a few crunches on that stretch within that baseline period (I know because I commuted it twice a day).
RTTM fodder!
Cam Op, what do you think will get credit for the casualty reduction there:
a) The re-engineering of the road?
b) The limit reduction/camera?
Sometime last year, I saw with my own eyes, an overturned vehicle, right at the second SPECS camera (1 mile after the junction, no other feature at that area). So much for "smoother traffic flow reducing congestion"
camera operator wrote:
who cares about who gets the credit,
RTTM, bias on selection, long-term trends – who cares about those !?!
Who cares if road safety policy has been deliberately skewed by those who stand to gain from subsequent enforcement by their ineffective measures.
cares!
It is wrong to let a group take credit for a good outcome that was nothing to do with them. Allowing that illusion encourages further adoption of that ineffective group
at the expense of effective ones. It is wrong to not care!
We want credit where credit is due so that only the effective methods are applied.