Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sat Jul 20, 2019 15:30

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:07 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
From Article : The speed camera trap on M6 that's racing towards record £3m haul in fines
Location M6 Motorway roadworks.
Gatso Camera.

BBC Online - New Online NE (Cumbria) - James Lynn
To appear later today ....

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 13:11 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Already posted by Dixie here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21927

Dixie is several hours ahead of us. :roll:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 14:26 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Already posted by Dixie here: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21927

Dixie is several hours ahead of us. :roll:


Posted while having my morning coffee. Taking into consideration the daylight saving I'm seven hours in front at the moment :lol: I must just catch the papers as they publish their News Online.

Take care
Dixie
:)

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 17:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
No that is the Daily Mail Article - this is the BBC Online Interview that I did a few hrs ago for later today - it relates to this article by subject. :)

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 23:56 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
Article Here
BBCOnline wrote:
M6 speed camera catches 5,500 drivers in five weeks

Only about half of those caught speeding will be fined
Road safety bosses say they are stunned after a speed camera caught out more than 5,500 motorists in five weeks.
The camera, on the M6 near Carlisle, was installed to protect workers carrying out repairs and is expected to net £168,000 from fines issued so far.
A Cumbria Safety Cameras spokesman said he could not understand why so many drivers are ignoring the 50mph limit, which is clearly signposted.

Pressure group Safe Speed called the figures "disgusting".
The camera was installed between junctions 43 and 44 of the M6 on 29 January and will stay while bridge repairs are carried out.

In seven years... never have I seen a camera generate so many tickets
Kevin Tea, Cumbria Safety Cameras
It is operated by Cumbria Safety Cameras on behalf of Cumbria Police, part of the Cumbria Road Safety Partnership.
Kevin Tea, manager of Cumbria Safety Cameras, said: "In seven years working on the safety partnership in Cumbria never have I seen a camera generate so many tickets.
"I can't offer an explanation for it. I can't understand why people haven't seen the signs and cameras and are continuing to speed."

In total, 5,569 motorists were caught, but only those who drove faster than 60mph - about 2,800 people - will be prosecuted because of limited resources.
They will each receive £60 fines, raising about £168,000 which will be passed to the Treasury, according to Mr Tea.
A Highways Agency spokesman said: "There's a 50mph speed limit, cones, barriers and signs in place on this stretch of the M6 for a very good reason - to ensure the ongoing safety of drivers and road workers while the work is underway.
"We are concerned about the number of drivers who appear to be ignoring the speed limit, putting themselves and our workforce in danger.
"Driving through half a mile of roadworks at 70mph takes just ten seconds fewer than driving at 50mph - a ten-second saving which can put lives at risk."
'Making money'

But Claire Armstrong, co-founder of Safe Speed - which campaigns against speed cameras - said: "We're pretty disgusted. It's obviously got nothing to do with road safety.
"The fact it's raising so much revenue will add to the police/public divide and continue to make people believe it's just about making money."
Ms Armstrong said traffic police officers are a much better judge of road safety as they assess a motorist's overall driving, not just their speed.
"You don't measure safe driving in miles per hour," she added.

The M6 roadworks are due to be completed by 26 March.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 17:13 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
5,500 logged on the data recorder in excess of 50mph, but only 2,800 to be prosecuted, because of limited resources , no because they are under the prosecution limit, over five weeks, what a cash cow, ok its digital so does not run out of film

IMO opinion works out at about 3.3 an hour, whats the traffic flow for that part of the motorway, 1000 - 2000 vehicles an hour, hardly the majority is it

Quote:
Kevin Tea, manager of Cumbria Safety Cameras, said: "In seven years working on the safety partnership in Cumbria never have I seen a camera generate so many tickets.
"I can't offer an explanation for it. I can't understand why people haven't seen the signs and cameras and are continuing to speed."


thats the numptys that drive our roads, maybe instead of sending them a NIP let them stand a few feet from moving traffic with just a cone and hi viz jacket for protection

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 17:29 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
camera operator wrote:
thats the numptys that drive our roads,

You might well be right; or possibly, the numpty who set the limits for the roads? :wink:

camera operator wrote:
... maybe instead of sending them a NIP let them stand a few feet from moving traffic with just a cone and hi viz jacket for protection

You mean a few feet, with a concrete barrier between them and the traffic? :scratchchin:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 17:36 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
Steve wrote:
camera operator wrote:
thats the numptys that drive our roads,

You might well be right; or possibly, the numpty who set the limits for the roads? :wink:



who is the works contractor, pretty normal practice to drop a NSL motorway to 50mph for the duration of roadworks

Quote:
camera operator wrote:
... maybe instead of sending them a NIP let them stand a few feet from moving traffic with just a cone and hi viz jacket for protection

You mean a few feet, with a concrete barrier between them and the traffic? :scratchchin:


looks like cones to me :tumbleweed: :scratchchin:

considering the work is carried out on the central support under a bridge

Image

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 18:20 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
camera operator wrote:
pretty normal practice to drop a NSL motorway to 50mph for the duration of roadworks

Also pretty normal to keep the limit reduced when there are no workers present.
Also, there is a newer practise of keeping the reduced limit (and enforcement of it) after those works have finished: M3 J2, the reduction was temporary, now it is permanent - even though the road has been re-engineered to be much safer; that's 'bias on selection' rearing its ugly head again :roll:

camera operator wrote:
looks like cones to me :tumbleweed: :scratchchin:

I don't see any workers in that section you showed ... ;)
Most roadworks that do have the concrete barriers still impose the same 50 limit anyway.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 19:12 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
Steve wrote:
camera operator wrote:
pretty normal practice to drop a NSL motorway to 50mph for the duration of roadworks

Also pretty normal to keep the limit reduced when there are no workers present.


so are you suggesting the TM be erected / withdrawn every time the workers leave the area, is this for toilet breaks as well, in long preplanned roadwork areas there are numerous phases in the schedule of works, at various hours of the day

Quote:
Also, there is a newer practise of keeping the reduced limit (and enforcement of it) after those works have finished: M3 J2, the reduction was temporary, now it is permanent - even though the road has been re-engineered to be much safer; that's 'bias on selection' rearing its ugly head again :roll:



are there cameras on the M3 at JCT2

Quote:
camera operator wrote:
looks like cones to me :tumbleweed: :scratchchin:

I don't see any workers in that section you showed ... ;)
Most roadworks that do have the concrete barriers still impose the same 50 limit anyway.


its not my photo [url]/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256738/Speed-camera-trap-M6-racing-record-3m-haul-fines.html[/url]

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 20:38 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
camera operator wrote:
so are you suggesting the TM be erected / withdrawn every time the workers leave the area, is this for toilet breaks as well, in long preplanned roadwork areas there are numerous phases in the schedule of works, at various hours of the day

You've slightly strawmanned it; part of what you say is bordering on the silly. However, the gist of it can be reasonably applied.
I think it is fair to say that limit reduction in place "for the safety of workers" need not apply when the work shift has ended, such as during out of working hours (where I might add fatigue is already at its worst). We already have variable limits based on dynamic environmental factors; that solution can and should be applied.

Limits based on the time of day (i.e. out of shift hours) is an even simpler reasonable solution - these are common in Germany.

camera operator wrote:
Steve wrote:
Also, there is a newer practise of keeping the reduced limit (and enforcement of it) after those works have finished: M3 J2, the reduction was temporary, now it is permanent - even though the road has been re-engineered to be much safer; that's 'bias on selection' rearing its ugly head again :roll:

are there cameras on the M3 at JCT2

Yes. Two years ago the stretch in question was modified such that each merging path now has its own lane (as opposed to two M25 slips fighting for the M3). The limit was lowered from 70 to 50 and enforced by SPECS while the change carried out (itself possibly not a problem). The change took 1 day.
There were signs stating the limit reduction was temporary.
A year later new signs were erected saying the reduced limit is now permanent; the speed camera remained throughout and it still there today.
Even today, the limit reduced and enforced zone continues for a full 0.8 miles after the end of the new slip lanes. Does that make any $en$e?

Cam Op, what do you think will get credit for any casualty reduction there:
a) The re-engineering of the road?
b) The limit reduction/camera?

I'll give you a clue to the inevitable SCP claim: "There was a xx% reduction of KSI at the camera site ..." :yesyes: :roll:

This is a great example of 'bias on selection' – the addition of a genuine safety treatment, unrelated to the camera but applied within the defined camera site. This common practice (see the highlighted parts of this post) makes the cameras appear grossly more effective at KSI reduction than they actually are.
This effect is separate and independent from RTTM, but both have the same outcome - making speed cameras appear grossly more effective than they actually are - squared!

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 21:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
Just a note on this section of speed. I went to a Council Highways meeting this week and two articles related to requests for speed reductions by those who lived in the areas. One was for an extention of the 30MPH limit on the A52 just outside Brailsford. One of the reasons quoted by those requesting this new limit extention was that a fatal RTC had happened on the A52. This was correct but it happened "around 4-5 miles away".
Another request for a 30MPH speed limit through a village on the A5008 highlighted the number of RTCs which had happened around the area. The police report stated that nothing much more could be done and that they cannot control the number of RTCs which involve drugs and/or drink. So there we have it. This is never pointed out to the public but they can always quote "speed". Speed is not the problem, but the driver is. OLLIE PS I do not condone blatent disregard for others safety.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 21:27 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
Steve wrote:
camera operator wrote:
so are you suggesting the TM be erected / withdrawn every time the workers leave the area, is this for toilet breaks as well, in long preplanned roadwork areas there are numerous phases in the schedule of works, at various hours of the day

You've slightly strawmanned it; part of what you say is bordering on the silly. However, the gist of it can be reasonably applied.
I think it is fair to say that limit reduction in place "for the safety of workers" need not apply when the work shift has ended, such as during out of working hours (where I might add fatigue is already at its worst). We already have variable limits based on dynamic environmental factors; that solution can and should be applied.

Limits based on the time of day (i.e. out of shift hours) is an even simpler reasonable solution - these are common in Germany.



you can apply numerous scenarios to numerous roadwork schemes, ranging from tempoary sectional barrier repairs to replacement of the whole central reservation over a few miles, from cutting down a few trees to installing an extra lane, resurfacing a lane to installing gantrys,

i am not a highways engineer so i dont know the costs incurred in laying out a TM system but i know to lay out then remove a TM on a daily basis is not cheap, then you have the legal side of the coin with the TRO, the TRO is in force for a specific period of time revoking the previous limit, as for variable limits yes a good idea and they work, but the cost in installing them is huge so not suitable for a short 3 month bridge repair as is happening in Cumbria

Quote:
Yes. Two years ago the stretch in question was modified such that each merging path now has its own lane (as opposed to two M25 slips fighting for the M3). The limit was lowered from 70 to 50 and enforced by SPECS while the change carried out (itself possibly not a problem). The change took 1 day.
There were signs stating the limit reduction was temporary.
A year later new signs were erected saying the reduced limit is now permanent; the speed camera remained throughout and it still there today.
Even today, the limit reduced and enforced zone continues for a full 0.8 miles after the end of the new slip lanes. Does that make any $en$e?



its not my area so i will go on your words, i cannot see anybody installing a specs system to cover roadworks that took 1 day, i would imagine as with any busy intersection the traffic flow is smoother at a limit of 50mph than 70mph, no ripple braking effect if you know what i mean, so yes the temporary limit was made permanent,

slightly confused with your wording but is there a specs system there or a static camera,

Quote:
Cam Op, what do you think will get credit for any casualty reduction there:
a) The re-engineering of the road?
b) The limit reduction/camera?

I'll give you a clue to the inevitable SCP claim: "There was a xx% reduction of KSI at the camera site ..." :yesyes: :roll:

This is a great example of 'bias on selection' – the addition of a genuine safety treatment, unrelated to the camera but applied within the defined camera site (a common practise), so making the camera appear grossly more effective at KSI reduction than it actually is.
This effect is separate and independent from RTTM, but both have the same outcome - making speed cameras appear grossly more effective than they actually are



by looking at http://www.highways.gov.uk/news/pressrelease.aspx?pressreleaseid=173935http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/25800.aspx

i am reading smoother traffic flow reducing congestion and travel time than casualty reduction, although both also go hand in hand,

remember project managers of the roadworks companies approach the HA or SCP's if they require speed enforcement, not vis versa

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 22:11 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
camera operator wrote:
i am not a highways engineer so i dont know the costs incurred in laying out a TM system but i know to lay out then remove a TM on a daily basis is not cheap, then you have the legal side of the coin with the TRO, the TRO is in force for a specific period of time revoking the previous limit, as for variable limits yes a good idea and they work, but the cost in installing them is huge so not suitable for a short 3 month bridge repair as is happening in Cumbria

All that is a red herring. A TRO/TM is needed either way, just as one is needed for the variable limits on the M25; I doubt a new TRO is needed every time that variable limit changes.
The cost of such a system is nothing compared to the works carried out (all paid by the motorist anyway).

camera operator wrote:
its not my area so i will go on your words,

You can see it for yourself. Google Street View

camera operator wrote:
i cannot see anybody installing a specs system to cover roadworks that took 1 day,

That’s exactly what happened. The paint was the only thing that has been altered.

camera operator wrote:
i would imagine as with any busy intersection the traffic flow is smoother at a limit of 50mph than 70mph, no ripple braking effect if you know what i mean, so yes the temporary limit was made permanent,

.....

i am reading smoother traffic flow reducing congestion and travel time than casualty reduction, although both also go hand in hand,

All those negative effects were already reduced/eliminated with the new layout; the cameras/limit reduction is no longer necessary, especially for the 0.8 miles after the new layout.

camera operator wrote:
slightly confused with your wording but is there a specs system there or a static camera,

My apologies. It is a static SPECS system, the installation is fixed into place (not rolling).

camera operator wrote:
remember project managers of the roadworks companies approach the HA or SCP's if they require speed enforcement, not vis versa

Remember, the project managers have been duped by the false claims from the SCPS (RTTM, bias on selection et al), not vise versa ;)

I should also point out there are no works on that stretch, you can see that for yourself within the Google link (there are in other places, but I’m not referring to those), so 'project managers of the roadworks companies' no longer factor here.


Cam Op, what do you think will get credit for any casualty reduction there:
a) The re-engineering of the road?
b) The limit reduction/camera?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 22:32 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
Steve wrote:
camera operator wrote:
i am not a highways engineer so i dont know the costs incurred in laying out a TM system but i know to lay out then remove a TM on a daily basis is not cheap, then you have the legal side of the coin with the TRO, the TRO is in force for a specific period of time revoking the previous limit, as for variable limits yes a good idea and they work, but the cost in installing them is huge so not suitable for a short 3 month bridge repair as is happening in Cumbria

All that is a red herring. A TRO/TM is needed either way, just as one is needed for the variable limits on the M25; I doubt a new TRO is needed every time that variable limit changes.
The cost of such a system is nothing compared to the works carried out (all paid by the motorist anyway).


i suggest you check that http://uk.wrs.yahoo.com/_ylt=A1f4bVeqtppLknoAVEB3Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTExMzE5c2gxBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA3VrbAR2dGlkAwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=16em8g6mt/EXP=1268516906/**http%3A//www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx%3FLegType=All%2BSecondary%26PageNumber=1%26BrowseLetter=M%26NavFrom=1%26parentActiveTextDocId=3104447%26ActiveTextDocId=3104447%26filesize=20767

Quote:
camera operator wrote:
its not my area so i will go on your words,

You can see it for yourself. Google Street View

camera operator wrote:
i cannot see anybody installing a specs system to cover roadworks that took 1 day,

That’s exactly what happened. The paint was the only thing that has been altered.

camera operator wrote:
i would imagine as with any busy intersection the traffic flow is smoother at a limit of 50mph than 70mph, no ripple braking effect if you know what i mean, so yes the temporary limit was made permanent,

.....

i am reading smoother traffic flow reducing congestion and travel time than casualty reduction, although both also go hand in hand,

All those negative effects were already reduced/eliminated with the new layout; the cameras/limit reduction is no longer necessary, especially for the 0.8 miles after the new layout.

camera operator wrote:
slightly confused with your wording but is there a specs system there or a static camera,

My apologies. It is a static SPECS system, the installation is fixed into place (not rolling).



your google link shows one 50mph repeater and one average speed camera sign, no other repeaters no specs system visible

Quote:
camera operator wrote:
remember project managers of the roadworks companies approach the HA or SCP's if they require speed enforcement, not vis versa

Remember, the project managers have been duped by the false claims from the SCPS (RTTM, bias on selection et al), not vise versa ;)



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

Quote:
I should also point out there are no works on that stretch, you can see that for yourself within the Google link (there are in other places, but I’m not referring to those), so 'project managers of the roadworks companies' no longer factor here.


Quote:
Cam Op, what do you think will get credit for any casualty reduction there:
a) The re-engineering of the road?
b) The limit reduction/camera?


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

what is the accident history there? is there an accident history there?

who cares about who gets the credit, the re engineering of the road, combined with the camera and reduced limit pre and post all add to the pot

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 23:29 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
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" :roll:

camera operator wrote:
who cares about who gets the credit,

:o :o :o :o :o :o
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.

:ss: 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.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 00:03 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
Steve wrote:
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.



just prior to that clean straight flat, non contaflowed / narrowed road http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Sunbury-on-thames,+Middlesex+TW16+7TW,+United+Kingdom&t=h&layer=c&cbll=51.398932,-0.546876&panoid=Jmbokxba7S3ih2zmvtq8-Q&cbp=11,38.86,,0,5.04&ll=51.398938,-0.54687&spn=0.005221,0.043945&z=15 i think lol


Quote:
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.


pro camera - not on my days here

Quote:
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!


on them figures the area would not have been a SCP site

Quote:
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" :roll:


so you automatically assume its because of the camera, was it because of a lesser spotted badger crossing the road

Quote:
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.

:ss: cares!


do you think any police officer on speed checks think about RTTM, no
do SCP staff worry if they dont report anybody - no

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 00:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
camera operator wrote:
just prior to that clean straight flat, non contaflowed / narrowed road i think lol

That was the section of the road that was converted such that joining traffic no longer has to merge into a carriageway. I think you'll find that's now safer than most other slip roads, ever!

Let's say for arguments sake you are right and that section is dodgy - why continue the dropped limit, with enforcement, a full mile after that point? :scratchchin:

My earlier point stands: there is a practical approved solution to variable limits at road works when works aren't ongoing.

camera operator wrote:
pro camera - not on my days here

Correct. I converted, then joined :ss: after hearing Paul give his RTTM argument on radio 2.

My earlier stands: folks are being duped.

camera operator wrote:
on them figures the area would not have been a SCP site

I got that fatality from the BBC fatality map.

camera operator wrote:
so you automatically assume its because of the camera, was it because of a lesser spotted badger crossing the road

I’ve never seen a badger or any other animal on any motorway – ever! OK there have been animals (seen them on TV), but being realistic:
Is it impossible that distraction resulting from that camera, on that 0.8 miles of free 3-lane motorway, lead to adverse reactions?
Surely you cannot dispute the camera is the most likely candidate here.

camera operator wrote:
do you think any police officer on speed checks think about RTTM, no

Police officers might do something more useful if they knew the truth about RTTM, long-term trends and bias on selection and how those apply to the effectiveness of their misguided efforts - no longer at the expense of effective efforts.

camera operator wrote:
do SCP staff worry if they dont report anybody - no

Given the needlessly low limits (such as the example being debated), the SCPs will always get their quick buck!


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?

Is it right to care about the effectiveness of methods, making sure that credit is going to the right group for the right reasons?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 04:20 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7355
Location: Highlands
I can see what you are both getting at.
On one hand we need more careful, considerate observant motorists, that when they approach roadworks they travel at an appropriate speed.

In the other hand we need roadwork wo/men to be safe and there are 1000's of rules and reg to try and ensure that.

We have other Countries that employ different working time practices that could work over here too other than those exceptional time when a workforce is actually operating at night.
That 'cry wolf' problem makes motorists less cautious as they start to assume sometimes, that there is no workforce in the local vicinity so they act / drive accordingly.
Camera's at the start of this thread are at the side of the road and the 'work' mostly in the central reservation area. So motorists have to observe / check / keep a wary eye on it and then to the central area, which is distracting and definitely not good. We need - as I know you would both agree better education to achieve better road users.
Camera use never achieves this goal, although some people cannot see beyond the go slower you are safe assumption, and while they believe ti are very unlikely to ever improve their skills or judgment, thinking that s numeric value is somehow in itself safe.

Camera's left in place are very likely to be attributed with the 'illusion benefit' and that is very wrong when clear (M3) engineering has reduced the accident rate. Thus the bias selection process of targets becoming the goal, than the process of true benefit and appropriate credit complimented. Whilst this continues camera effects continue to ruin driver / rider ability & skills.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.253s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]