Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Nov 10, 2026 20:39

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 07:15 
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
Times Online

Quote:
Cameras set to catch side-street speeders
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent

Networks that cover neighbourhoods 'will replace road humps'

NETWORKS of speed cameras, which will catch every driver breaking the limit, are to be installed in 20mph residential areas as an alternative to road humps.

All entry and exit points to neighbourhoods will be covered by the cameras, which will calculate automatically the average speed of the vehicle while travelling through the area. Offenders’ vehicle number will be transmitted instantly to an office that issues penalties.

The system will catch the motorists known as “camera surfers”, who slow down only briefly as they pass conventional speed cameras before speeding up again.

Local authorities will target 20mph zones where there have been several crashes caused by drivers breaking the limit or accelerating aggressively between humps and chicanes.

Trials of the new cameras in Camden, North London, and Belfast have proved that the technology is reliable. They are due to be approved by the Home Office in November, with the first fines being issued early next year.

Two cameras were installed last year at either end of Mansfield Road in Camden, a busy residential road where the 20mph limit was being ignored by most drivers. A third camera is about to be placed on a nearby side road.

No tickets are being issued yet but the mere presence of the cameras has resulted in the proportion of drivers complying with the limit increasing by a third.

Dozens of authorities across Britain have been closely watching the trials.

Cameras that detect average speed, known as Specs cameras, have been in use since 1999 but until now have only been able to enforce the limit on a single road rather than a whole area.

Existing “Specs” cameras, which are used mainly to enforce temporary speed limits covering motorway roadworks, are connected by cables and operate in pairs.

The new cameras are not linked but have synchronised clocks and each separately transmits information to a processing centre.

This allows several cameras to work together without the need to dig up the road between them to lay cables. In urban areas, this can halve the cost of installing the system.

Transport for London, which is overseeing the Camden trial, believes the system will be at least as effective at controlling speed as humps but without the noise and pollution caused by vehicles repeatedly braking and accelerating. The Transport Research Laboratory found that air pollution rose significantly on roads with humps. Carbon monoxide emissions increased by 82 per cent and nitrogen oxide by 37 per cent.

The London Ambulance Service has also claimed that humps cause up to 500 deaths a year because its crews are delayed in reaching cardiac arrest victims.

Rob Gifford, director of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, said: “Replacing humps with these new cameras will benefit law-abiding motorists as well as making streets safer and more attractive.

“Drivers will also stop rat-running through neighbourhoods where they know their speed will be monitored. Many more children will be able to play safely outside.”

When hit at 20mph, 19 out of 20 pedestrians survive. By contrast, 19 out of 20 die when hit at 40mph.

The Association of London Government, which represents the 33 London boroughs, said the cameras were a “useful tool” which would be best used in residential areas where a high proportion of drivers ignored the speed limit.

Although cameras that measure average speed over a set distance cause a much greater reduction in crashes than conventional Gatsos, some speed camera partnerships have been reluctant to install them because they do not generate enough £60 penalties to pay for the costs of instalment.

However, from next year, partnerships will no longer be allowed to keep any of the revenue from fines, removing the incentive to choose cameras which catch lots of drivers.


Talk about infestation :furious:

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 07:28 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Quote:
camera partnerships have been reluctant to install them because they do not generate enough £60 penalties to pay for the costs of instalment.

and yet they keep telling us it's not about the money...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 07:56 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 14:00
Posts: 1271
Location: Near Telford, UK / Barcelona, Spain
And this wondrous new revenue-gatherer is going to stop chavs drag-racing their clapped-out Novas up-and-down roads inside the "controlled area" exactly how?

_________________
"Politicians are the same the world over... We build bridges where there aren't any rivers." - Nikita Kruschev


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 08:09 
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
What p….s me off is that we ‘the pubic’ have to pay for all this crap and then only for the councils and government to use it as a milking parlour.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 08:09 
Offline
Suspended
Suspended

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 14:55
Posts: 364
Location: Ignoring the mental pygmies (and there are a lot of them here)
..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?


Last edited by FJSRiDER on Wed Oct 04, 2006 14:25, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 08:52 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Quote:
“Drivers will also stop rat-running through neighbourhoods where they know their speed will be monitored. Many more children will be able to play safely outside.”


Drivers will still use the "rat runs". The extra few seconds taken by driving at 20mph compared to, say, 25mph will still make the cut through worth it in a lot of cases. The reason a lot of people complain about "speeding" in their road is nothing to do with speed but is everything to do with the cars being there at all.

Also, do we really want to encourage more children to play in the street?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 09:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
If you live, or are visiting someone, within the monitored area, then the SPECS won't apply. Similarly, if you are held up inside the area they won't apply either.
What a load of nonsense. No doubt the local yobbos will destroy them for fun anyway.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 09:55 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 21:27
Posts: 247
Location: Near Stockport
I can see several issues here, but these are the ones which immediately spring to mind:

1. If there is more than one route from an entry camera to an exit camera, how do the SPECS work out which route was taken? If they can't, they have no way of determining the average speed.

2. How will the local residents react to people driving along in second gear, which is the only realistic way to be sure that your average speed stays at 20 or below? Or that's what most people will assume they have to do. I would have thought that the threshold would be 10% + 2 (i.e. 24), but - even if this is the case - how many people actually know that? And how much will this increase the pollution?

3. How much less efficient is driving at 20 in second gear than at 30 in fourth? I thought that we were trying to conserve our dwindling fuel stocks.

4. They come out with the usual stuff about how 19/20 pedestrians survive when hit at 20, but 19/20 die when hit at 40. In what way is this relevant? How did they arrive at these figures - by getting pedestrians to leap out straight into the path of cars driving at these speeds? :o

That'll do for now. As usual, a nice idea in theory, but one which clearly hasn't been thought through - if it has even been thought about at all. :evil:

_________________
Brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:13 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
Interesting that they say the vast majority of drivers don't obbey the 20 limit. I wonder what they will do when they still get accidents when its enforced?

Its pretty clear that the 20 limit is inappropriate and that exceeding it has little safety consequences.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2005 16:12
Posts: 1040
Location: West Midlands
As Cooperman says, if you stop for any peroid of time within the zone you are free to do any speed that you like. Obviously it is only those that are using it as a through route that have to worry, and to get rid of most of those you only need to make sure that the main roads are flowing properly.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 11:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 12:33
Posts: 770
Location: Earith, Cambs
Just as with the A77 SPECS in Scotland, it would seem unlikely that sufficient drivers would exceed, or even be able to exceed, a 20 mph limit by the 10%+2 required for cash-collection in order to make any return on the investment. On the A77 is has been stated that the installations have cost over £750,000 but during the initial 9-month accounting period, ASUI only about 70 drivers were recorded as speeding and, presumably, not all of those will pay up, so they can expect a gross return in the region of £3600. That's £4800 per annum gross. How long will it be before the entire scheme is abandoned as 'too expensive to run' and the cameras relocated to places where they might actually make some cash?
Just imagine the financial officer responsible for this who, probably, anticipated returns like they get from the Gatso at the bottom of the M11.
Thgis is a real squandering of public cash and it should be exposed as such.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 12:36 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
It worries me that the cameras operate on 'synchronised clocks'. Are they going to be satelite controlled to ensure accuracy?

I suppose on the plus side it does mean that they'll be removing the speed bumps.

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 13:21 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
FJSRiDER wrote:
IF(!) they caught no speeders I do wonder how long the Scamera Pratnerships would survive.

That's an easy one for them to work around, they could simply reduce the speed limits to well below a sensible level.... oh wait, they're doing that already!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 18:26 
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
nedsram wrote:
ow much less efficient is driving at 20 in second

That'll do for now. As usual, a nice idea in theory, but one which clearly hasn't been thought through - if it has even been thought about at all. :evil:


Oh ,it has been thought out - not the safety angle i grant you , but to see how much more money they can make, considering that a lot of people won't bother to contest the fine ,just reach for the cheque book , if the attitudes i've seen at work are anything to go by .

Now on the safety side - how many more accidents a drivers spend more time speedo watching than looking out for the children "playing " in the street?

_________________
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  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 17:34 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2005 00:45
Posts: 1016
Location: Mighty Tamworth
It is quite scary really 20 mph is a hard speed to keep to if you are not watching your speedo.

_________________
Oct 11 Birmingham Half Marathon. I am running for the British Heart Foundation.
http://www.justgiving.com/Rob-Taylor


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 09:38 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 21:27
Posts: 247
Location: Near Stockport
botach wrote:
Now on the safety side - how many more accidents a drivers spend more time speedo watching than looking out for the children "playing " in the street?

Or looking out for cyclists? The Manchester cycling group (GMCC) seem to think that it's wonderful news for cyclists:

Quote:
I think this is very welcome news for cycling, not just because of the slower speed enforcement but also because it brings road pricing and pay-as-you-go motoring one step closer.


As an occasional (and formerly regular) cyclist, I would welcome the removal of the speed humps, but many motorists "don't see" cyclists even when they are "concentrating" on the road rather than checking their speedos. :x

_________________
Brian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 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 : 0.015s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]