£400k Sheffield 'safety' cameras
Discussion
Don't know if this topic's been discussed before, but I recently heard Sheffield will be erecting £400,000-worth of so-called safety cameras on the Stocksbridge bypass – the type that record reg numbers at each end of the road.
This is on a big accident blackspot. It's a stretch of highly dangerous single carriageway that looks just like dual carriageway if you don't know the road – it nearly caught me out in a big way.
You'd think 400-grand would stretch to a few pieces of crash barrier, instead, really.
Anyone know if the rumour is true?
This is on a big accident blackspot. It's a stretch of highly dangerous single carriageway that looks just like dual carriageway if you don't know the road – it nearly caught me out in a big way.
You'd think 400-grand would stretch to a few pieces of crash barrier, instead, really.
Anyone know if the rumour is true?
quote:10 for 1 year, or 1 for 10 years.
The local tax payers should be having an uprising over this? How many nurses and teachers would £400,000 buy?
Not a lot is it? This is pocket change in terms of governmental budgets...
If we're to oppose this sort of opressive thievery, please let's at least try to avoid the most fatigued and banal cliches?
Sheffield PHers need to make representations to the local authorities, and the newspapers, and their MPs.
Sounds to me like a prime example of Labia & Dib-Lem car haters, hijacking genuine safety concerns for the purpose of revenue raising and opression, by stealth, of motorists. And, if the now legendary claim that most accidents happen below the speed limit bears true on this road, then the number of accidents will not be cut and the subsequent deaths will inevitably still occur.
Figures garners from similar schemes in Nottingham and Northamptonshire should be presented, demonstrating that not only do these cameras lack any evident safety benefit, they don't even make enough money to fund their own installation and maintenance.
So everybody loses, but at least the motorist is weakened and prostrated further, passively complicit in his own miserable fate. So the smug bubblewrap brigade can claim victory once again.
Unless you say your piece.
www.faxyourmp.com
www.kick-your-councillor-in-the-gooleys.gov.uk
www.for-fcuks-sake-dont-vote-for-labour-again.org
Does anyone know where we can get the figures showing individual schemes such as Nottingham Specs cameras etc are running at a loss, with an ongoing net contribution required from local tax payers?
It's not the sort of information I would imagine the local council divulging voluntarily.
DAZ
It's not the sort of information I would imagine the local council divulging voluntarily.
DAZ
Revenue issues aside, if this is a genuine accident black spot isn't there an obligation on the part of the local authorities to engineer out hazards ?
I seem to recall someone raising this point recently in connection with the approach to a roundabout and bikers coming a cropper.
Maybe that could form the basis of a challenge for the pro-camera groups, i.e. safety is our main concern not just being anti-camera.
I seem to recall someone raising this point recently in connection with the approach to a roundabout and bikers coming a cropper.
Maybe that could form the basis of a challenge for the pro-camera groups, i.e. safety is our main concern not just being anti-camera.
There's another discussion board about the bypass at www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/talk/road_safety.shtml
Quite sobering when you read comments from relatives of people who've died on the road, but still obvious the bypass has fundamental design flaws that can't be ironed-out by adding a few one-lens bandits.
Seems like the camera scheme has the backing of all the local back-pocket councillors and MPs now, too. Wonder why...
Quite sobering when you read comments from relatives of people who've died on the road, but still obvious the bypass has fundamental design flaws that can't be ironed-out by adding a few one-lens bandits.
Seems like the camera scheme has the backing of all the local back-pocket councillors and MPs now, too. Wonder why...
headline grabbing nonsense.
No one wants accidents to happen, least of all when lives are lost, but the current crop of road designers have tried to factor out the human element, namely that people want smooth traffic flow, plenty of visibility and rapid progress. This doesn't tie-in with their anti-car, anti-personal freedom agenda. And properly engineered roads would cost more initially, but save lives. However, budgets aren't allocated for roads, but are side-tracked into compensation claims for other defects within the council. Fact.
I got a reply to a recent question about cameras from my MP - he didn't address any of the points I'd made and repeated the 30% "speed kills" rubbish. He'll be getting a reply shortly to re-butt that.
No one wants accidents to happen, least of all when lives are lost, but the current crop of road designers have tried to factor out the human element, namely that people want smooth traffic flow, plenty of visibility and rapid progress. This doesn't tie-in with their anti-car, anti-personal freedom agenda. And properly engineered roads would cost more initially, but save lives. However, budgets aren't allocated for roads, but are side-tracked into compensation claims for other defects within the council. Fact.
I got a reply to a recent question about cameras from my MP - he didn't address any of the points I'd made and repeated the 30% "speed kills" rubbish. He'll be getting a reply shortly to re-butt that.
quote:Very disappointed to see that you haven't registered those domain names.
www.kick-your-councillor-in-the-gooleys.gov.uk
www.for-fcuks-sake-dont-vote-for-labour-again.org
I seem to remember on Calander or Look North that central crash barriers were being fitted to prevent the head-ons. But perhaps this has changed as cameras are far more cost affective 
But seriously I use this road quite a few times and is one of the worst I have used and I'm currently doing 30k per year so I see a few.
But seriously I use this road quite a few times and is one of the worst I have used and I'm currently doing 30k per year so I see a few.
quote:
headline grabbing nonsense.
Headline grabbing is when yet another person looses their life on this road. If you don't know it, its single carriageway with solid white lines, goes down hill and tantalises you with views and overtaking opportunities which aren’t there. It’s also a fast road.
Like all bypasses it’s hard to change the layout once it’s been constructed, central reservations are going up, but people are still getting killed.
If you drive around Sheffield, you will see that speed cameras have mostly been erected in sensible places...
We can only hope that speed cameras will slow people down on what is one of the worst roads for fatal accidents in the country.
Rob
quote:
We can only hope that speed cameras will slow people down on what is one of the worst roads for fatal accidents in the country.
Rob
Fair point. No-one wants more deaths. But £400,000 for cameras would pay for many other improvements to this road that might work better.
Don't forget, speed cameras slow down regular users and most often catch people who aren't familiar with the road – and this road is at its most dangerous to those who don't know it well enough.
quote:
Fair point. No-one wants more deaths. But £400,000 for cameras would pay for many other improvements to this road that might work better.
Don't forget, speed cameras slow down regular users and most often catch people who aren't familiar with the road – and this road is at its most dangerous to those who don't know it well enough.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure local residents would be upset if yet more of their countryside was cut into, which is basically the only way to improve the road.
Like or not, people drive to fast on this road, and in this case, that is a major factor in the number of deaths.
At least specs cameras go some way to preventing people slamming on brakes when they see them. Driving through Nottingham today was a good example of specs put to good use. Traffic flowing at a steady speed with little of the 'GOT TO GET ONE CAR AHEAD OF YOU AT ALL COST' mentality.
In some places, these cameras work, we can only hope they work on the Stocksbridge bypass.
quote:
At least specs cameras go some way to preventing people slamming on brakes when they see them. .
In some places, these cameras work, we can only hope they work on the Stocksbridge bypass.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. We've all seen pillocks slamming on their brakes when they see a normal camera – why are SPECS any different? Most drivers won't have a clue unless they live in the area.
Incidentally, I used to live near Stocksbridge and am all too familiar with what a fast road the bypass is. But it wasn't speed that nearly caught me out – it was trying to overtake a slow truck. Can't remember if the solid white lines were there then (it was just after passing my driving test), but I've always questioned the lack of crash barrier.
And now the money's there, why isn't the barrier?
I believe a barrier is being erected. Even so, the simple fact is that this road is one which people travel to fast on.
Like I said, it teases you with long open views, but then takes them away and before you know it you're facing oncoming traffic. If people looked past then end of their bonnet when driving, then maybe there would be fewer accidents.
Unfortunately, a lot of people take no interest in their driving and believe themselves to be beyond reproach and infallible. They then go to have / cause accidents on roads such as this.
Better driver training is the key, but until that happens, we need to slow people down that do not have the skill or judgement to drive at speed. I know this is punishing the ones who take pride in there driving, but to be honest (no offence spoon) a driver who extends their observations wouldn't even contemplate an overtake on the Stocksbridge Bypass.
Rob
Like I said, it teases you with long open views, but then takes them away and before you know it you're facing oncoming traffic. If people looked past then end of their bonnet when driving, then maybe there would be fewer accidents.
Unfortunately, a lot of people take no interest in their driving and believe themselves to be beyond reproach and infallible. They then go to have / cause accidents on roads such as this.
Better driver training is the key, but until that happens, we need to slow people down that do not have the skill or judgement to drive at speed. I know this is punishing the ones who take pride in there driving, but to be honest (no offence spoon) a driver who extends their observations wouldn't even contemplate an overtake on the Stocksbridge Bypass.
Rob
Which is my point exactly. Most people pass their driving tests, then spend the next 60 years without learning a thing.
Sure, most real car nuts don't fit into that category, but we don't want to be hit head-on by someone who does. And on the Stocksbridge bypass, I really don't believe exceeding 60mph causes the accidents.
Yes, fit the cameras and bring the limit down to 40 if they have to. (Did I really just say that?)
But a barrier would be more effective.
Sure, most real car nuts don't fit into that category, but we don't want to be hit head-on by someone who does. And on the Stocksbridge bypass, I really don't believe exceeding 60mph causes the accidents.
Yes, fit the cameras and bring the limit down to 40 if they have to. (Did I really just say that?)
But a barrier would be more effective.
quote:
Revenue issues aside, if this is a genuine accident black spot isn't there an obligation on the part of the local authorities to engineer out hazards ?
I seem to recall someone raising this point recently in connection with the approach to a roundabout and bikers coming a cropper.
Maybe that could form the basis of a challenge for the pro-camera groups, i.e. safety is our main concern not just being anti-camera.
Uh, yeah, that was me. This (the "Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (1994)") only applies to new constructions, and has been in force since 1/1/1996.
If a road has been built since then - construction started since then - with inherent hazards then there may be an argument that the design has not complied with these regulations and that the council has to do something about it.
I've no idea what the validity of such a challenge would be tho' in respect of something once construction is complete.
The Health and Safety Executive would be able to answer that question. And they are quite powerful; it might be worth trying to convince them of the argument.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff