I was led to Believe

[Ballistic Banana]

that safety cameras wher only put up on danger spots that had a said amount of accidents per year.

So why DA'FCUK are there some allready up on the new bypass around Clapham in Beds whan the road aint even open YET!!!

Unless of course there has been alot of accidents while building the new road.

But is this true about cameras and accident spots or is it just a myth.

BB

[madcop]

Do you really need to ask that question?

[Captain Muppet]

As I have posted elsewhere cameras are exempt from the crash safety regs that are applied to other road furniture (lamp posts and the like) so by definition as soon as you put up a camera that location becomes very hazardous.

Anyway, I think you will find that the area just before the speed camera will become an accident blackspot as numpties plow into each other while hard on the brakes...

[Dazren]

Same thing happened on the Batheaston bypass. Camera sited before being opened to traffic.

Makes a mockery of the "official spin" on the things.

DAZ

[mondeoman]

Dazren said: Same thing happened on the Batheaston bypass. Camera sited before being opened to traffic.

Makes a mockery of the "official spin" on the things.

DAZ

Don't just tell us - tell the local papers/radio/MP - tell everyone!

[oakers]

The Batheaston one was a classic, one camera was hidden behind a bridge and after complaints when the new system of visibility came in it was moved. But, there was also complaints as to why this perfectly safe new dual carrigeway was only 50mph when the road leading into it was a 3 lane (overtaking in the center) NSL road. So the bastards sliped in a speed reduction to 50 all along with 40 on the single carriageway all the way from the M4. It was almost a tantrum response to being caught out as the blood sucking cash hungry leeches they are.

[Ballistic Banana]

madcop said: Do you really need to ask that question?

EERRR i might sound thick but 'YES' and 'WHY' do you ask why do i really need to ask that question??

And no i havent done a search though previous threads.

BB

[madcop]

On the advent of the introduction of speed cameras, which were expensive to install, they were sited in areas identified as being the most likely to have serious of fatal accidents attributed to the location.

Prior to this, speed enforcement was done on an adhoc basis from local demand (complaints from residents) or observed driver behaviour by traffic police officers.
The Traffic Police officers would know where the areas that people would be likely to drive fast in the more dangerous or potentially dangerous places.

Since the introduction of the speed camera and the netting off or capping off experiment and the thrust of the Govt to reduce death and injury on the roads. Police forces have been able to buy much more equipment (provided from the netted fines) and therefore are running out of serious or fatality based accident sites to place them.

The way things are going there will be many more cameras than stretches of roads to pu them on.

If people do not want speed cameras, then the way forward is to not get caught for speeding in areas where there are likely to be cameras.
Restricted roads in built up areas, dual carrigeways in built up areas and motorway road works are the most likely places to get caught.

If everybody left their speeding to areas where they were not likely to get caught, then the cameras would get no revenue and the Police would not be able to afford to buy any new ones.

Speeders are their own worst enemy where the cameras are concerned.

I like to drive progresively I have been doing so for over 20 years. I have never had a speeding ticket!(off duty. Those on duty are because of activations during emergency response driving) or for that matter any traffic offence penalty save a parking one in a multi storey in Winchester (And No I have never used the blue rover to get away with it either)

[Ballistic Banana]

Cheers for the explanation Madcop,

Another maybe stupid question but,

Does any of this money go towards making any of these roads safer if they are used in accident blackspots.

i.e that better griping tarmac on bad corners etc (i think some where up north used this on some bends where alot of bikers where coming off.


BB

[rs1952]

madcop said:

If everybody left their speeding to areas where they were not likely to get caught, then the cameras would get no revenue and the Police would not be able to afford to buy any new ones.

Speeders are their own worst enemy where the cameras are concerned.

I like to drive progresively I have been doing so for over 20 years. I have never had a speeding ticket!(off duty. Those on duty are because of activations during emergency response driving) or for that matter any traffic offence penalty save a parking one in a multi storey in Winchester (And No I have never used the blue rover to get away with it either)

I'm in agreement with you again then, that's twice in one night !!
(Although, in my case, no speeding convictions in 33 years - so far ..........!)

[madcop]

Ballistic Banana said:
Does any of this money go towards making any of these roads safer if they are used in accident blackspots.

BB

No it isn't a stupid question. I hasten to add there are very few stupid questions asked on this forum (one person I can think of though regularly lets him/herself down )

As far as I am aware, netting off for Police purposes, only allows the funds to be used for the purchase of more detection equipment. It cannot be used by Police forces for any other purpose.

Road safety features such as suregrip, shellgit etc are paid for from local authority budgets.
Ultimately I would say yes, that some of the money received by the treasury may be allocated into local authority coffers and then used for road improvements but only by default.

Much of the money taken in fines is used by the treasury to run the hugely expensive judicial system and the costs of legal aid schemes.

[podie]

Call me a cynic... but if they're putting cameras on NEW roads, then surely that indicates poor highway design?

[madcop]

podie said: Call me a cynic... but if they're putting cameras on NEW roads, then surely that indicates poor highway design?

No it doesn't. It means that they perceive that the design is so good that people will be capable of hooning along it and they now have so many cameras to emplace that this will be an ideal way of curtailing any that are tempted to see just how good the road really is

[Ballistic Banana]

It means that they perceive that the design is so good that people will be capable of hooning along it and they now have so many cameras to emplace that this will be an ideal way of curtailing any that are tempted to see just how good the road really is

---

So why the Truvelo placed ten metres before some Traffic Lights near to me, These are surely not in a place likely to catch anyone speeding.

Are these for red light jumpers.

Never seen them Flash and they have been there for years and neither has my brother-in-law who is the unfortunate one to have it right outside his house.

BB

[madcop]

Ballistic Banana said:

So why the Truvelo placed ten metres before some Traffic Lights near to me, These are surely not in a place likely to catch anyone speeding.

Are these for red light jumpers.

Never seen them Flash and they have been there for years and neither has my brother-in-law who is the unfortunate one to have it right outside his house.

BB

If they are positioned 10 metres from a ATS junction then they will be for red light jumpers.
The speed is included o te photo, the same as in Gatso evidence. The speed is not proceded with as there are no calibration lines across the junction to verify the speed the vehicle went through the junction.

The speed is relevant if there is another incident such as an accident which can swing the pendulum from Careless to Dangerous driving.

[Podie]

madcop said:

podie said: Call me a cynic... but if they're putting cameras on NEW roads, then surely that indicates poor highway design?

No it doesn't. It means that they perceive that the design is so good that people will be capable of hooning along it and they now have so many cameras to emplace that this will be an ideal way of curtailing any that are tempted to see just how good the road really is

Not sure if I agree with you on that one. Surely it means that they have created a road that encourages people to speed? - therefore they have used cameras to enforce the speed limit.

If they had designed the highway appropriately, it is possible to reduce the number of people who exceed the limit. Numerous studies have been run and millions of pounds spent on looking into this problem. A relatively small reduction in the width of lanes is known to reduce the average speed - surely this would have been a better approach?

Surely by doing what they have done will only increase the general hatred towards speed cameras..?

>> Edited by Podie on Wednesday 13th November 11:48

[madcop]

Podie said: If they had designed the highway appropriately, it is possible to reduce the number of people who exceed the limit. Numerous studies have been run and millions of pounds spent on looking into this problem. A relatively small reduction in the width of lanes is known to reduce the average speed - surely this would have been a better approach?

I would agree with you that it does reduce the speed of traffic which is reasonably heavy.
Reducing lane widths however brings cars closer together and a significant increase of the risk that they will have head on crashes.

I am about to post a new topic that I have taken from the I.A.M. magazine which actually gives your theory a good deal of credence though.

[Podie]

madcop said:

Podie said: If they had designed the highway appropriately, it is possible to reduce the number of people who exceed the limit. Numerous studies have been run and millions of pounds spent on looking into this problem. A relatively small reduction in the width of lanes is known to reduce the average speed - surely this would have been a better approach?

I would agree with you that it does reduce the speed of traffic which is reasonably heavy.
Reducing lane widths however brings cars closer together and a significant increase of the risk that they will have head on crashes.

I am about to post a new topic that I have taken from the I.A.M. magazine which actually gives your theory a good deal of credence though.

hmmm... interesting. I've been involved in a few of these studies, and although it does bring cars closer together, that is one of the things that helps control the speed, since drivers are more aware of the risks. People seem to forget that cars can kill.

I'm not saying that reducing lane widths is THE answer, nor am I saying that the introduction of speed cameras is either - my point is that once again, those with the power to do something have taken the easy option.

[madcop]

Podie said: I'm not saying that reducing lane widths is THE answer, nor am I saying that the introduction of speed cameras is either - my point is that once again, those with the power to do something have taken the easy option.

But have they?

To make a road wider than it may necessarily be is very expensive in road building costs.

To narrow it down may reduce traffic speed significantly.

I would suggest that the easy option and cheaper and quicker one would have been to make the road narrow. I would still think that the cameras would arrive on it as they have the revenue to place them and during non peak times with a good new surface, some drivers will take advantage to try the surface out!

[hertsbiker]

into this problem. A relatively small reduction in the width of lanes is known to reduce the average speed - surely this would have been a better approach?

Ahh! this may be why bikes encourage you to go faster? - the road is effectively wider???

Hmm. Almost a good theory. Time to shutup.