|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
A14 SPECS Rollout as Police admit Speedcams cause Accidents
Article by: Darren Griffin
Date: 11 Nov 2010
 Accompanying news that the number of average speed cameras on the A14 in Cambridgeshire is set to increase was a comment that fixed speed cameras cause accidents.
This will perhaps come as little surprise to drivers but it is a suprising admission to come from an Cambridgeshire and Peterborough's Road Safety Camera Unit.
The Cambridge News reports that the existing 17-mile stretch of average speed cameras on the A14w ill be extended with a further 6-mile section between Girton and junction 34. The project will go out to tender in early 2011.
Inspector Clinton Hale said: "Average speed cameras are better than fixed because they give the motorist penalty of warning. With fixed cameras they often come to an abrupt slow down which can cause accidents."
| Comments
|
 Posted by Oldboy on Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:09 am |
 |
| News Team Wrote: |
Inspector Clinton Hale said: "Average speed cameras are better than fixed because they give the motorist penalty of warning. With fixed cameras they often come to an abrupt slow down which can cause accidents."
|
A Freudian slip perhaps? 
Richard
TT 910 V7.903: Europe Map v1045
TT Via 135 App 12.075: Europe Map v1120 |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:54 pm |
|
364 caught speeding in 2 years? That's £12.420 per anum. Hardly a cash cow for the government as is reported methinks. But the figures seem to prove that they are operative.
Thinks again. When did the fine go up from £30 to £60? So perhaps it's less than this.
|
|
| Posted by Darren on Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:00 pm |
|
| Oldboy Wrote: | | A Freudian slip perhaps? |
Oops, yes rather!
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by Skippy on Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:34 am |
|
| M8TJT Wrote: | | 364 caught speeding in 2 years? That's £12.420 per anum. Hardly a cash cow for the government as is reported methinks. :shock |
Absolutely. That's why they prefer the fixed cameras.
Look at the facts, the SPECS cameras have been around for donkeys years but they never really took off. Contrast that to the growth in the number of digital (Monitron) cameras and mobile cameras.... Why is that?
It's not about which ones are the most effective at slowing traffic (ie SPECS), it's about which ones are best at catching the most offences and this is the fixed cameras because people who brake for cameras get caught unawares. 
To prove the point: how many naughty people do you see speeding up to fixed cameras and then slowing, compared to people speeding through an average speed zone? All they need to do is create an average speed zone 10 or 20 miles long. Yes, there will be a few people join/leave the zone in the middle but on the whole 95% people are going to have to check their speed or get booked....
But that's not going to make any money is it! Worse still, it will expose the myth that the speed cameras are actually making such a difference to road safety.
Gone fishing! |
|
| Posted by M8TJT on Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:27 am |
|
| Skippy Wrote: | | Worse still, it will expose the myth that the speed cameras are actually making such a difference to road safety. |
But according to the Cambridge statistics, their specs cams do.
|
|
| Posted by Darren on Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:43 am |
|
SPECS is still something of a mystery. How many of the cameras are active at any one time is unknown and from conversations with the manufacturers, it appears that they are rarely all active and in some roadworks installs, not even connected!
Also, SPECS MK1 has had serious issues with reading number plates in low light. So much so that some installations now have generator powered flood lights at the entry/exit pairs to assist the cameras.
SPECS3 is I'm told very much better in this regard.
So it may simply be that (if the data is to be believed) the cameras are not all working and/or do not perform well at night. Given the local traffic you'r be very lucky to be able to reach the speed limit during much of the daylight hours.
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by dinsdale on Fri Nov 12, 2010 9:09 am |
|
The ridiculous thing about having cameras on that stretch of the A14 is that I have never managed to average more than 70 between a pair of cameras! That's not because the other cars are slowing down for the cameras - it's simply the amount of traffic, in particular lorries.
|
|
| Posted by Fellwalker on Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:16 pm |
|
I am sorry Darren but when you state that "fixed speed cameras cause accidents", that is absolute rubbish. It is NOT what the Cambridge News said, nor is it what the police are reported to have said.
It is stupid drivers (speeding or otherwise) who slow down when they see a speed camera.
As you said, the police statement was “Average speed cameras are better than fixed because they give the motorist penalty (sic) of warning. With fixed cameras they often come to an abrupt slow down which can cause accidents.
“The big problem we’ll still see on the road is tailgating but new technology has been developed to deal with the problem.”
If drivers drive legally, they have no need to slow down. If drivers drive alertly, they will have no need to slow down suddenly. If drivers do not tailgate, they will have time to react and slow down themselves.
Do NOT blame the cameras. It is the drivers at fault. When will you accept that drivers should follow the law? When will many drivers accept that they have a responsibility to comply with the law of the land, and that speed limits are not optional?
Samsung Galaxy Note 9, Nexus 5, Galaxy tab S3. Also use OSMAnd+, Sygic Mobile Maps, and OS maps app. Also "Great Britain Topo Maps" and "Old Maps". Don't use speed camera database as sticking to the limit is safer. |
|
| Posted by Darren on Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:03 pm |
|
It's not rubbish. Whilst they may not be the primary cause, they are a factor.
| Quote: | | if drivers drive legally, they have no need to slow down. If drivers drive alertly, they will have no need to slow down suddenly. If drivers do not tailgate, they will have time to react and slow down themselves. |
That is, if I may say so, a rose tinted view of driving. I entirely agree that, if you drive within the speed limit, leave the correct gaps and use correct observation then a speed camera should not cause you to hit the brakes. But few of us can claim to be without fault and to drive perfectly at all times and speed cameras are just another distraction that can contribute to accidents.
| Quote: | | Do NOT blame the cameras. It is the drivers at fault. When will you accept that drivers should follow the law? When will many drivers accept that they have a responsibility to comply with the law of the land, and that speed limits are not optional? |
I never blamed the cameras. But I realise that we don't live in a perfect world and that few of us can claim never to have exceeded a speed limit, however briefly.
Sometimes it is safer to have our eyes looking out at the road and other vehicles and not on the speedometer?
Darren Griffin |
|
| Posted by Fellwalker on Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:04 pm |
|
| Darren Wrote: |
I never blamed the cameras. But I realise that we don't live in a perfect world and that few of us can claim never to have exceeded a speed limit, however briefly.
Sometimes it is safer to have our eyes looking out at the road and other vehicles and not on the speedometer? |
Sorry Darren but you did. You specifically said as the first paragraph of your report : "Accompanying news that the number of average speed cameras on the A14 in Cambridgeshire is set to increase was a comment that fixed speed cameras cause accidents."
I agree I have rose tinted glasses, but I learned to drive in an unlimited era, so I don't like speed limits myself. I was always able to tell my speed approximately by engine noise. Now I mostly use cruise control outside town, but even when i don't i can tell if my speed has changed since my last glance at the speedo. I don't have to keep an eye on it ALL the time.
Samsung Galaxy Note 9, Nexus 5, Galaxy tab S3. Also use OSMAnd+, Sygic Mobile Maps, and OS maps app. Also "Great Britain Topo Maps" and "Old Maps". Don't use speed camera database as sticking to the limit is safer. |
|
| Posted by Darren on Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:17 pm |
|
| Fellwalker Wrote: | | Sorry Darren but you did. You specifically said as the first paragraph of your report : "Accompanying news that the number of average speed cameras on the A14 in Cambridgeshire is set to increase was a comment that fixed speed cameras cause accidents." |
Exactly, I quoted a report. That is entirely different. I'm delighted to hear that you possess cruise control and an uncanny ability to control your speed at all times. If only we were all so gifted.
Darren Griffin |
|
|
| Click here to view more comments... |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
