Welcome to North Wales - GoSafe say hi

[Darren]

I support speed limits, they generally exist for good reasons and road safety is a big, and important issue. But when I see images such as this I can't help but feel anger.

The picture, courtesy of North Wales speed camera spotters, shows a mobile speed camera set-up over the A55 in Colwyn Bay North Wales. The dual carriageway here, on the primary expressway link between England, North Wales and the ferry port at Holyhead, is a 50mph limit, not for safety reasons but to reduce noise because the road was built through the centre of the town.

So it makes a prime revenue raising opportunity for GoSafe, the North Wales Safety Camera Partnership. Now we can argue about whether anyone who speeds deserves the fine or not, but the covert installation of the camera can only have been sited to catch drivers unaware, they won't ever see the camera van and the first they'll know of it is when the NIP hits their mat.

From the GOSafe website:

"Myth: Safety cameras are hidden to catch motorists out and are placed where they will record the most speeding offences.
Fact: Cameras are not hidden to catch drivers out or placed where they will record the most speeding offences. Cameras are there to encourage motorists to drive within the speed limit so the most successful cameras are those which record the LEAST number of offences not the most."

I think GoSafe need to look up the definition of hidden! This set-up doesn't even have the benefit of forcing drivers to slow down and think twice. It's this type of practice that increases the suspicion of drivers that speed cameras exist as a stealth tax, when the road is more than capable of accommodating a higher speed, there is no safety issue here.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[K13ehr]

There is no defence of course, and there are always speed camera warning signs, but this is going a bit too far and the operator should be reported to the larger press.

[Darren]

It's this particular location that raises my ire, a modern dualled stretch that has no business being a 50 save for noise reduction measures. And to pop the camera there peeping at the rear of cars as they pass the slip below just smacks of sneakiness at its worst.

I'm about to submit an FoI request for the accident stats on the A55 through Colwyn Bay, I bet they will make for an interesting read
_________________
Darren Griffin

[Cymro55]

Darren, I usually agree with your comments on here, but in this instance I am afraid you are wrong. The reason for the 50 mph limit on this stretch of the A55 is not entirely due to noise considerations (there has been a lot of noise reduction work done over the years) but it is due to the configuration of the road. There are three junctions within a couple of miles and so the slip roads are all shorter than normal at these junctions (20, 21 & 22). Consequently joining speed needs to be lower.
I think you may be surprised when you receive the accident statistics for this stretch of road.

[Darren]

Hmm, Ok I can see accept that, it's home turf for me so I'm pretty familiar with the layout but was sure the lowered speed was initially set in place due to noise abatement concerns but if I'm wrong then it's not unusual

I'll post the results of the FoI request when they are forthcoming.
_________________
Darren Griffin

[M8TJT]

[netman]

This is the North Wales approach all over. Not the first time they've been called out for covert installations.

Basically the approach is to stick rigidly to limits, for the entirety of the route. I've covered it many times.

So perhaps this approach works - either everyone moves along at, or below the limit - or there is revenue generation. It's probably win:win from their side!

Whether it's actually 'safer' overall to have drivers concentrating primarily on their speedometer, rather than overall hazard perception and management is a discussion that probably has no end!

[Cymro55]

M8TJT, with reference to the line from my post that you have quoted, I was not saying that I disagree with Darren about the hiding of the camera, but about the need for the 50mph limit being due to safety reasons.
As it happens I DO agree that the cameras in this area are often hidden, in fact I posted on another forum about a camera van being hidden in the entrance to an electricity substation less than two miles from this latest example and I am sure you will remember the infamous 'speedcam in a horsebox' a few years ago.

[M8TJT]

In which case, my apologies for the quotation that was, it transpires, nothing to do with my main cut and thrust that GOSafe are lying when they say they don't hide cameras, as the photo clearly shows that they do. The reason for this must be for revenue gathering purposes. If it were for road safety and 'persuasion', then it would be in an open space for everyone to see. If you know that mobile cameras are operating in an area, you are more likely to be a little more careful with your speed control.
I do not subscribe to netman and other's theory "Whether it's actually 'safer' overall to have drivers concentrating primarily on their speedometer, rather than overall hazard perception". This is a complete red herring, as if you wish to maintain at or below the current speed limit, you do not have to drive constantly looking at your speedo. If you find that you have to do this, just slow down a little and give the "overall hazard perception" your full attention and make a real and positive contribution to road safety..

[Sionyn]

As for a few previous posters, Bae Colwyn is in my neck of the woods.
I've seen, in my mirrors, police cars sitting near the top of on-ramps regularly enough (no idea if they had speed cameras), but had no idea they were being this sneaky and underhand.
Not good. Not good at all.

I've often heard that the 50 limit was for noise reduction because the road runs through a built-up and largely residential area, but had not previously heard that it might be because of shorter than usual slip roads. Thinking about it, though, I've a feeling that the slip roads might very well be shorter than usual.
Either or both explanations would make sense.

My favourite explanation for the 50 limit, however, is one that was suggested to me about 15 years ago: it's because so many of the local drivers are particularly slow and doddery pensioners who perhaps shouldn't be driving at all (I'm not too far off that age myself so I'm not being ageist here!) and don't really understand the concept of slip roads, so the limit is both for their safety and for that of everybody else passing through the town.
It might not be true, but it's always made me smile.

[M8TJT]

It's not the police or specifically the speed limit that are being criticised here, it's the civilian fund raising (under the pretext of road safety) setup called GOSafe, who claim not to hide their cameras to raise money but the photographic evidence says otherwise.

[Kremmen]

If we have a stretch of road with either a history or hazards then that sounds to me like a specs zone. For the whole stretch keep it at 50 and Bob's your uncle.
_________________
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3

[Engine_Counter]

Come on guys. What's wrong with covert operations? There are signs warning that cameras MAY be in operation, if you choose to ignore them than that's your fault.

This is meant to be a site that's encouraging safe and legal driving. IMHO anyone complaining about covert operations is indirectly admitting that they speed.

If everyone drove within the limits traffic would flow more freely and there'd be fewer accidents. Better for everyone, rather than the selfish ones who don't give a damn about anyone or anything.

Personally i'm disgusted that speed cameras are used as a means of generating funds. IMHO

2 strikes on a single stretch of road
4 strikes anywhere

should lead to loss of license for 12 months.
After loss of license any additional strike should lead to a minimum of 3 months prison, preferably with hard labour
_________________
Al

Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra - Android 11.0
CamerAlert V 1.4.0.876 Doesn't Work
TomTom Go Mobile V3.1.0 (4036), Map - UK & ROI - V15464/2.4.3.

[M8TJT]

[Engine_Counter]

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!