Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:09 am Post subject:
If I might put my penn'orth in please?
I believe we must Verify cameras in the place where they are actually located, so I'd say that camera is correctly placed.
When asked for advice on warning distances, it is often recommended to use the 10 times rule, so that a 50mph camera gets 500 yards distance. BUT we also add the advice to double the distance for mobiles, so for this one, that'd be 1,000 yards.
I think it would be impossible to second guess ALL users by putting the coordinates further along the road - locate it accurately and let users choose their own warning distances. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 1:31 am Post subject:
Quote:
When asked for advice on warning distances, it is often recommended to use the 10 times rule, so that a 50mph camera gets 500 yards distance. BUT we also add the advice to double the distance for mobiles, so for this one, that'd be 1,000 yards.
Sorry Dennis, never made myself clear. I meant the 10 times as per the guidlines for working out the distance from the bridge height, i.e. the bridge would have to be 36 feet high for the angle to be shallow enough for an accurate reading.
I agree 100% that the mobile in question should be put back to 50.
However, the same site covers some distance back down Bluebell Hill, a person travelling at 80 with their warning set at 1000 yards for the 50 could still be caught exceeding the 70 section. That's why I said earlier I thought a 'dummy' camera, in addition to the one in question, shown about a quarter of a mile before the bridge would cover those in the 70 limit. Everybody covered.
Edit. 'Cos my brain is tired and wasn't telling my fingers which keys to press. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2008 7:29 pm Post subject:
[quote="Lost_Property"]
Quote:
I agree 100% that the mobile in question should be put back to 50.
However, the same site covers some distance back down Bluebell Hill, a person travelling at 80 with their warning set at 1000 yards for the 50 could still be caught exceeding the 70 section. That's why I said earlier I thought a 'dummy' camera, in addition to the one in question, shown about a quarter of a mile before the bridge would cover those in the 70 limit. Everybody covered.
As 80 mph is in excess of the 70 mph speed limit for the lower part of the road any one caught speeding wont get any sympathy from me. the database needs to be accurate and users then have to make proper use of that information.. With the valuable advise on setting warning distances this should be more than enough.
At the end of the day who's going to be responsible for the points/fine (not PGPS or its verifiers) --- the driver in charge of the vehicle..
Remember using the speed camera database doesn't mean its OK to speed when there's no camera warnings. _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:17 am Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
the bridge would have to be 36 feet high for the angle to be shallow enough for an accurate reading.
As a bear of little brain, I'm lost here. The marking is 360 feet away from the camera. The camera has to have minimum 10 x height. Not many bridges are 36 feet high (roof peak of a two storey house?), in fact I'd hazard a pure guess at more like 30 feet or even less. At 30 feet high, the camera fires at "not less than" 300 feet away. Am I missing something?
But wiz and I agree - doing 80 in a 70 zone is "your own" fault and set your warnings to suit the speed limit (a 70mph camera 50 yards down the road gives a warning 1,400 yards in advance - is that 3/4 of a mile? waste of time in my opinion). _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 2:31 am Post subject:
DennisN wrote:
As a bear of little brain, I'm lost here. The marking is 360 feet away from the camera. The camera has to have minimum 10 x height. Not many bridges are 36 feet high
Isn't it all the other way round?
I think LP said that in order to get a MINIMUM angle for the gun to work at (i.e it isn't pointing down too much), there has to be a MAXIMUM height for the bridge.
Last edited by Andy_P on Sun Sep 21, 2008 11:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 3:26 am Post subject:
Quote:
But wiz and I agree - doing 80 in a 70 zone is "your own" fault and set your warnings to suit the speed limit (a 70mph camera 50 yards down the road gives a warning 1,400 yards in advance - is that 3/4 of a mile? waste of time in my opinion).
To be honest it doesn't bother me if the mobile in question is put back to 50mph and left at that. I have two advantages, I know the road very well, the speed limits and where the cameras are.
If all members stuck rigidly to the speed limits there would be no need for them to download the database, the fact they do surely means they do sometimes go over the top and want a warning of the cameras. I don't condone speeding, mainly because it doesn't save much time. If person A does a 75 mile journey at 75mph and person B sticks to 60, there's only a 15 minute difference, less if you take into account the time getting to the motorway and the time from motorway to final destination. Added to which, person A would arrive uptight and frustrated, probably at being held up by those doing 70, where person B would be more relaxed, have less wear and tear on his car and more mpg.
Quote:
I'm for it changing back to 50 mph i get the warning well in advance of the 50 mph road markings..
Why would you want a warning if you stick to the speed limits? The 50 signs and road markings are quite clear.
In my opinion the best action in the case of the cameras on the bridge is to change the one covering the 50 section back to 50 and make the 70 one reversible, that way everything is covered, just in case.
I'll give up on this one, just as I did on a section of the M20 where it was reported North/South of the M20, J4 to J6, had gantries with cameras on. I made a special journey and found the Eastbound had a number of gantries but the Westbound only one, which was an information sign. A number of people came up with their own reports indicating otherwise, so I made another special journey. The road was still East/West not North/South and there were still no gantries Westbound. I felt if people could do a better job than me they were welcome to it.
In future I shall report my findings as usual and leave it at that, whether my report is accepted or not is up to MaFt, I won't be getting involved in any more open debate.
I have all my camera warnings set to 400 yards. Way too short for mobiles, I hear people say, but as I tend not to exceed the speed limits, last speeding fine 1972, all my reports have been with others in mind who may not have slowed down yet. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 7:58 am Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
I won't be getting involved in any more open debate.
I hope you don't mean that and I hope the thought is not due to my participation here.
In case I've been misunderstood, I intended to make two contributions - First, a reply to the question about where we should verify
Quote:
Is there not a verifiers policy code of practise
We haven't been given rules, we have all assumed how to go about it, so I used my own code of practice, namely verify the actual location.
I also linked the ACPO guidelines about minimum distance from overbridge.
I have exactly the same sentiments as you posted about speed and I'd hate to think you feel we are of opposed views here.
Quote:
I have all my camera warnings set to 400 yards. Way too short for mobiles, I hear people say, but as I tend not to exceed the speed limits, last speeding fine 1972, all my reports have been with others in mind who may not have slowed down yet.
I'm even worse, all mine are at the default 300 yards, except Redlight, 150yds. One Redlight offence (long expired and which I wished I'd had the bottle to challenge) is my total criminality in 45 years, unless you count a £2 fine for parking overnight without lights in 1964. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 8:12 am Post subject:
Andy_P wrote:
DennisN wrote:
As a bear of little brain, I'm lost here. The marking is 360 feet away from the camera. The camera has to have minimum 10 x height. Not many bridges are 36 feet high
Isn't it all the other way round?
I think LP said that in order to get a MINIMUM angle for the gun to work at (i.e it isn't pointing down too much), there has to be a MAXIMUM height for the bridge.
What I was getting at is that if the bridge is more than 36 feet high (unusual for a standard bridge) it can't operate at 360 feet, but if the bridge is only 30 feet (or less - what's the "norm" for determining a "low bridge" categorisation?), it can cover 300 feet and greater. In other words, you don't use the distance to determine the bridge height, rather the other way round, the distance is governed by the height at which you are operating the camera.
Or are we all saying the same thing? _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:17 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I hope you don't mean that and I hope the thought is not due to my participation here.
No of course not Dennis. Did you check the time I was writing? Went next door to my neighbours birthday party and couldn't get away.
Quote:
think LP said that in order to get a MINIMUM angle for the gun to work at (i.e it isn't pointing down too much), there has to be a MAXIMUM height for the bridge.
Spot on Andy.
Now here are my thoughts. I still think the position of that 'darn' camera would be esier to pick up people in the 70 section than the 50, so to satisfy my own curiosity I will be driving to Common Road, aim my 'trusty' digital measure down towards the road, middle lane both carriageways, to find the height to the 'hand rail', add a couple of feet for where the camera would be, multiply by 10 to see the minimum distance needed to make an accurate reading , and see if the start of the 50 comes within this distance.
Still thinking out loud, the measurement on the bridge from the downhill section, but upside of the bridge, will be shorter than that on the uphill section, taken on the downside of the bridge. (Confused yet?)
Like you Dennis, I doubt the bridge will be 36 feet high, even taking into account the extra height of the camera above the bridge, so it could be used for the 50 section.
Let's assume, until I get the exact figure, the bridge is the height of a bus 14' 10" and there's a 2' 0" clearance, add another 5' 0" to camera position and we get say 22', multiply by 10 and the minimum distance for the downward angle of the camera is 220 feet. The bridge is 360 feet from the start of the 50 limit, which means the camera operator has a 140' window.
In terms of time, 70mph is 103ft/sec, giving the operator less than 1.5 secs to aim/lock on to number plate and fire. He could of course aim while the car is still in the 70 limit but would have to be careful not to pull the trigger before the 50 limit it reached.
WAKE UP DENNIS, I'm not quite finished.
Think of the related warning distances to speed, say 700 yards at 70mph. Think about it. You are travelling at 70 and get a warning at a related distance to 70, not necessary because you are travelling at the permitted speed. If however you are travelling at 80mph, whoops, too late. Therefore I used the distance needed for 80 miles per hour as the 70 warning and upped all the others 10mph above e.g. for 30 I used the 40 mph distance. A person travelling at 80mph, by their speedo, would actually be doing slightly less and as the guidelines are e.g. 70+10%+2mph, easing off the throttle when you get the (earlier) warning the chance of a ticket is slim.
Hear endeth the lesson. (Wait for the backlash maybe? Go for it). _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 241 Location: Dartford, Kent, UK
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:30 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Hear endeth the lesson. (Wait for the backlash maybe? Go for it).
No backlash from me, pm if you want a hand measuring mate...
I didn't start this post to create any problems. If I have sorry..
1. The change in speed and location prompted my question.
2.Its nice to have warnings when in unfamiliar surroundings and its good to be reassured that you are travelling at the correct speed, so accuracy in all location and actual speed limit is important..
3. I travel this route every day so don't need the warning to keep me safe from speeding but any one unfamiliar could be confused by 70 warning just before entering a 50 mph zone.
please don't take offence, we all go through life learning something new everyday so lets keep learning _________________ Alan --- aka Wiz.
Iphone 4S 16gb, ios 5 windows 7, CamerAlert, CoPilot & TomTom
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I didn't start this post to create any problems. If I have sorry..
No apology needed. I had a late night and wasn't my usual jovial self. Still suffering a little.
Quote:
1. The change in speed and location prompted my question.
You were right in doing so and I agree it should go back to 50mph. However, I still feel the 70 section should be covered.
Quote:
2.Its nice to have warnings when in unfamiliar surroundings and its good to be reassured that you are travelling at the correct speed, so accuracy in all location and actual speed limit is important..
I can't disagree with that, that's why I keep on about the 70 being covered.
Quote:
3. I travel this route every day so don't need the warning to keep me safe from speeding but any one unfamiliar could be confused by 70 warning just before entering a 50 mph zone.
Damn, I can't disagree with that either, but again the 70 keeps coming to mind.
Safest bet is to follow the 101 bus route, via Lower Bell, up the left side of Bluebell Hill along the Old Chatham Road.
Edit: 'Cos I missed
Quote:
No backlash from me, pm if you want a hand measuring mate...
I should be OK as my 'laser' thingy measures several hundred metres, I'll just aim it down and get a few readings. Probably tomorrow or Tuesday. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:32 pm Post subject:
Lost_Property wrote:
WAKE UP DENNIS, I'm not quite finished.
I was up at 4am and in Broadstairs at 8:30am today, so ... .
I'm sure your figures are dead brilliant, even though I can't get my head round them - I might try getting Anita to explain them to me later. Oh and by the way, looking at bridges today, I hastily revise my estimate that they aren't 36 feet up - just watching a gurt lorry slipping underneath, adding his clearance, the bridge thickness, the parapet and then two feet got me to a perfectly calculated 36 feet (rule of thumb, not laser thingy - stuff like that and I don't get on. I judge stuff with perfection, is how I once built a canoe with one side shorter than the other - the lorry was about a thumb and the rest about a thumb and a bit).
There is one small puzzle that I'd like to chuck into the pot. Is that a gantry which I see before my eyes at the 50 roadmarkings? Might it be of similar height to the bridge. Whether yea or nay, might it just get slightly in the way of "acceptable" tolerances for roadside furniture affecting mobile cameras? Will the mobile be able to look through/past it to get you doing 81 further down the road?
Quote:
2.Its nice to have warnings when in unfamiliar surroundings and its good to be reassured that you are travelling at the correct speed, so accuracy in all location and actual speed limit is important..
Very very true, wiz and don't I appreciate it, doing 60k miles a year - a lot of the 400+ I did today was either unfamiliar, or quite infrequent. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I was up at 4am and in Broadstairs at 8:30am today
When I was a train guard we had 04:33 starts, up at 03:30, I never did learn how to see through my eyelids properly, until about 09:00 when a coffe and bacon sarney were going in a downward direction.
Broadstairs eh? So you passed the M20 end of the A229?
For future reference, if you look at the A229 you'll see the link between M20 and M2 is shorter, although the distance on the M2 between the A229 and A249 is longer than on the M20, local knowledge would tell you that it is the better route. There are more cameras on the M20 between the A229 and A249, and more cameras on A249 than the A229. Detling Hill (A249) is a steeper gradient than Bluebell Hill (A229), and there have been less accidents on the A229 than the A249.
Plus you would have passed the camera in question and taken measurements. I'd have given you the THUMS UP to that.
If you do the trip again, and fancy a nice all day breakfast, enter Whitstable in one of your sat navs then look for where Marine Parade meets Marine Crescent. Lovely grub, plus if it's a nice day you can sit outside and take in the wonderful 'wind farm' just off the coast.
But back to topic.
Quote:
There is one small puzzle that I'd like to chuck into the pot. Is that a gantry which I see before my eyes at the 50 roadmarkings? Might it be of similar height to the bridge. Whether yea or nay, might it just get slightly in the way of "acceptable" tolerances for roadside furniture affecting mobile cameras? Will the mobile be able to look through/past it to get you doing 81 further down the road?
Yea, quite possible as the shadows are similar. I couldn't make it today but will go tomorrow, take measurements and a couple of photographs. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14893 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:12 pm Post subject:
My eyelids know exactly where you're coming from!
Hmm, I made a small mistake of listening to the radio when I should have been turning off at Jct 7 for A249, had to carry on to J8, turn round and run the gauntlet of all the early commuters coming from my right to prevent me getting onto the J7 roundabout. A nice fellow in a maroon car gave me a beep and hand wave when I pulled across in the space he'd left for me (well, blasted his horn and made some sort of rude gesture reserved specifically for almostAudimetallicsilvervanmen who take advantage).
Anyway, what a coincidence, although I didn't have my Verifiers files running at the time - they're on NewToy which is still awaiting an in-car charger and I needed to conserve battery power for the return trip. But I'd go for the A249 always on mileage - I don't need the extra speed, particularly on that job, as I left home with plenty of time to potter along at an economical speed and did the return trip at a leisurely pace too. But I really wish I had realised where I was going as I'd have definitely gone out of my way - it's so interesting when I go somewhere relevant to something like this thread. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Feb 01, 2006 Posts: 2543 Location: Rainham, Kent. England.
Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:38 pm Post subject:
Quote:
A nice fellow in a maroon car gave me a beep and hand wave when I pulled across in the space he'd left for me
Quote:
But I'd go for the A249 always on mileage - I don't need the extra speed, particularly on that job, as I left home with plenty of time to potter along at an economical speed and did the return trip at a leisurely pace too.
Ref: Autoroute 2007. Via A249 - 200 miles - 3 hrs 4 mins, via A229 - 202.5 miles - 3 hrs 7 mins.
Quote:
But I really wish I had realised where I was going as I'd have definitely gone out of my way - it's so interesting when I go somewhere relevant to something like this thread.
When I get the photos I'll PM you for your e-mail address and send them, you'll get a better idea of the layout.
If my digital technology measuring thingy, or your thumb, show the camera as 36 feet above the carriageway then they can't, if sticking to the rule of 10 times height, really get you in the 50. Then there's the 'furniture' which may block the view for the 70 section, although all I've ever seen in the area is the odd mattress and fridge.
All should be revealed tomorrow, after I get up at about 09:00 because since being retired I flatly refuse to get up early ever again, except when my son returned from Australia and I had to meet him at Heathrow at 05:00. _________________ Formerly known as Lost_Property
And NO that's NOT me in the Avatar.
Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising
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!
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous1, 2, 3Next
Page 2 of 3
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 cannot vote in polls in this forum
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
Hi! We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
But as we’re losing ad-revenue from this then why not make 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!
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
.
Is that a gantry which I see before my eyes at the 50 roadmarkings? Might it be of similar height to the bridge. Whether yea or nay, might it just get slightly in the way of "acceptable" tolerances for roadside furniture affecting mobile cameras? Will the mobile be able to look through/past it to get you doing 81 further down the road?
