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!
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:54 pm Post subject: One camera, two speed limits?
This camera has been discussed before but with a different question.
GATSO:15238@60 and GATSO:15239@70, on the Berwick-upon-Tweed bye pass in North Northumberland, are one and the same camera. IT is reversible - to point North or South - and has therefore been given two reference numbers.
IT is situated on the central reservation of a dual carriageway. The dual carriageway is only about 300 yards long with a single carriageway leading to and from it.
The only reason that this short length of dualing was built was to accomodate two slip roads to/from the A1 - one to enable north bound traffic to turn left without impeding following traffic & to allow traffic to turn safely on to the A1 and the other to enable south bound traffic to turn left across the north bound carriageway with greater safety.
The speed limit on the single carrigeway approach to this dualed part, from both directions, is 60mph and it a nonsense to suggest that, for the 300 yrds of dualing, it is increased to 70mph on the north bound side.
Unless someone can demonstrate to me that I have misunderstood something then I would request that - if we have to have one reversible camera shown as two seperate ones - at least have them both showing the same/correct speed ie 60mph.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: One camera, two speed limits?
mjandar wrote:
This camera has been discussed before but with a different question.
GATSO:15238@60 and GATSO:15239@70, on the Berwick-upon-Tweed bye pass in North Northumberland, are one and the same camera. IT is reversible - to point North or South - and has therefore been given two reference numbers. ......
Unless someone can demonstrate to me that I have misunderstood something then I would request that - if we have to have one reversible camera shown as two seperate ones - at least have them both showing the same/correct speed ie 60mph.
I have not seen this, other than to look at it on the website map, which confirms two cameras, within a stretch of dual carriageway, at 60 and 70 mph. As a pure guess, I'd estimate southbound is 100 yards into the dualling, northbound 300 yards in.
Firstly, my Satnav and many (if not all) others need two cameras there, otherwise it will only warn of a camera in one direction. That's why there are two in the camera database to represent one reversible.
Secondly, I agree the problem is that one of them clearly has the wrong speed limit. If there is a speed limit sign covering that stretch of dual carriageway saying 60mph, 15239 should be amended to 60mph. Otherwise, 15238 should be amended to 70mph. Could you therefore now confirm to pgpsw what speed limit applies at the camera site (but not what you consider should be the speed shown against the cameras, which is what your post seems to be saying).
Bear in mind where do you draw the line? Is the National 60mph speed limit anywhere else still 60 when you are 2 yards into a dual carriageway? Is the National 70mph dual carriageway speed limit still 70 when you are 2 yards off the dual carriageway? I presume the persons who reported this/these camera/s faced the same question and came up with different answers. _________________ Dennis
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:46 pm Post subject:
Well put, Dennis.
To my mind, if the area is "National speed limit applies" (there are very few actual "60MPH" limits), then, in the absence of other signage, it HAS to be 70MPH as soon as you enter the dual carriageway section.
But it needs someone to actually examine the area to check for signs....
I have now checked these details with "The Fixed Penalty Unit" at Northumbria Police Headquarters. The limit, both north & southbound, on that short stretch of dualled A1 is 60mph.
I will request a correctiuon through the normal channels.
I have now requested clarification, in writing, from the department concerned and will report back to this forum with any reply I get.
Having said that, it is a nonsense that anyone should be within the law to speed up from 60mph to 70mph and back down to 60mph all within a 300 yard section of dual carriage way. The A1, for many miles to the south of this location and a few miles to the north, is single carriage way and, in my opinion, all cameras along that length - and there are at least two others - should be shown at 60.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 8:58 am Post subject:
Thanks for that!
Maybe there is some specific/devious definition of a "dual carriageway" somewhere in the Road Traffic Acts, that means they have to be over a certain length?
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Wed May 09, 2007 9:37 am Post subject:
mjandar wrote:
I have now requested clarification, in writing, from the department concerned and will report back to this forum with any reply I get.
Having said that, it is a nonsense that anyone should be within the law to speed up from 60mph to 70mph and back down to 60mph all within a 300 yard section of dual carriage way. The A1, for many miles to the south of this location and a few miles to the north, is single carriage way and, in my opinion, all cameras along that length - and there are at least two others - should be shown at 60.
You are quite right and I hope the written clarification resolves it. I've just done a quick scan of the site map and found that between Alnwick and Dunbar, all the other cameras (and there are several, both fixed and mobile) in the database are indeed 60mph, with the exceptions of Gatso:95@70, at Lamberton and Gatso:15628@70 just south of Dunbar. Both of these are shown as being on stretches of dual carriageway. So it looks as though you've found the sole inconsistency.
But if I might just say - there are a couple of places on the A420 (between Swindon and Oxford) where there are shortish stretches of dual carriageway. An awful lot of the A420 is at 50mph and some of us get stuck behind a mixed convoy of lorries and cars, when we really need to be getting along. The dualled bits help get us past. Sure, when they come up, it can sometimes be outrageously dangerous to take advantage of them - maniacs (often a.k.a. "black VW Golfs") will bully their way past everything and chuck out the anchor at the very last minute for the roundabout just 300 yards up the road. We've all seen it. Fortunately, I'm the world's best and most considerate whitevanman, so I never get involved. But that may give you pause for consideration that at least someone might be glad of those 300 or so yards of release.
I find similar breaks on the A36 - stretches where the carriageway is divided into three, with alternating double white lines to allow one side a turn at getting by. The A36 is a good candidate for whole length 50mph or less, but it's also supposed to be a means of getting from A (Alderbury) to B (Bath). _________________ Dennis
OK, as promised, here is the official reply to my query regarding the camera under discussion. *************************************************************
Thank you for your email from 8 May 2007.
With regards to the camera site at A1 BERWICK, B6461 PAXTON, the road is classified as a single carriage way. The central road fixture at the site is to act as a refuge for vehicles turning right and not for the purposes of dualling the carriage way. It is an engineering solution to protect turning traffic and the Highways Agency continues to classify this stretch of road as a single carriage way.
I hope this addresses your query.
Regards,
Jeremy Forsberg
Communications Manager
Safe Speed for Life
*************************************************************
So, we have a dual carriageway that is classified as a single carriageway. I wonder how The Highway Code deals with that situation and how it would be dealt with in court. Might this situation, DennisN, have any relevance to your described situations on the A420?
In light of the reply, I believe even more strongly that it would be safer to have the camera, in both directions, being set a 60mph and I have requested this correction, to the data base, through the correct channels. I don't think that forcing a test case on the matter would be worth the effort or the risk.
Joined: Jun 04, 2005 Posts: 19991 Location: West and Southwest London
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject:
mjandar wrote:
I don't think that forcing a test case on the matter would be worth the effort or the risk.
Quite agree, I was only "shooting the breeze".
mjandar wrote:
In light of the reply, I believe even more strongly that it would be safer to have the camera, in both directions, being set a 60mph and I have requested this correction, to the data base, through the correct channels.
Joined: Feb 27, 2006 Posts: 14901 Location: Keynsham
Posted: Fri May 11, 2007 8:30 pm Post subject:
mjandar wrote:
Might this situation, DennisN, have any relevance to your described situations on the A420?
No, mjandar they are definitely dualled - some even have an advance warning of dual carriageway ahead. Just some of it is quite short-lived, causing racing.
You seem to have done a good job over that A1 camera. I'll add my thanks to those of pgpsw, as I was not far short of there with a delivery last week (well, only up to Sunderland, but it could easily have been past that camera which is wrongly marked). Keep up the good work, please.
The "Engineering Solution" phrase is interesting - I'll bet there are a few more like it across the country, although very few with a speed camera. _________________ Dennis
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!
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
