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: Jul 21, 2004 Posts: 2718 Location: Chelmsford, UK
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 11:19 am Post subject: Re: SatNavs and Speed Cameras: Lies, Damn Lies And Statistic
BrianA wrote:
mikealder wrote:
A very sensible suggestion but not one I can see being undertaken due to cost, its far cheaper to deploy a camera than deal with the true root cause of an accident black spot,
Is it?
Are there any published figures as to how much different cameras cost to purchase, install and maintain?
If I remember correctly, I think it's somewhere north of £80,000 for a gatso installation and accompanying cabling.
I would think that dealing with accident black spots would be more expensive generally (when you include moving cables, services, etc.?), not to mention the cost of demolishing property at some spots to straighten out the road. I would imagine many projects would run into millions. _________________ Robert Brady
Joined: 24/06/2003 00:22:12 Posts: 2946 Location: Escaped to the Antipodies! 36.83°S 174.75°E
Posted: Wed Dec 24, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: Re: SatNavs and Speed Cameras: Lies, Damn Lies And Statistic
Quote:
They concluded that older drivers are 'six times more likely' to be caught by speed cameras.
Jeremy Broughton, author of the Transport Research Laboratory study, said when traffic police carried out enforcement, they were more likely to be lenient to elderly drivers. He said: 'Police would have a mental image of the sort of person they were expecting to stop and if it was an elderly lady they wouldn’t look at her in the same way as a young male.'
The reality is probably that the older driver was simply exceeding the speed limit and got let off with a warning whereas the younger driver was driving like an idiot but not badly enough to warrant a charge of driving without due care and attention so they were booked for speeding instead.
It just goes to prove that a speed camera blindly enforces a limit without any regard to mitigating factors.
Car insurance providers Swinton wrote:
Swinton believes that technological innovations in the latest wave of speed cameras means that they can be programmed to randomly select or ‘Flash’ good drivers as well as bad ones.
“Imagine if you opened a letter from the Police and it said; ‘congratulations, you were caught on camera driving safely within the speed limit, please find a cheque for £30 or voucher with money off your Council Tax. Now that is a good idea.”
No, that is a stupid idea.
How hard will the Max Power boys laugh when they get a picture of them hard on the brakes going through a speed camera at below the speed limit with letter saying "congratulations, you were caught on camera driving safely within the speed limit". _________________ Gone fishing!
I suggest lowering the national speed limit to 12 mph, quadrupling the amount of safety cameras installed, and to make everybody wear helmets and diapers.
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:34 pm Post subject: to peterc10
It pains me that so many people do not know the road signs, but even worse are people who do not yet tell others what they are.
peterc10 is correct the road sign is not road narrows, it is road narrows on both sides.
The dual carriage way ends sign is similar but differant, in this one the lines converge , it looks like an upside down y.
I sugest you relearn your highway code, or avoid telling others what the signs mean.
Try this site http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/Signsandmarkings/index.htm
for files to show you what is what.
Joined: Apr 18, 2006 Posts: 207 Location: Up North
Posted: Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject:
I am for speed cameras. BUT, i'd be more for average speed cameras. That way we would catch the idiots who think it is clever to brake for the camera and then to speed up.
If everyone drove considerately - at a sensible speed for the road and weather conditions, within the speed limit but keeping up with the traffic, at a sensible distance, and merged in turn, driving would be a pleasure. As it is, inconsiderate drivers create a spiral of annoyance and anger in others.
There is NO excuse for speeding. It is a crime, and it endangers others.
Posted: Sun Dec 28, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: A general ramble
Darren wrote:
keefieh wrote:
Thank you for your email.
The CCTV vans are permitted to park on yellow lines when carrying out
statutory enforcement duties as long as they are not causing any
obstructions or danger to motorists/pedestrians.
And unless the law has changed, they have no authority to choose which laws they can enforce and which they can themselves flout!
Police have a number of statutory exemptions to road traffic law in certain circumstances. Parking on double yellows while attending an urgent call is one thing, parking on double yellows while goin to the kebab shop for dinner is another though.
As a (recently retired) police officer I was acutely aware of the number of mobile phone cameras stuck in my face almost every time I attended a call over the last couple of years. If you were caught on camera parking illegaly or whatever, questions would be asked. I also know from experience, my force were quite clear, if you were not logged to a call and got pinged by a camera, you would collect a fine and points, then face a conduct enquiry for your trouble. (I used my Tom Tom and the camera database to keep myself right :o)) Units would reegularly call in to have activations recorded on the CAD log to keep them right.
To me, cameras are a bit like traffic lights at a weak bridge, it means the local authoruty don't have to spend cash on actually fixing the bridge, they just reduce the number of vehicles using it. Add to that the revenue raising powers of cameras and it's a politicians dream, they can pretend to do something about a problem and tax us at the same time.
Speed cameras mean the number of coppers on road patrol can be cut, but that fails to take into consideration the influence a 'marked up' car can have on drivers and the number of other crimes and offences (not just traffic) they may detect whilst stopping speeders.
Please remember, the majority of coppers out there dislike speed cameras just as much as you do and would love to see more 'road patrol' units out and about, influencing driver behaviour and ticketing those who really need it. Unfortunately in Britain today, incerasing political interference is likely to make matters worse before they get any better.
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
