Forum Message

Topic: Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware
Posted by: Thomas Barry
Date/Time: 19/08/15 17:45:00

"Clearly you can’t see the latter and a little warning of average or single can be useful."

Alternatively, instead of expensive technology, I find the Mark 1 eyeball in conjunction with the big sheet of glass at the front of the car, the dial telling me how fast I am going, a right foot that has intermediate positions between 'up' and 'down' plus an ability to count as far as 70 enables me to avoid being fined, which is why I still have a clean licence 24 years since I passed my test.

[Rant mode on]

No, it's not 'revenue raising', you tabloid-fed paranoid imbeciles.  Read the bloody law sometime and have a think about how sensible it would be to base public expenditure on what is essentially a voluntary contribution to the public purse by people lacking the ability to read signs and control a car and apparently being unwilling to learn.  Did you all used to drive like maniacs or something?  What's so important about having the freedom to break this particular law that gets people so irate?

[Rant mode off]

If anyone's interested, the secondary reason TfL installed average speed cameras on the A40 was to save money; the road had 35 old wet film cameras which are obsolete and they could either have replaced them individually or moved to a system of average speed cameras which increase the area subject to speed control (needed to meet the Mayor's publicly announced target for KSI reduction) without the cost of installing new poles, thus getting more bang for the public buck.  I thought we all liked efficient public services these days?

The main reason, though, was that they did a trial of this in 2010 on the A13 that showed significant reductions in the accident rate, after which they weighed up the pros and cons and decided to extend the trial to four more roads from 2014.

If anyone wants to read the background to this it's called the 'Safety Camera Replacement Project' and there's lots on the TfL website about it.  This, for instance, which shows that the decision was recognised to be possibly controversial and, unusually these days, went all the way to the top:

'On 13 March 2013, the Committee approved the SCRP, which would replace now obsolete wet film safety cameras at 629 sites with new digital technology. The Committee deferred a decision on the implementation of ASCs, as part of the SCRP, pending a future discussion on the broader safety camera strategy, enforcement policy, user acceptance and the use of alternate technologies in reducing speed and Killed or Seriously Injured incidents (KSIs), such as speed warning signs.

On 17 December 2013, the Committee considered the strategy and policy information provided. Based on evidence from the use of ASCs on the A13, the introduction of ASCs in specific locations was also believed to be more effective than the use of spot cameras in enforcing the speed limit, reducing KSIs and maintaining smoother traffic flow. However, given the Committee’s remaining concerns about the public acceptability of this approach and its views that there would be benefits from gaining further experience of the operational impacts of ASCs from a small number of additional sites, the decision on deployment of ASCs was considered further with the Mayor.

The Mayor’s view was that ASCs should be installed in London at a limited number of appropriate locations, on the basis of a long-term trial to further assess their operational benefits. Therefore, approval was sought for a trial of four ASC systems as part of the SCRP. These systems would be installed at locations where TfL’s operational experience  and casualty analysis showed there would be likely to be demonstrable casualty reduction benefits over and above those that would be achieved by like for like replacement of spot speed cameras. This would be in line with the policies set out in Safe Streets for London, the Mayor’s road safety action plan for London, which was published on 6 June 2013. It would also provide additional experience of the operational impacts of ASCs including their overall casualty reduction impact, their impact on traffic speeds and flow.

The Committee agreed that the use of ASCs required a strong evidence base. A post implementation review would be conducted of the impact of introducing ASCs at the four locations identified to determine if they were making a difference and should be retained. The review would look at the KSI data for the three years prior to implementation and for each quarter after implementation. The information would include impact on traffic flow and the type of collisions taking place on those roads.'

Judging by that, if you want them removed, go out and have a lot of crashes on the A40 (and A316 from the M3 to Chiswick, which is also included as one of the four trial roads, as is the A406 north from Hangar Lane) to prove they don't work.

Entire Thread
TopicDate PostedPosted By
A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 09:47:00 Tim Garfoot
   Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 10:00:00 Loraine Pemberton
   Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 10:11:00 Adrian Irving
      Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 10:46:00 Christopher Bell
         Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 13:30:00 Dave Robertson
   Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 10:59:00 Christopher Bell
   Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 10:59:00 Susan Kelly
      Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 11:24:00 Nick Jenkins
         Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 11:41:00 David Grantley
            Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 12:13:00 Andy Pease
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 13:50:00 Tim Garfoot
      Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware20/08/15 12:43:00 Thomas Barry
   Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 15:53:00 Adrian Irving
      Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware18/08/15 16:45:00 Dave Robertson
         Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware19/08/15 09:57:00 Adrian Irving
            Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware19/08/15 12:08:00 Richard Jennings
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware19/08/15 12:13:00 Will Watson
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware19/08/15 13:07:00 Bob Guyett
            Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 17:45:00 Thomas Barry
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 17:49:00 Richard Greenhough
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 18:04:00 Adrian Irving
               Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 18:53:00 Tim Garfoot
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 19:38:00 Christopher Bell
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 19:43:00 Richard Jennings
                        Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 20:02:00 Christopher Bell
                     Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 19:57:00 Andy Pease
                  Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:A40 criminals beware19/08/15 19:53:00 Dave Robertson
   Re:A40 Drivers beware19/08/15 23:06:00 Robin Cox
      Re:Re:A40 Drivers beware20/08/15 08:44:00 Susan Kelly
         "it's not 'revenue raising', you tabloid-fed paranoid imbeciles"20/08/15 15:15:00 Paul Corcoran
   Re:A40 Drivers beware22/08/15 15:55:00 Vlod Barchuk
   Bunp for Tony n/m24/09/15 12:56:00 Richard Greenhough
   Re:A40 Drivers beware25/09/15 00:16:00 Robin Cox
   Go Live Date - 25 October13/10/15 21:22:00 Robin Cox
      Re:Go Live Date - 25 October14/10/15 09:04:00 Susan Kelly

Forum Home