Lincolnshire Speed Cams Seemingly Unaffected by Budget Cuts

grantp · Occasional Visitor Joined: Aug 08, 2006 Posts: 9

How many people spotted the reason for the HGV (and now creeping down the weight scale) 40mph limit?

In conjunction with the loss of any overtaking ability (or experience) observed from most drivers, the density of traffic and designed in road hazards, the net effect is to reduce all speeds to around 35 mph most of the time unless you are on a motorway.

Now, given that most cars are still geared to be most efficient at around the mid 50s mph and considering the price of fuel these days, it seems to me that there should be some obligation on the 'authorities' to deliver a service that allows me to waste less of my time and money when travelling from A to B. Instead everything seems to work the other way and all on the name of 'safety'. In that I include shutting a road for hours and hours after an incident in order to take measurements and so on. It never used to be like that - does it really need to happen now given how much time is then lost be so many people and businesses?

But I digress .....

I live in the Midlands a couple of miles from an M1 junction. We have family in Surrey a mile or so off the A3. The total journey length is about 132 miles door to door all but the first last mile of that is dual carriageway or motorway.

Back in the 80s and into the early 90s a good run at a weekend took about 1hr 50mins, an average run about 2hrs. A slow run due to roadworks about 2hrs 30mins and a really bad run due to accident(s) somewhat longer. However I don't recall too many really horrific journeys at weekends.

Now, despite the general expansion of much of the M1 and M25, a fast journey takes about 2hrs 30mins and much longer journeys are not uncommon.

So much for progress.

It's getting to the point where, irrespective of the cost factors we are currently being assailed by, family day visits (often the result of modern social mobility) will not be feasible on a time basis alone. Driving 4 hours each way for a lunch with relatives was a pain when I was a kid and doesn't look any more attractive now as a way to fill a day. The more so because it really should not be necessary.

(As an aside one also wonders if the pothole repair strategy, such as it is, is accepted since it too is likely to keep speeds down and generate tax revenue from inefficient use of fuel and the cost of repairs ....)

When it comes down to it I can't think of a single government around the world that does not see the motorist as a cash cow and an opportunity to apply controls as part of efforts directed at social conditioning. I suppose we might consider ourselves lucky that at least with out roads there is some opportunity to pass slow traffic in between 'pedestrian refuges'. It seems to me that, for example, France and Holland are hell bent on making all non 'motorway' traffic single file using barriers. Still, at least In Holland they mostly keep the cyclists separate from the rest of the traffic rather than allocating mostly stupidly designed 'cycle lanes'.

Some years ago I did a lot of analysis using the official (not very consistent) KSI accident databases for about 13 years of data. The speed camera era up to that point. So far as I could find there was nothing in the data that suggested any evident benefit from cameras at all. But then there were so many other potential variables that to come to any conclusion using that information would have to be more by speculation than a basis in fact. I don't suppose anything has changed for the better in the last 4 or 5 years but as far as I know policy decision are still based on that data capture. Or so we are led to believe.

If cameras are being financed by 'Speed Awareness' courses there is a huge incentive to find ways to increase the numbers of people 'caught'. Since currently, as far as I know, only one attendance at a course is allowed that also means that to maintain cash flow requires 'catching' ever more first time 'offenders'. It will be interesting to see what strategies they come up with to achieve that and what the reaction of the the insurance companies will be to an opportunity to extract extra cash for extended periods of insurance cover based on the increasing number of new 'lawbreakers'.

Meanwhile, with the prisons crowded to bursting point (we are told) the solution to that problem is to close 3 of them and hand out lesser sentences to keep real criminals out in the community, creating real victims whilst motorists are targeted for thousands of victimless 'crimes' in order to extract cash for a self perpetuating yet seemingly pointless system. (No pun intended.)

We live in strange times.

pcaouolte · Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 5:51 pm Post subject:

I notice today that the number of speed cameras in Lincolnshire has been reduced (by one). The camera at 52.79256, -0.12637 seems to have overheated during the night. What remains is a bit too sooty to be working.
_________________
Paul

cmp1951 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6

Some one needs a lesson in geography!

I name a few!

A1 - one of the few major roads still with cross roads on 70mph sections (near Grantham), but preotected by (for once) safetly related cameras.

A15 - Notorious for fatal accidents between Lincoln and M180, but only three cameras, one of which is nowhere near the blackspots, and the other two at one site. Should have been dual carriageway for 25 years

A16 - Lethal in parts

A17 - Lethal

A18 - Lethal in parts

A160 - Single and dual from A180 to Immingham Docks - UK's foremost (by tonnage at least) port complex with yet more development currently

A180 - So boring most accidents are caused by sleepy heads!

M180 - See A 180!

M181 - Leeds from M180 to Scunthorpe. No comment needed!

A52 -

DennisN · Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: Speed Cameras in Bradford

cmp1951 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6

cmp1951 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6

Just in case the censored parts aren't understood, read inebriated and illegitimate.

I think most on this site would agree the censored words were entirely appropriate.

DennisN · Posted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 10:51 pm Post subject:

cmp1951 · Occasional Visitor Joined: Sep 23, 2006 Posts: 6

M8TJT · Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:08 am Post subject:

BigPerk · Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 11:18 am Post subject:

Easy to make too much of it though - we all do it sometimes (though I just find the censored symbol boring anyway). Sometimes strong situations or events call up strong language - no one feels lightly these days about drunken drivers causing deaths because they couldn't care less.
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

M8TJT · Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 3:14 pm Post subject:

BigPerk · Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject:

I agree to a large extent, though I'd rather see the Censored

symbol than some of the disgruntled rantings & (semi) personal abuse that occasionally decorate this site. If I feel strongly about anything (not too often these days) I just put the symbol in directly anyway, and leave people to make up what I didn't say!
_________________
David
(Navigon 70 Live, Nuvi 360)

M8TJT · Posted: Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:34 pm Post subject:

JimmyTheHand · Frequent Visitor Joined: Apr 16, 2005 Posts: 386

	PocketGPS
	Web