Beware of a Poole Speed Camera

[Seahope]

I used to feel that 30mph was very slow until I studied for the Institute of Advanced Motorists test. When I focussed on identifying all of the potential hazards in a built up area I felt that 30mph was usually more than enough. We were trained to treat every other road user, including pedestians and dogs and also every driveway as a potential hazard. We also had to note every road sign and keep an eye on the road surface. There is usually plenty to keep one occupied within the speed limits.

It is unlikely I will be able to attend a course, if offered, unless it is run on a weekend, however, I'd be amazed if anyone could justify a 30 mph speedlimit on a dual carriage way out of any residential area. For the curious I have copied a link from someone's web site who seems a little upset over speed cameras in Poole in general. The reason for including this link is that a little way down there is a good arial photo of the road and junction. I was actually heading into Poole at the time and not out: http://www.dorsetspeed.org.uk/news/sog.aspx

 

[Tranona]

As usual these comments are highly selective. It is true that the road is wide open and at many times of the day 40 or even 50 would be quite safe. However, it is a very complex junction with pedestrians crossing, buses pulling out, container lorries going to the docks, commuters going into (or out of) Poole etc. The dynamics of traffic flow at 8.30 in a weekday morning are totally different from 5.30 in the afternoon or midday on a Saturday. The whole purpose of the current lights and speed controls is to organise traffic into the safest and most efficient manner to negotiate safely what is a very complex junction with multiple entries and exits. The 30 limit at the approach to the system regulates trafffic so that there is minimum delay and the volume is handled efficiently.

As I said in an earlier post the current arrangements are far and away the best of those tried over the 30 years I have used the junction - but screwed up by plonkers who think they know better and ignore the signage and lane markings.

BTW I have no connection with the Highways dept, just an aware (I hope) user of the road.

 

[grumpy_o_g]

You have me stumped.. how can you are argue that in certain cirumstances the speed laws are needed and in others they are not?
Surely the only reason that people complain is that they have been caught? Arguments along the line that, yes, I was driving above the legal speed limit, but its not fair I get fined bcz I didnt know about /see the speed camera, are to my mind, ludicrous.
Its pretty simple..30 mph means 30 mph. If you drive in excess of the speed limit, face the possible consequences.
I m not suggesting that I am any saint here, but if I get a fine.. well its me in control of the car, so its me that takes it on the chin.Who else should be to blame?

It's not because "I didn't see the camera" - it's because I've got far more important things to do with my limited information gathering and processing powers than watch for camera's or judge my speed by an arbitrary limit which requires that I look away from the road. In every thing from Rugby through to flying we're told to keep your head up, keep your head out of the cockpit, watch the road ahead, etc. and then we're put into a situation that requires us to look inside the cockpit. It's not just bad, it's dangerous. Speed is not judged by the position of needle on a dial, it's judged by the change in the environment we perceive.

As for the way the law is applied - a village on an A road with a playground beside it probably justifies a 20 mph speed limit. Let's say it has a 30 limit. If it's 5 am and you're a little bit over the limit with reasonably clear sight lines then a little discretion could be shown by the police as I'd suggest you're not actually dangerous. If there's a school bus dropping off on the side of the road and an ice-cream van next to it then I'd suggest that someone doing 20 mph could reasonably be pulled for excess speed. In practice the camera will do anyone doing over 30-something mph regardless of conditions so the law is being inappropriately applied, albeit consistently.

By contrast a dual carriageway with clear sight-lines and no easy access for pedestrians might have a 40 limit, elsewhere the same road may have a 50 limit or a 70 limit, despite the conditions being otherwise very similar. Here the law is being inconsistently applied.

I've been "caught" twice in 37 years of driving, once by a marked police car (in the very early hours of morning) doing 89 mph on the M3 near Fleet (about 15 years ago) and once about 6 months ago - for which I took a very good "Driver Awareness Course" which hardly touched speeding or breaking the speed limit at all - so I'm hardly a constant victim. I've also been stopped twice by police and advised that I was driving a little too fast - always politely courteously and respectfully. At no point did they suggest I was driving dangerously, merely pointed out that they'd used their discretion and that I needed to be more careful. The "tugs" had far more effect than the camera and served as a good reminder not to get complacent - someone with experience had judged my driving and made the effort to change my behaviour, which I did my best to do.

The camera incident would have made me concerned that I'd failed to spot the camera but actually I had - I got caught out by a new to me type of vehicle - a fairly heavy turbo diesel automatic. I gave it a bit of welly as not much was happening and I wasn't keeping up with traffic - what I now know to be inevitable happened - a long pause while the turbo spooled up, the torque converter loaded up and the gearbox changed down followed by 400 lb ft of torque booting me down the road!!

 

[grumpy_o_g]

As usual these comments are highly selective. It is true that the road is wide open and at many times of the day 40 or even 50 would be quite safe. However, it is a very complex junction with pedestrians crossing, buses pulling out, container lorries going to the docks, commuters going into (or out of) Poole etc. The dynamics of traffic flow at 8.30 in a weekday morning are totally different from 5.30 in the afternoon or midday on a Saturday. The whole purpose of the current lights and speed controls is to organise traffic into the safest and most efficient manner to negotiate safely what is a very complex junction with multiple entries and exits. The 30 limit at the approach to the system regulates trafffic so that there is minimum delay and the volume is handled efficiently.

As I said in an earlier post the current arrangements are far and away the best of those tried over the 30 years I have used the junction - but screwed up by plonkers who think they know better and ignore the signage and lane markings.

BTW I have no connection with the Highways dept, just an aware (I hope) user of the road.

Not quite. The current arrangements are what you find to be the most effective. The very high number of "plonkers" that seem to have trouble with it would suggest that it's not exactly brilliant, regardless of reason?

 

[nonitoo]

I've been "caught" twice in 37 years of driving, once by a marked police car (in the very early hours of morning) doing 89 mph on the M3 near Fleet (about 15 years ago) and once about 6 months ago - for which I took a very good "Driver Awareness Course" which hardly touched speeding or breaking the speed limit at all - so I'm hardly a constant victim.

Interesting that you see yourself as a 'victim' and not the perpetrator of a crime.

Somehow speeding is not seen as a crime by many who also feel that they should be able to decide what is an acceptable speed at any one particular time and therefore are always 'innocent' because they disagree with the implementation of the speed limit in force.

Tom

 

[gjgm]

It's not because "I didn't see the camera" - it's because I've got far more important things to do..
***
Well its not an approach I d try with the magistrate.
Come off it, its not that hard to drive a car, and there are plenty of road signs indicating the change of speed limit, and the fact that cameras are ahead. Are you really trying to say, its all too much for you?
As Nonitoo says, you seem to see yourself as some sort of victim. Perhaps you would like to see that speeding drivers should be given even more warning that they might be witnessed breaking the speed limit.. even more signs,perhaps flags being waved, klaxons sounding?
I guess if you were within the speed limit, you might have had time to observe more of the signs...!
Stop bleating..

 

[Tranona]

Not quite. The current arrangements are what you find to be the most effective. The very high number of "plonkers" that seem to have trouble with it would suggest that it's not exactly brilliant, regardless of reason?

Yes, I suppose me and the Highways department which designed it and spent ages monitoring traffic to arrive at the most efficient system - knowing course that there are always people who know better and will ignore any signage - particularly if it gives them an opportunity to move ahead of one car - so that they can get at the next set of lights first - or even better go across on the red!

 

[timbartlett]

Come off it, its not that hard to drive a car, and there are plenty of road signs indicating the change of speed limit, and the fact that cameras are ahead. Are you really trying to say, its all too much for you?

Actually, compared with many of the things that most of us do every day, it is quite hard to drive a car: it requires several different but co-ordinated actions, and constant attention to what is often quite a boring scene through the windscreen, good spacial awareness and good decision-making skills -- with the possibility of serious consequences if you get anything wrong. That's why we don't allow the very old or young to do it, and is the justification for driving tests and licences, drink drive laws, bans on mobile phones, etc. It's also a skill in which age and experience count for a lot: that's why insurance is so much cheaper for older drivers with a good track record.

Adding to roadside clutter with unnecessary speed limit signs and bogus scamera signs does not help. Imposing penalties on drivers who do not notice them tends to focus attention on them, and by doing so diverts attention from genuine hazards. Forcing older (and potentially safer) drivers to constantly refocus their eyes between the road and their speedometers is even more counterproductive.

Surely the only reason that people complain is that they have been caught?

No, it's not. People in this country are still (just) entitled to complain about unjust or unreasonable legislation, about public servants who are overzealous, misguided, or downright corrupt, whether they have suffered directly or not. Officials who pretend that scameras are set up for "safety" reasons, rather than to generate revenue, are guilty of a far more serious offence. Of course, they will never be prosecuted by their commercial partners in the police and courts -- but that makes matters worse, rather than better, because it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.

 

[Robin]

Yes, I suppose me and the Highways department which designed it and spent ages monitoring traffic to arrive at the most efficient system - knowing course that there are always people who know better and will ignore any signage - particularly if it gives them an opportunity to move ahead of one car - so that they can get at the next set of lights first - or even better go across on the red!

I find that comment very hard to understand bearing in mind the same people probably came up with the stop go never flow system at Fleets roundabout! Then again the same people put a set of pedestrian crossing lights offset past a junction by 25 yds instead of on the junction itself so that cars could get out onto Ashley Road without having to bully their way into the stream. May even be the same people that allowed Castlepoint shops to be built where it is and then wondered how the traffic flow at busy times stops dead to the point you cannot even get out of the car park, oh and that is the car park that is 50% closed because it is falling apart from poor construction methods. Then again there is the traffic flow (or not mostly) on the A338 whilst yet more roadworks are in progress. I have a sneaking feeling that traffic planning in the area is deliberately designed to STOP free flow of traffic because smart it is not. Still it all adds to the CO2 to keep us warm.

 

[gjgm]

Actually, compared with many of the things that most of us do every day, it is quite hard to drive a car: it requires several different but co-ordinated actions, and constant attention to what is often quite a boring scene through the windscreen, good spacial awareness and good decision-making skills -- with the possibility of serious consequences if you get anything wrong. That's why we don't allow the very old or young to do it, and is the justification for driving tests and licences, drink drive laws, bans on mobile phones, etc. It's also a skill in which age and experience count for a lot: that's why insurance is so much cheaper for older drivers with a good track record.

Adding to roadside clutter with unnecessary speed limit signs and bogus scamera signs does not help. Imposing penalties on drivers who do not notice them tends to focus attention on them, and by doing so diverts attention from genuine hazards. Forcing older (and potentially safer) drivers to constantly refocus their eyes between the road and their speedometers is even more counterproductive.

No, it's not. People in this country are still (just) entitled to complain about unjust or unreasonable legislation, about public servants who are overzealous, misguided, or downright corrupt, whether they have suffered directly or not. Officials who pretend that scameras are set up for "safety" reasons, rather than to generate revenue, are guilty of a far more serious offence. Of course, they will never be prosecuted by their commercial partners in the police and courts -- but that makes matters worse, rather than better, because it brings the entire legal system into disrepute.

Wow, stay away from me on a road if the task is too daunting. Sorry Tim, if someone is so overwhelmed by roadsigns that they cant safely perform the task at hand, maybe its time they parked the car at home. Should clear up the roads a bit anyway.
Sure sure, we all have a legal right to complain. What are we discussing here..traffic signs and speed cameras. Dont start on some soap box about civil liberties and Strasbourg.
There are big signs telling you the speed limit; there are big signs telling you there are speed cameras. There is a big yellow box. Now you somehow miss all of those and get filmed speeding. Crikey,what else have you missed in the last half mile...

 

[nonitoo]

From the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership web site http://www.kmscp.org/index.aspx

Fixed safety camera sites are located where three or more people have been killed or seriously injured in speed-related crashes, over a 1.5km stretch of road, in the three years prior to installation.

Mobile safety camera sites are located where at least one person has been killed or seriously injured in a speed-related crash/es, over a 5km stretch of road, in the three years prior to installation.

Cameras are not placed on roads where they will make the most money. Cameras are there to encourage motorists to drive within the legal speed limit; so the most successful cameras are those which record the least number of offences, not the most.

How and when cameras are deployed depends on the crash history and road safety problem at each location. Guidelines are followed before installation of a fixed or mobile site is decided upon.

Tom

 

[[2068]]

How to deal with "fixed" speed cameras:
- Checkpoint your speed on entry into the zone. Drop enough gears such that the engine is running approximately in the middle of it's torque peak. As you pass the last road marker, apply full throttle until 500rpm before the red line, change gear, and reapply full throttle.

How to deal with "average" speed cameras:
- Approach the first camera at 90mph, then use maximum (abs) braking to slow to the required speed as you come within range of the first camera. Engage cruise control at an indicated 5mph above the posted speed. Very important: do not brake for anything or disengage cruise control for the duration of the camera zone. Valid tactics to prevent this include changing lanes arbitrarily at short notice without signalling, driving very close to the car in front to intimidate them (use full beam and horn if required) and overtaking on the inside or outside lane (whatever works). Actually keeping a lookout for roadworkers or other potential hazards is not required, so long as you do not exceed the average posted speed having run them over.

The above tactics have kept my licence reasonably clean for the past 22 years. Maybe a campaign by the Department of Transport could be ...

"Road Safety: Why bother even thinking about it? It's all Points and Cameras now: Play the Game!"

 

[gjgm]

From the Kent and Medway Safety Camera Partnership web site http://www.kmscp.org/index.aspx

Fixed safety camera sites are located where three or more people have been killed or seriously injured in speed-related crashes, over a 1.5km stretch of road, in the three years prior to installation.

Mobile safety camera sites are located where at least one person has been killed or seriously injured in a speed-related crash/es, over a 5km stretch of road, in the three years prior to installation.

Cameras are not placed on roads where they will make the most money. Cameras are there to encourage motorists to drive within the legal speed limit; so the most successful cameras are those which record the least number of offences, not the most.

How and when cameras are deployed depends on the crash history and road safety problem at each location. Guidelines are followed before installation of a fixed or mobile site is decided upon.

Tom

Well done for finding this. I knew there were pretty strict requiremnets before a camera may be sited. It seems though that some still prefer to side with the view that the deaths and maimings that have taken place within that 1500 metres are a secondary motive to some skulldugery to confuse the motorist into being fined.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Unfortunately those guidelines have been ignored. I know of 2 cameras which were erected on a brand new road in W London a few years ago which had no accident history at all because nobody had ever driven on it. Those cameras are still in operation today. These guidelines are policed by Plod themselves and they are hardly going to admit to having wrongly sited cameras or indeed want to pay for their scrapping or relocation. In any case, how exactly do average speed cameras at roadworks fit with these guidelines? By definition, there can be no accident history at these locations yet, invariably, the cameras are erected and operational before a sod of earth has been turned. Sorry, anyone who believes that speed cameras are there for safety reasons alone is living in la-la land

 

[nonitoo]

I'm no paragon of virtue when driving but there are a number of potential instances that give me the shivers.

As an example,

Driving, within the limit, down a street with cars parked both sides and a child runs out between the cars and I hit him/her . I've done nothing wrong, or broken any laws, but I will still have to live with it for the rest of my life.

Perhaps that is why I tend to slow down in town, not through any do-gooding on my part, but because over the last 47 years of driving I have seen so many accidents, and I mean accidents, not necessarily a result of bad driving by those concerned. I am talking about average drivers with average skills.

Of course the fools who do cause accidents through deliberate bad driving (speeding, drinking etc.) deserve what is coming to them.

Tom

 

[nonitoo]

In any case, how exactly do average speed cameras at roadworks fit with these guidelines? By definition, there can be no accident history at these locations yet, invariably, the cameras are erected and operational before a sod of earth has been turned.

I understand that temporary speed cameras (the averaging type at roadworks) are subject to a different set of installation criteria.

Could it be that they are installed to protect the workforce ?

Tom

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

How to deal with "fixed" speed cameras:
- Checkpoint your speed on entry into the zone. Drop enough gears such that the engine is running approximately in the middle of it's torque peak. As you pass the last road marker, apply full throttle until 500rpm before the red line, change gear, and reapply full throttle.

How to deal with "average" speed cameras:
- Approach the first camera at 90mph, then use maximum (abs) braking to slow to the required speed as you come within range of the first camera. Engage cruise control at an indicated 5mph above the posted speed. Very important: do not brake for anything or disengage cruise control for the duration of the camera zone. Valid tactics to prevent this include changing lanes arbitrarily at short notice without signalling, driving very close to the car in front to intimidate them (use full beam and horn if required) and overtaking on the inside or outside lane (whatever works). Actually keeping a lookout for roadworkers or other potential hazards is not required, so long as you do not exceed the average posted speed having run them over.

The above tactics have kept my licence reasonably clean for the past 22 years. Maybe a campaign by the Department of Transport could be ...

"Road Safety: Why bother even thinking about it? It's all Points and Cameras now: Play the Game!"

Yup, spot on. Personally I go for the 10+10% rule. 10% for the speedo over reading and 10% for Plod allowance so, for example, my cruise is set at 60mph in a 50mph average speed camera zone. As you say, lights on full beam, fogs on, one hand hovering the horn (the other on the phone of course) and undertake any self righteous plodders in the outside lane. Hiding behind an Eddie on the way into an average scamera zone always helps, of course. Always works for me and never been done by a scamera yet

 

[nonitoo]

These guidelines are policed by Plod themselves and they are hardly going to admit to having wrongly sited cameras or indeed want to pay for their scrapping or relocation.

I quote from the site I mentioned earlier,

The highway authorities (Kent County Council, Medway Council and the Highways Agency) explore all possible alternatives to improve road safety along a stretch of road before resorting to the use of a safety camera. Even then, cameras can only be placed at sites where there has been a history of people killed or seriously injured in speed related crashes.


No mention of police there.

Tom

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

I quote from the site I mentioned earlier,

The highway authorities (Kent County Council, Medway Council and the Highways Agency) explore all possible alternatives to improve road safety along a stretch of road before resorting to the use of a safety camera. Even then, cameras can only be placed at sites where there has been a history of people killed or seriously injured in speed related crashes.


No mention of police there.

Tom

Oh, lordy lordy. The highways authorities send a letter to the Chief Plod asking him whether the cameras are sited correctly. He sends a letter back confirming that of course they are. End of. It was in the newspapers a couple of years back when HMG promised to carry out an investigation into scamera locations. Guess what? The result was that virtually all the scameras were correctly sited. Did anyone believe it? No

 

[nonitoo]

I think I have probably said all I can on this subject and am quite happy to leave it to the conspiracy theorists.

Tom