Safe Speed Forums

its always been a 30



what we term a school site is 400 - 500 m either side of the main entrance to the school, only the vehicles that i pulled the trigger on appear on the data summary log, so lets say a ball park figure of 750 vehicles past in the 1 1/2 i was there i only formed an opinion that 37 were over the limit from the list i was wrong 5 times (although two of these vehicles i targeted were departing motorbikes, obtain a quick reading as a confidence check that the cross hairs are correctly aligned, this is on top of the 7 static checks carried out),

remember there is a difference between the posted limit and the prosecution limit,

_________________
now retired

Indeed, but presumably had more of them been travelling at a speed high enough to attract your attention, you'd have pinged them as well. So of those 500-1000 vehicles which didn't appear in your log, isn't it fairly safe to assume that most of them would be under the limit?



I know, but that's not the point. Someone travelling at 33-34mph might be under the prosecution limit, but they're still over the posted limit, which means they're just as guilty as the 35mph+ drivers of not doing what you want them to do - i.e. slow down in an area which your bosses have deemed unsafe.

And forgive me if I'm being thick, but I still fail to see how a simple collection of one-off speed measurements taken at some distance from the school entrance over a timespan considerably longer than the period during which the entrance is in use, can then be used to apparently criticise drivers for not slowing down outside a school. If you've got additional data which shows all of those over the limit pings occurred during the shorter period when there were kids milling around, then that'd be a different story, but the data you've presented so far doesn't lend itself to that conclusion.

_________________
Chris

this particular school starts at 09.00 / 9.15, so if i get there for 8.10, i can park just off the zig zags offering a clear view (otherwise i might get accused of hiding ), its a what i would term a typical rural school with a lot of people walking to school. the school is both infant and junior with parents / pupils arrriving from 8.30 onwards

the stats just illustrate the recorded speeds for that period i could go there next week for say an hour and obtain 90 logs

_________________
now retired

Camera Operator, are you a police officer or civillian enforcement officer? I would be very interested to know. thanks for answering my last Q.

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?

I do find it highly ironic that speed enforcement is the first line of attack given the appauling parking examples seen at or around schools. I think enforcent of parking regualtions would be more beneficial.

I think speed enforcement outside a school has a fantastic propaganda value - something SCPs can decorate their websites with. I doesn't matter if they resources would be better directed elsewhere...

There's a school near me with a car park the other side of the main road into town. There is a layby at the side of the road by the footpath leading from the car park. Mums use the car park as a dropping-off point during the school run and hundreds of little darlings must make their way across the main road to get to and return from school. There used to be a lollipop patrol by the layby but they've moved it further away from the school after the lollipop lady was hit by a motorist who claimed that he didn't see her until it was too late.

So, what has this to do with scameratsi? ... The layby is a favourite haunt of the talivan who, until recently, regularly frequented the place around school run time (just like CO). With the talivan in position, mums and their little darlings were obliged to either block his scamming hatch while waiting for a gap in traffic or cross from behind the talivan. Far from improving safety for the school children, the talivan was seriously compromising it. FWIW, I strongly suspect that talivan was the cause of the patrol getting knocked down - but neither the scameratsi nor the HA want to comment

_________________
Will

but this is not an accident site it is a residents concern site

_________________
now retired

i know where you are coming from, civilian



to be honest to date i have not had anyone parking on the zig zags whilst i have been there, DYL yes

_________________
now retired

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?

So then it has nothing to do with road safety; it is all about giving the illusion of doing something while actually doing worse than nothing

_________________
Will

of course it has man, a complaint was recieved from the school governing panel (in this instance) about vehicles not obeying the speed limit in the area, surveys were carried out which showed that speed was a problem.

OR should we wait for an accident to occur, turn the area into a core site, only to be told you should have been here before the accident

a total no win situation from my point of view

_________________
now retired

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?

I think the implication is that the free-travelling speed of some motorists is in excess of the posted limit, thereby vindicating that speed (1) is a problem, which in turn has prompted the camera enforcement.

If (and it is *if* as I know not the site nor the timing/situation of the speed survey) the survey coincided with dry conditions, light traffic, lack of parked vehicles and clearly empty school playgrounds/well-visible entrances, but that the free-travelling speed in "peak school traffic" time would be dramatically below the posted limit, the camera will (possibly) punish safety-conscious motorists who transgress over the enforcement threshold when it is (arguably) safe to do so, yet will distract a large majority of motorists at all times, when observation of real hazards should be at its maximum.

(1) Travelling in excess of posted speed limit. This can be abated by EITHER lowering one OR raising the other (or both).

You said it was not an accident site. So, just how many years had passed without an accident? The problem here I suspect is that someone on the panel has a bee in their bonnet but doesn't properly understand the mechanics of proper road safety. I suspect that they shouted to your partnership et al, who responded by siting your van outside the school.

So, there has been no accident and I suspect that the likelihood is that it would continue that way. A school bleats and ever with an eye on PR the partnership appears to do something. As I wrote, the response is only an illusion because there have been no accidents and so there are no accidents to prevent. Your presence is pure pedantry and has nothing positive to contribute to road safety.

That said, I suspect your partnership's response is worse than doing nothing because, as with the case I've highlighted up-thread, there is a high probability that your presence is causing drivers to concentrate on their speed rather than driving safely. Your presence is also reinforcing an erroneous implied message that they will be good drivers if they drive at the speed limit - with no doubt each having a warm, fuzzy, smug feeling as they drive past your van doing 30 or slightly less but several mph too fast considering the little darlings loose on the pavement!

_________________
Will

off the top of my head i do not know the results of the survey but i can surely find out, speed is an actual problem when the fear factor comes into play, i take it you do not have kids, i have 2,

trying not to be patronising who's interest do you consider to be more important the driver or the "idiot know nothings" who live there



(ps have i sussed this quote thing or what ) obviously not

RP - fixed it for you - took out top slash

_________________
now retired

I don't have kids, but consider this:

Do I want my kids to be sensibly scared (ie show a healthy respect for) cars because they fear being mown down because they see "fast" approaching vehicles (which, by evidence of no accidents for X years suggests that in fact the "fast" travelling cars were under safe driver control), or do I want them to be complacent because vewhicles are always seen as travelling at a slow speed when viewed out of the classroom window, and therefore may get shown less respect when it matters?


I consider the safety interest. The drivers were behaving safely, but are perhaps distracted into something slightly less safe by the enforcement, yet the "idiot know-nothings" are now lulled into a false sense of security, making life for them much less safe than it was.

Does that make sense?

the "idiot know nothings" will never be lulled into a false sense of security, i have a couple of school sites, and again being honest i can set up inside the van (only to have the door knocked on), or outside the van on the tripod for someone to tell me you should have been here yesterday, last week, a so so car went past the school at 100mph (yeah yeah) probably 40 tops

no doubt different areas different scenarios

_________________
now retired

..

_________________
Q. Are you a stupid fascist with limited reading skills or are you just a retard?

and that is why we will never agree

from your avatar i take it you are a rider, am i right in assuming that if a car cuts you up / pulls out in front of you they as a car driver cmpared to youself a biker are less important

bike versus car - one winner (not the biker)
bike / car versus pedestrian - one winner (not the pedestrian)

not rocket science, but so annoying

_________________
now retired