Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Apr 27, 2026 13:06

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 19:57 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
While I have travelled though this roadworks on several occasions, where the 30mph was just nonsense, fortunately it was dark and I didn’t get caught by the speed cameras.

If a properly organised fighting fund was to be set up to help fight some suitable and reasonable test cases, I would be willing to chip in what I reasonable could to help stop such stupidity occurring again.

Is there any better way of getting the necessary publicity and getting things organised.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 17:51 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:55
Posts: 8
Thanks Dr L for your support but at the moment i'm looking for anyone who has some pictures of the road works before they changed them.
Can anyone help

Steve


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 00:32 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Following an email to the Roads Minister, Stephen Layman, the following was the response I received. When travelling that way last Friday evening, it did seem that the length of the speed restriction had been reduce to about half a mile, but it was still at 30mph.
Quote:
A11/A47 THICKTHORN INTERCHANGE

Thank you for your email sent to Roads Minister Dr Stephen Ladyman on 19 January 2006 in relation to A11/A47 Thickthorn Interchange. I have been asked to provide a response as Project Manager for this scheme.

The temporary speed limit to which you refer in your email is being used as part of the A11/A47 Thickthorn Interchange improvement works. This scheme is on the Highways Agency’s network, but is being carried out by Norfolk County Council to compensate for additional traffic flows from the nearby existing and proposed developments being promoted by the County Council.

Norfolk County Council are supported by Norfolk Police in the management and operation of the temporary 30 mph speed restriction on the A11. The distance covered by the temporary speed limit on the A11 was longer than is usually provided for several reasons. The length of the temporary lane closures on the A11 approaching Thickthorn Roundabout, varied from day to day to allow the delivery and removal of materials and plant from the site.

During the periods when traffic was restricted to one lane, a rapid build up of vehicles proved likely to occur with queues stretching back up to a mile from the roundabout. This could often be at off-peak times when drivers would not expect long queues.

The Highways Agency accepted Norfolk County Council’s proposal not to move the 30 mph temporary speed limit closer to the works for the safety of road users and road workers. They jointly felt that varying the start of the speed limit could cause confusion for motorists who regularly use the A11 and pose additional risks for road workers by physically changing the distance covered by the speed limit. For these safety reasons the 30 mph speed restriction was maintained for 24 hours per day.

Over the Christmas and New Year holiday period the speed limit was kept in place because there were unfinished roadworks.

To respond to your comments on the use of a safety camera van near Attleborough, the Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership operated this safety camera and have confirmed they were operating on the A11 southbound at Besthorpe, which fits with your description.

There are numerous safety camera sites currently operating on the A11 trunk road, all approved by the Department for Transport and in operation since 2002.

In the last 4 years there has been a significant decrease in casualties on the A11 trunk road to such a level that it is now listed as amongst the most improved roads in safety terms in the whole country.

Because of this improvement in road safety on the A11, Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership has adjusted its enforcement strategy accordingly. Three sites have been removed from the list of A11 sites and some of the other A11 sites have had their level of enforcement priority lowered. Should casualties continue to fall further, the Norfolk Safety Camera Partnership will respond by reviewing its enforcement strategy accordingly.

Safety remains a high priority for the Highways Agency and I hope you will feel that the actions you observed being taken on the A11 were fully justified in supporting casualty reduction on our roads.

If you would like any further information about this matter, please contact me at the address above, by telephone on 01234 796138, or you can e-mail me at julian.o’dell@highways.gsi.gov.uk.

I hope this is helpful.

Yours sincerely, Julian O'Dell

TO East & EM Area 6
Email: julian.o'dell@highways.gsi.gov.uk

I will leave you to make up your own mind about all of this. It looks remarkably like another response I have seen on this matter.

Of course as expected the speed camera van was again on another bridge accross the A11 this last Sunday afternoon, so much for the activity of these being reduced, but what does one really expect to happen.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 00:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9268
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
Still think that the eastern approach to this problem would be better -

1) consider this an affront to asian law.
2) gather a crowd round and burn the regional flag.
3) threaten the vehicle "enforcing " the limit

:roll: :roll:

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 09:46 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:55
Posts: 8
RE email Minister, Stephen Layman

The Highways Agency accepted Norfolk County Council’s proposal not to move the 30 mph temporary speed limit closer to the works for the safety of road users and road workers. They jointly felt that varying the start of the speed limit could cause confusion for motorists who regularly use the A11 and pose additional risks for road workers by physically changing the distance covered by the speed limit. For these safety reasons the 30 mph speed restriction was maintained for 24 hours per day.

Over the Christmas and New Year holiday period the speed limit was kept in place because there were unfinished roadworks

My Big question if they did not want to cause confusion for motorists then answer me this all other roadwork’s you have warnings signs stating 30mph in 800yards 600yards 400yards 200yards and then the speed restriction comes in to play. On this approach there are just a load of empty sign carries. This goes from 70 mph to 30mph with no warning.
As for the length of the road works it was reduced and signs were removed to create the camera cash works on the first day the camera arrived.
Also I would also like to know why the Norfolk camera partnership asked the Local Newspaper to send a cameraman on the first day the camera van arrived( see EDP24 article Norfolk Camera Partnership CAT BARTMAN 11 January 2006 07:30 )this picture was taken at 10am 9/1/2006 seems our friends at the partnership knew a big story was about to happen before it happened?

TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL CHAPTER 8
States that a speed restriction leading to roadwork should start no father than 100m from the start of the cones safety area and end no father than 100m from the end as the start of the cone area is the most dangerous.

If this was adhered to the speed limit would not be in force until you got to the camera van.

If the highway agency and the camera partnership were interested in safety they would not have removed the signs leading to the roadworks or taken pictures of vehicles 700-800 yards away from the danger zone.
In the past they may have been using more of the road for storage but the work and coned area was no more than 50yards from the island so these PEOPLE will never be able to tell me this is about safety.

A 28 year 30,000 mile a year driver with only ever 1 speeding fine in my youth and now this local HIGHWAY ROBBERY SCHEME.


Steve


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 16:25 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:55
Posts: 8
I have also sent this to 'julian.o’dell@highways.gsi.gov.uk' with this foot note

A 28 year 30,000 mile a year driver with only ever 1 speeding fine in my youth and now this local HIGHWAY ROBBERY SCHEME STAND AND DELIVER. Also as a foot note it also seems strange that as we find out about a yet another massive overspend an new tax scheme was put in place called a camera van

Yours Disgustingly

Steven Freeman


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 07, 2006 16:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 00:04
Posts: 2311
Steven Dare wrote:
Yours Disgustingly

I hope you're disgusted not disgusting. :lol:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2006 21:19 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:55
Posts: 8
:evil: Norfolk’s £5000-an-hour speed camera

1. Temporary traffic order put in place reducing speed to 30mph.Normally a reduction to 40mph on a 70mph dual carriageway.

2. Permanent traffic order in place to reduce speed to 40mph stretching 295 metres south from island after work completes.

3. Quote from newspaper. One correspondent said he was dismayed at a temporary speed limit stretching for 1.2 miles when the workforce was concentrated within 200m of the roadworks.

4. Norfolk is to press ministers for compensation for a £2.5m overspend on work to build the A11 Thickthorn roundabout and Cringleford link road

5. Quote from newspaper. Any deterrent effect seems to have fallen foul of the fact that even though speed camera signs had been erected the camera partnership had declared publicly that none would be used because the speed limit scheme in its initial form was 'inappropriate' for them. That all changed this week when, after some debate, the 30mph speed limit stretch was cut by 400m and the detector van arrived.

6. Norfolk camera partnership asked the Local Newspaper to send a cameraman on the first day the camera van arrived just as they started to check for speeders (see EDP24 article Norfolk’s £5000-an-hour speed camera) the picture used with this headline was taken at 10am 9/1/2006 from the inside of the above camera van confirmed with EDP24 picture desk. Norfolk camera Partnership seems to have known that a story would exist before it did.

7. Speed limit stretch was cut by 400m 3 speed camera signs are left amongst the old empty sign stands with no speed warnings still back at the 1.2 mile mark. Misleading information why not remove unused signs and move the speed camera signs closer to the effected area

8. I know on most motorways they give you a change of speed warning 1 mile and downwards as you get closer to the road works I know this is not a legal requirement but this limit went from 70mph to 30mph in 0 yards.

9. The high-specification digital van camera is capable of was parked in the closed lay-by at least 300m away from any work taking place looking a further 300 metres down the road for speeders. This would put most people 600m or more away from any of the road workers.

10. Camera Partnership was quick to say that the money is to go to Government's Department for Constitutional Affairs. Some monies under certain situations can still be claimed by the partnership if they can prove it is for road safety improvements i.e. antiskid surfacing at the approach to a roundabout?

So to conclude camera partnership said, it was there for safety but was photographing drivers 600m or more out side the area of work.
Most of the work has taken place at no more than 200m from the island, but you would have to slow down as you approach the island, how can there have been so many speeding drivers at the island. This is why the camera partnership said they were there due to complaints from road workers. Catching so many drivers in a short period would send out major warning bells to me that something was fundamentally wrong with the information given to drivers, but did they review it no just kept taking pictures for the next two days.
This is my last note on this sorry issue I’m in court in a week but what the hell I will pay what ever TAX and points they decide to give me.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: I quite agree
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 18:04 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 15:00
Posts: 1109
Location: Can't see.
SafeSpeed wrote:
Sometimes speed limits will be of benefit, but they are no panacea. Getting hit at 40mph is mostly fatal. Getting hit at 70mph is also mostly fatal. The only 'trick' is to avoid getting hit.


correct, but a car travelling at 40 has a far greater chance of both assessing a risk and reacting to it in good time, i forget the figures but you can probably stop from 40 in the "thinking distance" you'd need at 70.

Like FBT I've spent a lot of time working on the roads which means I've seen my fair share of terrible driving- like trafpol you really become aware of just how bad some driving is when you work in such an enviroment. one example that springs to mind is a BMW that jumped a red temporary light and drove under a 7 ton generator we were craning across the road.

My point is you can talk forever about how the problem lies in policing the bad drivers, but right here, right now, there are people working on the road and dealing with cretins applying their makeup, talking on their cellphones and generally not giving the road the attention it warrents. And believe me watching two lorrys beside each other driving towards you at 50mph and one only braking & flicking over at the last moment before they run into your cones is scarey.

And accidents will happen, things will go wrong. Like mentioned earlier live roadworks are on par with residential streets in terms of the risk to workers and it's pretty selfish to expect to be allowed to drive at high speed inches from them. As a driver I know it's annoying having to slow down, especially when roadworks are unattended (something should be done about that)

But back to the original post, hiding a camera van there is purely a profit orientated measure.


I'm just visualising a "chaser light" system comprising flashing beacons on the bollards timed to appear to move at a certain speed that you match. this way the speed of traffic could be varied within the roadworks.

_________________
Fear is a weapon of mass distraction


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: I quite agree
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 18:30 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
hairyben wrote:
SafeSpeed wrote:
Sometimes speed limits will be of benefit, but they are no panacea. Getting hit at 40mph is mostly fatal. Getting hit at 70mph is also mostly fatal. The only 'trick' is to avoid getting hit.


correct, but a car travelling at 40 has a far greater chance of both assessing a risk and reacting to it in good time, i forget the figures but you can probably stop from 40 in the "thinking distance" you'd need at 70.


An irresponsible 40mph is FAR more dangerous than a sensible 70mph.

I certainly don't disagree with speed limits in roadworks, but I'm sure we're misleading the public, crying wolf and making the roads more dangerous with the present excessive emphasis.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: My day in court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 22:52 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 15:55
Posts: 8
I would like to let you know the out come of my case.
3 points and a £40 fine with £35 costs.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject: Re: My day in court
PostPosted: Thu Jun 15, 2006 23:53 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
Steven Dare wrote:
I would like to let you know the out come of my case.
3 points and a £40 fine with £35 costs.


£40 is light. The commonplace minimum is generally the £60 from the fixed penalties. I think the magistrates had some sympathy.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 01:23 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Steven Dare; pleased that you had a go and the fine and cost were very low compared with the norm for such things.

Hope that the experience was helpful and you will be better prepared for the next time.

Write to your MP and complain. Contact details will be at http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hciolists/alms.cfm

and http://www.dodonline.co.uk/


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jun 16, 2006 07:00 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I have never heard of a £40 fine. It is allmost an admission of thier guilt :?

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jun 17, 2006 00:04 
Offline
User

Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 00:54
Posts: 327
Location: Rural Somerset
Only just found this thread, but one thing struck me.

We started out with "speed cameras".

These turned into "safety cameras", which spawned:

"Safety Camera Partnerships".

Now they are calling themselves "Casualty Reduction Partnerships". I think...oooerr...oh dear...sorry, I... ugh... :yuck:

All over one of the dogs, too. It's all right, I'll clean it up.

_________________
Save a cow - eat a vegetarian


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 95 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests


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 can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.328s | 12 Queries | GZIP : Off ]