Topic ID 692
I popped out to Tescos to pick up some shopping and on the way down Welwyn Road I noticed 2 policemen with a speed gun terrorising motorists. While I agree that there are times when vehicles come down Welwyn Road too fast (usualy lorries from the quarries down the B1000) I think that a speed trap at 7pm on a Friday Night was uneccessary. Surely these policemen would be better used to stop the anti-social behaviour in Hertford Town Centre and some of the estates.
Reply ID 7194
I don't think there are tht many fights at 7pm, wherever you are! And i'd rather be hit by a thug than a speeding car! Last bad crash on that road was only a few months ago when a cyclist got run over. Full marks to the dibble!
Reply ID 7206
quote:But dont you think it would make more sense to have speed cameras there during the day when the lorries from the quarry come thundering down the road, and when people use it as a rat run during the rush hour??
Originally posted by ridley
I don't think there are tht many fights at 7pm, wherever you are! And i'd rather be hit by a thug than a speeding car! Last bad crash on that road was only a few months ago when a cyclist got run over. Full marks to the dibble!
Reply ID 7239
As some of you may be aware i am not a great lover of the car.. actually i love cars but its there over use that annoys me. I do wonder though about the usefulness of Police time trying to catch speeders at 7 on a Friday evening! And an open question, has anyone ever been flashed by the cameras between Hertford and Ware on the Ware Rd ?
Reply ID 7240
I have tried to on my push bike, but I just cant manage to go fast enough!
Reply ID 7242
I was walking along Ware Road a couple of weeks ago when a police car sped past with blue lights flashing (maybe the end of their shift!!!) and can vouch that the speed cameras do work.
Reply ID 7246
My dad got caught by one of the cameras. He was doing 40mph one Sunday at 8am. 70 year old boy racer [;)]
Reply ID 7250
quote:No because I know they are there and I take my eyes off the road to check I am driving at below 30/40 MPH respectively just before I pass them. Also they are empty a lot of the time (there are less cameras than boxes and they get moved around)
Originally posted by Stan
As some of you may be aware i am not a great lover of the car.. actually i love cars but its there over use that annoys me. I do wonder though about the usefulness of Police time trying to catch speeders at 7 on a Friday evening! And an open question, has anyone ever been flashed by the cameras between Hertford and Ware on the Ware Rd ?
Reply ID 7273
I just can't seem to get that vital turn of speed up to get flashed on my push bike either! Seriously though, perhaps the traffic cops would be better employed by sitting on Ware road after dark, it seems 60mph is the average speed between the viaduct and the police station during the evening!
Reply ID 7280
quote:Totally agree with you. Thats when the boy racers seem to be out
Originally posted by flyer1
I just can't seem to get that vital turn of speed up to get flashed on my push bike either! Seriously though, perhaps the traffic cops would be better employed by sitting on Ware road after dark, it seems 60mph is the average speed between the viaduct and the police station during the evening!
Reply ID 7298
Good to know they actually do something then.
Reply ID 7310
Its quite simple, If you dont want to get fined and points on your licence, dont speed. We all know what the speed limits are. The Police dont sit there with speed cameras just for something to do.
Reply ID 7312
Especially when they could be out doing far less important things like catching thieves, muggers, rapists, and murderers.
Reply ID 7316
Speeding cars affect far more people than all of those grouped together, Victor. And it's both easier and cheaper to police. It's a proven way of reducing accidents and in addition it makes the residential area more pleasant, raises revenue and leaves the police free to work on far more serious but relatively rare crimes. Even minor accidents cost all of us lots of money (police, fire & rescue, ambulance, insurance premiums etc. etc.) and it's a huge amount of inconvenience - possibly even lost business - to other road users if roads are blocked even for a short time due to an accident. And if it saves the life of just one good citizen, it's got to be worth it. Having said that, I hate them too, especially all those on the A1 North.[}:)]
Reply ID 7319
quote:Yup they do! MY dad is a retired traffic cop, and would regulary do speed traps cos he was bored
Originally posted by spitfire
The Police dont sit there with speed cameras just for something to do.
Reply ID 7330
quote:The only way this statement stands up, is if someone has been seriously hurt or killed by a speeding motorist. How many speed cameras or speed traps do we see outside schools??? I cannot think of any. Most of the accidents I have seen recently in Hertford have been in the rush hour traffic along Gasgcoine way, where commuters have not been paying attention fo the car doing 5 miles an hour in front of them. I think I am right in suggesting that recent surveys show that speed cameras have not reduced the amount of fatal accidents on the road.
Originally posted by nora batty
Speeding cars affect far more people than all of those grouped together, Victor. And it's both easier and cheaper to police. It's a proven way of reducing accidents and in addition it makes the residential area more pleasant, raises revenue and leaves the police free to work on far more serious but relatively rare crimes. Even minor accidents cost all of us lots of money (police, fire & rescue, ambulance, insurance premiums etc. etc.) and it's a huge amount of inconvenience - possibly even lost business - to other road users if roads are blocked even for a short time due to an accident. And if it saves the life of just one good citizen, it's got to be worth it. Having said that, I hate them too, especially all those on the A1 North.[}:)]
Reply ID 7336
Victor - The point I'm trying to make is that it's not just fatalities that they are trying to reduce. There has been a lot of ranting in the press about the justification of speed traps in certain areas, probably by grumpy motorists. What about the residents of these areas who are plagued by speeding cars? And there are speed traps outside schools on busy roads - I've seen them outside Sele School at least twice in the past few years, and presumably they are the justification for the new mini roundabout and zebra crossing on this stretch of road.
Reply ID 7337
From my last entry. The only way this statement stands up, is if someone has been seriously hurt or killed by a speeding motorist. Face it Speed Cameras are profit making. Please read this. http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr115.html If they put cameras outside every school, on every housing estate then that would be justification. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Reply ID 7339
I've read it. I agree that if proper research has not been done into the effect of speed cameras on drivers attention then perhaps it should be IF the number of accidents has actually increased in speed trap zones since the installation of speed cameras. But any report that is only based on spurious statements such as "research seems to suggest, the average driver may be, drivers are likely" doesn't justify the removal of them.
Reply ID 7719
The police regularly sit outside the school leading up to Rush Green. However, I've never seen them there when the school is actually open! Money making!
Reply ID 7778
I see from Herts Direct that they are actually "Safety cameras" ! http://www.hertsdirect.org/safetycameras
Reply ID 7811
Safety Cameras is a term used to try and make them seem more acceptable. I'm not sure that one of these safety cameras would be much good if you crashed your car into it. Nor would it wade in to help if you were being beaten up by a gang of feral kids.
Reply ID 7817
According to herts direct: "Static camera sites can only be positioned on a section of road where there has been a minimum of eight personal injury collisions within a three year period of which four must be fatal and/or serious collisions." I can't recall reading or hearing of any such accidents on this stretch of road. Can anyone else? The link which supposedly justifies each static camera isn't working, strangely.
Reply ID 7819
I think it is a little more complex than that. There is a whole list of conditions that need to be applied to camera locations - one of them is concern from local residents. Also the policemen that I saw were neither a static camera or a mobile camera (which are operated by civilians in partnership with the police force and local magistrates courts) but in fact just a couple of plods with a laser gun. That is as my be because the 14 day deadline has now passed and I have not received anything through the post so therefore I was not speeding.
Reply ID 7820
quote:All scientific conclusions based on statisitcs are not 100% accurate and therefore words like "seems to suggest" and "likely" are appropriate if, as in this case, a little over cautious.
Originally posted by nora batty
I've read it. I agree that if proper research has not been done into the effect of speed cameras on drivers attention then perhaps it should be IF the number of accidents has actually increased in speed trap zones since the installation of speed cameras. But any report that is only based on spurious statements such as "research seems to suggest, the average driver may be, drivers are likely" doesn't justify the removal of them.
Reply ID 8851
Hertfordshire Constabulary annual report 2004-2005 states the following: The number of collisions in which people are killed or seriously injured where there are safety camera sites has reduced by around 50% QED?
Reply ID 8875
An interesting note in the papers last Friday (The Times, Daily Mail) is that 500 speed cameras for various counties in the UK are being put on hold a) because the evidence that they stop accidents and make the road/junction safer is now in question and b) actually potentially cause accidents because people look at their speedo to check their speed ! The results of this survey will not be with Govt. till end of this year so no new cameras are being allowed to be put up. Frankly I lived off Ware Road for 6 years and not one fatal accident on it. That is one of the main criteria police were allowed to put them up in the first place!!!
Reply ID 8885
quote:I didn't think those criteria applied to cameras in residential areas - could be wrong on that one, though.
Originally posted by Drama Queen
Frankly I lived off Ware Road for 6 years and not one fatal accident on it. That is one of the main criteria police were allowed to put them up in the first place!!!
Reply ID 9028
quote:Yes but how statistically significant is a drop from 2 accidents in 2003 to 1 accident in 2004. My other gripe with cameras is that they only work on properly registered cars and can't touch stolen, uninsured .... etc etc. It is not even as if they are cheap. The cost that I have seen quoted for a speed camera is considerably more than a real policeman's salary for a year. Yes I agree that the original title of this thread was deliberatly controversial and antagonistic, but hey it has provoked discussion.
Originally posted by nora batty
Hertfordshire Constabulary annual report 2004-2005 states the following: The number of collisions in which people are killed or seriously injured where there are safety camera sites has reduced by around 50% QED?
Reply ID 12198
Did you know you can find out when and where some mobile speed traps will be? Safety Camera Partnership vans work in different roadside locations on different days and these are posted on the HCC website: http://www.hertsdirect.org/roadtrans/rsu/driving/safetycameras/ The Safety Camera Partnership is different from the police mobile units (the police speed traps do not advertise their whereabouts) but still, it could be helpful to check this link weekly. You can see, for example, that they will be in Hertford on Thursday and I seem to remember if you interrogate the site further that the locations are likely to be either Gallows Hill or North Road by St Joseph's school. It would certainly have stopped a member of my household getting three penalty points if they had known about this website last Thursday and had remembered to concentrate on staying below 40 mph in Stevenage. [:(][:(!][V]
Reply ID 12201
Stevenage seems to be a favourite haunt of the SCamera Vans
Reply ID 12204
Just a small point - what would you all say if there was a serious accident involving someone you knew along one of the routes that the police use their speed gun?? I'm sure you'd be backing them then! The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. C
Reply ID 12205
Is it true that the mobile speed traps, the ones that take your picture from the front, are not able to work at night?? Just wanted to know whether I need to reduce speed coming home from work down Gallows Hill on Thursday!!!
Reply ID 12207
Speed cameras DO appear outside schools - my ex partner was done on one in Slough. Admittedly he was above the 30mph limit but only slightly and it was 2am! I do 35,000 miles a year and not all of it slowly but, *touch wood* haven't been caught by a camera in 10 years.
Reply ID 12213
The only camera locally I agree with is the set on the A414 on the way to Harlow. Can anyone explain to me why there are cameras on Ware Road? A place where 30mph is a miracle.
Reply ID 12216
Lots of cars pulling out of roads such as Railway street ect causing accidents. In the rush hour a smack like this rush hour this causes bedlam.
Reply ID 12219
I believe they only put cameras in locations where there have been a number of accidents already.
Reply ID 12222
a camera wont stop idiots pulling out or am i missing something here?
Reply ID 12223
No it won't stop them, but when they pull out into Ware Road, the car they'll get hit by will only be travelling at 30mph, as opposed to a more damaging and potentialy life-threatening 40 or 50.
Reply ID 12228
point taken. never managed to get that fast along there but i am only a weekend warrior in the car.
Reply ID 12231
quote:If you accelerate hard enough away from the lights before Tescos, you can get up to about 70mph before having to break for the camera! [8D]
Originally posted by carlos fandango
point taken. never managed to get that fast along there but i am only a weekend warrior in the car.
Reply ID 12236
quote:A nice illustration of the reason why cameras aren't particularly effective. There are drivers on the road that drive just like that, and they are the reason that we have the speed limits, to enable police to prsecute them as the dangerous drivers that they are. Unfortunately they brake before the speed camera so they are only doing 30MPH when they pass it.
Originally posted by Victor Meldrewquote:If you accelerate hard enough away from the lights before Tescos, you can get up to about 70mph before having to break for the camera! [8D]
Originally posted by carlos fandango
point taken. never managed to get that fast along there but i am only a weekend warrior in the car.
Reply ID 12238
That was my reason for the post. I dont really do that, I recon I could get my car up to 100 mph if I tried though!
Reply ID 12262
quote:You'd better do, a school and a pre-school are on this rd..don't forget schools don't just finish at 3.15 - 3.30.
Originally posted by Blakey
Is it true that the mobile speed traps, the ones that take your picture from the front, are not able to work at night?? Just wanted to know whether I need to reduce speed coming home from work down Gallows Hill on Thursday!!!
Reply ID 12311
quote:The temporary ones on the A414 between Thievs lane and the railway line are also worthwhile - It's a 40 zone there and trying to pull across the dual carriageway into the streets off there are a nightmare. Thought the pinchpoint under the railway bridge has made things much worse than they should be in the morning.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
The only camera locally I agree with is the set on the A414 on the way to Harlow. Can anyone explain to me why there are cameras on Ware Road? A place where 30mph is a miracle.
Reply ID 12312
quote:Do you mean the ones catching motorists going into or out of Hertford, or both?
Originally posted by SMHquote:The temporary ones on the A414 between Thievs lane and the railway line are also worthwhile - It's a 40 zone there and trying to pull across the dual carriageway into the streets off there are a nightmare. Thought the pinchpoint under the railway bridge has made things much worse than they should be in the morning.
Originally posted by carlos fandango
The only camera locally I agree with is the set on the A414 on the way to Harlow. Can anyone explain to me why there are cameras on Ware Road? A place where 30mph is a miracle.
Reply ID 12472
quote:Both, there is residential access in both directions (Valeside and Becketts). Does trying to do 80 between the railway bridge and thieves lane really make your journey much quicker (I calculate 10 seconds).
Originally posted by Ewoowar Do you mean the ones catching motorists going into or out of Hertford, or both?
Reply ID 12503
quote:Probably not - although I personally think that closing the gap so that you can't cut across traffic that is likely to be speeding would do more for safety than the occasional plod with a speed gun. It would slightly inconvenience the residents of Valeside and Becketts because they would have to turn left and then use one of the roundabouts instead of turning right, but the stretch of dual carriageway is so short anyway that this would be a minor inconvenience.
Originally posted by SMHquote:Both, there is residential access in both directions (Valeside and Becketts). Does trying to do 80 between the railway bridge and thieves lane really make your journey much quicker (I calculate 10 seconds).
Originally posted by Ewoowar Do you mean the ones catching motorists going into or out of Hertford, or both?
Reply ID 12513
I think you need to put this whole debate into a bit of context. Breaking the speed limit is an offence whether you like it or not. To put some figures to it, in 2004, there where 280,000 reported casualties of which 3200 where fatal, 31,000 where serious and 246,000 were classed as slightly.Out of the fatalities 166 were children. It is widely reported that a fatal accident "costs" the country over £1M in emergency service costs, delays insurance etc. This doesn't take into account human pain of suffering. To further demonstrate the effects of speed at 40mph, 85% of people hit by vehicles die, compared to 20% at 30mph (at 20mph it is just 5%). Unfortunately until the standard of driving improves dramatically in this country, "we" will carry on killing and injuring vast numbers of people every year.
Reply ID 12517
quote:That is very true - but unfortunately we do have some ****heads that have no regard for the rules of the road whatsoever - and a van parked at the side of a hazardous road 2 or 3 times a year is not going to stop them causing accidents. My biggest gripe about Speed cameras is that they can't catch the unlisenced, uninsured, untaxed, unregistered drivers that cause real pain and suffering above and beyond any accident they happen to be involved in. Speed cameras will only catch correctly registered cars (which presumably have tax, insurance, MOT etc.) - people with cloned number plates etc. can just ignore them at their leisure.
Originally posted by flowerbar
I think you need to put this whole debate into a bit of context. Breaking the speed limit is an offence whether you like it or not. To put some figures to it, in 2004, there where 280,000 reported casualties of which 3200 where fatal, 31,000 where serious and 246,000 were classed as slightly.Out of the fatalities 166 were children. It is widely reported that a fatal accident "costs" the country over £1M in emergency service costs, delays insurance etc. This doesn't take into account human pain of suffering. To further demonstrate the effects of speed at 40mph, 85% of people hit by vehicles die, compared to 20% at 30mph (at 20mph it is just 5%). Unfortunately until the standard of driving improves dramatically in this country, "we" will carry on killing and injuring vast numbers of people every year.
Reply ID 12524
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Very nice flowerbar, but your figures don't show the causes of accidents. I'll trawl around the net later but I read a report recently that the introduction of speed cameras had not reduced accidents. The reports showed that all areas where speed cameras were introduced had shown a rise in accidents with one police force showing a reduction in accidents where speed cameras had been removed!
Reply ID 12527
quote:So you are capitulating to the speeders, carry on racing down a stretch of road 1000m long so that if you manage 80 along the entire length (impossible obviously) it will take 30 seconds wheras if you did the speed limit (average 50) it would take 48 seconds big whoop you have shaved 18 seconds off your journey time (and as I said assuming you manage to accelerate from 0-80 at the thieves lane roundabout and 80-0 at the railway bridge roundabout. That stretch is 1000 m long, so the loop would be around 1500 meters or about a mile, it also would add about 2 minutes to each journey. With the average car running costs of about 40p a mile you would be asking the residents of both roads to add about £1 a day to their motoring costs just to the road outside their houses can be driven down at 80 instead of the 40 speed limit which if stuck to makes driving across the road safe, as can be seen on the A414 Stanstead Abbots By-Pass on the way to Harlow where a similar arrangement is policed full-time by cameras. Perhaps a better suggestion as it is a 40 zone would be peak time traffic lights or replacing the two centre verge islands with roundabouts, that would slow the traffic down nicely. Properly costed it would be cheaper than the man with his camaera too.
Originally posted by jez_p Probably not - although I personally think that closing the gap so that you can't cut across traffic that is likely to be speeding would do more for safety than the occasional plod with a speed gun. It would slightly inconvenience the residents of Valeside and Becketts because they would have to turn left and then use one of the roundabouts instead of turning right, but the stretch of dual carriageway is so short anyway that this would be a minor inconvenience.
Reply ID 12528
Further east on the A414 there is a dangerous situation that is ignored. To the east of the railway bridge there is Mimram Road, the entrance to Kingdom Hall and some houses, the entrance and exits for the Esso garage and Riversmeet. Within 200 metres there are 5 points where vehicles enter or exit the A414. Cars accelerate away from the Cross Road/A414 roundabout Westward towards this set of turnings and to make matters worse the road filters down from 2 lanes to 1. I believe this section of road to be far more dangerous yet there is never a police camera here. I believe the reason for this is that although the cars exceed the speed limit they do not reach the higher speeds as they do further west near the entrance to Becketts. The cars would see the camera before they reached 40 mph and consequently the camera would make less money. The camera would be an effective detterent because less cars would even reach 40mph but it would never be put there simply because it would not generate revenue.
Reply ID 12529
I thought they were only supposed to be put up at accident hotspots, not to generate revenue?
Reply ID 12534
A very emotive subject and until motorists drive responsibly, I don't suppose we'll ever be treated like responsible adults. For example, I'm sure everyone would agree that it's perfectly safe to drive a modern car at 90 mph on a clear day in the middle of summer on an empty dual carriageway. But, even with headlights on full, more than 70mph down the A414 to Hatfield, from the gypsy roundabout, is dangerous during the winter, what with the damp weather, the mud, the dark nights and unlit road etc. Likewise, more than 20mph down Byde St is dangerous, with cars both sides, potential for pedestrians to step out, longer stopping distances because you're going downhill. But people still accelerate (legally) up to 30mph before breaking hard at the bottom to turn the corner. Cameras are put in places where there have been serious accidents due to speeding. Hazard road signs are put in similarly. However, we still drive in an irresponsible manner because we are always in such a rush to get there. Wherever that is.
Reply ID 12536
quote:Along with the queue of cars waiting to fill up at the Esso that cannot get on the forecourt. The whole road layout around here with the tweaks of late is a farce, the pinch point after the railway bridge heading into Hertford has done nothing to improve the traffic, probably made it worse, there are now many more drivers that take the left lane down to the North Road (Cross Lane) roundabout then go left up to the North Rd / St Andrews roundabout, slingshot that and then back down to the A414 to try and skip the queue between the railway bridge and this roundabout making the North Rd / St Andrews roundabout quite dangerous on a morning. Back to my point, they should probably make the A414 single track each way from Valeside until the railway bridge and going toward Hatfield from the railway bridge until Becketts. A streetmap link if you want it graphically. http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=531970&y=212535&z=1&sv=531750,212750&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf
Originally posted by Ewoowar
Further east on the A414 there is a dangerous situation that is ignored. To the east of the railway bridge there is Mimram Road, the entrance to Kingdom Hall and some houses, the entrance and exits for the Esso garage and Riversmeet. Within 200 metres there are 5 points where vehicles enter or exit the A414.
Reply ID 12540
Making in a single lane would only increase conjestion and cause a bottle neck before you got to either turning. Continuation of both lanes from the Hertingforbury round about to the Bluecoats roundabout with possibly more traffic lights at the Cross Lane round about allowing car to use both lanes would improve traffic flow, but would not be a total solution There is only one solution and that is to bypass Hertford. Will that ever happen? Anyway im off to the toilet to make sure the hole is still there!
Reply ID 12545
How do you get 4 lanes under the railway bridge without rebuilding it? That is the pinchpoint here. As you say by-pass, when, well they slowly seem to be appearing, Stanstead Abbots and the A10 one North of Ware have both appeared in my lifetime.
Reply ID 12546
You would'nt need to re-build it just knock a bit down either side of the road. Now I aint no Civil Engineer, but I bet it would be possible and cheaper than a bypass.
Reply ID 12548
quote:John I've made no mention of speed cameras, and I'll keep my feelings on speed cameras to myself. All I've quoted is the real life blood and guts figures of death and injury on Englands roads. Speed cameras are just ONE tool that the the authorities have in an atempt to reduce these figures. They also have APNR which is a very clever tool which cathes all manner of people who've committed or are wanted for various crimes. The original topic was about police catching people speeding which is what the figures I quoted relate to..............
Originally posted by JohnSmith
Lies, damned lies and statistics. Very nice flowerbar, but your figures don't show the causes of accidents. I'll trawl around the net later but I read a report recently that the introduction of speed cameras had not reduced accidents. The reports showed that all areas where speed cameras were introduced had shown a rise in accidents with one police force showing a reduction in accidents where speed cameras had been removed!