DT Ralge Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 I get the impression that it's cost more than anything. The road design wasn't correct the first time, probably due to cost, space limitations or it not being an issue at the time. Now it's quite expensive to do the job right, so sticking a camera in sort of does something for the problem, but also costs a whole lot less. That's unnecessarily and unreasonably cynical. Give the planners, designers et al a break. They are human and don't always get it right. I guess you have never over/under-estimated anything? Is road-building an art or a science? Cost will always be a barrier to doing anything. Where speed is an issue, cameras are considered together with a review of the limit. Where it's lines of vision, poor driver judgments other interventions are more likely. You will know junctions where this is the case. As for design of junctions, use of them changes over time. The original design and layout may need changing to cater for traffic from a new estate (residential or commercial), say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolyhead Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Speed is by definition the distance travelled in the specified time. Mathematically the time duration is delta t, a vanishingly small quantity. So unless the speed camera can measure the distance travelled in this time what does it record? I once had a colleague who got off a speeding charge with an argument like this. OK, he was a **** but he showed up the method of measuring speed to be at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Speed is by definition the distance travelled in the specified time. Mathematically the time duration is delta t, a vanishingly small quantity. So unless the speed camera can measure the distance travelled in this time what does it record? I once had a colleague who got off a speeding charge with an argument like this. OK, he was a **** but he showed up the method of measuring speed to be at fault. If that were the case, then the Mr Loophole bloke would be getting everyone off from their speeding charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DT Ralge Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) Speed is by definition the distance travelled in the specified time. Mathematically the time duration is delta t, a vanishingly small quantity. So unless the speed camera can measure the distance travelled in this time what does it record? I once had a colleague who got off a speeding charge with an argument like this. OK, he was a **** but he showed up the method of measuring speed to be at fault. I wonder why you make your contribution - let's stir it ... ? From radar to GATSO, TRUVELO and SPECS, cameras do indeed measure distance over time. What else do you think they measure? Any Google search will return, for example: http://saferroadshumber.eastriding.gov.uk/about-safety-cameras/how-do-they-work/ Am I missing something? Edited May 3, 2015 by DT Ralge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElasticMan Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Speed is by definition the distance travelled in the specified time. Mathematically the time duration is delta t, a vanishingly small quantity. So unless the speed camera can measure the distance travelled in this time what does it record? I once had a colleague who got off a speeding charge with an argument like this. OK, he was a **** but he showed up the method of measuring speed to be at fault. That's exactly how they do work - by measuring the distance travelled in a set period of time. It's basic maths. Your 'colleague' is lying to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 It's not vanishingly small, it's several seconds and exactly why they take 2 photos... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annmoffett Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Hi I think your right it is always the people who speed that conplain. And as far as showing them naaaaaa it's wrong because speeders only slow down so what the point. I have seen people even speed between sleeping police man just mad it only adds a second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurs Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Hi I think your right it is always the people who speed that conplain. And as far as showing them naaaaaa it's wrong because speeders only slow down so what the point. I have seen people even speed between sleeping police man just mad it only adds a second. What some don't get,is that most accidents are caused by drivers NOT speeding,so who do you recon is causing them and further more what is being done about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 What some don't get,is that most accidents are caused by drivers NOT speeding,so who do you recon is causing them and further more what is being done about it? According to ROSPA: Inappropriate speed contributes to around 14% of all injury collisions, 15% of crashes resulting in a serious injury and 24% of collisions which result in a death and are recorded by the police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Inappropriate speed doesn't necessarily mean breaking the speed limit of course. The last figures that I saw from the government though recorded speed as a major contributor to accidents (total figures) in only 5%. The extra 9% might be where it's recorded as a minor contributory factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now