Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in 
Manchester.
At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the central 
reservation.
If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at between 
30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles because then the 
driver is in the picture and the cars were coming downhill.

This is an ideal place for a trap because: -

1. Wide modern dual carriageway with separate pedestrian and cycle paths and 
unobstructed views.
2. Originally designed for 40mph, but slight changes elsewhere meant it got 
a 30mph limit.
3. Disused graveyard on one side and empty fenced MCFC car park on the 
other.
4. No junctions for 200m either way, and both light controlled.
5. Clear dry day, moderate traffic.
6. Terrible accident record - see below*.

Naturally the drivers and police would be aware of what a dangerous place 
this was to speed and take especial care to respect the 30mph limit and 
enforce it respectively.

Obviously anyone caught in such a trap would be doubly willing to assist the 
police whenever they might ask for assistance or witnesses to come forward 
etc....

Apparently the van was there for several hours and will IME have generated a 
profit for its operator of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

-- 

R. Mark Clayton

nospamclayton@btinternet.com
remove nospa for email

* actually true - four killed in under 4km but: -

A6010 and A57 - motorcyclist killed in collision with car - one or other 
jumped lights - now has fixed camera.
A6010 and A635 - PC recently killed in van in collision with car when 
answering emergency - sub judicae
A6010 and A662 - pedestrian killed in collision with police car answering an 
emergency.  My estimate was 65-75mph (depending on whether the pedestrian 
was seen before collision) - now has fixed camera.
A6010 and A62 - PC killed when stolen car pushed his motorbike into the path 
of an artic.  Driver convicted of murder.

other than this very little for what is a very busy road.

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:RcCdnReHgsafnTLaRVnyvQA@bt.com...
> Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in 
> Manchester.
> At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the 
> central reservation.
> If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at 
> between 30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles 
> because then the driver is in the picture and the cars were coming 
> downhill.
>
> This is an ideal place for a trap because: -
>
> 1. Wide modern dual carriageway with separate pedestrian and cycle paths 
> and unobstructed views.
> 2. Originally designed for 40mph, but slight changes elsewhere meant it 
> got a 30mph limit.
> 3. Disused graveyard on one side and empty fenced MCFC car park on the 
> other.
> 4. No junctions for 200m either way, and both light controlled.
> 5. Clear dry day, moderate traffic.
> 6. Terrible accident record - see below*.
>
> Naturally the drivers and police would be aware of what a dangerous place 
> this was to speed and take especial care to respect the 30mph limit and 
> enforce it respectively.
>
> Obviously anyone caught in such a trap would be doubly willing to assist 
> the police whenever they might ask for assistance or witnesses to come 
> forward etc....
>
> Apparently the van was there for several hours and will IME have generated 
> a profit for its operator of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
>
Hundreds of thousands of pounds?
Call it 300000 , at 60 quid a go = 5000 cars
If it was there for 5 hours that's a thousand cars an hour.
Two lane? ring road , so 500 cars per lane per hour , or 8.3 per minute , or 
one every 7 seconds

That would mean a high rate of traffic and virtually every car speeding.
-- 
Alex

New laptop - Sig missing

Nobody likes being caught. Pay up, and smile, and don't do it ahain.

Look on the bright side - it probably won't prevent you getting a US visa.

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> This is an ideal place for a trap because: -
> 
> 1. Wide modern dual carriageway with separate pedestrian and cycle paths and 
> unobstructed views.

> Apparently the van was there for several hours and will IME have generated a 
> profit for its operator of hundreds of thousands of pounds.


It should have generated fuck all if the views were unobstructed! Apart 
from all the people who drive without looking beyond the end of their 
bonnet, who deserve getting pinched IMO.

-- 
Abo

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 13:45:40 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
 wrote:

>Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in 
>Manchester.
>At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the central 
>reservation.
>If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at between 
>30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles because then the 
>driver is in the picture and the cars were coming downhill.


Sorry - did you have a point to make - other than proving that you are
a knob?

"R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
> 
> Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in
> Manchester.
> At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the central
> reservation.
> If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at between
> 30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles because then the
> driver is in the picture and the cars were coming downhill.

If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be fined.

>
> If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be fined.
>

Absolutely, my traffic copper brother-in-law loves speed cameras.

As he says, "The cameras don't catch people that speed they catch the
brain dead, driving around in a bloody dream, that shouldn't be on the
road."

People who get caught by cameras are first and foremost bad drivers.

Some petrol heads may well where their speed tickets like some sort of
badge of honour but, in all reality, they're mostly the sort that
wouldn't last five minutes on a real race track.

"R. Mark Clayton"  wrote in message 
news:RcCdnReHgsafnTLaRVnyvQA@bt.com...
> Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in 
> Manchester.
> At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the 
> central reservation.
> If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at 
> between 30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles 
> because then the driver is in the picture and the cars were coming 
> downhill.
>
> This is an ideal place for a trap because: -
>
> 1. Wide modern dual carriageway with separate pedestrian and cycle paths 
> and unobstructed views.
> 2. Originally designed for 40mph, but slight changes elsewhere meant it 
> got a 30mph limit.
> 3. Disused graveyard on one side and empty fenced MCFC car park on the 
> other.
> 4. No junctions for 200m either way, and both light controlled.
> 5. Clear dry day, moderate traffic.
> 6. Terrible accident record - see below*.
>
> Naturally the drivers and police would be aware of what a dangerous place 
> this was to speed and take especial care to respect the 30mph limit and 
> enforce it respectively.
>
> Obviously anyone caught in such a trap would be doubly willing to assist 
> the police whenever they might ask for assistance or witnesses to come 
> forward etc....
>
> Apparently the van was there for several hours and will IME have generated 
> a profit for its operator of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

But if you chalenge the 'evidence' it , the 'evidence' is highly suspect.

Alan

>
> -- 
>
> R. Mark Clayton
>
> nospamclayton@btinternet.com
> remove nospa for email
>
> * actually true - four killed in under 4km but: -
>
> A6010 and A57 - motorcyclist killed in collision with car - one or other 
> jumped lights - now has fixed camera.
> A6010 and A635 - PC recently killed in van in collision with car when 
> answering emergency - sub judicae
> A6010 and A662 - pedestrian killed in collision with police car answering 
> an emergency.  My estimate was 65-75mph (depending on whether the 
> pedestrian was seen before collision) - now has fixed camera.
> A6010 and A62 - PC killed when stolen car pushed his motorbike into the 
> path of an artic.  Driver convicted of murder.
>
> other than this very little for what is a very busy road.
>

"Johannes Andersen"  wrote in message 
news:47AF33AF.CA3CDEA0@sizefitter.com...
>
>
> "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
>>
>> Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in
>> Manchester.
>> At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the 
>> central
>> reservation.
>> If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at 
>> between
>> 30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles because then 
>> the
>> driver is in the picture and the cars were coming downhill.
>
> If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be fined.

And you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit?

>
> > If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be fined.
>
> And you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit?
>

No he's never been caught.

You have to admit that takes a certain bit of skill of the sort that's
clearly lacking in those that do get caught.

F**k me, how hard is it to concentrate on what you're doing then press
the brakes as appropriate.

allan tracy wrote:
||| If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be
||| fined.
|||
||
|| Absolutely, my traffic copper brother-in-law loves speed cameras.
||
|| As he says, "The cameras don't catch people that speed they catch the
|| brain dead, driving around in a bloody dream, that shouldn't be on
|| the road."

Then he's obviously not very bright. Cameras can't catch the brain dead, 
only speeding vehicles.

|| People who get caught by cameras are first and foremost bad drivers.

< sigh>

|| Some petrol heads may well where their speed tickets like some sort
|| of badge of honour but, in all reality, they're mostly the sort that
|| wouldn't last five minutes on a real race track.

Why do you think those who exceed the limit are the same ones who wish to 
drive on a race track?

-- 
Rob

alan holmes wrote:
> 
> "Johannes Andersen"  wrote in message
> news:47AF33AF.CA3CDEA0@sizefitter.com...
> >
> >
> > "R. Mark Clayton" wrote:
> >>
> >> Yesterday I was driving along the A6010 intermediate ring road in
> >> Manchester.
> >> At approx location 53.48747N 2.19892W there was a camera van on the
> >> central
> >> reservation.
> >> If it was filming vehicles from the back it might have snapped me at
> >> between
> >> 30 and 40, but more likely it was filming oncoming vehicles because then
> >> the
> >> driver is in the picture and the cars were coming downhill.
> >
> > If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be fined.
> 
> And you have NEVER exceeded the speed limit?

I try not to, and am extra vigilant where I think there could be speed
checks. I'm not one of those who deliberately drive at speed limit +10.

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008 18:52:42 -0000, "Rob"
 wrote:

>allan tracy wrote:
>||| If you can't see the speed limit signs, then you deserve to be
>||| fined.
>|||
>||
>|| Absolutely, my traffic copper brother-in-law loves speed cameras.
>||
>|| As he says, "The cameras don't catch people that speed they catch the
>|| brain dead, driving around in a bloody dream, that shouldn't be on
>|| the road."
>
>Then he's obviously not very bright. Cameras can't catch the brain dead, 
>only speeding vehicles.
>

Idiot.

You must be *really* stupid if you somehow managed to fail to
understand what was being said.

And a stupid pedantic point is just that - stupid.

And he was generally right. *Most* cameras and camera vans are readily
visible prior to the point where you would be caught, so if you do get
caught by one, you are not paying attention (unless it is one of the
few around which really are pretty hidden).

>|| People who get caught by cameras are first and foremost bad drivers.
>
>< sigh>

It was absolutely true.

NOT because people who speed are bad drivers, but because people who
are not paying sufficient attention to see the cameras are *mainly*
people who are not driving well.

-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Keep London tidy... Shoot a pigeon.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

Alex Heney wrote:

>And he was generally right. *Most* cameras and camera vans are readily
>visible prior to the point where you would be caught, so if you do get
>caught by one, you are not paying attention (unless it is one of the
>few around which really are pretty hidden).

<snip>

>NOT because people who speed are bad drivers, but because people who
>are not paying sufficient attention to see the cameras are *mainly*
>people who are not driving well.

I'm a little concerned about this 'attention' thing being linked to
bad driving, and feel that there's more to this than meets the eye.

An example is a stretch of three-lane road near here, between two
roundabouts. Two lanes are for the traffic travelling uphill, and a
single lane for those travelling down. In the last six hundred yards
or less of the latter, there are a total of twenty-seven facing
road-signs.

That might be enough information for anyone to absorb and integrate,
but some four of these signs are obscured by the very large direction
sign immediately in front of them. To be fair, they do spring in to
view, due to the curve in the road, about one second before they are
passed, but exactly at this time one is preparing for the roundabout
some 100 yards ahead, just where the road splits into two downhill
lanes. The roundabout has some half-a-dozen signs of its own,
including two speed-limit signs. 

What makes this worse is that one is looking for the lane direction
arrows in the road just before the roundabout. Locals know that the
left-hand lane is left-turn only, and the right-hand lane is for
straight-on and right-turn; but the arrows are not obvious if there is
more than one car in front  in each lane - as they are obscured.

So, just as one passes the large sign, one is looking ahead at the
traffic in front taking lane positions at the roundabout. One has a
choice - to take one's eyes very much off the road ahead to see what
the four signs (now well to the left) say, or keep ones eyes in front
to deal with the now changing traffic flow. As one takes one lane or
the other, the car behind will accelerate in its now free lane to take
up its own position for the roundabout. It is not a time to dithertate
and change lanes if wrong.

So what does one do? There isn't enough time here even with the
traffic flow normally well below the fifty limit to do both things.
They both have an impact on safety, but which one represents the
greater threat?

I recall seeing a TV programme about airline pilots and how much
information they can process from the various inputs in emergency
situations, and it wasn't much. As I recall, they could process four
items at once, and any more just had to wait in the queue. I regret I
don't have a reference for this programme, as I feel its findings are
germane here.

So, what do we have in this situation? One is travelling towards the
roundabout in a line of vehicles, and it can be seen that cars are
taking lane positions ahead and within three or four seconds one will
have to do the same. The speed limit signs ahead are visible, so at
this point one is a) looking ahead at the traffic, b) glancing down at
the speedometer in preparation for the new lower speed limit, c)
monitoring the signs one can see, d) looking in one's mirrors to
assess the intentions of the vehicles immediately behind, and e)
preparing options for one's own manoeuvre. Just at this point four
previously unseen signs spring into peripheral vision, the
implications of which are that one's planning ahead for the roundabout
might now be totally wrong. There is about one second available to
read the four signs and reintegrate this new information into new
perceptions of the action to take at the roundabout, before beginning
to signal and manoeuvre.

I feel that, based on the TV programme and this real-life situation,
that the view that 'drivers should be paying more attention' can be
simplistic and naive, and that continually adding road signs to the
plethora that already exists contributes absolutely nothing to
increased safety.

A white van parked on the pavement is a common sight. Drivers may well
have seen it, with the view to assessing whether it's going to be a
threat by pulling out suddenly. To reassess it as a 'safety camera'
van would require extra processing at a time when there's plenty of
more immediate threats to assess. It might have nothing at all to do
with 'paying attention'. Perhaps the processing power spent assessing
whether it was a camera van was obtained by not looking at the
speedometer to check one's speed or surrounding traffic - both safety
issues, in which the camera van has now compromised by its presence.

Perhaps what drivers need are less inputs, not more; and recent
experiments in this country and abroad with reducing road signage have
improved both road safety and traffic flow - an unwelcome message for
a nanny-state government; which is probably why little has been heard
of these experiments.



-- 
from
Kim Bolton

"Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message 
news:fon635$q9s$2@news.albasani.net...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>> This is an ideal place for a trap because: -
>>
>> 1. Wide modern dual carriageway with separate pedestrian and cycle paths 
>> and unobstructed views.
>
>> Apparently the van was there for several hours and will IME have 
>> generated a profit for its operator of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
>
>
> It should have generated fuck all if the views were unobstructed! Apart 
> from all the people who drive without looking beyond the end of their 
> bonnet, who deserve getting pinched IMO.

I think the OP's point is that the limit should not be 30 in the first 
place.

Mark Hewitt wrote:
> "Abo" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message
> news:fon635$q9s$2@news.albasani.net...
>> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>>> This is an ideal place for a trap because: -
>>>
>>> 1. Wide modern dual carriageway with separate pedestrian and cycle
>>> paths and unobstructed views.
>>
>>> Apparently the van was there for several hours and will IME have
>>> generated a profit for its operator of hundreds of thousands of
>>> pounds.
>>
>>
>> It should have generated fuck all if the views were unobstructed!
>> Apart from all the people who drive without looking beyond the end
>> of their bonnet, who deserve getting pinched IMO.
>
> I think the OP's point is that the limit should not be 30 in the first
> place.

What the limit should or shouldn't be is beside the point, the fact is that 
the limit is what it is. If the view is unobstructed and people get nicked 
then tough shit.