Camera cost
 

tim(yet another new home) wrote:
"John Rowland" wrote in message
...
Conor wrote:
In article , John Rowland
says...

In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only
for a few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours
in the evening. There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is
upheld. How much does a pair of cameras like this cost to install,
and how much to maintain?

I've seen figures of £10,000 per camera bandied about.

Is that the cost of a Gatso? The cameras I'm talking about have a simpler
job to do.

A lot will depend on if you have to dig up the road
to put power in.

I doubt you will see any change from 100K if you do.

tim

In London providing a power connection would cost much less that.
Probably £500 or so, since most roads already carry an electricity
main. Don't know about the cost of the cameras though.

Camera cost
 

allan tracy wrote:

Hit the back of a combine harvester or a hay truck at thirty and let's
see what your crash survivability does for you.

The idea is to drive slowly enough to be able to stop without hitting
it at all. About being in control of the vehicle and driving safely
based on road conditions.

The poster above said the road was NSL so the actual posted limit was
60mph but that was too fast for the conditions.

It doesn't make a tosh of difference what they do to cars when they
still have to share the same road with monster HGVs. Hit one of those
head on and there's always only going to be one winner.

Not certain there will be any winners at all, only losers.

Changing nothing else would have seen casualty figures falling drastically,
ergo the stasis must be due to a negative effect from the other changes.

I'm sorry but that's complete ********.

However making the roads safer, for example dualling a number of major
A-roads, instead of refusing to do this because policies are anti-car
might have some effect.

By far, most stretches of road still do not have speed cameras so have
been unaffected.

On the roads where they have been introduced reportable accident have
declined by between 41% and 69%.

Because the number of injury accidents on this road was unportionally
high to begin with, which is why they put the speed cameras there, so
it was likely to fall anyway. Now let's say that the normal "average"
number of deaths on a particular road is 0.1 a year, one every 10
years. One year there is a crash and 2 people are killed. They put a
camera there and there are no deaths in the next 5 years and the
average has gone down. But the odds were that there would be no deaths
in the next 5 years on this road anyway based on averages.

Overall (Nationally) the level of traffic accidents has declined
slightly (not much) but this has to be set in context of year on year
traffic growth which should (normally) have led to more accidents.

No, a higher presence can often make accidents less likely to occur. In
an extreme example, if the roads are now so congested that everyone is
moving only at a snail's pace, it is highly unlikely there will be any
major accidents at all (maybe a few damage-only or minor-injury ones
but that's all).

Camera cost
 

John Rowland wrote:
In Grafton Rd NW5 there is a short stretch which is northbound-only for a
few hours in the morning and southbound-only for a few hours in the evening.
There is a pair of cameras to ensure the law is upheld. How much does a pair
of cameras like this cost to install, and how much to maintain?

Those restrictions were put there to prevent traffic from using it as a
rat-run (generally avoiding the A400 Kentish Town Road) during peak
hours (when it is at its most congested). Bicycles are still allowed
through in both directions at all times.

Grafton Road, NW5 also happens to be a useful park-and-cycle road after
11am, the time parking restrictions end if you are north of the railway
bridge.

There is a no-entry restriction Northbound in Holford Road, NW3,
preventing the end of the rat-run to East Heath Road which itself is a
rat-run Hampstead High Street. There is a school nearby and I recall
traffic used to ignore the no-entry sign until it was enforced by
cameras.

I guess they feel there is no point having the restrictions unless they
can enforce them as a few will ignore them anyway. (During the big
freeze on 30 January 2003 I admit that I ignored the no-entry into
Temple Gardens, NW11 when the alternatives of Finchley Road and Golders
Green Road were both totally no-go).

Camera cost
 

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Steve Walker wrote:

In message , Huge
writes

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always
strikes me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen in
which someone has been killed or superficially burned.

A strikingly nonsensical argument.

I don't see what's wrong with the KSI grouping; yes, being killed is worse
than being seriously injured, but being seriously injured is still pretty
bad. If ten people are put in wheelchairs by accidents on some given road,
but nobody dies, are we to consider it safe?

tom

--
COUGH UP THE BENJAMINS FOR THE CYCLE-HELMETED PIMP DADDY! -- tNToEP

Camera cost
 

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Steve Walker wrote:

In message , Huge
writes

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always strikes
me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen in which
someone has been killed or superficially burned.

A strikingly nonsensical argument.

I don't see what's wrong with the KSI grouping; yes, being killed is worse
than being seriously injured, but being seriously injured is still pretty
bad. If ten people are put in wheelchairs by accidents on some given road,
but nobody dies, are we to consider it safe?

The problem is that it's all to easy to chage what is SI from
one set of figures to the next to get the answer that you want.

Killed is an unfixable figure.

tim

Camera cost
 

tim(yet another new home) wrote:


"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
h.li...
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Steve Walker wrote:

In message , Huge
writes

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always
strikes me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen in
which someone has been killed or superficially burned.

A strikingly nonsensical argument.

I don't see what's wrong with the KSI grouping; yes, being killed is
worse than being seriously injured, but being seriously injured is still
pretty bad. If ten people are put in wheelchairs by accidents on some
given road, but nobody dies, are we to consider it safe?

The problem is that it's all to easy to chage what is SI from
one set of figures to the next to get the answer that you want.

SI is rated according to ISS (or AIS). See
http://www.trauma.org/scores/iss.html

Killed is an unfixable figure.

Depends when death occurs following an accident.

Camera cost
 

In message , Tom
Anderson writes
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Steve Walker wrote:

In message , Huge
writes

In any case, the grouping of "killed or seriously injured" always
strikes me as spin. There have been dozens of incidents in my kitchen
in which someone has been killed or superficially burned.

A strikingly nonsensical argument.

Would you rather I listed the number of people who have been decapitated
or slightly scratched by my cats? Or the number of golden eagles and
voles they have killed this year? The number of pigeons and elephants
which have flown into my second floor windows?

Do you not see the error inherent in grouping two sets of statistics
where the less severe event is one or two orders of magnitude more
common than the more severe?

I don't see what's wrong with the KSI grouping; yes, being killed is
worse than being seriously injured, but being seriously injured is
still pretty bad. If ten people are put in wheelchairs by accidents on
some given road, but nobody dies, are we to consider it safe?

You really don't know what the definition of seriously injured is, do
you?

http://www.highways.gov.uk/aboutus/d...annex_2(1).pdf

"An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an inpatient,
or any of the following injuries whether or not they are detained in
hospital; fractures, concussion, internal injuries, crushings, burns,
severe cuts and lacerations, severe general shock requiring medical
treatment and injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident"

So, by dint of my (unhospitalised) burns, by the definition used for
road accidents there have been serious injury accidents in my kitchen.
Similarly, anyone who has been kept in overnight as a precaution is
recorded as seriously injured.

--
Steve Walker

Camera cost
 

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:08:28 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

Similarly, anyone who has been kept in overnight as a precaution is
recorded as seriously injured.

Indeed, although it does not have to be as long as overnight. When some
careless tawt drove into the back of the Land Rover I was driving some
eight years ago, I was classed as KSI because I complained at the scene
that I felt like throwing up. I was detained in hospital for six hours for
observation, that counted as KSI, I was told.

Camera cost
 

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:08:28 +0000, Steve Walker wrote:

Similarly, anyone who has been kept in overnight as a precaution is
recorded as seriously injured.

Indeed, although it does not have to be as long as overnight. When some
careless tawt drove into the back of the Land Rover

Are you sure you didn't front end him? You've been a 4x4 junky for
quite some time then.

I was driving some
eight years ago, I was classed as KSI because I complained at the scene
that I felt like throwing up. I was detained in hospital for six hours for
observation, that counted as KSI, I was told.

They probably took one look at you and feared the worst, as many would.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
"The car, more of a toilet than a convenience".

Camera cost
 

allan tracy ) gurgled happily, sounding much
like they were saying :

If this is a rural B-road, then it'll be NSL. 60 limit. Add in the 10%+2
ACPO guideline, and the camera won't be triggered below 67mph.

I very much doubt that's an appropriate speed if this road is as you
describe. So a camera's useless. As usual.

I believe the intention would be to slap a 40mph speed limit on as well
which really it needs.

Why "as well"?

The root cause of the problem is poor driving standards - and cameras in
place of proper policing are exacerbating that.

You're only ever going to get limited policing because it's expensive,
the cameras are the best alternative available, the coppers are hardly
likely to be there at two in the morning.

Yes, they will. They'll have to turn up to manage the RTA that the camera
didn't prevent.

Poor driving standards are unfortunately all too common.

ITYF that we've been saying that for ages - and cameras seem to be making
it worse. After all, if you're not speeding, you must be driving safely,
because "Speed Kills".