brian.smith Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 If the Council does decide to consider/ consult, then tell when what you think, for or against. That is what consultations are for.yup and they still cost a fortune they will be consulting on what kind of coffee to put in the consulting room coffee machine next Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owre-weel Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 I suggest you read the report going to the Environment & Transport Committee next week to see what is actually being considered.http://www.shetland.gov.uk/coins/agenda.asp?meetingid=4157 (The Public Agenda gives all reports & appendices as a single document) Option of Zebras conditional on a 20mph speed limit, so only for town-centre crossings. 20mph speed limit/ traffic calming being suggested to reduce number of folk being injured on the road. If the Council does decide to consider/ consult, then tell when what you think, for or against. That is what consultations are for.For some reason can only see first page of the report, can see all the plans though. Does nothing to convince me that zebra crossings would be a good alternative to pelican or even puffin crossings. If you took the cost of providing all these reports plans and no doubt consultants, the lights could have been repaired by now. But that is never the way our council works. They frap around the issue for as long as possible, end up with a scheme that will cost considerably more and still not resolve the original concern. Then once they realise their fix didn't fix it, spend more of our cash putting it right. Get rid of half the staff in the council offices and put more workers out sorting the problems. That what the report should say! Colin 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 It seems not a case of repairing but replacing. Imagine if there were no plans or reports, how would you be able then to prove accountability? Anyhow, http://www.edu.dudley.gov.uk/roadsafety/images/green_x_code%201.gif CrunchieSquirrel 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 If speeding on the esplanade is a problem,then why do the authorities not use the elaborate camera system that was installed a few years ago to catch the offenders and simply apply the law. Been looking at yon report. Dis has cost a few bob already !!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 It is a licensing issue. When you install cameras to monitor public areas, you need to obtain a license, what you intend to do with the cameras will affect the type of camera system, and license you want.There seems little sense in catching folk after they have offended, with the attitude of some drivers, it has to be a system to try to reduce the number of offenses. Prevention has to be better, even if forced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owre-weel Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 It is a licensing issue. When you install cameras to monitor public areas, you need to obtain a license, what you intend to do with the cameras will affect the type of camera system, and license you want.There seems little sense in catching folk after they have offended, with the attitude of some drivers, it has to be a system to try to reduce the number of offenses. Prevention has to be better, even if forced.The cameras are monitored by the police in the police station, what kind of licensing issue do you think there could be. Obviously they will have the proper licence required as this is what the cameras were installed for. At a large cost. Surely catching folk on the cameras, after they have offended was part of the expected use, in addition to stopping crimes etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 So the provision of this camera system was a waste of time and public money! Surely a few penalty points,and heafty fines not to forget the extra premium on the already expensive vehicle insurance would deter most sensible drivers. Must be better than "humps" that tear out the bottoms of many low level vehicles. Never had a problem with the law but always thought one had to commit the crime before they would have reason to start looking. This is where the camera would be useful and it is used through out the UK so why not here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 Interesting that you raise insurance costs, by doing so, you could be indicating that drivers are at fault and could be classed as somewhat inept in keeping their motoring costs down, but, you are talking of a tiny minority. As for the benefits of the camera system, perhaps you could ask.You do not need humps to slow down vehicles, just a speed camera. We have SPIDS here, they are set to the relative speed limit and indicate a speed, you would need that sort of indicator if you were to use the CCTV system to monitor speeds and enforce speed limits, how did you think they would do it? Many cameras in town and city centres are very well used, the pubbe I frequent is part of the CCTV "club" and have a radio link to the control centre, if they have trouble, it takes seconds for the camera system to track those causing a problem and identifies them directly to the Police. They work very well, however, there are places where the cameras cannot see, it is then Venue licensing comes into play. Licensing conditions of soe establishments will require a installed CCTV system and access has to be available to the Police if it is required. If you want to know more about your CCTV system why don't you ask? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian_H Posted January 19, 2014 Report Share Posted January 19, 2014 If speeding on the esplanade is a problemI didn’t see anything in the report saying that speeding as such is a problem. What the report did say is there are a regular, albeit fairly low, number of injury accidents along that road. So while there may not be many drivers actually breaking the speed limit, nevertheless if the general speed of vehicles were reduced then evidence from elsewhere tells us that accident numbers and/or severity of injuries would be reduced. That as I understand it is the basis of the case for reducing vehicle speeds and taking down the speed limit to 20mph. Nationally 20mph speed limits are becoming much more common, now even being planned for trunk roads in Scotland, something that would never have been considered a few years ago. http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/News/consultation-to-begin-on-lower-speed-limits-in-towns-and-villages By the way, while the CCTV system shows what is going on, it cannot tell what speed a vehicle is going at. The question here is the balance between reducing pedestrian injuries versus saving motorists a minute or two going around the town. So I wouldn’t have a problem with a 20mph speed limit as long as it is only over a fairly limited length in the middle of the town. Zebra crossings? Mixed feeling about them. Scorrie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 If speeding on the esplanade is a problem,then why do the authorities not use the elaborate camera system that was installed a few years ago to catch the offenders and simply apply the law. Been looking at yon report. Dis has cost a few bob already !!! Short answer: Because you cannot accurately gauge anyones' speed from looking at a CCTV screen. You need dedicated speed cameras with all the associated calibrated gubbins to do that. Regarding Zebras: OK, if it is part of a 20mph area, then I'd be a bit warmer towards the idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Underpass, overpass....(Wombling Free!!) Surprised some suit in an SIC office hasn't been assuring us how wonderful one would be for the Esplanade.....and Church Road....and.... Edited January 20, 2014 by Ghostrider Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owre-weel Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 What the CCTV should be able to do is tell if a car crossed the crossing at the same time as a pedestrian, which I believe will happen more often with zebra crossings as against those showing a red light. Not sure though if the proposed crossings will be covered by existing CCTV cameras. The 20mph zone seems sensible but will require a lot more policing, particularly at night when cars are cruising around. Speed bumps do not slow down the dafties, they see them as a chalange. In my opinion the return to zebra crossings is a backward step, which could result in more accidents and does little for those with reduced vision. The proposal for one at the bottom of church road gives me most concern, due to the fact you are on it before you can see if it clear, particularly if it's moved further down the road. Plus it's used by large numbers of school children and elderly folk. I suppose time will tell, hopefully I will be proved wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Ghostrider Posted January 20, 2014 Popular Post Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 I dunno, a pelican crossing seems to halt the traffic very well.... http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/Redneck_Hillbilly0504/bfe15d34-07d7-4b3a-bb80-5314ab3ca007.jpg Scorrie, Ian_H, unlinkedstudent and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urabug Posted January 20, 2014 Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 I do not claim to be super intelligent, but surely even I know that no one could be prosecuted for speeding just using CCTV, unless of course they were driving like a lunatic. then very obviously commiting an offence.I do know a little about cameras and there uses, been watching too much TV! CCTV can be used to monitor and identify drivers who regularly drive inappropriately, assisting the Police to take the necessary action. It appears to me ,as already pointed out ,that this has nothing to do with speeding, but all to do with getting a 20mph zone implemented so as they can obtain planning permission to downgrade the Pelican crossings to Zebra. Without this 20mph zone it is unlikely that permission will be granted. It is worthwhile “goggling†this issue and reading the reports from many other councils, and the way I interperate these findings would indicate against Zebras & preference given to the new Puffin type. But it is about saving money, but what price public safety. Must say that having driven around Lerwick for many, many years I really do not see the need for a 20MPH zone, just a little bit of persuasive advice to those who need it, and replace the existing crossings, whatever the cost with Puffins. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted January 22, 2014 Report Share Posted January 22, 2014 A number of councils are changing their lights in and around where I live, it may be an idea, for now that the council could see if they could obtain the spares they need that way. I have been told many just end up in the skip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.