20 MPH speed limit in town

[Windwalker]

The problem it seems is the attitude of motorists as highlighted by GR.

 

The introduction of the speed limit allows for the remodelling of junctions and crossings, you would have seen in the reports (regardless of costs of the report), this is happening. Be it a simple case of coating parts of the surface red or to a complete remodelling which can include wider pavements and better access for those who need it.

 

The trouble with spending the money on the Police, is it at present, is not the police budget, if you could, how many officers could you train and how long would they be able to stay. Not very long. For what ever reason, Shetland does not attract police officers, hence the shortage in numbers as mentioned by Angus a few months ago. If the money was spent on officers, it would be short term, if at all possible. Perhaps if there were enough police officers, there may not be a need. Why is there a problem with recruitment?

 

The Scottish Gov have a part to play in this, there have been papers dating back a decade talking about this and the benefits it brings to the communities, this is also a nationwide thought. Many areas are being made pedestrian friendly. These also come with various campaigns, some are very effective. I have seen motorists reduced to tears when questioned by a 7 year old why they broke the speed limit and increased injury or the chance of death in the event of a RTI.

 

Perhaps one way as well to give the young motorist a chance to burn a bit of rubber, in a safe way was mentiond in these forums by Shetlands car group(s). Many who have been fortunate enough here where I live, to attend the "Crash" events held by the emergency services have changed their attitudes to speeding, as do those who attend speed awareness courses. The former is aimed at the the young driver.

 

It should involve the whole package, education and enforcement. Wholesale introductions will not work, target the areas to be controlled and things are much better.

Oh mercy me, by the time I've read all this, I've forgotten what the subject was.

 

I'm not expecting 24 hour policing, but the occasional presence may deter the few idiots.

[Windwalker]

Systems can be installed to make travelling more than set speeds virtually impossible. The main road in Aberdeen with its traffic lights is a good example, as with the A4 through Slough, which also uses lights, these of course are larger schemes, but the correct phasing of traffic lights can govern the speed of vehicles. Travel at the right speed, green all the way, too fast and you will hit a red.Motorists adapt to these, as they have done to areas of congestion where there is an alternative route. So, it is possible to install systems that are self regulating. Just catching drivers is not a deterrent, if it were, then there would be little need to police the roads or put in systems to control traffic and educate.

The main road in Aberdeen is a poor example. Cars stop at lights then set the foot down to try and get through the next set before they turn red. This results in fast acceleration, heavy breaking and less attention to what's going in around them as they are looking at the lights in the distance.

[Ian_H]

in that report fault was not placed on the drivers for most of the accidents. an important point.

Which could be why police standing at the side of the road isn’t an answer.

 

If all drivers slow down a bit – including the careful considerate paying full attention drivers, then when something unexpected happens there is a better chance of stopping in time. Or if a pedestrian is hit, lower speed equals lesser injuries.

[shetlandpeat]

Again, there seems to be an issue with Driver attitudes. Hence the education side is a must. It is so obvious that punishment alone does not work.

[paulb]

Most accidents were not the car drivers fault. education is fine but it won't stop drunks staggering out in front of you.

[shetlandpeat]

And of course youngsters.

[Ghostrider]

If they must, a speed camera on the end of MacKay's and another on the side of Alexandra Building would be a greater deterrent, inconvenience nobody, cost less, and if this preceived "speeding" problem actually exists, go some way towards being self-sufficient.

 

Of course, the SIC must always take the gold plated Rolls Royce all singing all dancing route, so the current proposal is no surprise, par for the course, despite all the pleepisn about belt tightening.

[Colin]

in that report fault was not placed on the drivers for most of the accidents. an important point.

Yes, but one that is lost on those that want to exercise a little more 'control'

[paulb]

a couple of smiley face speed measuring things  would do it i find them just as effective as a real camera trap. doubt anywhere in shetland meets the accident numbers required.

 

June 2002 saw the issue of new guidelines on the deployment of cameras, in response to the massive roll-out seen in the preceding months and the corresponding outcry from motorists, who were being hit with a huge number of fines. The new rules required cameras to be painted yellow and not hidden behind trees and road furniture to increase their visibility, areas covered by cameras to be clearly signed, and for cameras to only be sited at locations where four people or more had been killed or seriously injured in accidents or eight personal injury accidents had taken place in the last three years. The guidelines were issued by the Safety Project Camera Board which included officials from the DTLR and Home Office, but not the Department of Health.

 

[shetlandpeat]

The cost of a camera can be between £20,000 and £40,000 then add the ongoing costs. Two would use up the money within a few years. There could also be the problem of location. The better scenario if you still think cameras are the way to go then average speed cameras.

Restrictin the speed to 20 will still require road modifications.@

[Ghostrider]

^ You've just condemned the "toon centre" to be a "rural area", I'm not sure how many toonies, and especially the toon "establishment" will appreciate that.....

 

 

Each Gatso speed camera costs approximately £20,000 to install. However they can cost as much as £40,000 if they are located in a rural location, as the system requires a 240v power supply.

 

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm

 

No 240v supply in the buildings I mentioned? I think M&Co's management and the LPA might wanna put you straight on that one.....

 

 

Gatso safety cameras can be installed to poles and existing street furniture.

 

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm

 

I'm not seeing this "location" problem you speak of.

 

 

The minimum penalty for speeding is a £100 fine and 3 penalty points added to your licence.

 

https://www.gov.uk/speeding-penalties

 

Seems to me that if all these alleged "speeding" motorists do actually exist, that at a ton per pop, the cameras might actually turn a profit after a few years, of course if the reason they're being proposed is on "create an impression" grounds only, that would be different.....and arguably dishonest of the scheme's backers.

 

You're not getting it, are you. Seeing as the existing 30mph limit doesn't seem to be being enforced by most accounts, there is neither proof nor point in creating a 20mph one which isn't going to be enforced any better. Maybe, just maybe if the 30mph one was more rigidly enforced, if that is indeed necessary, the reasons being currently used to support a 20mph one would no longer exist. Unless of course that's waay to radical and out there for nanny state believers to risk considering.

[shetlandpeat]

I was correct in saying those figures, that is how much they can cost. How it can be deduced that I have classed Lerwick as a rural location is your own interpretation and one that you want to put forward to detract from the issue. Depending on the works involved, the minimum cost would be the lower figure, however, you would still need a secure connection to the underground service. The authority would need to access the supply 24/7 in case of an accident or maintenance. Also, not every part of a street has a service as sometimes the supply could come to the rear of properties, an example is Goodlad Cres for one, I am sure there are many more and can be as sure as you about the availability of a supply at the location deemed most suitable. As for  attaching them to lamp posts, you may find that the Highways Authority may not allow that, especially were it has been posted on these forum that lamp columns are not as good as they could be, for one, the manufacturer of the column may not have factored in the attachment of such a weighty device complete with secure enclosure. There may then be a need to install a column that can take the additional weight.

 

 

The plan is to reduce the speed to 20mph to enhance safety, it is common knowledge that the slower the speed, the lesser the possible damage an impact can do. If you want to keep the 30 area, then you need to put in systems to be able to keep speed in check, and at a cost effective way. We all know how much motorists love speed cameras and know that they will generally slow down to go past them. For the camera to measure the speed to enable a conviction, there needs to be a series of markings on the road surface known as Dragons Teeth, these also have to be in a straight line. The camera takes two images about half a second apart and the speed is measured. If the camera were to take the 2 images say 1 second apart, then the minimum length of the dragons teeth would have to be nearly 16 metres in length, or 8 metres for half a second. That however will not be enough. Add to that that at 30mph, folk here on these forum have said that zebra crossings are not safe, so if you then reduce the speed to 20, you remove the need to install light controlled crossings and of course the ongoing costs associated with those. So keeping the 30 mph limit could cost more than the 20mph system proposed.

 

Many motorists see cameras as just a means of making money, there seems to be little put back, or evidence of that. You will not catch that many, though, even here there is proof that there are some drivers who are really quite unaware of their speed as on camera has netted about £150,000 in fines (£50,000) and speed awareness courses. That camera is on a road that can see 10s of thousands of traffic movements a day.

 

The cameras will also need servicing, they would need to be calibrated at regular intervals and of course there needs to be a person who will oversee the system and of course the speed awareness courses and the appeals processes. With the expertise to install and maintain these cameras off island, it could end up in a situation where they could remain off until someone from South comes up to fix it.

 

In the end, the cameras will only monitor the 16 metres of road in front of it, add to that the lack of fatalities to warrant even one camera, the only solution that is viable is to reduce the speed of the road by installing measures to do so.

 

I still do not see why there is a need to maintain a 30mph system when two folk a year get hurt and the cost of installing new pelican crossings cost more in the long run. Add to that the additional safety benefits to pedestrians.

 

Pauls idea of SpIDs is a good one, these can record speeds over time and would suit better as well in a 20 mph speed limit. Speeds can also be monitored via the black boxes you can sometimes see attached to lighting columns at height.

Edited April 16, 2014 by shetlandpeat

[Ghostrider]

^ http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/Redneck_Hillbilly0504/Sleep.gif

 

Ooops....What... http://i460.photobucket.com/albums/qq330/Redneck_Hillbilly0504/YawnAnimated.gif

 

Sorry, gotta go and thank my deity of choice I don't live in your world.

Edited April 16, 2014 by Ghostrider

[paulb]

hello peat. they can't put fixed cameras in the area does not suffer from enough injuries to require them. no deaths and less than 6 serious accidents. if the council wants a 20mph limit thats fine you never travel much faster than that anyway.  now an average seed one on the tingwall straight may earn them some money. well policing scotland. not the council.

[shetlandpeat]

 

, there are typically two people a year getting injured, every year. A

Assuming Shetland's population is 20,000 (I know it's higher but, lets keep things tidy)

 

2 out of 20,000 = .01% of the population get injured in traffic accidents along the Esplanade.

 

I wonder how that compares with Aberdeen, Edinburgh, London etc.

 

If you want to play with 'statistics', do it properly and, don't quote a report that looks like it was designed to give somebody an 'agenda'.

 

 

 

Which also indicates that only about 0.24 of the population have taken part in this survey.

 

Continuing though, if you were to compare the cities mentioned, then, according to the calculation you use for Shetland, you have to include all of Scotland or England or rework your sums to the population of Lerwick. Otherwise, there is no real comparison.

Edited April 16, 2014 by shetlandpeat