 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / UK Car Forums / Driving (UK group) / April 2004Speed Trap update date 21/Apr/04
A361 Main Street Behind north bound slow down sign 100yds past shops. Chipping Warden Speed Limit: 30 New rear facing GATSO hidden behind SLOW DOWN sign northbound on A361 going out of Chipping Warden towards Byfield. 100yds on LHS past the shops A47 record number 2911 Nuneaton Speed Limit: 30 Update on record 2911. The camera is now installed. It's forward facing, I believe it to be a Specs but not sure. It is hidden by a tree, a lamp post and a road sign. Also a large white van is also parked in front of it. Sited as the A47 meets the A444 southbound. A281 100yards before south lodge turning Lower Beeding Speed Limit: 60 South bound just before South Lodge turning on A281 you are going downhill slow down!! it's only a 40mph limit A6 Bedfore Speed Limit: 60 The A6 between Luton and Bedford is littered with forward facing cameras. Between Clophill and bedford there is 6 cameras. I cannot be sure of how many on the Luton - Clophil stretch. There is also regular attendance of a mobile trap. a666 next to ewood park blackburn Speed Limit: 30 outside blackburn rovers ground A692 Lobley hill, sunnieside. watergate bank gateshead Speed Limit: 30 I realise this one's already got a mention but just thought it worth a note. If its wet & u brake when u see it, the sharp left bend & adverse camber can throw you directly towards the oncoming traffic!! Beleive me it's scarey. A638 BETWEEN MIRFIELD & RAVENSTHORPE DEWSBURY Speed Limit: 30 Two GATSO's installed yesterday 15/4/04 on A638 between Mirfield & Ravensthorpe one on either side. No measure markings painted on the road as I write this on 16/4/04. A638 Just outside Mirfield on western side MIRFIELD Speed Limit: 40 Another GATSO has appeared on the eastbound carriageway about 200yds before coming into Mirfield town centre on the A638. It's opposite the well known camping/caravan place. No road markings yet as I write on 16/4/04 A638 Between Three Nuns lights and Mirfield MIRFIELD Speed Limit: 40 Truvelo road markings have been painted on the eastbound side of the A638 about half a mile before coming into Mirfield centre. No camera has been installed yet but it's only a matter of time. A636 Denby Dale Road Various Wakefield Speed Limit: 30 In addition to the cameras I posted on the A638 into Wakefield,the first of this 3 is just outside the gate of the waste disposal site,with another one just over the canal bridge in the central reservation,and a further one about 1/2 mile further on.There are also 3 coming out on the same road.All the above are within yards of each other. A642 Huddersfield Road. Various Wakefield Speed Limit: 30 These are yet more revenue collectors within the City limits.There are 8,(4 each way) and they start just under the M1 motorway bridge going towards the City.Once again,they seem to be in pairs. A81 Strathblane Road near entrance to Esporta Sports club, Milngavie Milngavie Speed Limit: 30 Blue Gatso on long straight stretch running alongside Craigmaddie Reservoir, Milngavie. Lines on road on both carriageways. A739 Berryknowes Road, Cardonald, Glasgow Near Cardonald Station on opposite side of road Glasgow Speed Limit: 30 Grey Gatso and not very obvious on northbound lane of dual carriageway but also flashed at facing southbound traffic. B769 Pollokshaws Road at entrance to pollok park Glasgow Speed Limit: 30 Grey Gatso at entrance to Pollok Park. Partly hidden behind signs and trees. A726 Rouken Glen Road near entrance to Rouken Glen Park Glasgow Speed Limit: 30 Grey Gatso partly hidden by trees. Flashes in both directions. A8 Shieldhall Road opposite school Glasgow Speed Limit: 30 On westbound carriageway on long straight stretch A9 near exit to Dunkeld Dunkeld Speed Limit: 60 On northbound carriageway near exit to Dunkeld. Hidden behind large road sign and even though it has diagonal stripes only part of it is visible. Comes just over dual carriageway 70mph limit. A303 Westbound Sparkford to Ilminster Sparkford Speed Limit: 50 TRUCKERS BEWARE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gatso speed camera with HGV sensor fitted ? OK i was travelling at 50 mph on a single carriageway but the speed limit was 50 and i was actually flashed at exactlly 50 mph and am being prossecuted for this. surely some warning of cameras capabillity should of been displayed. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. A308 Straight Road Appx 100yds past Toby (formally Wheatsheaf) towards Staines, and say 50 yards past Pelican Crossing going towards Windsor Windsor Speed Limit: 40 Along the A308 Straight Road just past the Pelican Crossing - been there for some years but not yet reported on your site. Mid road sited Gatso with yellow facia. Normally faces traffic coming into Old Windsor from Staines, but is sometimes turned round. A690 400m after Prospect Pub just before Bede College Sunderland Speed Limit: 30 This is a long standing camera and is clearly visible with yellow/green reflector. It is just after the brow of the hill as the dual carriage-way merges into one lane and just before the Bede College entrance. The dual-carriage-way is a 30mph limit, although I can't comment about the sign. In my opinion this is a justified camera given its proximity to the busy college entrance. This is a very active camera. I've seen lots of flashes from it over the years. Ryhope Road Between Villette Road and Christ Church Sunderland Speed Limit: 30 Speed camera inbetween top of Villette Road and Christ Church, occasionally rotates to face both directions. Ryhope Road Southmoor School Sunderland Speed Limit: 30 2 Cameras directly outside Southmoor School (one facing either way). A690 100 Yards from Bede College Sunderland Speed Limit: 30 The camera near the Barnes is East facing, just after the brow of the hill before the college. It does work and is very difficult to see as there is often a van parked just before it. As it is just over the brow of the hill it is easy to stray over 30mph limit. A56 Bury New Road Opposite fire station, 30 yards down from Police station between, NEW HALL ROAD and PARK LANE Salford 7 Salford Speed Limit: 30 they have put a TRUVELO camera up, opposite the fire station, it activated 20 April, its partially hidden, and at night, virtually impossible too see. A1018 Ryhope Road 30 yards South of Southmoor School Sunderland Speed Limit: 30 There are two new GATSO cameras set-up side-by-side (covers both directions at the same time) 30 yards South of Southmoor School on the A1018 - Ryhope Road just entering the area of Sunderland called Grangetown.  SignatureZaax http://www.ukgatsos.com > A303 Westbound Sparkford to Ilminster Sparkford > Speed Limit: 50 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > being prossecuted for this. surely some warning of cameras capabillity > should of been displayed. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED. Travelling at 50mph on a single carriageway (assuming National Speed Limit) in an HGV, you were exceeding the speed limit by 10mph. To put it another way, you were 25% over the limit. You are being prosecuted. You are complaining because.........? > Travelling at 50mph on a single carriageway (assuming National Speed Limit) > in an HGV, you were exceeding the speed limit by 10mph. To put it another > way, you were 25% over the limit. You are being prosecuted. You are > complaining because.........? ...it's a stupid speed limit which actually makes the roads more dangerous. "Chris Jones" wrote in message > > Travelling at 50mph on a single carriageway (assuming National Speed > Limit) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ...it's a stupid speed limit which actually makes the roads more dangerous. Why is it stupid? Seems prefectly sensible to me. It is also the law, so get used to it or face the penalties. Ian > Why is it stupid? Seems prefectly sensible to me. It is also the law, so get > used to it or face the penalties. I take it you don't do much driving then? "Silk" wrote in message > > Why is it stupid? Seems prefectly sensible to me. It is also the law, so get > > used to it or face the penalties. > > I take it you don't do much driving then? Only about 18,000 miles per year, mostly on single carriageway country roads. With a few exceptions, I rarely come across LGVs on single carriageway roads. They mostly stick to the dual carriageways and motorways except when about to make a delivery. In view of their size relative to the road on most single carriageway roads I think 40 mph is quite fast enough and so does the law. Ian >Only about 18,000 miles per year, mostly on single carriageway country >roads. With a few exceptions, I rarely come across LGVs on single >carriageway roads. They mostly stick to the dual carriageways and motorways >except when about to make a delivery. In view of their size relative to the >road on most single carriageway roads I think 40 mph is quite fast enough >and so does the law. While I am in full agreement with you Ian I do think this stupid obsession with speed cameras is getting way out of hand and needs to be stopped. I had occasion to drive along a country road this afternoon where there has been a camera for some time now . There are no houses or schools anywhere near where the camera is placed this afternoon what did I find only another of the damn things placed less than half a mile from the first one again nothing but open fields on one side of it and woodland on the other . Absolutely f.cking stupid if you ask me and Lancashire Country police and Lancs County Council should be brought to task regarding all the cameras that are being installed for no good reason around these parts . Grant . > While I am in full agreement with you Ian I do think this stupid > obsession with speed cameras is getting way out of hand and needs to > be stopped. I had occasion to drive along a country road this > afternoon where there has been a camera for some time now . In fact, in spite of the tone of my post above, so am I. I DO always try to stick to the speed limits - and, when in my own car, tend to stick the cruise control on whenever possible, and set it to the speed limit. However, we do all creep over the limit from time to time, and the increasing incidence of speed cameras and radar traps, often at sites where local drivers know there to be no history of serious (or any) accidents will mean careful, law-abiding drivers being penalised for a moment's mistake. OK, if you speed, you've broken the law, you are in the wrong, you should pay the fine, take the points, and keep quiet. But... > > While I am in full agreement with you Ian I do think this stupid > > obsession with speed cameras is getting way out of hand and needs to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OK, if you speed, you've broken the law, you are in the wrong, you should > pay the fine, take the points, and keep quiet. But... Laws are not always right and require people to make a stand against them too when they are wrong.. There was a time when women could not vote, that changed, and so have many other things. Many speed limits are set incorrectly, and it is right that people should take issue with them. > > > While I am in full agreement with you Ian I do think this stupid > > > obsession with speed cameras is getting way out of hand and needs to [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Many speed limits are set incorrectly, and it is right that people should > take issue with them. I've said before,and it's worth repeating. Most laws are the result of careful deliberation and statute. The reduction of a speed limit can be done on a whim with minimal consultation or warning. Therefore people get penalty points for doint something which may have been perfectly legal the day before. Brian > I've said before,and it's worth repeating. Most laws are the result of > careful deliberation and statute. The reduction of a speed limit can > be done on a whim with minimal consultation or warning. Therefore > people get penalty points for doint something which may have been > perfectly legal the day before. Absolutely. The national government should be required to decide, after careful consideration, what the speed limits should be for different classes of road. This decision should then be approved by Parliament, following which local councils should be required to adhere to it. Obviously there may be differences of interpretation, but on any road that is only going to make a difference of 10 mph one way or the other. As it is at present, they can make it up as they go along, so if they want to they can make rural main roads 30 limits. -- http://www.speedlimit.org.uk "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (William Pitt, 1783) >> I've said before,and it's worth repeating. Most laws are the result of >> careful deliberation and statute. The reduction of a speed limit can >> be done on a whim with minimal consultation or warning. Therefore >> people get penalty points for doint something which may have been >> perfectly legal the day before. >As it is at present, they can make it up as they go along, so if they want >to they can make rural main roads 30 limits. I think there should be a requirement to provide street lighting within 30mph limits. Ian <ianp@ifpet.nospamfreeserve.co.uk> wrote on Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:55:08 +0100: > "Silk" wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > road on most single carriageway roads I think 40 mph is quite fast enough > and so does the law. That's fine if there's plenty of DCs for them to travel on, but in Scotland there's plenty of routes where there is no choice but to travel along SC roads for 100+ miles... Some of these roads are windy, narrow and twisty, others are wider, and straighter. Being stuck to 40mph on some lengthy sections of SC road would be (and is) silly... But it is the law... SignatureDavid Taylor davidt-news@yadt.co.uk "The future just ain't what it used to be." "David Taylor" wrote in message > That's fine if there's plenty of DCs for them to travel on, but in > Scotland there's plenty of routes where there is no choice but to travel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and straighter. Being stuck to 40mph on some lengthy sections of SC > road would be (and is) silly... But it is the law... If the roads are as described surely it only makes sense for LGVs to be kept to a 40 limit. Where the road is wide and straight overtaking may be safe and possible and keeping the LGVs to 40 would facilitate this. Where it isn't, the LGV would most likely be unsafe to drive at more than 40, as would a car. Ian > "David Taylor" wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > isn't, the LGV would most likely be unsafe to drive at more than 40, as > would a car. Yea, but wheres the fun in that? Its more of a challenge if they're going faster :) SignatureDan http://www.danontherun.com >"Chris Jones" wrote in message >> > Travelling at 50mph on a single carriageway (assuming National Speed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Why is it stupid? Seems prefectly sensible to me. It is also the law, so get >used to it or face the penalties. It's bad law then SignatureZaax http://www.ukgatsos.com > Why is it stupid? Seems prefectly sensible to me. It is also the law, so > get used to it or face the penalties. This country is a democracy. What you should have said was, stick to it for the time being until you can campaign successfully for it to be changed. The reason it is dangerous is because, when forced to travel at 40 mph on NSL roads, car drivers stuck behind the HGVs do stupid and risky overtakes to get past them. I've seen it too often on the A5; if HGVs were allowed to travel faster, at 50 or 56 mph, then car drivers behind would be much more likely just to follow rather than trying to get past. > if HGVs were allowed to > travel faster, at 50 or 56 mph, then car drivers behind would be much more > likely just to follow rather than trying to get past. WE're lobbying for 50 MPH. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. "Conor" wrote in message > In article > dosuser@REMOVETHISbigfoot.com says... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > > WE're lobbying for 50 MPH. If you were allowed to do 50 then I bet most would go as fast as the limiter allowed, 56. The problem I find when trying to overtake a LGV on a single carriageway road is that they slow down for the tricky bits when overtaking is impossible and speed up to 50 or more when the roads are wider and straighter. A safe overtake is then not so easy. Ideally all traffic would go at the same speed, but if there is to be a speed differential the larger it is the better. The overtaking vehicle is then in the danger zone for a shorter time. Increasing the NSL for cars on single carriageway roads would not be sensible. On many it should be lowered. Ian > "Conor" wrote in message > > In article [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If you were allowed to do 50 then I bet most would go as fast as the limiter > allowed, 56. Those that would already do. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. "Conor" wrote in message > > > WE're lobbying for 50 MPH. > > > > > If you were allowed to do 50 then I bet most would go as fast as the limiter > > allowed, 56. > > Those that would already do. But at least they can be detected and punished for exceeding the limit now. If the limit was raised to 50, I understand from this NG that the detection trigger would be 59 to allow for a tolerance. So all LGVs would travel everywhere they thought it safe on the limiter, 56. On single carriageway roads that would mean only a 4 mph speed advantage for an overtaking car, which would expose them to danger for a very long time unless they choose to exceed the 60 limit. Which is a situation I find now when trying to overtake speeding lorries. To justify their speed by increasing the limit seems daft and dangerous to me. I remember driving through the M25 roadworks one evening at the posted 50 limit with a LGV tailgating me. He wanted to drive on his limiter, as was proved when he increased speed when I pulled off the motorway at my junction exit. You may well be a safe LGV driver, but many aren't. I understand that the haulage industry is also campaigning for an increase in maximum weight above the current 44 tonne limit. Linking the two proposals would mean heavier LGVs travelling faster on single carriageway roads. Without much research to check that these ideas are safe, I suggest keeping the status quo and enforcing the current regulations. Ian > But at least they can be detected and punished for exceeding the limit now. > If the limit was raised to 50, I understand from this NG that the detection [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > which would expose them to danger for a very long time unless they choose > to exceed the 60 limit. But the point is that you wouldn't need to overtake, since if you're following an HGV at 56 mph there's no real need to overtake just to go at 60 mph. Therefore, there would be less overtakes, which would be safer. >> But at least they can be detected and punished for exceeding the >> limit [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > at 60 mph. Therefore, there would be less overtakes, which would be > safer. That argument is flawed as Conor will agree - lorry drivers are professional and don't speed for a start. Lorry drivers overtake each other at speed differentials of 1mph already - what would be so different if a car were to overtake the lorry at a 4mph speed differential? I think you will find many more overtakes being attempted at a faster speed. MrBitsy > Lorry drivers overtake each other at speed differentials of 1mph already - > what would be so different if a car were to overtake the lorry at a 4mph > speed differential? Generally, when lorries are overtaking each other with a 1mph speed difference, they're on a motorway, with (hopefully!) no risk of meeting an oncoming vehicle round the next corner. Cheers Dave P SignatureDavid Precious http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ > But the point is that you wouldn't need to overtake, since if you're > following an HGV at 56 mph there's no real need to overtake just to > go at 60 mph. It's not a motorway. The first bend or oncoming tractor and an HGV'll slow down to 20 or less. > Therefore, there would be less overtakes, which would be safer. Oh safety. Yippee. > "Conor" wrote in message > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > Those that would already do. > But at least they can be detected and punished for exceeding the limit now. > If the limit was raised to 50, I understand from this NG that the detection > trigger would be 59 to allow for a tolerance. So all LGVs would travel > everywhere they thought it safe on the limiter, 56. Your argument is flawed. They can travel at 56 on the limiter already if they think it is safe. Strange how a large percentage don't. THose that do will continue to and those that don't won't. We get paid per hour. THe longer it takes the more we get paid. On single carriageway > roads that would mean only a 4 mph speed advantage for an overtaking car, > which would expose them to danger for a very long time unless they choose to > exceed the 60 limit. Which is a situation I find now when trying to overtake > speeding lorries. To justify their speed by increasing the limit seems daft > and dangerous to me. THere's one massive point you are missing though... WE DON'T NEED TO BE CAUGHT BY A GATSO TO BE CAUGHT OUT FOR SPEEDING. WE have tachographs which record speed. We can be convicted on that evidence alone for up to 12 months after the date of that days chart. > I remember driving through the M25 roadworks one evening at the posted 50 > limit with a LGV tailgating me. He wanted to drive on his limiter, as was > proved when he increased speed when I pulled off the motorway at my junction > exit. You may well be a safe LGV driver, but many aren't. The trouble is a car speedo overreads up to 10%. A HGV tacho is more accurate. Your speedo may be reading 50 but you could actually be doing around 45-46MPH in reality. > I understand that the haulage industry is also campaigning for an increase > in maximum weight above the current 44 tonne limit. Like hell they are. Linking the two > proposals would mean heavier LGVs travelling faster on single carriageway > roads. Without much research to check that these ideas are safe, I suggest > keeping the status quo and enforcing the current regulations. Most lorries are designed for far over 44 tonnes already. I used to drive a Scania H series that had a design weight of 65 tonnes. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. "Conor" wrote in message > THere's one massive point you are missing though... > > WE DON'T NEED TO BE CAUGHT BY A GATSO TO BE CAUGHT OUT FOR SPEEDING. WE > have tachographs which record speed. We can be convicted on that > evidence alone for up to 12 months after the date of that days chart. But, the tachograph doesn't show what type of road the LGV was driving along , therefore it can't indicate the speedlimit. It could only show the speed just before the lorry was stopped by the Police. > The trouble is a car speedo overreads up to 10%. A HGV tacho is more > accurate. Your speedo may be reading 50 but you could actually be doing > around 45-46MPH in reality. You are correct, but I have calibrated my speedo against the distance markers alongside the motorway and I know the speedo overreads by 3 mph. Thus when I was doing 50 the speedo was indicating 53. > > I understand that the haulage industry is also campaigning for an increase > > in maximum weight above the current 44 tonne limit. > > Like hell they are. It was on BBC Radio 4 'You and Yours' last week or the week before. The arguement went that larger lorries meant fewer lorries. Less vehicle movements was better for everyone. Also, there is going to be a shortage of drivers as many current ones are near retirement. > Linking the two > > proposals would mean heavier LGVs travelling faster on single carriageway [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Most lorries are designed for far over 44 tonnes already. I used to > drive a Scania H series that had a design weight of 65 tonnes. Judging from the damage already done to the inside lane of many motorways, the roads can't take any more weight. You can see and feel the two grooves along lane one. Ian > But at least they can be detected and punished for exceeding the limit now. > If the limit was raised to 50, I understand from this NG that the detection > trigger would be 59 to allow for a tolerance. So all LGVs would travel > everywhere they thought it safe on the limiter, 56. On single carriageway > roads that would mean only a 4 mph speed advantage for an overtaking car, Used to be that the official advice was that breaking the speed limit for a short time in order to complete an overtaking manouver was acceptable, and even seen as the correct driving technique. That has changed now, of course. "Mark Hewitt" wrote in message > Used to be that the official advice was that breaking the speed limit for a > short time in order to complete an overtaking manouver was acceptable, and > even seen as the correct driving technique. That has changed now, of course. Where did you get that from? The 1978, 1993 and current HCs all say that the speed limit is the absolute maximum. The exact words are different but the meaning is the same. I have access to the original 1931 HC. I can check that if necessary. Ian > "Mark Hewitt" wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Ian I was told that by my instructor (very old school) when learning to drive in the 1980s. Having said that, as I couldn't find anything to say that in the HC, I never tried it out! : > If you were allowed to do 50 then I bet most would go as fast as the limiter : > allowed, 56. : : Those that would already do. In four years of regular driving along the A75 I have only ever encountered two lorries doing 40mph. 80% of the rest belt along at 56mph, fifteen feet apart (that's why we get multiple vehicle collisons most weeks) on their way to or from the Stranraer ferries. The remaining 20% go substantially faster. Ian > : > If you were allowed to do 50 then I bet most would go as fast as the limiter > : > allowed, 56. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > collisons most weeks) on their way to or from the Stranraer ferries. > The remaining 20% go substantially faster. Completely different to the experiences I've had, especially since the 40 MPH for HGV signage went up. SignatureConor If you're not on somebody's sh.t list, you're not doing anything worthwhile. > A638 BETWEEN MIRFIELD & RAVENSTHORPE DEWSBURY > Speed Limit: 30 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A638 about half a mile before coming into Mirfield centre. No camera has > been installed yet but it's only a matter of time. All of the above are the *A644*, the A638 doesn't go through Mirfield or Ravensthorpe. These are fixed cameras replacing the occasional mobile camera visits from West Yorkshire CRP. > A642 Huddersfield Road. Various Wakefield > Speed Limit: 30 > These are yet more revenue collectors within the City limits.There are > 8,(4 each way) and they start just under the M1 motorway bridge going > towards the City.Once again,they seem to be in pairs. Revenue collectors operating in a residential area, passing schools adjacent to the main road. You have to be blind or ****in stupid to miss them or the numerous speed limit signs. cookie > A692 Lobley hill, sunnieside. watergate bank gateshead > Speed Limit: 30 > I realise this one's already got a mention but just thought it worth a > note. If its wet & u brake when u see it, the sharp left bend & adverse > camber can throw you directly towards the oncoming traffic!! Beleive me > it's scarey. No, what's scary is that you'd be going round a bend in the wet at such a speed that attempting to slow for a hazard you've just spotted is likely to put you in the path of oncoming traffic. Cheers Dave P SignatureDavid Precious http://www.preshweb.co.uk/ > A361 Main Street Behind north bound slow down sign 100yds past shops. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > camber can throw you directly towards the oncoming traffic!! Beleive me > it's scarey. That particular stretch used to be NSL but only for about half a mile inbetween 30 sections. It's now all 30. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.