BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby thirdcrank » 8 May 2019, 11:25am

One example from countless and which has been discussed before.

When 20mph limits were first authorised, it was on the basis that they had to be "self-enforcing." That's code for traffic-calming. It must have passed unnoticed because it caused some shock-horror responses when it was "revealed" at the All-Party Cycling Charade.

viewtopic.php?p=639942#p639942

What's best: humps, bumps and chicanes or cameras? The cost of cameras could be slashed if their presence did not have to be advertised.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2824
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby Bmblbzzz » 8 May 2019, 12:30pm

The functions of humps and cameras are different though overlapping.

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13760
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby mjr » 8 May 2019, 12:37pm

I've no problem with bumps when they're built properly sinusoidal and aren't crash hazards for bikes travelling at clearly much below the posted speed limit (which doesn't apply to them anyway).
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.

pete75
Posts: 11719
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby pete75 » 8 May 2019, 3:43pm

thirdcrank wrote:One example from countless and which has been discussed before.

When 20mph limits were first authorised, it was on the basis that they had to be "self-enforcing." That's code for traffic-calming. It must have passed unnoticed because it caused some shock-horror responses when it was "revealed" at the All-Party Cycling Charade.

viewtopic.php?p=639942#p639942

What's best: humps, bumps and chicanes or cameras? The cost of cameras could be slashed if their presence did not have to be advertised.


If people don't know they're there they won't have any deterrent effect. The idea of cameras is, or should be , to stop drivers speeding not collect revenue.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3345
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby Mike Sales » 8 May 2019, 3:49pm

pete75 wrote:
If people don't know they're there they won't have any deterrent effect. The idea of cameras is, or should be , to stop drivers speeding not collect revenue.


That's true, but if drivers know that if they can see no camera then they are free to speed, won't they do so? If there might be a camera then they would be deterred even when there was no danger of being pinched.

pete75
Posts: 11719
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby pete75 » 8 May 2019, 4:02pm

Mike Sales wrote:
pete75 wrote:
If people don't know they're there they won't have any deterrent effect. The idea of cameras is, or should be , to stop drivers speeding not collect revenue.


That's true, but if drivers know that if they can see no camera then they are free to speed, won't they do so? If there might be a camera then they would be deterred even when there was no danger of being pinched.


The implication in the post I was replying to was that revenue collection would be higher if the cameras were not advertised.

Mike Sales
Posts: 3345
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby Mike Sales » 8 May 2019, 4:08pm

pete75 wrote:
The implication in the post I was replying to was that revenue collection would be higher if the cameras were not advertised.


Oh. I see. Revenue might well be higher as a by-product of better deterrence.

pete75
Posts: 11719
Joined: 24 Jul 2007, 2:37pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby pete75 » 8 May 2019, 4:15pm

Mike Sales wrote:
pete75 wrote:
The implication in the post I was replying to was that revenue collection would be higher if the cameras were not advertised.


Oh. I see. Revenue might well be higher as a by-product of better deterrence.


No the implication was that without the cameras being advertised more people would speed hence more money raised. I think the point is drivers are less likely to speed when they know cameras are there rather than there being a chance there might be.

pwa
Posts: 10283
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby pwa » 8 May 2019, 4:29pm

thirdcrank wrote:
What's best: humps, bumps and chicanes or cameras? The cost of cameras could be slashed if their presence did not have to be advertised.

Bumps or chicanes are better than cameras in 20mph zones because they can be deployed more densely and once installed require little or no maintenance for years to come.

Bmblbzzz
Posts: 2824
Joined: 18 May 2012, 7:56pm
Location: From here to there.

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby Bmblbzzz » 8 May 2019, 6:05pm

pete75 wrote:
Mike Sales wrote:
pete75 wrote:
The implication in the post I was replying to was that revenue collection would be higher if the cameras were not advertised.


Oh. I see. Revenue might well be higher as a by-product of better deterrence.


No the implication was that without the cameras being advertised more people would speed hence more money raised. I think the point is drivers are less likely to speed when they know cameras are there rather than there being a chance there might be.

I'm not sure if that was Third Crank's meaning. I reckon we need to wait for clarification on that. He (or she) could have meant, for instance, that costs would be lower because with the possibility of cameras being anywhere, a smaller number is actually needed - you can't see them, but they could be there.

thirdcrank
Posts: 28648
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby thirdcrank » 8 May 2019, 6:10pm

pete75 wrote: ... If people don't know they're there they won't have any deterrent effect. The idea of cameras is, or should be , to stop drivers speeding not collect revenue.


Ideally, people would drive carefully and considerately of their own volition, but many don't so we have regulations, which some people ignore, so the regulations need to be enforced, but we've reached a point where they are increasingly ignored and unenforced.

My basic feeling is that if they think they can get away with things some people will try it on but that number falls if they anticipate enforcement. IMO, we should scrap the concept that every enforcement camera must be advertised. (IIRC this was a Tony Blair idea to try to avoid upsetting the more vociferous drivers.)

As an example of what I'm getting at, the Leeds South Eastern Urban Motorway was built to standards which assume 50 mph max. In its early days, it was constantly policed and enforced and now it isn't, even though traffic is much heavier. There are roadworks at present with a 40mph limit. Bright yellow average speed cameras have been installed temporarily and at one point there were signs saying they were not in use. IMO absurd.

The fallback position should be an awareness that cameras are widely used and any contraventions - not only speeding - risk automatic enforcement. That's the deterrent. It's unlikely to happen.

The money has to come from somewhere and the penalties are as good a source as any.

mattsccm
Posts: 2702
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby mattsccm » 10 May 2019, 9:37pm

Pray tell why a bypass needs to involve blocking the original route. Surely that's re routing? A bypass is a route that goes around something not through it. Status of the original is irrelevant.

mattsccm
Posts: 2702
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby mattsccm » 10 May 2019, 9:39pm

The idea of cameras is to catch people. Word gets out and is a deterant. Unmarked cameras are great in theory. They bring in more revenue which could pay for more enforcement which is the only way to prevent road crime.

MikeF
Posts: 3730
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby MikeF » 10 May 2019, 10:52pm

thirdcrank wrote:Purely subjective, but I fancy that in many of the market towns bypassed on the A1 and other main roads, the local traffic is now heavier than the through traffic was when they were by-passed. That's especially so if you include late evenings.
Certainly true round here!
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master

User avatar
mjr
Posts: 13760
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: BINO: Bypasses In Name Only

Postby mjr » 10 May 2019, 10:59pm

mattsccm wrote:Pray tell why a bypass needs to involve blocking the original route. Surely that's re routing? A bypass is a route that goes around something not through it. Status of the original is irrelevant.

A bypass is a rerouting. An alternative route added to an unchanged one is a relief road, but UK politicians call them bypasses fraudulently because that's easier to get support for.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.