Motorway Stealth Cameras, aimed at revenue raising. Options

[Monster 900]

From today's Telegraph.

[Advertisement]

[Transit man]

I would be happy with cameras covering much more of the M ways, after the limit has been raised to a more sensible 80, or preferably 90.

[emanresu]

Wife says she was just south of the Dartford crossing where there are plenty of cameras and warnings - but the cameras were flashing like paparazzi. In some cases drivers seem hell bent on picking up speeding tickets irrespective of the information available to them.

A bit like the revenue-generating National Lottery - a tax on stupidity - as the odds are clearly indicated.

[sgtdixie]

I don't suppose the reporter had a clue what he was writing.

It appears these cameras are specifically for VSL's on managed motorways. Whilst it is true they can activate in a NSL mode they are principally there for the lower limits. So whilst the headline and entire piece is about enforcement of a 70 mph limit the underlying facts are slightly different. Surprised this wasn't in the DM.

Quite why they are grey I suspect we can all guess though.

edit

Just seen the same article in the DM. Apparently this is the first time the 70 mph limit on motorways has been enforced by cameras. On the ball as usual.

This post has been edited by sgtdixie: Mon, 3 Feb 2014 - 08:21

[nomadros]

Ok, even if this is for "managed" sections, I find the whole notion of "speed/safety" cameras on motorways dangerous. Not only do you get everyone braking when either approaching one (even if the drivers are under the limit) or you get everyone braking when one flashes at someone. The biggest danger I find on say the M1 apart from the Hadecs these days, is drivers from Yorkshire who've been conditioned into 70 mingling with those who live south of junction 19 who know the speed limit is around 90 odds. All it needs is one nervous driver panicking due to a speed camera on a motorway to cause a pile up. The number of people who still slam on their anchors when the clock those old white markings on the M6 should be enough to convince everyone of the danger. I've seen what happens on the M74 when cars doing 90 see the white van o' death on the overbridge and it's not nice. Forget about the politics of speed cameras for a mo and realise the fact that they are about to deploy a "safety" solution for a problem that doesn't currently exist. IMHO as always.

[Transit man]

Slightly off topic, but travelling back from London today a traffic car joins the M40 at Banbury followed by a plain police BMW estate, I was about 6 cars behind doing an indicated 72 (satnav said 68) on cruise control. Up until then the traffic had seemed lighter than usual, with no problems, but then these two police cars stick at exactly 68 & not one car will overtake them, they came off at Warwick, by that time the queue behind was quite a long one & after they left the M way the stream of cars passing me at 70 plus went on for 10 minutes.

This situation showed/proved something, I suppose it depends on what side of the fence you tend to err on to say what it did prove

[sgtdixie]

I think nomandros' attitude explains why standards are so low on our roads. I now live in a nice rural location in a very quiet part of the country. 90% of people drive within the speed limits and on the nearest motorway I get overtaken by relatively few cars even though I do 70. When I work however I often see the 90+ brigade on the motorway slamming on for cameras and generally displaying poor planning and observation. So the problem isn't a driver doing 70 who slows to 60, but rather one doing 90 who slows to 60, because of course they want to be sure they don't get caught.

Blaming cameras or VSL's for peoples poor driving is a cop out. It is rubbish driving plain and simple. After all a parked up patrol car on an obs point causes the same reaction but I don't consider Traffic cops on motorways to be anything but good.

[Monster 900]

The main thing that bothers me about VSL enforcement is they are using a criminal sanction which is deemed necessary for public safety to enforce a speed limit designed for traffic management purposes, which has nothing to do with public safety.

The VSL sanctions should be the same as decrim. parking. A fine, but no points (unless exceeding 70 +10% +2).

[sgtdixie]

The main thing that bothers me about VSL enforcement is they are using a criminal sanction which is deemed necessary for public safety to enforce a speed limit designed for traffic management purposes, which has nothing to do with public safety.

The VSL sanctions should be the same as decrim. parking. A fine, but no points (unless exceeding 70 +10% +2).

Can't see your logic. Managed traffic flow does more than ease congestion it also reduces collisions. I believe there are quite a few stats floating about evidencing this. But the bottom line is that why a speed limit exists is irrelevant. It is legally enforcable. You can't just pick and choose which laws apply. After all if the VSL was set at 60 and someone was doing 100 would that be decrim, or would you have some sort of artificial number where it changes so a driver at 70 gets a different penalty to one at 90?

Hang on, isn't that what happens now?

[Monster 900]

The main thing that bothers me about VSL enforcement is they are using a criminal sanction which is deemed necessary for public safety to enforce a speed limit designed for traffic management purposes, which has nothing to do with public safety.

The VSL sanctions should be the same as decrim. parking. A fine, but no points (unless exceeding 70 +10% +2).

Can't see your logic. Managed traffic flow does more than ease congestion it also reduces collisions. I believe there are quite a few stats floating about evidencing this. But the bottom line is that why a speed limit exists is irrelevant. It is legally enforcable. You can't just pick and choose which laws apply. After all if the VSL was set at 60 and someone was doing 100 would that be decrim, or would you have some sort of artificial number where it changes so a driver at 70 gets a different penalty to one at 90?

Hang on, isn't that what happens now?

You should read people's posts more carefully.

[sgtdixie]

The main thing that bothers me about VSL enforcement is they are using a criminal sanction which is deemed necessary for public safety to enforce a speed limit designed for traffic management purposes, which has nothing to do with public safety.

The VSL sanctions should be the same as decrim. parking. A fine, but no points (unless exceeding 70 +10% +2).

Can't see your logic. Managed traffic flow does more than ease congestion it also reduces collisions. I believe there are quite a few stats floating about evidencing this. But the bottom line is that why a speed limit exists is irrelevant. It is legally enforcable. You can't just pick and choose which laws apply. After all if the VSL was set at 60 and someone was doing 100 would that be decrim, or would you have some sort of artificial number where it changes so a driver at 70 gets a different penalty to one at 90?

Hang on, isn't that what happens now?

You should read people's posts more carefully.

Perhaps you can explain

[glasgow_bhoy]

The DM article was pretty horrendous- I was gonna link it earlier, but couldn't bring myself to do it- never saw so many inaccuracies in one article!

However cameras on motorways are a nuisance. The M74 vans are dangerous- I stand on the breaks when I see them- I'm generally doing 75 down that stretch- but just incase I've drifted over, its the best reaction to have.

Average cameras work at present as they aren't everywhere. However if they are rolled out throughout the motorway network and aren't a novelty, I suspect people will find other ways to drive outwith the law- there will be lots more bumps through careless lane changing as people attempt to creep by the car infront without going fast.

As for variable limits- they're just stupid with cameras build in. The M42/M6 cameras (the ones off the toll road when you come off and head down the road towards London) are not pleasant. The last time I used them they were alright, but the time before some clever ******** controlling them was doing some kinda 50-60-40-50 game- very distracting to be honest when your constantly paranoid about your speed. They've put them up now over on the M90 and M9 too- people aren't used to them yet, but I've seen a few mental breaking manouvres which were perhaps not required.

These cameras do nothing to combat the middle lane menaces on our roads, or those who drive too slowly on the motorway (whilst in the middle lane). M74 between Hamilton and Glasgow, and the M8 between Glasgow and the Airport- the inside lane lies empty. Constantly- even in rush hour there is plenty of space for some reason. Get people into that inside lane, and traffic will flow properly. Camera's and speed restrictions certainly won't sort that.

[Monster 900]

The main thing that bothers me about VSL enforcement is they are using a criminal sanction which is deemed necessary for public safety to enforce a speed limit designed for traffic management purposes, which has nothing to do with public safety.

The VSL sanctions should be the same as decrim. parking. A fine, but no points (unless exceeding 70 +10% +2).

Can't see your logic. Managed traffic flow does more than ease congestion it also reduces collisions. I believe there are quite a few stats floating about evidencing this. But the bottom line is that why a speed limit exists is irrelevant. It is legally enforcable. You can't just pick and choose which laws apply. After all if the VSL was set at 60 and someone was doing 100 would that be decrim, or would you have some sort of artificial number where it changes so a driver at 70 gets a different penalty to one at 90?

Hang on, isn't that what happens now?

You should read people's posts more carefully.

Perhaps you can explain

Fairly self evident from my original post:

Above 70 mph (+ACPO guidelines) and the criminal penalty could be applied.
Below 70 mph decrim penalty could apply.

Not too tricky with modern automated systems of enforcement.

You are, of course, absolutely right in that all speed limits are legally enforceable, whether they are appropriately set or not. Plenty of bizarre speed limits around here. I was just suggesting something which, IMO, would be fairer bearing in mind VSL are not a road safety matter but a traffic management matter.

[sgtdixie]

The main thing that bothers me about VSL enforcement is they are using a criminal sanction which is deemed necessary for public safety to enforce a speed limit designed for traffic management purposes, which has nothing to do with public safety.

The VSL sanctions should be the same as decrim. parking. A fine, but no points (unless exceeding 70 +10% +2).

Can't see your logic. Managed traffic flow does more than ease congestion it also reduces collisions. I believe there are quite a few stats floating about evidencing this. But the bottom line is that why a speed limit exists is irrelevant. It is legally enforcable. You can't just pick and choose which laws apply. After all if the VSL was set at 60 and someone was doing 100 would that be decrim, or would you have some sort of artificial number where it changes so a driver at 70 gets a different penalty to one at 90?

Hang on, isn't that what happens now?

You should read people's posts more carefully.

Perhaps you can explain

Fairly self evident from my original post:

Above 70 mph (+ACPO guidelines) and the criminal penalty could be applied.
Below 70 mph decrim penalty could apply.

Not too tricky with modern automated systems of enforcement.

You are, of course, absolutely right in that all speed limits are legally enforceable, whether they are appropriately set or not. Plenty of bizarre speed limits around here. I was just suggesting something which, IMO, would be fairer bearing in mind VSL are not a road safety matter but a traffic management matter.

But we already have this. The whole idea of SAC's is to take out the criminal sanction and educate drivers instead of criminalise them.

I would take issue with your view of managed motorways. Traffic management when done correctly reduces casualties.

[Alexis]

I still find it puzzling why it was safe to do 70mph in a 1967 Ford Consair with dodgy handling, narrow tyres and ineffective drum brakes, but 71mph in an ABS and disc brake equipped modern car is highly dangerous?

The 80mph limit seemed pointless with everyone doing at least 80 anyway, but if they're going to up the number of cameras it starts to make more and more sense.

[Gan]

When the Ford Corsair was introduced, it was legal to drive at its 110 mph approx top speed on single carriageway roads

On a similar note, 30 mph at 6 pm on a wet Friday in January is legal but 31 mph at 6 am on a bright Sunday morning in August isn't

[sgtdixie]

And we don't have different speed limits based on the abilities of the vehicles and drivers qualifications.

[mynamegoesinhere]

I can't think of another area where people would be moaning about lawbreakers being fined.
Rather ironic that the Telegraph and the DM - both loud members of the "flog 'em and hang 'em we believe in law and order" brigade are complaining about this.

If you don't want to get caught, then don't break the limit. And if someone braking in front of you causes a danger to you, then you were too close to them.

When the Ford Corsair was introduced, it was legal to drive at its 110 mph approx top speed on single carriageway roads

On a similar note, 30 mph at 6 pm on a wet Friday in January is legal but 31 mph at 6 am on a bright Sunday morning in August isn't

Not necessarily. You can be guilty of DWDC even if you are well under the limit.

[fedup2]

And we don't have different speed limits based on the abilities of the vehicles and drivers qualifications.

No we treat all like kids, which is bringing its own problems and is a bigger concern to me than where someones speedo needle points.

Managed areas are often not managed very well at all (if that is indeeed their purpose) with lowered speed limits often shown for no reason at all.I dont buy into it they ease conjestion,they dont its just another way of bottlenecking a road at will and of course earn a few quid while your at it which can only be an incentive to leave them activated longer than is nessercary.

If motorway safety is the real concern then it would be alot more fruitful to check all drivers using a motorway can actually drive in a straight line.From the number of incidents i see,it seems many cant.

[sgtdixie]

I dont buy into it they ease conjestion,they dont its just another way of bottlenecking a road at will and of course earn a few quid while your at it which can only be an incentive to leave them activated longer than is nessercary.

If it creates bottleneck doesn't that mean no one can speed and revenue would fall?

The state has to treat everyone the same. See R V Bannister to understand what the courts think about this.