Watch out, new stealth cameras on motorways.

I use the "Heathrow" stretch of the M25 when visiting friend in London, which is getting these in a few months, within a few years they will probably be everywhere.

It's like the Highways Agency want accidents to happen. Cameras are put where there's a black-spot on a dangerous part of the road, so they should be painted yellow to warn drivers.

This is great news.

Jan 16, 2015 -- 11:10PM, Mikael D'Haguenet wrote:

This is great news.

You banned Mike.

glad i don't leave the house much

there will soon  be a sunshine tax

Maybe if people didn't speed ......................

Sort of agree Akabula but I've found new speed cameras on roads that have been widened and speed reduced. It's like they almost want you to speed to fund these cameras. They put these cameras in the most lucrative spots.

Maybe I'm cynical.

Ovalman.     17 Jan 15 19:25 
They put these cameras in the most lucrative spots.

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

Vile things...install Road Angel would be my advice.

Why dont they just charge motorists more to drive their cars rather than by using the law ?

it's not speeding that's the problem akabula, it's careless driving  that's the problem

although the two are often in combination

Of course they do, why wouldn't they?

If you quoted my post in full you may understand. They widen roads and reduce speed limits enticing motorists to speed.

It's not about reducing accidents it's about generating funds.

It's a money making scheme imo.

I've never been done for speeding or do I break the speed limit (drive a Hyndai Amica so I can't speed lol)

Pisses me off however that they don't put these in accident black spots but would rather put them on wide open roads where speed is not an issue.

we have one of the lowest death rates on roads in the world and motorways are the safest roads to be driving on. Its pretty obvious the faster you are going when you crash the more deadly it will be.

I call pish on all of this speed cameras being about safety nonsense...they are a stealth tax, end of.

Strange kind of tax when the ultimate goal is that nobody pays it. I would have thought that the signage 'Accident Black Spot' should be enough to warn drivers to drive accordingly...but it isn't.
I see NO reason, whatsoever, why they authorities should feel the need to warn drivers of speed cameras. That will only result in drivers slowing to the legal limit for a very short distance, and then back to their 'normal', excessive speed.

There should be NO warnings and the cameras should be coloured to blend into the background. YES...camouflaged!

I'd rather see people fined and given points for bad driving (eg misuse of fog lights, pulling out when there's no space to on motorways, tailgating, not indicating and not thanking me for letting them out or waiting for them). The fine money could be spent on plain clothes cars to nick them all.

pmsl @ speeding on the M25

anyone from the east and going to or from Lingfield races and using the M25 will have to be wary.

How many jockeys/trainers etc have been caught ?

Speed Cameras have NEVER reduced accidents. Major studies show that if anything the opposite is true as people are paranoid about them and don't pay attention to the road. I think it was Swindon who ripped them all out and traffic accidents have never been lower.

All they are there for is to generate easy revenue off an already overburdened motorist.

Pity the police aren't better utilised chasing proper criminals and investigating crime than penny pinching under the false and misleading guise of road safety.

Would the police be 'better utilised' trying to stop every speeding motorist? Probably not. Hence the camera. This frees up police time to concentrate upon situations that, I am sure, they would much prefer to address.
Stick to the rules and there will be no need for the police to hassle drivers at all. Except when other crimes are included.

What a pious and pompous set of posts you have made Naydam. If they are not proven to reduce accidents then why should we tolerate them? Good drivers who have never been involved in a road accident in 2 decades are made to feel like criminals for not keeping their eyes glued to the dashboard but often are victims of keeping up with the traffic and their eyes on the road.

I presume you do not drive. If you do you are likely to be one of the drivers who cause more accidents by driving too slowly. Middle lane hoggers, failing to indicate, not looking before changing lanes etc. All of this 'dangerous driving' causes more accidents than motorists doing 10% above limits.

It is also worth noting that these speed limits were introduced at a time when cars braking systems and stop speeds were vastly inferior to todays modern cars.

I would have thought that, in general, slow accidents cause less harm that fast accidents. As for keeping your eyes 'glued to the dashboard' I can only suggest that these 'twenty-year good drivers' you refer to really ought to be able to judge their speed whilst NOT glued anywhere.

Regarding speed limits, braking systems and stop speeds (stopping distance?) There have indeed been major improvements in vehicle performance. Sadly the same does not apply to driver courtesy and the reaction time of the human brain.
I agree entirely that bad driving habits, lack of knowledge or general lack of awareness constitute a major hazard to all drivers, but that surely means you need more and better camera systems to catch them, as well.

Fine 'em 'til they squeal! That's what I say. 

I can live with speed cameras(& yes I do a fair few miles a year)if they are placed sensibly but when the roads go from dual to single & back again just sticking a camers withing a couple of hundred yard onto the single gets me.These cameras are downright dangerous as most people leave the dual doing seventy then spot the camera & its sixty,bang on go the brakes.We all know what happens next.
Anyone stranger travelling to Scotland & back up the East will know what a nuisance & danger they are.
Another one that gets me is these ave speed checks which go on for miles with concrete barrirs either side of you & narrow lanes.You are that busy watching them barriers that it's virtually impossible to concentrate on your speed for such long sections.Fair enough they there for workers safety but can anybody tell me where there's a stretch being worked on where they need these variable limits for so long?

I think you need to discuss this with Charwell. HE says that braking systems are much improved and I would tend to agree. Knocking 10 mph off your speed should NOT require any 'Bang! On go the brakes'. I would have thought that a light application of the brake pedal should suffice.
I would also expect that, in fact, nothing 'happens next' apart from a reduction in road speed. It sounds to me like you chaps drive too fast, are too aggressive with your controls OR don't read far enough ahead. You shouldn't be getting surprised by these 'sudden' () changes in speed restrictions.

Why don't they use the cameras to fine people who are driving and using their mobile phone, either texting or phoning?

They have the reg plate and it would be very easy to scan through the images manually or use image recognition technology to catch those doing something
much more dangerous than exceeding the speed limit by a few mph.

I would guess that they are working on that, Jack. And quite rightly so. As you say, it is very dangerous. I imagine that some decent computer programme could identify the car, time and place. Then you check who was actually driving the car at that time, and check their mobile phone record.
So, we need cars to require driver identification like a card to enable engine start. Then you would know the car and know the driver and a quick referral to that person's registered mobile and just pop the fine in the post. All done automatically. Job's a good 'un!

I would imagine that they would assume that the person driving was the registered keeper.  I think that is what happens with speeding fines at the moment and it is up to the keeper to argue otherwise.

I would also use camera technology to photograph and fine women sitting in the drivers seat and the front passengers seat, talking to each other.

They are completely unable to talk to each other without turning their heads to face each other.  Very dangerous.

Might apply to gay men too, but not sure about that one.

It shouldn't be too difficult to make care require insertion of driver identity prior to engine start. Then the camera simply contacts the car's computer and requests driver identification.
Something like "Car ABC123 identify driver, please." and the car responds "YZ44670". And the camera says "Thank you. Have a nice day."
All at the speed of light, obviously. In fact, don't post the fine...just withdraw it immediately from the drivers bank account! And charge 'em for it!

Why the need for suggestions of yet more overpolicing...it's bad enough that cameras exist in the first place...they are not a deterrent to exceeding the speed limit in any way shape or form (except when you know there is a camera on you for a brief moment in your journey). The reason they are increasing in numbers and in sophistication is simply because they are a fantastic revenue earner and if they can improve on performance it translates to more fines and more money from people doing a few extra mph in places that really don't need cameras. Fine, put them in school zones and in other high traffic (pedestrian and vehicular mixed zones) but give folk a break on the open roads ffs.

the trouble is with revenue raisers is eventually people give up .

they can't be bothered with such a competitive society where the odds are against you each day as it is


so then you get a drop out society and then the long term effect is greater expense through benefits,petty crime,poor education .

encourage the working man ,don't hamper him

I've never been done for speeding as I said above in 25 years of constant driving but I remember 1 time I was stopped by traffic branch where I was doing 40 in a 30. It was my first time in the area and I explained to the officer that I never seen the change. It was an honest mistake and (very strangely as it was traffic branch) he let me off with it. You have no such redress with these cameras.

I mostly stick to limits but there are some roads that are so wide it's probably safer to let drivers drive at a faster speed than constantly look at their speed dial. It's easy on such roads to go 3 or 4 above the limit without realising it.

I would rather they fined drivers on motorways for doing the overtake then brake manoeuvre.  you know the one, your driving in the inside lane approaching a junction when some idiot comes flying past you in the first overtaking lane, then nips in front of you and slams on the brakes so he can exit the approaching junction causing you to brake and everyone behind you to do the same and all too often causing an accident somewhere along the line.

The major cause of accidents by far is BAD DRIVING
Not speed -- and these cameras do NOT pick up on that !!

Speed Limits set in the 1930's for ramshackle cars
Bear no resemblance to today's cars with top brakes,
Steering, suspension, tyres, etc..
But no govt body would suggest reviewing them upwards !!

It could be argued that, except in some extremely rare circumstances, ALL accidents are the result of bad driving!

It seems odd that everybody seems to be such a good driver. The 'bad' drivers always seem to be the other fella. How can this be?
Am I the only one who realises that there are NO good drivers? Especially oneself. You are ALL bad drivers!

Yes the cameras are probably there to raise revenue but so what.
The money goes into the public purse and benefits us all. If you don't want to contribute simply don't drive over the speed limit. You have the choice.

The major cause of accidents by far is BAD DRIVING

Most people think that speeding is bad driving.
Car insurance companies for instances.
They don't take speeding offences lightly.

the trouble is in the good old UK is that there are very few opps to drive at speed (100 plus) safely anywhere exc Northern Scotland because the roads are too damn congested .

but 80 i'd say is the normal speed today ,70 seems a bit laboured

^^That's only if you'd prefer to be hit by a car doing 80 mph rather than one doing 70 mph.

I'll take the slower car thank you.

Och, aye! He's known in The Highlands as The Deerslayer!

Accidents are caused by bad driving not speed but speed increases the severity of the accident which is why insurance companies dont like speeding. Hit a child at 40mph and the child will probably be killed but at 30mph the child has an 80% chance of survival.
Of course if you are driving and sorrounded by a ton of metal with safety belt, air bag and all the other safety features of modern vehicles why should you worry about whether you comply with the ridiculous 30mph speed limit?

Dr Crippen ,why would you be hit by a car on a motorway ?

speed limits in towns should be reduced

30 mph is TOO fast on urban side roads



the whole system is focked up grrrrr

Dr Crippen ,why would you be hit by a car on a motorway ?

Who mentioned motorways?

Crikey Coachbuster, use a bit of imagination.

i mentioned motorways ,we all did - that's  where the 70mph limit applies ,it's 60 on other main roads .

most fatal accidents i'd wager are on urban roads  or winding lanes

Eeh! And there's me thi9nking we were talking bout driving at speeds beyond the limit!

I take it then that Coachbuster doesn't think it's possible to be hit by another car on a motorway, which is ludicrous.
Unless he thinks I was taking about being hit whilst walking along a motorway.
Why would I be walking along a motorway?

Crippen ,when i last traveled on a motorway all the traffic was heading in one direction - are you on drugs ?

I think we'd be a little less anti-camera if we ever saw the evidence that they achieved their goal. Fortunately the roadside camera vans that were once prevalent around here seem to have dwindled away to occasionally, then rarely and now virtually never.
We reached the point where we knew all the laybys? they used and checked whether there was a need to slow down or proceed as 'normal'.

when i last traveled on a motorway all the traffic was heading in one direction

Lol,

That's a new one on me - a one way motorway.

I've only seen the two way type with a central reservation up the middle.

^^^And he asks me if I'm on drugs.

Yes, 30 is way too fast on some congested roads where there are a lot of pedestrians.

My favourite lunacy speed limit is where you leave a 30 limit (residential area) and then turn down a country lane where you get a delimit sign (national speed limit).  This is just as the road narrows and you can only go one abreast down the lane and can only pass in passing places.  And the limit is 60!

60mph would be the limit...it is NOT compulsory!

Rigsby ,sorry i meant Crippen


,stop being difficult

Okay Philip.

I know its not compulsory, which is why I used the word 'limit'.

In my example, don't you think it would be rather sensible to continue with a 30 mph LIMIT rather than have a 60 mph LIMIT?

20 mph in town  -  simples

or you get shot at point blank range

Coach, with respect, in the spirit of your post, any projectile exceeding 20 MPH in built up areas, should incur a fine  and 3 penalty points

I suggest slow strangulation to avoid any ambiguity about speed.

or 15 rounds in the ring with Fox 

They would not last 3.

I would taunt them with a borrowed "Phoebe" quote(from Kindergarten Cop (1990)) "Not so tough without your car, are yeah".

i tend to quote Phoebe from Goodnight Sweetheart 

Well, Jack, I'm not sure on the technicalities, but the sign indicates a de-restricted road. BUT, in my opinion, if you were to proceed down a narrow, winding and tortuous lane at 60mph you could possibly face a charge of 'driving without due care and attention'...maybe even 'dangerous driving' or some other offence.
If, on the other hand, it was a dead straight road and you could see that it was clear of traffic and animals, with no turn-offs, driveways or gated entrances, then it might be considered acceptable.

You don't have to be exceeding the speed limit to be charged with driving too fast. (I think).