Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
16 Jan 15
22:54
Joined:
Date Joined:
30 Mar 05
There has been alarm about new "stealth" speed cameras. Just how "sneaky" are they, asks Tom de Castella.
It goes by the snappy name Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System 3, or Hadecs 3 for short. The new speed camera system was installed in April 2014 between junctions five and six on the M25 in Kent, near Clacket Lane Services. But it only became operational on 22 October. By 15 January - less than three months later - 1,513 people had been caught. One of the biggest complaints is that they are painted grey rather than yellow.
The Daily Mail warned: "Watch out, new stealth cameras on motorways." It noted that the high tech camera system will soon be expanded to other motorways.
Hadecs 3 differs radically from older systems. It can cover all the lanes of a motorway carriageway from a single camera mounted on the grass verge or a gantry. If the vehicle is breaking the speed limit the camera takes two photographs of the registration number.
In contrast, the average speed system requires a pair of cameras to catch the car entering and leaving a controlled zone. And before Hadecs 3, motorway cameras could only monitor one lane of motorway at a time.
Critics of the new system say that unlike the yellow boxed speed cameras of old, its grey colour makes it hard to spot - "stealthy" even.
The Highways Agency rejects this. It may be grey. But so was predecessor Hadecs 2 - in operation on the M25 near Heathrow. And Hadecs 3 is accompanied by signs warning motorists of speed cameras ahead.
The M25 in Kent has been chosen because it is part of the government's Smart Motorways policy - where the hard shoulder is used and variable speed limits enforced. Similar cameras operate on the M25's northern section between junctions 23 and 27. And they will soon be rolled out to other Smart Motorway sections - the M1 (in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire), M6 (around Birmingham) and a stretch of the M3.
A lot of people have been caught in a short space of time. Of the 1,513 drivers logged by the new cameras, 781 had exceeded a speed limit of 70mph, according to Kent Police. The other 732 had broken a limit of either 40, 50 or 60mph. The Highways Agency says the people caught are a small proportion of the "hundreds of thousands of motorists [who] use this stretch of the M25 every day". But without knowing how many motorists were caught by the old camera systems on a similar stretch of motorway, it's hard to say whether more drivers are being caught by Hadecs 3.
It goes by the snappy name Highways Agency Digital Enforcement Camera System 3, or Hadecs 3 for short. The new speed camera system was installed in April 2014 between junctions five and six on the M25 in Kent, near Clacket Lane Services. But it only became operational on 22 October. By 15 January - less than three months later - 1,513 people had been caught. One of the biggest complaints is that they are painted grey rather than yellow.
The Daily Mail warned: "Watch out, new stealth cameras on motorways." It noted that the high tech camera system will soon be expanded to other motorways.
Hadecs 3 differs radically from older systems. It can cover all the lanes of a motorway carriageway from a single camera mounted on the grass verge or a gantry. If the vehicle is breaking the speed limit the camera takes two photographs of the registration number.
In contrast, the average speed system requires a pair of cameras to catch the car entering and leaving a controlled zone. And before Hadecs 3, motorway cameras could only monitor one lane of motorway at a time.
Critics of the new system say that unlike the yellow boxed speed cameras of old, its grey colour makes it hard to spot - "stealthy" even.
The Highways Agency rejects this. It may be grey. But so was predecessor Hadecs 2 - in operation on the M25 near Heathrow. And Hadecs 3 is accompanied by signs warning motorists of speed cameras ahead.
The M25 in Kent has been chosen because it is part of the government's Smart Motorways policy - where the hard shoulder is used and variable speed limits enforced. Similar cameras operate on the M25's northern section between junctions 23 and 27. And they will soon be rolled out to other Smart Motorway sections - the M1 (in Derbyshire and South Yorkshire), M6 (around Birmingham) and a stretch of the M3.
A lot of people have been caught in a short space of time. Of the 1,513 drivers logged by the new cameras, 781 had exceeded a speed limit of 70mph, according to Kent Police. The other 732 had broken a limit of either 40, 50 or 60mph. The Highways Agency says the people caught are a small proportion of the "hundreds of thousands of motorists [who] use this stretch of the M25 every day". But without knowing how many motorists were caught by the old camera systems on a similar stretch of motorway, it's hard to say whether more drivers are being caught by Hadecs 3.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 70
|
By:
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.
 |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
This is great news.
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
glad i don't leave the house much
there will soon be a sunshine tax |
|
By:
Maybe if people didn't speed ......................
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Ovalman. 17 Jan 15 19:25
They put these cameras in the most lucrative spots. Of course they do, why wouldn't they? |
|
By:
Vile things...install Road Angel would be my advice.
|
|
By:
Why dont they just charge motorists more to drive their cars rather than by using the law ?
|
|
By:
it's not speeding that's the problem akabula, it's careless driving that's the problem
|
|
By:
although the two are often in combination
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
I call pish on all of this speed cameras being about safety nonsense...they are a stealth tax, end of.
|
|
By:
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!   |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
pmsl @ speeding on the M25
 |
|
By:
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 ? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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? |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
The major cause of accidents by far is BAD DRIVING
Not speed -- and these cameras do NOT pick up on that !! |
|
By:
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 !! |
|
By:
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! |
|
By:
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. |