Average Speed cameras

GingerBob_3

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

Anyone who knows the exact laws - please affirm or clarify.

So as I understand it, the governing authority for a road has an obligation to respond to accidents on their patch. Not a choice, but a legal obligation to implement measures to try to prevent recurring accidents.

So if you see a flashing sign saying slow down at a sharp bend - that is because reality has proved it is needed - not because the council is flush with cash.

As to the junction I think you mean - here is why:-
"It became the first area of motorway with permanent speed cameras in the north west after a fatal crash 2005 in which three young people were killed.

The crash in April 2005 led to calls for a reduced speed limit on the stretch of road, which already had a reputation as an accident blackspot.

Four months later a motorcyclist was killed when he hit the central reservation.

At first a speed restriction was put in place, but no cameras. However, in 2007 the Highways Agency decided it was being ignored by too many drivers, and installed the cameras."

So four deaths nearby meant something had to be done. And the scale of the fines won't touch the cost of handling the multiple serious RTAs. So sounds like the revenue is more than offset by those and any future crashes? Sadly.

Of course, I expect you will have a counter view. Try putting it to the forum as if you were explaining your logic to the parents of the three younsters who died.

In the case of the M60 the "flashing light" is so far ahead of the bend that it's just laughable. Yes, it is a severe bend for a motorway and taking it at more than 50 is, I would suggest, dangerous, but not so on the long lead up to it. A speed restriction is needed, but as is often the case, the blighters that have imposed it have seen it as an opportunity to raise cash as well.

takman

GingerBob wrote: »

In the case of the M60 the "flashing light" is so far ahead of the bend that it's just laughable. Yes, it is a severe bend for a motorway and taking it at more than 50 is, I would suggest, dangerous, but not so on the long lead up to it. A speed restriction is needed, but as is often the case, the blighters that have imposed it have seen it as an opportunity to raise cash as well.

How effective do you think average speed cameras would be if people were not fined when they broke the speed limit?. If there was no fine there would be little incentive to keep to the speed limit.

I don't know how you can say it's unfair when the only people who loose out are the ones who are breaking the law!.

GingerBob_3

takman wrote: »

How effective do you think average speed cameras would be if people were not fined when they broke the speed limit?. If there was no fine there would be little incentive to keep to the speed limit.

I don't know how you can say it's unfair when the only people who loose out are the ones who are breaking the law!.

If you're not familiar with this section of road it's actually quite difficult to make an assessment of the situation. Let me draw an analogy:


If there was school on a major road you would rightly expect a speed limit to be in force in the vicinity of the school. However, you would not expect it to start a mile up the road. That is the situation on the M60. The device to control speed on the bend is installed way up the road where it isn't needed, and you can even leave the road prior to the bend.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

GingerBob wrote: »

In the case of the M60 the "flashing light" is so far ahead of the bend that it's just laughable. Yes, it is a severe bend for a motorway and taking it at more than 50 is, I would suggest, dangerous, but not so on the long lead up to it. A speed restriction is needed, but as is often the case, the blighters that have imposed it have seen it as an opportunity to raise cash as well.

Not my bit of road and not am I an expert on the positioning of such measures.

I would agree on the apparent need - :-(
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/594200/Parents-critically-ill-hospital-car-crash-motorway-daughter-age-7-dies/amp

Seems, as you say, neither signs nor fines will change some behaviours. If they did - there would be no revenue and less news like this.

Car_54

mark1959 wrote: »

The average speed cameras [permanent] on the m60 approaching Stockport are a real money spinner for the council. Something like £230,000 per year in fines, 2nd in the country, so there are quite a few motorists who don't understand "average speed". Or maybe they don't notice them. :eek:

It may well be a money spinner, but not for the council, who don't reveive any of the fines.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

GingerBob wrote: »

If you're not familiar with this section of road it's actually quite difficult to make an assessment of the situation. Let me draw an analogy:

If there was school on a major road you would rightly expect a speed limit to be in force in the vicinity of the school. However, you would not expect it to start a mile up the road. That is the situation on the M60. The device to control speed on the bend is installed way up the road where it isn't needed, and you can even leave the road prior to the bend.

OK so it is the busiest motorway section in the country right?

So let's settle that it is half a mile to early?

• At 70mph (assuming you stick to the speed limit) - you do your half-mile in 26 seconds.
• At the 50 mph (assuming you slow down before the signs?) - you do the same half-mile in 36 seconds
• So the apparent net gain to you is about 10 second each day.
• Now let's assume the fact that traffic going more slowly and braking in a more controlled way before the corner, not at it, avoids one shunt a quarter - which causes a 15 minute delay to your journey
• So your 10 seconds away is identical to the 15 minutes you spend queuing - but no accident

So I guessed at the number of incidents causing delay. To know if you journey is faster your way is not factor of your speed alone. But, your inferred logic it slows you on average downright not be right. "Smooth is fast" as the Stig once said, I believe.

mark1959

Car_54 wrote: »

It may well be a money spinner, but not for the council, who don't reveive any of the fines.

Well according to the local papers , Stockport and Manchester they do (receive). They could be wrong though. The first cameras should be a few hundred yards further up though instead of at the end of a steepish gradient downhill.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

mark1959 wrote: »

The first cameras should be a few hundred yards further up though instead of at the end of a steepish gradient downhill.

OK.
So do you mean is is OK to exceed the speed limit because you are at the bottom of a steep hill and the car runs away with itself?

mark1959

No. What it means is that lots of cars brake to slow down from 80-90.It is a bit dangerous. Quite a few don't though hence the big revenue [for somebody].

Car_54

mark1959 wrote: »

Well according to the local papers , Stockport and Manchester they do (receive). They could be wrong though.

They are wrong. The revenue from fines goes to the Treasury. The siting of the cameras is decided by Highways England. None of it has anyrhing to do with either Stockport or Manchester.

Also, the revenue is reported as £230,000 in a year. That represents about six fines per day. It would seem that the vast majority of drivers have no problem in keeping to the limit.