M1 stealth cameras now signed

TonyMMM

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

Where the truth lies I don't know, but many people are of the opinion that you won't get a speeding ticket from a camera on a motorway unless a reduced speed limit is signalled on the gantries.

And many people are wrong, as they find out when the paperwork arrives - they can (and are in many places) be used to enforce the standard 70mph limit.

jimbo6977

The trouble with variable limits is that they disrupt the "aviate, navigate, communicate" hierarchy.

MEM62

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Or is it that:

1. Despite popular cynicism, they're not actually "revenue cameras".

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

DD265

Mercdriver wrote: »

Well since they are signed, they are no longer stealth cameras.

I've never thought that they were particularly stealthy in the first place!

Joe_Horner

a.turner wrote: »

That's down to the highways agency not the police.

Really? I thought road safety was very much a police matter.

Still, you obviously know everything - without, it seems, any ability to link up those bits of knowledge into a coherent thought process or logically consistent conclusion - so I bow to your superior arrogance.

a.turner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Really? I thought road safety was very much a police matter.

Still, you obviously know everything - without, it seems, any ability to link up those bits of knowledge into a coherent thought process or logically consistent conclusion - so I bow to your superior arrogance.

No, the effective motorway traffic flow you speak of.

Nearly_Old

CardinalWolsey wrote: »

Where the truth lies I don't know, but many people are of the opinion that you won't get a speeding ticket from a camera on a motorway unless a reduced speed limit is signalled on the gantries.

This was the case with the old original overhead cameras with each lane having its own camera. Although like all cameras they were always active the SI (Statutory Instrument) that made them legal was worded to include "when a reduced speed limit is displayed". That meant that they could not be used to prosecute for exceeding the 70 limit even when speeding vehicles were detected.

Each of the new HADECS3 cameras mounted on the nearside leg of the gantry can monitor 5 lanes and they can, and do enforce the 70 limit. A number of fleet managers have posted details of the NIPs received on the M25 smart motorway sections. So far they have all been for 85 and above so the assumption is that they are set with a threshold speed of 85 when no reduced speed limit is displayed.

Joe_Horner

a.turner wrote: »

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Really? I thought road safety was very much a police matter...

No, the effective motorway traffic flow you speak of.

Which is a central part of safety management because free flowing roads are far safer than ones that aren't. Which makes it very much a police concern in partnership with the HA.

As I said:

...no ability to link up those bits of knowledge into a coherent thought process or logically consistent conclusion.

a.turner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Which is a central part of safety management because free flowing roads are far safer than ones that aren't. Which makes it very much a police concern in partnership with the HA.

As I said:

No the highways agency are doing it, breakdowns and debris which would disrupt the flow of traffic are a matter for the HA.

The only concern the police have is criminal investigations and enforcement, there's even talk of the HA doing enforcement.

Joe_Horner

a.turner wrote: »

No the highways agency are doing it, breakdowns and debris which would disrupt the flow of traffic are a matter for the HA.

Err, you ARE aware that one of the primary reasons for variable speed limits is to improve traffic flow, aren't you? It'snot just about bits of tyre on the road.

Which takes us full circle to the start of your argumentativeness (again) on this thread.

(1) The cameras are there to improve safety and - as part of that - traffic flow*.
(2) "Stealth" cameras, as suggested by the OP may be less effective at that than ones that are clearly signed.
(3) Therefore, in order to help enforcement of the variable limits (thereby improving traffic flow AND increasing safety), the cameras have been signed.
(4) Because the various agencies cooperate rather than working in isolation from each other, that decision will have involved the police as well as the HA.

Really, we all know you like to argue with anything - it's become a bit of a trademark of yours on here - but just learn to stop digging and walk away when you're beat, there's a good chap.



* That's actually a two-way relationship. Improved safety tends to improve traffic flow, which - in its turn - improves safety. The two are inextricably linked.