M1 stealth cameras now signed

a.turner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

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.

And you're aware they aren't police cameras and the decision involving the police was make almost two decades ago. You really need to get upto date.

daveyjp

The Police can direct the Highways Agency to activate any of the speed cameras on motorways at any time, even if no variable signs are illuminated.

Joe_Horner

a.turner wrote: »

And you're aware they aren't police cameras and the decision involving the police was make almost two decades ago. You really need to get upto date.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. You clearly aren't aware of how to read:

(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.

Or are you seriously suggesting that the HA just go their own merry old way without any reference or input from other agencies?

a.turner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Or are you seriously suggesting that the HA just go their own merry old way without any reference or input from other agencies?

I think you're the one failing to comprehend this. Do watch the blood pressure.;)

The day to day free flow of the motorways is a Highways Agency problem. Even if the police are called for breakdowns, debris and damage only accidents it's passed straight to the HA without a police response.

Joe_Horner

a.turner wrote: »

I think you're the one failing to comprehend this. Do watch the blood pressure.;)

The day to day free flow of the motorways is a Highways Agency problem. Even if the police are called for breakdowns, debris and damage only accidents it's passed straight to the HA without a police response.

But signage of cameras (which is what this thread is about) is a matter of policy, not day-to-day operations. It's certainly sod all to do with all that debris etc, which you seem to be under the - frankly lunatic - impression is all that affects traffic flow!

The police have an input to that policy - including whether or not cameras should be signed (which, if you can remember from 3 sentences ago, is the point of this thread) - because they are a partner agency with a stake in the outcome of any policy set.

a.turner

Joe_Horner wrote: »

But signage of cameras (which is what this thread is about) is a matter of policy, not day-to-day operations. It's certainly sod all to do with all that debris etc, which you seem to be under the - frankly lunatic - impression is all that affects traffic flow!

The police have an input to that policy - including whether or not cameras should be signed (which, if you can remember from 3 sentences ago, is the point of this thread) - because they are a partner agency with a stake in the outcome of any policy set.

Having said that I'm am quite confident you are ignorant to the true fact. To keep you happy I'll let you continue to think that way.

Mercdriver

Nearly_Old wrote: »

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.

You know what assume makes?

The smart section of M4 and M5 definitely do people even if no speed limit shown and they enforce the standard 70mph, taking into account 10% +9 mph before enforcement.

Nearly_Old

Mercdriver wrote: »

You know what assume makes?

The smart section of M4 and M5 definitely do people even if no speed limit shown and they enforce the standard 70mph, taking into account 10% +9 mph before enforcement.

Assumption is probably the wrong word. The fact is that all the verified evidence collected by a number of fleet managers since the first section with HADECS3 opened have been for speeds of 85 and above.


The threshold for enforcement is actually 10%+2 mph I believe that 10%+9 refers to eligibility for a SAC.

a.turner

Nearly_Old wrote: »

Assumption is probably the wrong word. The fact is that all the verified evidence collected by a number of fleet managers since the first section with HADECS3 opened have been for speeds of 85 and above.


The threshold for enforcement is actually 10%+2 mph I believe that 10%+9 refers to eligibility for a SAC.

Collected by who or something you've read online?

Nearly_Old

a.turner wrote: »

Collected by who or something you've read online?

Read post 18.