Speed cameras on motorways

[RoboCod]

They should have speed cameras to detect vehicles driving too slow! At the weekend I nearly hit a guy doing 40 on a 70 dual carriageway late at night. Gave him a little pip of my horn and he proceeded to make masturbating gestures at me

 

[Overlag]

They should have speed cameras to detect vehicles driving too slow! At the weekend I nearly hit a guy doing 40 on a 70 dual carriageway late at night. Gave him a little pip of my horn and he proceeded to make masturbating gestures at me

how did you not see him? Yes its very annoying to have people going very slow on 70mph roads but to nearly hit them is a bit worrying really. What makes me laugh around here lately is people joining motorways/duals at 30mph then accelerating. You end up with a queue of cars behind this car all trying to join into 60+mph traffic

 

[Lum]

Anything up from a ton really. Basically upto and beyond the point where you're only going to get 3 points and a £60 fine if you're caught.

96 is the threshold for that, and I try to stick to that, not because I believe that a ton is inherently unsafe, well it is but only to your licence / freedom. Once you get over the whole "OMG! 3 figure number" thing, a ton on a quiet motorway (or even certain suitable A/B roads, though such roads are comparatively rare.) isn't really that much at all.

Just over 34 by my reckoning, and that's assuming you can average 90 and 70 respectively. For the purposes of calculations, you also need to bear in mind that these are actual, not indicated, speeds that you'll have to hit. Actual 90mph is going to be close to an indicated ton, and actual 70mph is going to be an indicated 75mph or so.

I use my GPS to calibrate my speedo in my head, so when I say I'm doing 70, I'm doing an actual 70. Plus I was just working it out roughly in my head and based on personal experience, looks like it was pretty accurate.

So, to average 90mph (actual) over 200 miles you're going to have to hit 100mph more than once. You also need to take into account that unless this is a time trial from motorway service station to service station, the beginning and end of the journey is going to involve some urban driving which will make your average speed plummet.

The urban sections of my trips are pretty insignificant really. I live a few minutes from the bypass that goes around my village and the next town and most of my customers are on out of town industrial parks, or if my trip is an overnighter, it'll be a hotel on the side of an A road somewhere.

I realise my situation is not exactly typical, but it's not rare either, all those repmobiles and white vans that people love to complain about so much are in a pretty similar situation, many of them do a lot more time on the road than I do. Basically I'd say that most folk who make their living on the road probably end up speeding simply in order to get their job done, and of those most of them are less likely to have an accident than the typical town dweller who sticks religiously to 70 (indicated) on the few times a year they venture into the motorway.

Out of interest, I was until recently driving around with only kilometers on my speedo, so I basically didn't know how fast I was going (in numerical terms). GPS works but only if you are doing a constant speed and even then there is a few seconds lag. Around my locality (where I know there are no cameras) I found myself doing about 20mph on average because it felt right for the conditions, slower then when I had mph on my speedo and stuck to 30 (indicated) because that's the limit.

I'm sure no-one would object to the way I set my speed (and the results of doing so) around town, but it works both ways. Or rather it would if the government wern't telling everyone that they'll be safe so long as they stick to an arbitrary number set by some bloke sat behind a desk who might not even have a driving licence.

 

[RoboCod]

how did you not see him? Yes its very annoying to have people going very slow on 70mph roads but to nearly hit them is a bit worrying really. What makes me laugh around here lately is people joining motorways/duals at 30mph then accelerating. You end up with a queue of cars behind this car all trying to join into 60+mph traffic

The carriageway was round a long left corner and my turn off was shortly after that corner so I didn't see him until I was right up his rear round that bend. He was not turning off however

 

[Lum]

The carriageway was round a long left corner and my turn off was shortly after that corner so I didn't see him until I was right up his rear round that bend. He was not turning off however

If you're going to go fast you need to make sure you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear, which means slowing down for bends if they have hedges or whatever at the side preventing you from seeing round them. What if he had been broken down instead of trundling along at 40?

 

[RoboCod]

If you're going to go fast you need to make sure you are able to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear, which means slowing down for bends if they have hedges or whatever at the side preventing you from seeing round them. What if he had been broken down instead of trundling along at 40?

What are you a driving instructor?! An actual driving instructor instructed me (some years ago mind you) that you should maintain your speed on a dual carriageway until you hit the slip road, this is the safest way to drive on such a road. Regardless of which the idiot shouldn't have been driving at a ridiculous 40mph.

 

[Andy90]

What are you a driving instructor?! An actual driving instructor instructed me (some years ago mind you) that you should maintain your speed on a dual carriageway until you hit the slip road, this is the safest way to drive on such a road. Regardless of which the idiot shouldn't have been driving at a ridiculous 40mph.

Perhaps what he really meant was that you should 'try' to maintain a constant speed on a dual carriageway until your exit. That would be the most efficient use of your vehicle.

Lum is correct you should always drive at such a speed so that you can brake in the distance you can see to be clear.

It doesn't matter what type of road you are on - that advice is correct.

Would you continue to drive at 70 mph in thick fog? Would you drive at 60mph over a hump back bridge? Well you could do but the consequences of not slowing down could be quite severe. Your view is limited therefore you should anticipate the unexpected. Same goes for your Dual Carriageway.

 

[RoboCod]

I completetly understand the point and agree to some degree but lets be honest here. Picture a long sweeping bend to the left on a dual carriageway, how much would you honestly slow down? to 40mph? The fact I didn't actually hit him indicates I wasn't driving too fast for the conditions, the fact he made me brake like mad however suggests he was not driving to the conditions.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

regulate the gas pedal (and maybe the gears) to stay at a set speed. Is it really that hard?

That won't give you an average speed, merely a maximum.
Your average will, by definition, be less that your maximum.

I use my GPS to calibrate my speedo in my head, so when I say I'm doing 70, I'm doing an actual 70. Plus I was just working it out roughly in my head and based on personal experience, looks like it was pretty accurate

Sorry I was agreeing with, not criticising, your math.

The urban sections of my trips are pretty insignificant really. I live a few minutes from the bypass that goes around my village and the next town and most of my customers are on out of town industrial parks, or if my trip is an overnighter, it'll be a hotel on the side of an A road somewhere.

You have the ideal situation to make for a high average, but even so you'll almost certainly have to slow down at various points during the journey. The longer the journey the more likely this is, and if the journey is short then you can't build enough speed up to make a significant difference to journey time anyway.

I realise my situation is not exactly typical, but it's not rare either, all those repmobiles and white vans that people love to complain about so much are in a pretty similar situation, many of them do a lot more time on the road than I do. Basically I'd say that most folk who make their living on the road probably end up speeding simply in order to get their job done, and of those most of them are less likely to have an accident than the typical town dweller who sticks religiously to 70 (indicated) on the few times a year they venture into the motorway.

I'd have to disagree there, as your post suggests that these infrequent motorway users are more of a risk because they keep to the limit. The people who take the most chances on the road are the ones who have the higher chance of having an RTA. While I can agree that "sunday" drivers can be a menace in other situations, I consider them to be perfectly safe on what is the most boring, simplistic and least demanding road network we have, namely the motorway network.
For the record (and I have said this many times in here) I think that the motorway limit could do with being raised a little.....and I'm no fan of cameras either as they stop me making rapid progress when I need to with the risk of endorsement.
What I object to are people who get fines/points for speeding then moan like schoolgirls about the fact. I break the limit every day and if I was caught I'd be less than happy but I also have no option to complain because I'm intentionally breaking the limit. Once something you don't agree with is commited to the lawbooks you either abide by it or you try to have it changed via the proper channels. Our speed limits are clearly marked and if you choose to break them you're taking a risk. The chances are you'll get away with it but there's always a chance you will not. We all know the drill and we accept it before pressing the gas pedal that little bit harder.

 

[Rainmaker]

There's at least one or two fixed Gatso/s on the M6 north, somewhere around junctions 28-30 iirc. I haven't been that way for a while (a year or so), so I can't remember exactly where it is. It's situated on the far side of an overhead gantry and has the corroboration markings on the road (verification lines, whatever you'd call them), but you don't see the camera, or the markings, until you're literally on top of them. That's a normal 70mph NSL stretch.

 

[Lum]

I completetly understand the point and agree to some degree but lets be honest here. Picture a long sweeping bend to the left on a dual carriageway, how much would you honestly slow down? to 40mph? The fact I didn't actually hit him indicates I wasn't driving too fast for the conditions, the fact he made me brake like mad however suggests he was not driving to the conditions.

By "brake like mad" do you mean a full-on emergency stop, or would you have been able to stop quicker if necessary. If the car had been stationary would you have been able to stop in time. If the answer to this is yes then I apologise as your speed was appropriate.

My stepmum went through this one a while back, she drove my dad's Calibra into the back of a skip left at the side of a 50mph road just after a blind crest. The police criticised the skip positioning but ultimately determined that my stepmum was 100% to blame as she was not able to stop in the distance she could see to be clear. Do you know how much damage a skip receives when you drive into the back of it at 50mph?... none at all.

On the long sweeping left bend with hedges which I figure your situation involves there are other things you can do instead of just slowing down, you can move out towards the centre line, in some circumstances you might even want to cross it to improve visiblity. If those tricks don't let you acheive the speed you want then look into fitting some wider, grippier tyres and maybe a brake upgrade. (This is what I've just done on the Cefiro)

Doing 40mph on an NSL road doesn't automatically mean you are an idiot, there are plenty of valid reasons for doing 40 or even less, such as:

1) You are driving an HGV. The speed limit for these is 40mph on a single carriageway road
2) You have had a puncture and need to find a layby to stop in
3) You have repaired your puncture using Tyre Weld. It is only rated for use up to 30mph!
4) You are riding a moped on L plates. Your top speed is 30mph
5) You are driving a combine harvester. Your top speed is 25mph

Lastly, even a normal car could be carrying an unstable load or a nervous passenger. Only yesterday I was doing 45 in a 70 in the Volvo because my cat was terrified of the noise once I got above 50. I was picking him up from the cattery after a weekend away at an anime con.

(I hope you never drive into the back of a combine harvester BTW. They tend to have huge spikey blades of death hanging off the front and/or back like something from Carmageddon)

 

[Lum]

You have the ideal situation to make for a high average, but even so you'll almost certainly have to slow down at various points during the journey. The longer the journey the more likely this is, and if the journey is short then you can't build enough speed up to make a significant difference to journey time anyway.

Indeed. The longer the journey the more they add up, this is why the middle lane moron argument of "what's your big problem, it only delays you a couple of minutes" really winds me up. I can also increase the average by increasing my speed above the stated numbers from time to time. If there's a nice long straight stretch that's free of cars and bridges then well..

For the most part planning correctly means you can avoid a lot of slowing down and speeding up. It's very hard to give a precise set of rules for what to do in each situation, it's all down to feel which comes from experience. It's almost like a sixth sense.

If you're a town driver you will develop a similar skill where you can predict with a high degree of accuracy when some idiot is going to do something stupid like pull out in front of you.

I'd have to disagree there, as your post suggests that these infrequent motorway users are more of a risk because they keep to the limit. The people who take the most chances on the road are the ones who have the higher chance of having an RTA. While I can agree that "sunday" drivers can be a menace in other situations, I consider them to be perfectly safe on what is the most boring, simplistic and least demanding road network we have, namely the motorway network.

I'm not arguing that "stick to the limit" = unsafe. Just that those who use the motorway network infrequently are more likely to make mistakes, and the myth that simply sticking to an arbitrary number will somehow mitigate this will make these people worse because they think that they are doing everything right.

People who take "chances" are also going to be unsafe, this is true whether it's taking a "chance" pulling out in front of someone at 90mph on the motorway or taking a "chance" while approaching a red light at 30. These are a completely different kind of menace, one that is intentionally putting themselves and others at risk. These people need to be stopped by police and given a good bollocking and/or a summons for Due Care and Attention. Doing them for speeding when they haven't (yet) caused an accident just breeds resentment and disrespect for the law which in term leads to them breaking other, more important, aspects of traffic law such as red lights and rights of way.

For the record (and I have said this many times in here) I think that the motorway limit could do with being raised a little.....and I'm no fan of cameras either as they stop me making rapid progress when I need to with the risk of endorsement.
What I object to are people who get fines/points for speeding then moan like schoolgirls about the fact. I break the limit every day and if I was caught I'd be less than happy but I also have no option to complain because I'm intentionally breaking the limit. Once something you don't agree with is commited to the lawbooks you either abide by it or you try to have it changed via the proper channels.

I agree with this to a point, but there is some history that you are missing. A long time ago, before most people on this forum were born (certainly before I was born) the speed limits were treated as guidelines. The NSL sign meant "No Speed Limit" and could be considered a warning that this road had not been assigned a limit. There are still remnants of this in place usually little single track backroads that you'd be stupid to exceed 30 on. Limits were put in for particularly dangerous of misleading sections of road.

In those days if you were driving like a ****, something which was difficult to prove in the days before video camera cars, then the police would have you for speeding instead. Paul Smith used to argue that this was the correct way to go about it, I disagree with him on this particular point, but regardless of that, this is how it used to be, and it worked. Many members of the older generation grew up driving in this regime and learned to correctly judge an appropriate speed for themselves.

The current generation are not learning this important skill which is now we see so many accidents that are within the speed limit but happened in rain/snow/fog/on a really sharp bend. They were sticking to the number because this is what they have been taught to do. This is a direct result of the current enforcement methods and therefore it is perfectly valid to complain about the existence of speed cameras. Put bluntly people have died as a result of the knock-on effects of switching to camera based enforcement. Most of these deaths don't happen at camera sites so the government can still hail the scheme as a success.

Personally I dont think it is possible to go back to the old method, and I think it is wrong that the charge of speeding was used as an easy gotcha when you couldn't make a dangerous driving charge stick however it worked better than what we have now.

I would like to see the speed limits raised across the board. I would like to see more video camera equipped unmarked cars patrolling our roads pulling people for driving badly, even within the limit. They should get a warning or caution for the first offence along with a decent explanation of exactly what they were doing wrong, persistent offenders should then be brought up on charged of careless/dangerous/due care and attention as appropriate. Detection of an offence should be down to a proper police officer and cameras used purely to backup the officers claims and to reduce the chances of the officer arresting a person and accusing them for unrelated reasons (eg. racism)

The problem with my plan is that driving standards have declined so badly that if you were to raise the limits now more people would die because they would assume that 90 on the motorway now means it's safe to do 90 at all times. My solution to this would be to give legal recognition to advanced driving qualifications such as the IAM test and reward holders of the IAM certificate with the ability to do higher speeds. This would encourage people who otherwise would not consider advanced driver training to take it up and learn just how crap their driving is.

The government's solution is just lower limits and more cameras, eventually we'll be back to 9mph and someone walking in front with a red flag.

 

[The_Dark_Side]

I would like to see the speed limits raised across the board.

Never going to happen, for one very good reason. Too many people take a 70mph sign to mean that it's safe to do 70.

I would like to see more video camera equipped unmarked cars patrolling our roads pulling people for driving badly, even within the limit. They should get a warning or caution for the first offence along with a decent explanation of exactly what they were doing wrong, persistent offenders should then be brought up on charged of careless/dangerous/due care and attention as appropriate. Detection of an offence should be down to a proper police officer and cameras used purely to backup the officers claims and to reduce the chances of the officer arresting a person and accusing them for unrelated reasons (eg. racism).

Never going to happen due to the huge cost such a plan would involve.
£30k/year per officer+Approx £7k/year over 3 years for the car+god alone knows what the fuel/maintenance bill is for a traffic car.....and that's just one extra car. A good idea, but one that will never happen.

The problem with my plan is that driving standards have declined so badly that if you were to raise the limits now more people would die because they would assume that 90 on the motorway now means it's safe to do 90 at all times.

Agreed, as stated above.

My solution to this would be to give legal recognition to advanced driving qualifications such as the IAM test and reward holders of the IAM certificate with the ability to do higher speeds. This would encourage people who otherwise would not consider advanced driver training to take it up and learn just how crap their driving is.

I disagree. I think people would just do the bare minimum amount of training and behave as they see fit, hoping not to be caught. We can't even acheive a situation where drivers without insurance/road tax/MOT are a tiny percentage of motorists so successfully implementing a tiered level of driving permissions would never work.
I also disagree about driving standards having declined. I think they've remained the same, the only difference is your sample pool is so much larger now that you notice peoples shortcomings as you come into contact with them more frequently. The country needs a mobile population, whether it admits it or not, so if you toughened up the test to a level it should be at then more and more people would not only just fail.....some wouldn't be able to pass the test at all. Next step you've got people who can't get to work (reminding Govt. how crap their public transport system really is in the process) which leads to higher unemployment. This is one of the reasons why you don't need to do any extra training to drive something like a Transit, because if you did it would drastically reduce the number of people able to do so. Wages would have to go up as they now have an extra specialist skill and it also creates a shortage of drivers.

 

[Lum]

I disagree. I think people would just do the bare minimum amount of training and behave as they see fit, hoping not to be caught.

You could implement this system fairly easily, and cameras could even play a part in it. Camera partnerships currently have access to driving licence photos and use them when a registered keeper falsely nominates someone else as the driver. You'd have to switch to front facing cameras across the board for this to work, but that would be an improvement anyway. They'd also need to be decent quality cameras not some of the crap they have out there currently where you can barely make out the manufacturers badge on the front of the car.

So, in order to qualify for the scheme, you'd need to have an advanced driving licence which would be a photocard and registered keeper details would need to include your driving licence number.

When the camera records an offence currently the vehicle details and RK details will come up on the system and the operator needs to check that the vehicle details match what is in the photograph. In addition to this if the RK is an advanced driver then they'll need to check if the driving licence photograph matches the driver of the car. If not then a NIP is produced.

(For phase 2 of this, a scheme could be introduced where companies can submit, easilly, automatically and for free the details of the current main user of each of their vehicles, where this data is available that information can be used in place of the RK details for the purposes of the above)

So in theory an advanced driver in their main car should never get a NIP, but in reality they still will. There will need to be an option on the NIPs for "yes this was me but it's ok because I'm an advanced driver, here is my driving licence number" and then the photo check can happen, likewise if the RK is not an advanced driver but they nominate someone who is then the photo check will happen.

If this kind of system could me made to work, and I realise that we are talking about a government IT project here so that is a very big if. Then the government can be free to dumb down the driving experience with silly speed limits as they will only apply to new drivers and those who have no wish to improve their skills. Perhaps we could also make people who haven't passed the second test display something similar to P plates.

That way we achieve a mobile population AND put into place a reward mechanism for people who opt to improve their skills.

Similar schemes (even with proper police rather than funky camera systems) work ok in other countries. In some countries the first test lets you drive on your own then you only get 2 years to pass the second test.

Another scheme I like, comes from Australia, is one where convicted drivers that absolutely need to remain mobile get given E plates. On an E plate you are only allowed to drive your daily commute and maybe if you're in a remote area you can drive to the shops too. Plus you have the added shame of having to drive around with a plate that basically says "I'm either a convicted drink driver or a child killer, maybe both". It's a better scheme than our current one of banning people under totting up unless they happen to have a job that requires a car in which case they avoid a ban.