HADECS 3 cameras on the M25
Discussion
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
My uncle is a senior observer in the IAM and he said he and other IAM people had been questioning the Highways Agency and the police about these cameras. They said that sometimes the information gathered by the Gatso cameras would only be reviewed if an accident occurred to see what the speeds were like leading up to it. Otherwise only the top 10% of speeding motorists would be creamed off and prosecuted. There were too many people speeding to deal with all of them.
These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted. The 10% +1 rule is probably applied but, considering it was apparently issues of losing women's votes that stopped the 80mph limit being introduced and not safety, I don't see how it's necessary to book people doing 79mph.
As we're in an election year we need to make this an election issue so those campaigning for our votes understand they have to do something about it.
It's necessary to enforce a limit if you are going to have a limit, there will then always be a prosecution threshold. That's the thing with lines drawn in the sand.These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted. The 10% +1 rule is probably applied but, considering it was apparently issues of losing women's votes that stopped the 80mph limit being introduced and not safety, I don't see how it's necessary to book people doing 79mph.
As we're in an election year we need to make this an election issue so those campaigning for our votes understand they have to do something about it.
My father's house was burgled when I was a nipper and thoroughly investigated, leading to an arrest and conviction. That house is now undergoing extensive remodelling and was burgled again last year. This time we got a civilian for five minutes who said yes, you've been burgled all right, here's a crime number, bye. And that was it.
Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.
mybrainhurts said:
speedyguy said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted.
It's necessary to enforce a limit if you are going to have a limit, there will then always be a prosecution threshold. That's the thing with lines drawn in the sand.Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.
Blakewater said:
I don't disagree, but we're entitled to say where we think the line should be drawn, how we think the law should be enforced and what we think the punishment for breaking it should be. People will disagree but maybe we should have more open and clear voting on these things. A lot of what gets people's backs up is they feel they don't have a choice and a say.
I think there should be a minimum price on alcohol as people getting stupidly drunk on cheap booze causes such a strain on the NHS and law enforcement as well as leading to violence and domestic problems and many towns and cities being no go areas at night, as well as during the day sometimes, for more sober and sensible people. Some people may think that's draconian and taking away people's freedoms and it's something the government is reluctant to do. If everyone was asked their opinion on it, how many would actually support it?
Then you petition your MP just like other pressure groups do. I think there should be a minimum price on alcohol as people getting stupidly drunk on cheap booze causes such a strain on the NHS and law enforcement as well as leading to violence and domestic problems and many towns and cities being no go areas at night, as well as during the day sometimes, for more sober and sensible people. Some people may think that's draconian and taking away people's freedoms and it's something the government is reluctant to do. If everyone was asked their opinion on it, how many would actually support it?
The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
vonhosen said:
Then you petition your MP just like other pressure groups do.
The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
What would you consider to be a convincing argument, for or against?The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
And who, if anyone, should be considered to hold expert opinion?
Or is it just a matter of societal or political preference?
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Then you petition your MP just like other pressure groups do.
The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
What would you consider to be a convincing argument, for or against?The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
And who, if anyone, should be considered to hold expert opinion?
Or is it just a matter of societal or political preference?
Rather than a bun fight between law enforcement requirements vs. personal freedoms where is the damning evidence that this stretch of road is so bad that it requires what has been implemented ?
On the face of it, the HA has wasted money on something nobody really wanted, apart from the HA , in order to print money for their own ends.
As I said earlier in the thread, what has got mine (and others) backs up even more is that the cameras are not clearly marked. Now that the exact location of the cameras is now public knowledge, regular drivers in that area will simply slow down at those known points and speed back up again. So going back to my earlier question, what large risks have the installation of these cameras solved ? Its not like placing them in front of a school where the risk is obvious and the protection areas are easy to mark out using cameras...
Edited by Carl_Docklands on Friday 16th January 12:49
vonhosen said:
That's why automation is perfect for it.
If it's automated then where's the discretion? That's what people usually moan about, and they don't mean discretion really, they mean "I get off because I got stopped by a human". Discretion that only ever goes in the motorists favour is not discretion, it's non-enforcement.If it's not automated, and it's taking cops attention away from "more worthy" crimes, then that's wrong too, because they shouldn't be doing speed enforcement full stop.
You (the Police) can't win either way.
Problem is the people debating this who are anti-Police, anti-speed enforcement or plain anti-anything-that-infringes-my-right-to-do-whatever-I-want aren't really interested in debating at all. The points they more often than not put forward are specious, emotive and hyperbolic - e.g. speed enforcement means other crimes simply don't get investigated, my apocryphal experience of Police or the handling of a given crime can be extrapolated nationwide, etc. These arguments are only superficially intended to provoke debate, and the people that make them are unwilling to consider any argument or statistics that differ from their entrenched attitude and preconceptions. Noones opinion was ever changed by threads like this.
I've owned a few fast cars and it really isn't that difficult to avoid speed enforcement, even if you don't religiously stick to the limits. Furthermore what can you or I actually do about these limits? Impotently raging against their existence and enforcement doesn't change anything, penalty points & fines still get dished out while people shout and swear into the void. Even voting is an impotent act since no major party is going to do anything significantly to change the status quo, not least because outside of the PH bubble the general public really aren't that bothered by speed limits or their enforcement, in fact the vast majority are probably resistant to sweeping changes (e.g. 80mph). Speed limits as they are or the enforcement thereof will never change radically.
The driving standard in this country really isn't that great either, so it's no great surprise that the consensus is mostly that things are ok the way they are. Most people - as hard as that might be to accept - view cars as a means of transportation, nothing more, and aren't invested in the experience or perturbed by speed enforcement. As unpalatable a concept it might be to petrolheads but the majority are the ones that need protecting, from the likes of you barreling down on them at twice their speed, or whatever. They don't know how to react to it, they aren't prepared to deal with it, and - one might argue - so long as they have a full entitlement to drive why should they have to be exposed to it? The majority don't care about "once great roads" or the erosion of civil liberty (actual or perception) in reducing limits, etc. PH is a particularly vocal minority in this regard, a vanishingly small subset of qualified drivers using the public road.
Mostly though I find "debates" about speed cameras boring. They exist, it's not difficult to avoid them if you use your eyes, and as long as you don't take the piss you usually can avoid enforcement altogether. Moaning about them won't change anything, nor will voting in any election for the forseeable future. Once you can accept that you might find that you enjoy driving for what it is, rather than what it was or what you wish it could be. And there's always the track...
A large part of the problem is that there are all these unvoted for people 'in charge' who having completed their project have to, in order to justify their existence, come up with another 'good idea'. Lumping their 'good idea' under the safety banner seems to make their empires invulnerable to any scrutiny, especially when it has the added bonus of bringing money into the coffers..
I mean, they are hardly likely to say,"Well, that's the smart motorway finished, I'll be off to the Job Centre, thanks.", are they?
I mean, they are hardly likely to say,"Well, that's the smart motorway finished, I'll be off to the Job Centre, thanks.", are they?
Durzel said:
If it's automated then where's the discretion?
There is some, many drivers have been trundling through the M25 Gatso cameras at 78mph (where possible) for years, similar for recently installed Hadecs. Would be interesting to know what the prosecution threshold is for the Kent cameras, can't find anything on Pepipoo.I have been through the older overhead gantry cams at indicated 85/90 and never had a ticket on the M25/M1/M62 or any others - I have been slowing down past the new HADECS3 units which are also being fitted on the M1 upgrade - saw then on Tuesday - but that aside we went down to ExCel on Tuesday with my boss wafting us in his LS430 and he was doing 90+ indicated and I looked back at the camera's and saw no flash, over head or HADECS3? The enforcement limit appears to be well over 80mph - which is good as that is where I do spend most of my 30k miles a year - occasionally more when conditions allow.
The only ticket I had was doing 57 in a 50 average zone on the M18 - I knew it 50 - I set the cruise at 57 as shown on the sat nav (speedo under reads!) and went through - 2 days later got NIP and decided on the SAC or whatever they are now - fair cop and all that!!
The only ticket I had was doing 57 in a 50 average zone on the M18 - I knew it 50 - I set the cruise at 57 as shown on the sat nav (speedo under reads!) and went through - 2 days later got NIP and decided on the SAC or whatever they are now - fair cop and all that!!
The last few times (over several weeks) I've passed the HADECS camera before Clacket Lane services travelling anti-clockwise, they haven't set off my radar detector so were obviously turned off. The ones just after have been on all the time and I tend to go through them at 80-85.
More of a concern is the gantry cameras around J8/9. With no VSL in place, I've seen them double flash at speeds <90 and that is something I didn't expect and haven't seen before with the other M25 gantry cameras.
TBH, the traffic around Clacket Lane is always pretty bad, so the chances of getting into the high numbers are reduced anyway.
More of a concern is the gantry cameras around J8/9. With no VSL in place, I've seen them double flash at speeds <90 and that is something I didn't expect and haven't seen before with the other M25 gantry cameras.
TBH, the traffic around Clacket Lane is always pretty bad, so the chances of getting into the high numbers are reduced anyway.
Durzel said:
vonhosen said:
That's why automation is perfect for it.
Problem is the people debating this who are anti-Police, anti-speed enforcement or plain anti-anything-that-infringes-my-right-to-do-whatever-I-want aren't really interested in debating at all. I am not saying that there should be a vote on every camera that gets erected but the decision to perform this type of surgery on this particular stretch of the M25 seems to have been done via what local public forum exactly and what was the rationale, is it public knowledge, can a link to it be provided so i can read it ?
I don't have a problem with speed cameras general I am just irked in this particular instance and being pigeon-holed into anti-law enforcement generalises away from this particular problem around the works at Clacketts.
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Then you petition your MP just like other pressure groups do.
The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
What would you consider to be a convincing argument, for or against?The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
And who, if anyone, should be considered to hold expert opinion?
Or is it just a matter of societal or political preference?
Expert opinion only matters in the field that the expertise is held. The problem has to address more than one issue or area of expertise.
Those making the decisions on policy should listen to evidence from the experts & any other interested parties in the debate that wish to spend time offering a view (whatever side of the debate) on issues that they feel importantly affect them.
The policy makers commonly then express the compromise decided on through legislation.
It's something that should be reviewed over time & adapted as necessary to address changing needs.
As far as I'm aware that's pretty much what happens.
Naturally those who feel their views are less represented than others in the decided policy may feel aggrieved, but that's life following due process. They can choose to give up or work harder to achieve their aims/protect their interests.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th January 18:13
Carl_Docklands said:
Phatboy317 said:
vonhosen said:
Then you petition your MP just like other pressure groups do.
The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
What would you consider to be a convincing argument, for or against?The government/council (having listened to/consulted all interested parties) then put the compromise in place that is to be upheld.
The fact your view isn't implemented doesn't of course mean it wasn't listened to, it may be that it wasn't as convincing an argument.
And who, if anyone, should be considered to hold expert opinion?
Or is it just a matter of societal or political preference?
Rather than a bun fight between law enforcement requirements vs. personal freedoms where is the damning evidence that this stretch of road is so bad that it requires what has been implemented ?
On the face of it, the HA has wasted money on something nobody really wanted, apart from the HA , in order to print money for their own ends.
As I said earlier in the thread, what has got mine (and others) backs up even more is that the cameras are not clearly marked. Now that the exact location of the cameras is now public knowledge, regular drivers in that area will simply slow down at those known points and speed back up again. So going back to my earlier question, what large risks have the installation of these cameras solved ? Its not like placing them in front of a school where the risk is obvious and the protection areas are easy to mark out using cameras...
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
speedyguy said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted.
It's necessary to enforce a limit if you are going to have a limit, there will then always be a prosecution threshold. That's the thing with lines drawn in the sand.Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
speedyguy said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted.
It's necessary to enforce a limit if you are going to have a limit, there will then always be a prosecution threshold. That's the thing with lines drawn in the sand.Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.
I'd say its a test/trial. In the event of it being successful you won't needs SPECs or Gantry cameras,I expect the savings of replacing 4-5 cameras with 1 everywhere would be considerable, and if they do everything, (lane management, NSL, Average speed, Gantry speed) then its more for less.
I'd already resigned myself to eventually having all motorways Specs'd but this looks like it will do more for less cost/equipment to maintain.
I'd already resigned myself to eventually having all motorways Specs'd but this looks like it will do more for less cost/equipment to maintain.
FurtiveFreddy said:
More of a concern is the gantry cameras around J8/9. With no VSL in place, I've seen them double flash at speeds <90 and that is something I didn't expect and haven't seen before with the other M25 gantry cameras.
Did that on our trip to family over Xmas - lane-2 camera double-flashed behind us, no-one in any lane was doing more than low-80s actual. Was in lane-3 and overtaking so surprised that one went off.vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
speedyguy said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted.
It's necessary to enforce a limit if you are going to have a limit, there will then always be a prosecution threshold. That's the thing with lines drawn in the sand.Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
speedyguy said:
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
These new cameras are all automatic so the data is gathered and the NIPs sent out with no human intervention, so everyone can be prosecuted.
It's necessary to enforce a limit if you are going to have a limit, there will then always be a prosecution threshold. That's the thing with lines drawn in the sand.Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff