HADECS 3 cameras on the M25

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

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.

Or you could ignore it and spend your working hours doing something of benefit to society. How many police officers have gone in the cuts? 20,000 was it?

Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.

So Mybrainhurts after reading Blakewaters comment about the automation of speed data gathering and processing you agree it is a good thing for relevant or necessary speed enforcement to be done by Hadecs as it frees up plod sneaking about to do something more worthwhile?

No, the same applies. Upholding the 70 motorway limit is a pointless exercise. If you ignore the revenue raised, that is.

It's not a pointless exercise because it affects speed choice. It affects my choice of speed & I'm not alone in that.

You say that as though your speed choice is of benefit to mankind...

By having a limit there is a desire to limit my speed. i'm saying that enforcement of that limit is not (as you claim) a pointless exercise, because it has achieved it's aim in respect of my speed choice & many others.

You say that as though the speed limit is of benefit to mankind.

It's judged to be so by our & other governments, that's why we & every other country have them.

You say that as though governments are competent to judge...

[g3org3y]

mybrainhurts said:

Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.

To be fair, generally police on the motorway only pull people over if they are doing >85mph or doing something a little silly to draw attention to themselves.

My understanding of the HADECS cameras was they would only be triggered at speeds >85mph (or maybe higher) when there is no lower limit displayed.

I typically stick to speedo indicated 80 for the camera gantries on the M1 and have been doing the same for the M25 cameras. Not been flashed once but as a poster mentioned a couple of pages back, I've seen them going off quite frequently.

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

Are there any HADECS 3 cameras on the northern part of the M25?

I'm fairly sure I was flashed on New Year's Eve. The two flashes seemed to come from the far left hand side of the carriageway despite me being in lane 4, so could have been a HADECS 3.

That said, I haven't received an NIP and the 14 days are now up, so it's starting to look like I've got away with it. Or maybe it wasn't me that triggered the camera, but I really think it was.

Do HADECS 3 cameras sometimes flash but not result in an NIP?

[emmaT2014]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

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.

Or you could ignore it and spend your working hours doing something of benefit to society. How many police officers have gone in the cuts? 20,000 was it?

Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.

So Mybrainhurts after reading Blakewaters comment about the automation of speed data gathering and processing you agree it is a good thing for relevant or necessary speed enforcement to be done by Hadecs as it frees up plod sneaking about to do something more worthwhile?

No, the same applies. Upholding the 70 motorway limit is a pointless exercise. If you ignore the revenue raised, that is.

It's not a pointless exercise because it affects speed choice. It affects my choice of speed & I'm not alone in that.

You say that as though your speed choice is of benefit to mankind...

By having a limit there is a desire to limit my speed. i'm saying that enforcement of that limit is not (as you claim) a pointless exercise, because it has achieved it's aim in respect of my speed choice & many others.

You say that as though the speed limit is of benefit to mankind.

It's judged to be so by our & other governments, that's why we & every other country have them.

You say that as though governments are competent to judge...

Sorry for breaking up the quote-fest, blakewater was wrong.

Start again.

[g3org3y]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

Are there any HADECS 3 cameras on the northern part of the M25?

I'm fairly sure I was flashed on New Year's Eve. The two flashes seemed to come from the far left hand side of the carriageway despite me being in lane 4, so could have been a HADECS 3.

That said, I haven't received an NIP and the 14 days are now up, so it's starting to look like I've got away with it. Or maybe it wasn't me that triggered the camera, but I really think it was.

Do HADECS 3 cameras sometimes flash but not result in an NIP?

Yes, the area around Junction 24-26ish (iirc) around Potters Bar certainly has them.

When they first were activated they were flashing anything and everything (presumably still being calibrated?).

[Carl_Docklands]

g3org3y said:

mybrainhurts said:

Still, mustn't complain, plenty of plod sneaking about in unmarked cars, nabbing people for heinous speed transgressions.

To be fair, generally police on the motorway only pull people over if they are doing >85mph or doing something a little silly to draw attention to themselves.

My understanding of the HADECS cameras was they would only be triggered at speeds >85mph (or maybe higher) when there is no lower limit displayed.

I typically stick to speedo indicated 80 for the camera gantries on the M1 and have been doing the same for the M25 cameras. Not been flashed once but as a poster mentioned a couple of pages back, I've seen them going off quite frequently.

Agreed, would prefer if BIB are left out of this discussion as they are doing a very good job (IMHO) and this particular debate is not levelled at them at all.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

You say that as though governments are competent to judge...

Whether they are or not isn't the issue, they've been elected & therefore empowered to do it.

[Blakewater]

Durzel said:

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.

On a local level the successful campaign against the Worthing 20mph speed limit shows people don't always want lower speed limits and their enforcement. On a national level the prevention of permanent 60mph limits on smart motorways is another example. People don't have to love driving to want to get from one place to another quickly and efficiently

On the other hand, there are plenty of examples, like the bus lane past where I live, where people campaign against something and it goes ahead anyway. People often get disillusioned when it comes to speaking out about what they want, hence why voter turnouts in elections are generally low. They grumble amongst each other and just try not to get caught out.

We all have a right to talk about what laws we want and how we want them to be enforced. It doesn't mean we want "Freeman of the Land" civil liberties or some sort of Deadwood type lawless society. There may be other ways to ensure safe roads and people's well being along with swift and efficient journies that doesn't involve cameras enforcing a 70mph limit on the motorway.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

You say that as though governments are competent to judge...

Whether they are or not isn't the issue, they've been elected & therefore empowered to do it.

Correct, it's not the issue. The issue is about the 70 limit being pointless, away from which you are skilfully drifting...

As usual....

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

You say that as though governments are competent to judge...

Whether they are or not isn't the issue, they've been elected & therefore empowered to do it.

Correct, it's not the issue. The issue is about the 70 limit being pointless, away from which you are skilfully drifting...

As usual....

No you keep moving the goal posts.
Before you were saying it was pointless upholding the limit & I said it wasn't because enforcement affects a lot of people's speed choice therefore achieving an objective of said enforcement.
Now you say the 70 limit itself is pointless. Plainly it isn't because it gives an easy means of prosecuting people whose speed you want to control.

[havoc]

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

[vonhosen]

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

No, it's control for control's sake, von. Nothing to do with undesirable behaviour. Trade mark of socialist governments....we know best and you will do as you are told. When, usually, they know bugger all, let alone best.

The real tragedy here is that such behaviour weakens respect for the law.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

No, it's control for control's sake, von. Nothing to do with undesirable behaviour. Trade mark of socialist governments....we know best and you will do as you are told. When, usually, they know bugger all, let alone best.

The real tragedy here is that such behaviour weakens respect for the law.

Making laws isn't confined to socialist governments.
By definition it's about undesirable behaviours as defined by the government & they are elected invariably following a campaign promising that they'll make a change through legislative action.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

No, it's control for control's sake, von. Nothing to do with undesirable behaviour. Trade mark of socialist governments....we know best and you will do as you are told. When, usually, they know bugger all, let alone best.

The real tragedy here is that such behaviour weakens respect for the law.

Making laws isn't confined to socialist governments.

Thanks, I sort of knew that. What I said was they're the worst control freaks.

vonhosen said:

By definition it's about undesirable behaviours as defined by the government & they are elected invariably following a campaign promising that they'll make a change through legislative action.

Which is no guarantee of competence.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

No, it's control for control's sake, von. Nothing to do with undesirable behaviour. Trade mark of socialist governments....we know best and you will do as you are told. When, usually, they know bugger all, let alone best.

The real tragedy here is that such behaviour weakens respect for the law.

Making laws isn't confined to socialist governments.

Thanks, I sort of knew that. What I said was they're the worst control freaks.

vonhosen said:

By definition it's about undesirable behaviours as defined by the government & they are elected invariably following a campaign promising that they'll make a change through legislative action.

Which is no guarantee of competence.

No it isn't, but they'll still have the power if they get voted in & the electorate are responsible for voting them in.

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

No, it's control for control's sake, von. Nothing to do with undesirable behaviour. Trade mark of socialist governments....we know best and you will do as you are told. When, usually, they know bugger all, let alone best.

The real tragedy here is that such behaviour weakens respect for the law.

Making laws isn't confined to socialist governments.

Thanks, I sort of knew that. What I said was they're the worst control freaks.

vonhosen said:

By definition it's about undesirable behaviours as defined by the government & they are elected invariably following a campaign promising that they'll make a change through legislative action.

Which is no guarantee of competence.

No it isn't, but they'll still have the power if they get voted in & the electorate are responsible for voting them in.

However much you state the bleedin' obvious, you can't avoid the reality that stuff like the topic in question weakens respect for the law. When this happens in one instance, the danger is that respect could turn to contempt, not only for this instance, but for the law in general.

[vonhosen]

mybrainhurts said:

However much you state the bleedin' obvious, you can't avoid the reality that stuff like the topic in question weakens respect for the law. When this happens in one instance, the danger is that respect could turn to contempt, not only for this instance, but for the law in general.

I don't see much evidence to support your assertion (on a wide scale as opposed to a minority of cases)

[mybrainhurts]

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

mybrainhurts said:

vonhosen said:

havoc said:

vonhosen said:

control.

And there we get to the nub of the matter...

Yes, laws are about attempting to control or limit defined undesirable behaviours.
Surely that's not a surprise to anyone?

No, it's control for control's sake, von. Nothing to do with undesirable behaviour. Trade mark of socialist governments....we know best and you will do as you are told. When, usually, they know bugger all, let alone best.

The real tragedy here is that such behaviour weakens respect for the law.

Making laws isn't confined to socialist governments.

Thanks, I sort of knew that. What I said was they're the worst control freaks.

vonhosen said:

By definition it's about undesirable behaviours as defined by the government & they are elected invariably following a campaign promising that they'll make a change through legislative action.

Which is no guarantee of competence.

No it isn't, but they'll still have the power if they get voted in & the electorate are responsible for voting them in.

However much you state the bleedin' obvious, you can't avoid the reality that stuff like the topic in question weakens respect for the law. When this happens in one instance, the danger is that respect could turn to contempt, not only for this instance, but for the law in general.

I don't see much evidence to support your assertion (on a wide scale as opposed to a minority of cases)

I don't think people would admit it to you, but I meet hundreds of people from all walks of life through my work, and very few have any good words for the NSL and its enforcement. Many are downright rude...

Curiously, here, a performance car website, you have a good deal of feverish support, which is one of the great mysteries of life...

[covboy]

It's started the panic bells ringing

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/motorists-fac...


Think they read PH ?