HADECS 3 cameras on the M25
Discussion
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
FurtiveFreddy said:
I think some may be confusing HADECS:
and HADECS3:
Both are used to police the variable speed limits when displayed, but the suspicion is that HADECS3 also polices the NSL above a high threshold whereas there's little evidence to prove the HADECS units do (at least the ones between the M3 and M40 on the M25)
Well I'm not confusing them, HADECS2, HADECS2.5 and HADECS3 can all enforce the 70mph speed limit and often do. and HADECS3:
Both are used to police the variable speed limits when displayed, but the suspicion is that HADECS3 also polices the NSL above a high threshold whereas there's little evidence to prove the HADECS units do (at least the ones between the M3 and M40 on the M25)
Edited by emmaT2014 on Sunday 18th January 17:42
mybrainhurts said:
WTF is that all about?
Are you quoting someone, or are those your words?
Enforcement of the variable limit is, and has been since its inception, by cameras on the gantries behind the signs.
HADECS enforcement of the NSL has nothing to do with the variable limit.
Well in respect of the variable limit signs being off before the 70mph speed limit/NSL is enforced by the cameras it does. Are you quoting someone, or are those your words?
Enforcement of the variable limit is, and has been since its inception, by cameras on the gantries behind the signs.
HADECS enforcement of the NSL has nothing to do with the variable limit.
That's WTF it is about.
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
It doesn't necessarily work. I'm sure you know as well as anyone working in public service that cost cutting isn't the best way to go about providing the public with a reliable, efficient service. No doubt you have your own ideas about how the police service should be managed and operated that disagree with what the current government is doing. When you voice those ideas, assuming you do, the comeback will probably be that they would cost too much to implement or Mr Cameron and his friends know better than you even though you work in the police service. You may not be told that exactly, but that will be the underlying message.
Yeah but my ideas for change in the area I work would be saving them money on the Police budget, not costing them more. What do you think the objectives (in order of importance) are for the government when it comes to our roads?
Only then can we determine if the policy they are using can possibly meet them.
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
It doesn't necessarily work. I'm sure you know as well as anyone working in public service that cost cutting isn't the best way to go about providing the public with a reliable, efficient service. No doubt you have your own ideas about how the police service should be managed and operated that disagree with what the current government is doing. When you voice those ideas, assuming you do, the comeback will probably be that they would cost too much to implement or Mr Cameron and his friends know better than you even though you work in the police service. You may not be told that exactly, but that will be the underlying message.
Yeah but my ideas for change in the area I work would be saving them money on the Police budget, not costing them more. What do you think the objectives (in order of importance) are for the government when it comes to our roads?
Only then can we determine if the policy they are using can possibly meet them.
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
It doesn't necessarily work. I'm sure you know as well as anyone working in public service that cost cutting isn't the best way to go about providing the public with a reliable, efficient service. No doubt you have your own ideas about how the police service should be managed and operated that disagree with what the current government is doing. When you voice those ideas, assuming you do, the comeback will probably be that they would cost too much to implement or Mr Cameron and his friends know better than you even though you work in the police service. You may not be told that exactly, but that will be the underlying message.
Yeah but my ideas for change in the area I work would be saving them money on the Police budget, not costing them more. What do you think the objectives (in order of importance) are for the government when it comes to our roads?
Only then can we determine if the policy they are using can possibly meet them.
)https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
Where is 'the real world' you speak of?
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
Where is 'the real world' you speak of?
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
- Smart M-way reduced limits when traffic is free-flowing. There MAY be congestion up ahead which this is trying to stop getting worse, but equally it may just be an earlier reduction hasn't been switched-off. I've seen a lot of what is most likely to be the second on weekday evenings on the M42, where there's a 50/60 limit imposed on light traffic (i.e. nowhere near enough to cause congestion) with no sign of anything more when you get further up the road. Probably been like that since ~4pm and no-one has switched it off. A couple of years ago the M42 had 50/60/50/50/60/50... (why the differences? Trying to catch people out?) at 11pm at night.
(Note that the matrix signs COULD/SHOULD be used to educate why the reduced limits are up, certainly when outside of rush hour...no such thing as too much information!)
- Roadworks where NOTHING is happening for 1/2, 1, 2 miles then there's 200yds of activity (or, more often than not, inactivity - I suspect contractors are paid by the hour, not by results...), then another 1/2, 1, 2 miles of continued cones and SPECS for no actual reason. Consider the German approach, which works well, where there's notice of the lane closure a couple of KM before, then the lane closure is for the short distance where work is happening, then it opens up again.
I can honestly say the smart M-way system has worked well on the M42 - congestion IS lower. But with three caveats:-
- When there's a breakdown or an accident with the hard-shoulder in use it causes chaos, much more-so than on a normal M-way where the hard-shoulder is clear. So it's not as effective as a true 4th lane, and seems to have caused more inconsistency in journey times, strangely enough...
- The 'crying wolf' mentioned above - this sort of thing doesn't engender confidence in the system, and from conversations with non-petrolhead colleagues it's often wrongly blamed on the police.
- The yo-yo'ing of reduced limits (40/50/40/50) logically can only be set to try and catch people out, given how close the gantries are together. Again, from conversations with non-petrolhead colleagues this is treated with a lot of cynicism/anger.
There's your 'real world' - people who don't care about cars/driving except as a means to an end, and who see a lot of this as meddling/control.
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
Blakewater said:
It doesn't necessarily work. I'm sure you know as well as anyone working in public service that cost cutting isn't the best way to go about providing the public with a reliable, efficient service. No doubt you have your own ideas about how the police service should be managed and operated that disagree with what the current government is doing. When you voice those ideas, assuming you do, the comeback will probably be that they would cost too much to implement or Mr Cameron and his friends know better than you even though you work in the police service. You may not be told that exactly, but that will be the underlying message.
Yeah but my ideas for change in the area I work would be saving them money on the Police budget, not costing them more. What do you think the objectives (in order of importance) are for the government when it comes to our roads?
Only then can we determine if the policy they are using can possibly meet them.
)https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Why are several of our major ports not connected directly to the motorway network? Felixstowe being a prime example. £1.5billion for the A14 is laughable, for what should be the primary link between the Midlands and rest of the world
Once again, gubmint meddling at the margins.
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
Makes for dismal reading:Why are several of our major ports not connected directly to the motorway network? Felixstowe being a prime example. £1.5billion for the A14 is laughable, for what should be the primary link between the Midlands and rest of the world
Once again, gubmint meddling at the margins.
When they are talking about investment in their solution.
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
Where is 'the real world' you speak of?
I think my word is more real than yours perhaps.
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
Where is 'the real world' you speak of?
I think my word is more real than yours perhaps.
havoc said:
I think what he's trying to say is that there seems to be a lot of 'crying wolf' with temporary speed limits:-
- Smart M-way reduced limits when traffic is free-flowing. There MAY be congestion up ahead which this is trying to stop getting worse, but equally it may just be an earlier reduction hasn't been switched-off. I've seen a lot of what is most likely to be the second on weekday evenings on the M42, where there's a 50/60 limit imposed on light traffic (i.e. nowhere near enough to cause congestion) with no sign of anything more when you get further up the road. Probably been like that since ~4pm and no-one has switched it off. A couple of years ago the M42 had 50/60/50/50/60/50... (why the differences? Trying to catch people out?) at 11pm at night.
(Note that the matrix signs COULD/SHOULD be used to educate why the reduced limits are up, certainly when outside of rush hour...no such thing as too much information!)
- Roadworks where NOTHING is happening for 1/2, 1, 2 miles then there's 200yds of activity (or, more often than not, inactivity - I suspect contractors are paid by the hour, not by results...), then another 1/2, 1, 2 miles of continued cones and SPECS for no actual reason. Consider the German approach, which works well, where there's notice of the lane closure a couple of KM before, then the lane closure is for the short distance where work is happening, then it opens up again.
I can honestly say the smart M-way system has worked well on the M42 - congestion IS lower. But with three caveats:-
- When there's a breakdown or an accident with the hard-shoulder in use it causes chaos, much more-so than on a normal M-way where the hard-shoulder is clear. So it's not as effective as a true 4th lane, and seems to have caused more inconsistency in journey times, strangely enough...
- The 'crying wolf' mentioned above - this sort of thing doesn't engender confidence in the system, and from conversations with non-petrolhead colleagues it's often wrongly blamed on the police.
- The yo-yo'ing of reduced limits (40/50/40/50) logically can only be set to try and catch people out, given how close the gantries are together. Again, from conversations with non-petrolhead colleagues this is treated with a lot of cynicism/anger.
There's your 'real world' - people who don't care about cars/driving except as a means to an end, and who see a lot of this as meddling/control.
There is what appears to be 'crying-wolf' however the speed detection and limit setting is automatic for the vast majority of teh time. Manual control is resperved for traffic management and incidents as I understand it.- Smart M-way reduced limits when traffic is free-flowing. There MAY be congestion up ahead which this is trying to stop getting worse, but equally it may just be an earlier reduction hasn't been switched-off. I've seen a lot of what is most likely to be the second on weekday evenings on the M42, where there's a 50/60 limit imposed on light traffic (i.e. nowhere near enough to cause congestion) with no sign of anything more when you get further up the road. Probably been like that since ~4pm and no-one has switched it off. A couple of years ago the M42 had 50/60/50/50/60/50... (why the differences? Trying to catch people out?) at 11pm at night.
(Note that the matrix signs COULD/SHOULD be used to educate why the reduced limits are up, certainly when outside of rush hour...no such thing as too much information!)
- Roadworks where NOTHING is happening for 1/2, 1, 2 miles then there's 200yds of activity (or, more often than not, inactivity - I suspect contractors are paid by the hour, not by results...), then another 1/2, 1, 2 miles of continued cones and SPECS for no actual reason. Consider the German approach, which works well, where there's notice of the lane closure a couple of KM before, then the lane closure is for the short distance where work is happening, then it opens up again.
I can honestly say the smart M-way system has worked well on the M42 - congestion IS lower. But with three caveats:-
- When there's a breakdown or an accident with the hard-shoulder in use it causes chaos, much more-so than on a normal M-way where the hard-shoulder is clear. So it's not as effective as a true 4th lane, and seems to have caused more inconsistency in journey times, strangely enough...
- The 'crying wolf' mentioned above - this sort of thing doesn't engender confidence in the system, and from conversations with non-petrolhead colleagues it's often wrongly blamed on the police.
- The yo-yo'ing of reduced limits (40/50/40/50) logically can only be set to try and catch people out, given how close the gantries are together. Again, from conversations with non-petrolhead colleagues this is treated with a lot of cynicism/anger.
There's your 'real world' - people who don't care about cars/driving except as a means to an end, and who see a lot of this as meddling/control.
While it may appear that the limits are set for no good reason that is usually not the case.
vonhosen said:
V8 Fettler said:
vonhosen said:
Makes for dismal reading:Why are several of our major ports not connected directly to the motorway network? Felixstowe being a prime example. £1.5billion for the A14 is laughable, for what should be the primary link between the Midlands and rest of the world
Once again, gubmint meddling at the margins.
When they are talking about investment in their solution.
emmaT2014 said:
There is what appears to be 'crying-wolf' however the speed detection and limit setting is automatic for the vast majority of teh time. Manual control is resperved for traffic management and incidents as I understand it.
The variable limits appear to activate before early and late rush hours at predetermined times, totally unrelated to the volume of traffic. Then they sometimes don't activate hard shoulder running when traffic is really heavy. They also activate during times of light traffic in the middle of the night, holding 40mph before and past roadworks, but starting sometimes 5 miles before the roadworks. Sometimes they do what they're billed to do, but many times they're an absolute shambles. And you don't want to know about when they malfunction and suddenly put up a 20 limit when half the vehicles in close proximity don't know if the sign carries a camera and the other half knows no camera is present. That was a bloody close shave for many vehicles.
emmaT2014 said:
While it may appear that the limits are set for no good reason that is usually not the case.
Your faith is touching, but complete b
ks....current swathes of limit reductions are down to new guidelines from the Commons Transport Select Committee under Gwyneth Dunwoody. If you read the minutes of all meetings leading up to the setting of theses guidelines, you'll see the utter tripe that was offered up to the Committee, by way of oral and written evidence, from the likes of BRAKE, Brunstrom, the Pedestrians' Association, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, Ramblers and many more incompetents. The views of a handful of people who knew what they were talking about were ignored and ignorance triumphed.That's why the majority of limits are set today.
Are you a lady trucker or do you work in the camera industry or transport related civil service?
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
emmaT2014 said:
V8 Fettler said:
At least 50% of the temporary limit reductions I've seen on the M25 and M1 in the last 6 months have been pointless. In fact, the reduction would create bunching if more motorists complied.
That is an etirely different issue.Perhaps the HA need to look at the detection system to sort that out if it is indeed a problem as you describe it.
Where is 'the real world' you speak of?
I think my word is more real than yours perhaps.
Googie said:
Very dismal indeed- apparently we are all " customers" not sure how many will share their 60mph vision on page 22 "Our vision is that mile a minute speeds on the network will become increasingly common"
Surely that's a massive improvement going on the usual slow speeds round the M25 and the constant 40 MPH or lower around Bham or the M60.TBH the 60MPH 'vision' is meaningless without context.
The recent planning circular DfT 02/2013 mentions impacts on the 'network' being 'severe' but no definition of severe is given as it will be 'on a case by case basis' i see the same happening with the 60MPH network, the figures will be fiddled to suit each individual scenario.
It stinks but you will never get a straight answer as "it's playing politics"
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff