speeding m25 jct 5

[mygoldfishbowl]

That's from the M5 not the M25 which we are talking about. There were two different ones posted some time ago on pepipoo concerning one stretch of the M5 & I briefly mentioned both in an earlier post. I can't be sure but if I was a betting man I might wager that at least one of those two was posted by pitmansboots under another identity.

So, you have plenty of evidence of people receiving nips for 79, or are they higher speeds?

People saying they have evidence which they wont show isn't much help. What we do know is we have one known incident on the M25 where the op has been sent a nip for 102mph. All that can possibly tell us is they are currently enforcing 101+ mph which is not the nsl for anyone. When I see people with nips for 79, 80, 81 then I'll concede that they are enforcing the nsl.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 15th December 09:45

[mygoldfishbowl]

XJ Flyer said:

If I read it right the post in question seemed to make the point that assuming/'if' the motorway NSL 'was' being enforced by cameras etc,the trigger point would be 'well into 3 figures'.When the reality is probably more a case of 90 mph being more than enough in that regard.

While my point is that at least up to 3 figure speeds certainly 'would'/'should' be 'acceptable' in order for the overtaking lanes to be used correctly and to avoid the issue of low speed differentials causing the 'perception' of lane hogging.As I've said that issue applies especially in the case of 4 lane motorways where the speed differentials under a strictly applied 78 mph max regime realistically means no more than a speed differential of less than 10 mph max respectively between the each of the lanes and around 14 mph in the case of 3 lane motorways.In which case adding more overtaking lanes actually creates more problems in the form of more perceived lane hogging because the speed differentials between the lanes are reduced.

As for people supposedly not complaining about nips for doing 80,90 etc I certainly wouldn't want to bet my licence on it.In which case 'if' the law really wants to do something about that speed differential issue then it is up to the law to actually confirm that the prosecution margins are going to be set at a realistic level wether it be cameras or unmarked cars etc.

Without and until that confirmation motorways are really just an increasingly over regulated liability in most respects.Leaving the catch 22 of the either certainty of an eventual serious speeding nick,or lane hogging accusation,or the inevitable hours long delay between junctions when the inevitable side swipe type pile up takes place caused by those low speed differentials.

In general I don't disagree with what you are saying.

[emmaT2014]

mygoldfishbowl said:

That's from the M5 not the M25 which we are talking about. There were two different ones posted some time ago on pepipoo & I briefly mentioned both in an earlier post. I can't be sure but if I was a betting man I might wager that at least one of those two was posted by pitmansboots under another identity.

So, you have plenty of evidence of people receiving nips for 79, or are they higher speeds?

People saying they have evidence which they wont show isn't much help. What we do know is we have one known incident on the M25 where the op has been sent a nip for 102mph. All that can possibly tell us is they are currently enforcing 101+ mph which is not the nsl for anyone. When I see people with nips for 79, 80, 81 then I'll concede that they are enforcing the nsl.

Well I suppose you are an authority that has NIP's sent to you for reference so you are a mighty-fine source of information. The alternative is that you are a sap who soaks up Internet legend and requotes it as fact. I know which I am going with.
Readers can take from this discussion what they will and they can choose 50/50 which version they accept.
What I will say at this stage is that anyone who drives past the fixed motorway enforcement systems in an NSL at 79mph or more on the strength of your deduction is foolish. That decision is of course up to them.
The cameras don't catch everyone but the gamble is theirs and yours. Good luck with that.

[Pixelpeep7r]

how does this stack with a lease car?

They are the legal owners - so they have to give details as to who was driving. If the car is insured for more than one person they won't know.

Will it automatically fall to the person named on the lease?

how does the leasing company confidently, legally and trufeully answer the question as to who was driving at that time/date?

[hornetrider]

mygoldfishbowl said:

That's from the M5 not the M25 which we are talking about. There were two different ones posted some time ago on pepipoo concerning one stretch of the M5 & I briefly mentioned both in an earlier post. I can't be sure but if I was a betting man I might wager that at least one of those two was posted by pitmansboots under another identity.

So, you have plenty of evidence of people receiving nips for 79, or are they higher speeds?

People saying they have evidence which they wont show isn't much help. What we do know is we have one known incident on the M25 where the op has been sent a nip for 102mph. All that can possibly tell us is they are currently enforcing 101+ mph which is not the nsl for anyone. When I see people with nips for 79, 80, 81 then I'll concede that they are enforcing the nsl.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 15th December 09:45

I don't know what the threshold is but I got an SP50 for 89 on the managed section of the M5 a few months back. No complaints, bang to rights. Just didn't realise that the cams were active when no limits were in force via the gantries.

[TonyRPH]

Pixelpeep7r said:

how does this stack with a lease car?

They are the legal owners - so they have to give details as to who was driving. If the car is insured for more than one person they won't know.

Will it automatically fall to the person named on the lease?

how does the leasing company confidently, legally and trufeully answer the question as to who was driving at that time/date?

My o/h used to be a fleet administrator, and the pool cars (which were on lease) were signed in and out by every driver.

She always knew who had the vehicle, and only the person who signed for the car was supposed to drive it.

Of course there were times when two people went out in the same vehicle, and sometimes driving was shared - but if any tickets were received, it was up to the two individuals concerned to decide who committed the offence.

There was never any arguments.

[Pixelpeep7r]

TonyRPH said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

how does this stack with a lease car?

They are the legal owners - so they have to give details as to who was driving. If the car is insured for more than one person they won't know.

Will it automatically fall to the person named on the lease?

how does the leasing company confidently, legally and trufeully answer the question as to who was driving at that time/date?

My o/h used to be a fleet administrator, and the pool cars (which were on lease) were signed in and out by every driver.

She always knew who had the vehicle, and only the person who signed for the car was supposed to drive it.

Of course there were times when two people went out in the same vehicle, and sometimes driving was shared - but if any tickets were received, it was up to the two individuals concerned to decide who committed the offence.

There was never any arguments.

ok, lets use me as an example. I have a car on personal lease which 3 people are insured to drive, but none of us the legal or registered keeper. There is no legal responsibility to let the police know who was driving from any of us and the one it falls to wouldn't know. so what would happen?

[TonyRPH]

I would've thought that there is some clause in your lease agreement which requires you to name the driver, as surely the lease company won't just take responsibility for any fines?

And would any charge simply be dropped by the prosecuting authority?

I doubt it.

[emmaT2014]

Pixelpeep7r said:

TonyRPH said:

Pixelpeep7r said:

how does this stack with a lease car?

They are the legal owners - so they have to give details as to who was driving. If the car is insured for more than one person they won't know.

Will it automatically fall to the person named on the lease?

how does the leasing company confidently, legally and trufeully answer the question as to who was driving at that time/date?

My o/h used to be a fleet administrator, and the pool cars (which were on lease) were signed in and out by every driver.

She always knew who had the vehicle, and only the person who signed for the car was supposed to drive it.

Of course there were times when two people went out in the same vehicle, and sometimes driving was shared - but if any tickets were received, it was up to the two individuals concerned to decide who committed the offence.

There was never any arguments.

ok, lets use me as an example. I have a car on personal lease which 3 people are insured to drive, but none of us the legal or registered keeper. There is no legal responsibility to let the police know who was driving from any of us and the one it falls to wouldn't know. so what would happen?

When you have a lease car you keep it...so you are the keeper. The responsibility to name the driver falls upon the keeper not the lessor.
I have a car that is leased by my employer, I keep it and even though anyone over the age of 25 is insured to drive it, that includes readers of this who are over 25, I am responsible to name the driver because I keep the car.
I am reminded I am the keeper when contributing monies to the tax man/woman.

[allergictocheese]

The requirement to name who was driving does not just fall on the registered keeper. Any person asked must give the information if it is requested.

s172 RTA 1988 said:

(2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

In which case the lease company name the lessee and the onus passes onto them to name the driver.

[emmaT2014]

emmaT2014 said:

mygoldfishbowl said:

That's from the M5 not the M25 which we are talking about. There were two different ones posted some time ago on pepipoo & I briefly mentioned both in an earlier post. I can't be sure but if I was a betting man I might wager that at least one of those two was posted by pitmansboots under another identity.

So, you have plenty of evidence of people receiving nips for 79, or are they higher speeds?

People saying they have evidence which they wont show isn't much help. What we do know is we have one known incident on the M25 where the op has been sent a nip for 102mph. All that can possibly tell us is they are currently enforcing 101+ mph which is not the nsl for anyone. When I see people with nips for 79, 80, 81 then I'll concede that they are enforcing the nsl.

Well I suppose you are an authority that has NIP's sent to you for reference so you are a mighty-fine source of information. The alternative is that you are a sap who soaks up Internet legend and requotes it as fact. I know which I am going with.
Readers can take from this discussion what they will and they can choose 50/50 which version they accept.
What I will say at this stage is that anyone who drives past the fixed motorway enforcement systems in an NSL at 79mph or more on the strength of your deduction is foolish. That decision is of course up to them.
The cameras don't catch everyone but the gamble is theirs and yours. Good luck with that.

Oh-ho!

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Pdelamare said:

So I was ambling clockwise along the northern part of the M25 on Saturday. I duly obeyed the pointless 40MPH section and gave it a bit of a boot when the NSL sign appeared.

Half a mile or so later, just before the Bell Common tunnel I get a double flash, I looked down and noticed I was clocking 80 something. There were absolutely no VSL signs active on this part.

Is this particular camera producing NIPS or still in 'testing' mode as it must be fairly recently installed.

[emmaT2014]

allergictocheese said:

The requirement to name who was driving does not just fall on the registered keeper. Any person asked must give the information if it is requested.

s172 RTA 1988 said:

(2)Where the driver of a vehicle is alleged to be guilty of an offence to which this section applies—

(a) the person keeping the vehicle shall give such information as to the identity of the driver as he may be required to give by or on behalf of a chief officer of police, and

(b) any other person shall if required as stated above give any information which it is in his power to give and may lead to identification of the driver.

In which case the lease company name the lessee and the onus passes onto them to name the driver.

First it falls on the keeper, then to any other person.

You will note there is no mention of the 'registered keeper' just the 'keeper'

[XJ Flyer]

Red Devil said:

XJ Flyer said:

Then the choice between that and using the A25/A20 instead seems ever more increasingly like a no brainer.

I'm intrigued. I can't think of any two points between which the A20 would ever be an alternative to the M25.

I don't understand the thinking behind travelling at 100+ on the M25. It's littered with speed monitoring devices, so you're just being a hostage to fortune. Saving 10 minutes max at a cost of 3 points and £100, if not a higher penalty, doesn't strike me as a worthwhile outcome.

Firstly in the case of running from Surrey for example to Dover the A25/A20 'was' the only realistic route before the M25 existed.Since then the M25 southern section is an essential part of the motorway route.As for 3 figure running the idea of motorways is ( should be ) to cater for those who use your logic 'and' those who think/know that ,at least up to,3 figure speeds,will/would knock a lot more than just 10 minutes off that run from Surrey and all points west/north west down to Dover for example.

As I've said,assuming a strictly enforced 78 mph max speed regime on that route,especially in the case of 4 lane running,then that old non motorway route looks a lot more attractive again.Bearing in mind all the different types of aggravation,which I've described,caused by such a speed regime,including that issue of the inevitable side swipe pile up and resulting massive delay when caught between junctions.

In which case the extra time involved in staying off the motorway really can be worth it.Unlike sitting on a 4 lane motorway at 78 mph max at best or in a massive jam possibly for hours going absolutely no where at worse.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Monday 15th December 16:51

[FurtiveFreddy]

emmaT2014 said:

Oh-ho!

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Pdelamare said:

So I was ambling clockwise along the northern part of the M25 on Saturday. I duly obeyed the pointless 40MPH section and gave it a bit of a boot when the NSL sign appeared.

Half a mile or so later, just before the Bell Common tunnel I get a double flash, I looked down and noticed I was clocking 80 something. There were absolutely no VSL signs active on this part.

Is this particular camera producing NIPS or still in 'testing' mode as it must be fairly recently installed.

The same behavior as the Clackett Lane cameras a few months ago when a lot of people on here were being flashed at 80 but nothing came of it.

You seem to be one of those who likes spreading the FUD without backing it up with facts and sources. It's no more helpful than the chain emails which spring up from time to time and it certainly won't help make the roads safer.

As you say, we can each decide whether to take the risk or not but spreading fear just makes the panic braking issue more and more likely as motorists think all gantries and anything resembling a camera is going to result in a NIP if they exceed 79mph.

This whole camera thing is really getting out of hand.

[FurtiveFreddy]

XJ Flyer said:

As I've said assuming a strictly enforced 78 mph max speed regime on that route,especially in the case of 4 lane running,then that old non motorway route looks a lot more attractive again.

If a strictly enforced 78 was in place, you'd get the majority staring at their speedometers most of the time, aiming to keep the needle at 70-75, so we'd all end up travelling at an actual 65, probably.

[XJ Flyer]

FurtiveFreddy said:

XJ Flyer said:

As I've said assuming a strictly enforced 78 mph max speed regime on that route,especially in the case of 4 lane running,then that old non motorway route looks a lot more attractive again.

If a strictly enforced 78 was in place, you'd get the majority staring at their speedometers most of the time, aiming to keep the needle at 70-75, so we'd all end up travelling at an actual 65, probably.

On the basis that,until the law state otherwise,it most certainly is a strictly enforced 78 mph speed regime using every trick available from static cameras to unmarked cars armed with video speed recording capability.Your description seems like a reasonably accurate ( and understandable ) description of at least the type of running speeds in lane 2 of a 3 lane motorway at least.Which would be consistent with the type of speed differentials such a regime results in across the overtaking lanes.

While any type of overtaking move is just that typical liability of trying to balance the issue of that strictly enforced limit,against variations in speed of traffic being overtaken,knowing that the low speed differentials involved mean that you're spending far longer in blind spots than is ideal and causing a 'perceived' lane hogging issue.That is just in the case of traffic in the form of trucks in lane 1 running at 50 mph not 56 mph.Those issues increasing massively assuming the latter with the maximum speed differential between lanes 1 to 3/4 reducing to just 22 mph in that case obviously needing to be divided between two overtaking lanes in the case of a 3 lane motorway and three overtaking lanes in the case of a 4 lane motorway.

Leaving that worst of all worlds situation of a truck limited to 52 mph being overtaken by a LHD one limited to 56 mph and then having to enter lane 2 potentially with traffic in that lane forever sitting at its side in its blind spots because of the ridiculously low speed differentials between the lanes dictated by the maths of dividing 78 mph max into 4 lanes of traffic.3 of which all needing to be overtaking with a decent speed differential between all to avoid the issues of blind spot side swipe situations and perceived lane hogging.

[mygoldfishbowl]

emmaT2014 said:

Well I suppose you are an authority that has NIP's sent to you for reference so you are a mighty-fine source of information. The alternative is that you are a sap who soaks up Internet legend and requotes it as fact. I know which I am going with.
Readers can take from this discussion what they will and they can choose 50/50 which version they accept.
What I will say at this stage is that anyone who drives past the fixed motorway enforcement systems in an NSL at 79mph or more on the strength of your deduction is foolish. That decision is of course up to them.
The cameras don't catch everyone but the gamble is theirs and yours. Good luck with that.

You're great, you really are. You offer no proof of your claim but then tell someone who may or may not drive for a living who also may or may not drive around these sections of the M25 at all hours that they have no idea, all while trying to be offensive. Marvellous.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 15th December 17:36

[mygoldfishbowl]

emmaT2014 said:

emmaT2014 said:

mygoldfishbowl said:

That's from the M5 not the M25 which we are talking about. There were two different ones posted some time ago on pepipoo & I briefly mentioned both in an earlier post. I can't be sure but if I was a betting man I might wager that at least one of those two was posted by pitmansboots under another identity.

So, you have plenty of evidence of people receiving nips for 79, or are they higher speeds?

People saying they have evidence which they wont show isn't much help. What we do know is we have one known incident on the M25 where the op has been sent a nip for 102mph. All that can possibly tell us is they are currently enforcing 101+ mph which is not the nsl for anyone. When I see people with nips for 79, 80, 81 then I'll concede that they are enforcing the nsl.

Well I suppose you are an authority that has NIP's sent to you for reference so you are a mighty-fine source of information. The alternative is that you are a sap who soaks up Internet legend and requotes it as fact. I know which I am going with.
Readers can take from this discussion what they will and they can choose 50/50 which version they accept.
What I will say at this stage is that anyone who drives past the fixed motorway enforcement systems in an NSL at 79mph or more on the strength of your deduction is foolish. That decision is of course up to them.
The cameras don't catch everyone but the gamble is theirs and yours. Good luck with that.

Oh-ho!

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Pdelamare said:

So I was ambling clockwise along the northern part of the M25 on Saturday. I duly obeyed the pointless 40MPH section and gave it a bit of a boot when the NSL sign appeared.

Half a mile or so later, just before the Bell Common tunnel I get a double flash, I looked down and noticed I was clocking 80 something. There were absolutely no VSL signs active on this part.

Is this particular camera producing NIPS or still in 'testing' mode as it must be fairly recently installed.

Did he get a nip? I bet not.

Edited. And also you should really read the whole thread. These threads where people have been flashed have already been mentioned.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Monday 15th December 18:08

[FurryExocet]

mygoldfishbowl said:

My apologies I was a bit rude the other night, Christmas do, many beers etc.

This is only my opinion on this. When new cameras are installed as part of a managed motorway they will be rigorously tested for a period of time before & possibly after they go live, hence all the threads with people getting flashed at lower speeds but never receiving a nip.

Then after they go live occasionally someone will receive the odd nip like the op. I have only seen evidence of two such nips from the new managed section of the M5 for example, of course there may be more but people certainly aren't reporting nips for 79ish in their droves.

I believe it's the same as the M25 where we may see a few nips for higher speeds but none for lower speeds. Then I believe either the systems some how settle down or maybe the trigger speed is finally set & we will not here about any more nips when no limit is displayed unless maybe when people are well into three figures.

When cameras around the south west section of the M25 first went live some years ago I remember hearing about the trigger speed being somewhere in the nineties when no limit was displayed. After some time that was proved to be incorrect.

They are certainly not enforcing the nsl at the moment but there is obviously currently a higher trigger speed, hence the op.

Edited by mygoldfishbowl on Sunday 14th December 12:14

The testing for the new cameras on the M25 was a few months ago, we did overtime to test them

I know 1 person who has an NIP from the managed section of the M25, it was at 99mph I think, we all commented that it must be faulty, as it was quite low
I obviously can't give you any proof

Why is there all this mention of 79mph? All I said, was that 80mph was close, doesn't mean it's lower than 80

[Countdown]

FurtiveFreddy said:

If a strictly enforced 78 was in place, you'd get the majority staring at their speedometers most of the time, aiming to keep the needle at 70-75, so we'd all end up travelling at an actual 65, probably.

I would genuinely be surprised if most PHers needed to stare at their speedos in order to judge their speed. Knowing what gear / listening to engine tone and looking outside are usually enough IMO.