M4 HEDACS Smart motorway cameras now being used for 70 limit
Discussion
Just in case folk weren't aware, despite the original plan to only use the speed cameras for lower limit enforcement on this section of the smart motorway. I can confirm someone in my firm has received a ticket from j19/20 m4 gang cam doing 82mph in the 70 zone.
So much for ending the war on the motorist,
So much for ending the war on the motorist,
surveyor_101 said:
Just in case folk weren't aware, despite the original plan to only use the speed cameras for lower limit enforcement on this section of the smart motorway. I can confirm someone in my firm has received a ticket from j19/20 m4 gang cam doing 82mph in the 70 zone.
So much for ending the war on the motorist,
Who's plan was that then? So much for ending the war on the motorist,
surveyor_101 said:
Just in case folk weren't aware, despite the original plan to only use the speed cameras for lower limit enforcement on this section of the smart motorway. I can confirm someone in my firm has received a ticket from j19/20 m4 gang cam doing 82mph in the 70 zone.
So much for ending the war on the motorist,
Post it up.So much for ending the war on the motorist,
mygoldfishbowl said:
Post it up.
See if I can, since it's company and not my ticket might not be able to get. The member of staff who deals wth the. Gets funny if anyone knows about these sort of things coming in, before he chooses to tell me!Why would I lie, not benefit just thought I would confirm what many feared.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 8th August 21:03
mygoldfishbowl said:
Post it up.
See if I can, since it's company and not my ticket might not be able to get. The member of staff who deals wth the. Gets funny if anyone knows about these sort of things coming in, before he chooses to tell me!Why would I lie, not benefit just thought I would confirm what many feared.
It's Avon and crooked Somerset, we only do speeding and dodgy Chiefsl
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 8th August 21:04
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 8th August 21:05
Riley Blue said:
surveyor_101 said:
tapereel said:
Who's plan was that then?
Back 3/4 years ago when I attended a stake holder meeting for area 2 it was said they would ONLY enforce lower limits when needed for managing the speed on the network. Ie lower limit 60/50/40/30
I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
tapereel said:
Who's "they"? Or do you mean the HADECS system cameras?
I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
The police and the highways agency team rolling out hadecs said they were only planned to be used for lower limit enforcement. Not enforcement of the 70 when the motorway is flowing freely.I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
surveyor_101 said:
tapereel said:
Who's "they"? Or do you mean the HADECS system cameras?
I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
The police and the highways agency team rolling out hadecs said they were only planned to be used for lower limit enforcement. Not enforcement of the 70 when the motorway is flowing freely.I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
The hIghwys agency had no intention to book people for 80 at 3am when practically empty.
surveyor_101 said:
surveyor_101 said:
tapereel said:
Who's "they"? Or do you mean the HADECS system cameras?
I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
The police and the highways agency team rolling out hadecs said they were only planned to be used for lower limit enforcement. Not enforcement of the 70 when the motorway is flowing freely.I wonder what justification could be given to say "these speed limits will be enforced and this 70 limit will not be"
When you examine it closely that proposition can never make any sense or be justifiable.
The hIghwys agency had no intention to book people for 80 at 3am when practically empty.
The only time that the NSL wasn't enforced was whe the HADECS technology couldn't do it. It has been capable of doing so for many years now and won't be approved if it can't.
surveyor_101 said:
Because studies have proved that when the motorway traffic volume reaches a certain level slowing down motorists keeps the network flowing better than having people doing 70 plus when lots of traffic entering and leaving p. Slowing it down to 40/50-60 when busy means it actually all moves bette over all and less chance of incidents.
A bit OT perhaps, but do you have any links to these studies?Pete317 said:
A bit OT perhaps, but do you have any links to these studies?
Not seen them but it's what the he/ha claim and the are judged by network flow occupation so no reason for them to lie or lower the limit for fun, would ruin their data and they love collecting data. The amount of data they wanted off contractors was insane and you find out most is processed or used they just wanted to have reams of data on projects just incase.If your interested read his seems to make a case for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_motorway
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 8th August 21:32
Results of study
In 2007 it was estimated that ATM could be introduced within two years at a cost of around £5-15 million per mile[39] as opposed to 10 years and £79 million per mile for widening.[40][41]
The M42 scheme was initially run as an experiment and a Highways Agency report into the first six months of the scheme showed a reduction in variability journey times of up to 27%.[5][6] The journey time statistics can be broken down to show that northbound journey times were reduced by 26%, equating to an average reduction of 4 minute as compared to the period when the variable speed limits were on but the hard shoulder was not being used and 9% southbound (equating to 1 minute) during the afternoon rush hour.[42] The report also indicated a fall in the number of accidents from over 5 a month to 1.5 per month on average.[5][6] The Agency did state that normally accident statistics should be compared over a 3-year period, so the initial results should be treated with caution. They also stated that no accidents had been caused by hard shoulder use as a normal lane.[42] The report also stated that there had been a 10% fall in pollution and 4% fall in fuel consumption.[5] The report also indicated a compliance rate of 98% to the indicated speed limits when using the hard shoulder.[42] For comparison before the introduction of mandatory speed limits at road works, the compliance rate was 10% as opposed to 89% afterwards, showing a similar effect.[43]
In 2007 it was estimated that ATM could be introduced within two years at a cost of around £5-15 million per mile[39] as opposed to 10 years and £79 million per mile for widening.[40][41]
The M42 scheme was initially run as an experiment and a Highways Agency report into the first six months of the scheme showed a reduction in variability journey times of up to 27%.[5][6] The journey time statistics can be broken down to show that northbound journey times were reduced by 26%, equating to an average reduction of 4 minute as compared to the period when the variable speed limits were on but the hard shoulder was not being used and 9% southbound (equating to 1 minute) during the afternoon rush hour.[42] The report also indicated a fall in the number of accidents from over 5 a month to 1.5 per month on average.[5][6] The Agency did state that normally accident statistics should be compared over a 3-year period, so the initial results should be treated with caution. They also stated that no accidents had been caused by hard shoulder use as a normal lane.[42] The report also stated that there had been a 10% fall in pollution and 4% fall in fuel consumption.[5] The report also indicated a compliance rate of 98% to the indicated speed limits when using the hard shoulder.[42] For comparison before the introduction of mandatory speed limits at road works, the compliance rate was 10% as opposed to 89% afterwards, showing a similar effect.[43]
surveyor_101 said:
Pete317 said:
A bit OT perhaps, but do you have any links to these studies?
Not seen them but it's what the he/ha claim and the are judged by network flow occupation so no reason for them to lie or lower the limit for fun, would ruin their data and they love collecting data. The amount of data they wanted off contractors was insane and you find out most is processed or used they just wanted to have reams of data on projects just incase.If your interested read his seems to make a case for it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_motorway
Edited by surveyor_101 on Monday 8th August 21:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff