HADECS 3 cameras on the M25
Discussion
Here's another one over the ton, different location now, this is between j29 and j30. Is there any way of checking if it's a HADECS?
, of Tye Common Road, Billericay, was fined £267, given six penalty points, and ordered to pay victim surcharge of £26 and £90 costs for driving along the M25 at Cranham at a speed of 103mph, in excess of the 70mph limit.
Read more at http://www.essexlive.news/who-has-been-in-court-fr...
, of Tye Common Road, Billericay, was fined £267, given six penalty points, and ordered to pay victim surcharge of £26 and £90 costs for driving along the M25 at Cranham at a speed of 103mph, in excess of the 70mph limit.
Read more at http://www.essexlive.news/who-has-been-in-court-fr...
12TS said:
Here's another one over the ton, different location now, this is between j29 and j30. Is there any way of checking if it's a HADECS?
, of Tye Common Road, Billericay, was fined £267, given six penalty points, and ordered to pay victim surcharge of £26 and £90 costs for driving along the M25 at Cranham at a speed of 103mph, in excess of the 70mph limit.
Read more at http://www.essexlive.news/who-has-been-in-court-fr...
What is it you are trying to work out?, of Tye Common Road, Billericay, was fined £267, given six penalty points, and ordered to pay victim surcharge of £26 and £90 costs for driving along the M25 at Cranham at a speed of 103mph, in excess of the 70mph limit.
Read more at http://www.essexlive.news/who-has-been-in-court-fr...
mybrainhurts said:
vonhosen said:
mybrainhurts said:
Remind me, how many few motorway casualties are caused by excessive speed?
In part because we have enforced limits encouraging compliance?vonhosen said:
Our legislative compromise on our roads inc speed limits.
Ok. It almost looked like you were suggesting road safety was all about speed for a moment.Which seems to be near enough what the authorities appear to think, with a dose of speed humps, road narrowing and cameras added to the mix.
Sorry, my mistake, those things are about slowing us down too. It is all about speed.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Our legislative compromise on our roads inc speed limits.
Ok. It almost looked like you were suggesting road safety was all about speed for a moment.Which seems to be near enough what the authorities appear to think, with a dose of speed humps, road narrowing and cameras added to the mix.
Sorry, my mistake, those things are about slowing us down too. It is all about speed.
Assuming what you say is true, the compromise is being altered. Is there evidence to show this is the best way to reduce accidents further? Will it do so in the long term?
(My belief is driving standards will fall as we are forced to drive along in monotonous lines, playing with our phones).
(My belief is driving standards will fall as we are forced to drive along in monotonous lines, playing with our phones).
CoolHands said:
Assuming what you say is true, the compromise is being altered. Is there evidence to show this is the best way to reduce accidents further? Will it do so in the long term?
(My belief is driving standards will fall as we are forced to drive along in monotonous lines, playing with our phones).
You're not supposed to be playing with your phone, that's another part of the legislative compromise.(My belief is driving standards will fall as we are forced to drive along in monotonous lines, playing with our phones).
The compromise is continually being reassessed & altered (new legislation gets added virtually every year).
The long term trend with casualties is downwards.
Before long you probably won't be driving on motorways, they'll be the first roads automated.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 3rd December 20:35
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Our legislative compromise on our roads inc speed limits.
Ok. It almost looked like you were suggesting road safety was all about speed for a moment.Which seems to be near enough what the authorities appear to think, with a dose of speed humps, road narrowing and cameras added to the mix.
Sorry, my mistake, those things are about slowing us down too. It is all about speed.
Blakewater said:
vonhosen said:
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
Our legislative compromise on our roads inc speed limits.
Ok. It almost looked like you were suggesting road safety was all about speed for a moment.Which seems to be near enough what the authorities appear to think, with a dose of speed humps, road narrowing and cameras added to the mix.
Sorry, my mistake, those things are about slowing us down too. It is all about speed.
Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
Blakewater said:
Looking at the different factors that contribute to accidents, exceeding the speed limit is a relatively minor issue compared to factors such as failure to look properly which aren't addressed or enforced anywhere near as much.
Far too much trouble to address that, and there is one thing politicians value above all else. Votes. They would upset too many people going down that route.I suppose if fatalities, or KSI's to use the important acronym, are the only concern then slowing us all down to a speed where they are unlikely to happen is a solution. A solution addressing the symptom rather than the cause of course, but when the application is so easy and the loss of votes (reduced by brainwashing propaganda) is acceptable then who cares about the real issue?
The real issue is just that little bit too tricky and contentious to deal with.
On a side note, I don't suppose they'll be abolishing stairs and forcing us all to use lifts to get between floors anytime soon because stairs are so dangerous. And the KSI's from stair use are far easier to categorize to a specific causal factor.
In summary it is all boll@cks and we are letting it happen.
vonhosen said:
As is drink/drive etc.
Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
What is your point about drink and driving?Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
The reality is it is easier than ever to do without getting caught, so very little effort is directed in that direction.
cmaguire said:
vonhosen said:
As is drink/drive etc.
Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
What is your point about drink and driving?Not sensible to ignore them though because they are still significant & easy to deal with proactively.
The reality is it is easier than ever to do without getting caught, so very little effort is directed in that direction.
The reality is about half a million breath tests & 50,000 or more convicted each year for drink drive offences.
vonhosen said:
The point about drink driving & other offences is there may be fewer collisions where they are a contributory factor than 'failing to look properly' too. The point about drink drive & other offences is that they aren't ignored because they are a contributory factor in fewer collisions than 'failing to look properly' either.
The reality is about half a million breath tests & 50,000 or more convicted each year for drink drive offences.
How many of that half a million and subsequent 50000 are a result of routine tests carried out after an accident or criminal act or anpr generated stop, as opposed to any genuine attempt to address drink-driving directly?The reality is about half a million breath tests & 50,000 or more convicted each year for drink drive offences.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff