*WARNING* - NEW STEALTH CAMERAS ON M62 LEEDS-HUDDERSFIELD
Discussion
FurtiveFreddy said:
They don't install HADECS3 cameras at the same gantries they already have the older HADECS cameras.
The HADECS3 cameras are the only type of motorway speed camera currently being installed at new sites because they are more cost effective.
They could all be configured to nab you at any speed, regardless of whether it's a VSL limit or not. It's up to the operators and Police to decide how they are used and what trigger speeds they set.
If you feel safer not going 1mph over the posted limit when you pass these cameras, then that's fine, as long as you stay in lane 1 and don't jam your brakes on just before each and every gantry.
They are installed on gantrys that have the older HADACS currently on the M62.The HADECS3 cameras are the only type of motorway speed camera currently being installed at new sites because they are more cost effective.
They could all be configured to nab you at any speed, regardless of whether it's a VSL limit or not. It's up to the operators and Police to decide how they are used and what trigger speeds they set.
If you feel safer not going 1mph over the posted limit when you pass these cameras, then that's fine, as long as you stay in lane 1 and don't jam your brakes on just before each and every gantry.
Only there to protect us of course "The cameras, called the Hadecs3, enforce variable speed limits on motorways when they are congested"
Solution?
Wouldn't it be amusing if they also use these on the "smart motorways" when the limits are low ...
TX.
Solution?
Wouldn't it be amusing if they also use these on the "smart motorways" when the limits are low ...
TX.
Edited by Terminator X on Friday 17th July 18:10
budfox said:
Safety has nothing to do with it. If safety was a concern for the powers that be then touch-screens in cars would be banned. Revenue raising pure and simple.
Tend to agree. Our motorways are already our safest roads (and amongst the safest in Europe) so if improving safety and reducing casualties was the main aim surely you'd target the roads which are less safe at the moment? Putting this sort of technology on roads where there's a high volume of traffic - and where a high proportion of that traffic disregard what is an out of date and arbitrary speed limit - does indeed smack of revenue raising. Devil2575 said:
You can't draw that conclusion.
Just because you did something and no one got hurt does not mean it was safe.
I once went round a completely blind corner on the wrong side of the road. No one died. Going round blind corners can be competely safe if conditions allow.
I once went onto the other side of the road on a blind corner as I'd failed to spot morning ice just on the inside (in the shade), I assure you, that was anything but safe (nearly sJust because you did something and no one got hurt does not mean it was safe.
I once went round a completely blind corner on the wrong side of the road. No one died. Going round blind corners can be competely safe if conditions allow.
t myself) and something I never want to repeat!There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
These are the same as down near Clackett's Lane on the M25. They ARE a bugger to spot, and they apparently operate independently of the overhead gantry signs, i.e. they still work when it's NSL not reduced.
That said, the ones down south had what I'm guessing was a 'testing window' - lots of random flashing without anyone getting a ticket to start with...
That said, the ones down south had what I'm guessing was a 'testing window' - lots of random flashing without anyone getting a ticket to start with...
Jim1556 said:
I once went onto the other side of the road on a blind corner as I'd failed to spot morning ice just on the inside (in the shade), I assure you, that was anything but safe (nearly st myself) and something I never want to repeat!
There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
The speeds mentioned were not just a bit quick. 160 mph is very fast on a public road.t myself) and something I never want to repeat!There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
For an individual the increase in risk is small. Even if it doubles, triples or even goes up by a factor of 10 it still isn't a big risk at least on the basis of a single drive. However in a large population it would result in doubling, tripling or increase by a factor of 10 the number of accidents. If you're the minister for transport this is a big deal.
Devil2575 said:
Jim1556 said:
I once went onto the other side of the road on a blind corner as I'd failed to spot morning ice just on the inside (in the shade), I assure you, that was anything but safe (nearly st myself) and something I never want to repeat!
There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
The speeds mentioned were not just a bit quick. 160 mph is very fast on a public road.t myself) and something I never want to repeat!There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
For an individual the increase in risk is small. Even if it doubles, triples or even goes up by a factor of 10 it still isn't a big risk at least on the basis of a single drive. However in a large population it would result in doubling, tripling or increase by a factor of 10 the number of accidents. If you're the minister for transport this is a big deal.
Killer2005 said:
I asked a mate about these who is the police, who in turn has a mate in the Highways Agency. The answer back was that these are camera's monitoring the closed lanes rather than speed cameras.
Your mates and their mates are wrong.Maybe the correct message that 'HADECS3 cameras enforce speed in all lanes' has been somewhat distorted by the time all of the Chinese whispers were finished and got back to you.
Jim1556 said:
I once went onto the other side of the road on a blind corner as I'd failed to spot morning ice just on the inside (in the shade), I assure you, that was anything but safe (nearly st myself) and something I never want to repeat!
There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
So 2 out of the 3 places you would place speed enforcement cameras are places where drivers generally do not use excess speed. Why on earth would you do that? It makes no sense.t myself) and something I never want to repeat!There's inherent risk in everything we do, going a bit quick when conditions (visibility, traffic, road layout, weather, vehicle condition etc) allow, doesn't make it unsafe - yes it may increase the risk of an incident, but rarely results in one!
If I were in charge, speed enforcement cameras would ONLY be outside schools, in towns/villages and accident blackspots - there is no other justification for them, except revenue raising!
How come you missed outside of hospitals...everyone speeds outside of hosiptals...don't they!!
havoc said:
These are the same as down near Clackett's Lane on the M25. They ARE a bugger to spot, and they apparently operate independently of the overhead gantry signs, i.e. they still work when it's NSL not reduced.
That said, the ones down south had what I'm guessing was a 'testing window' - lots of random flashing without anyone getting a ticket to start with...
They do have to be tested so there will be a period where you will see a lot of flashing at speeds that are lower than normal.That said, the ones down south had what I'm guessing was a 'testing window' - lots of random flashing without anyone getting a ticket to start with...
tapereel said:
So 2 out of the 3 places you would place speed enforcement cameras are places where drivers generally do not use excess speed. Why on earth would you do that? It makes no sense.
How come you missed outside of hospitals...everyone speeds outside of hosiptals...don't they!!
But why have them in places where people speed rather than places where it's dangerous to speed eg schools etc? How come you missed outside of hospitals...everyone speeds outside of hosiptals...don't they!!
TX.
tapereel said:
Where do you get all of that from? It doesn't resemble anything I have seen on the subject. Have you just made that up?
I should have said the increase may be large but the absolute risk is still small.For an individual the risk of crashing in a single journey is very small. So even if you increase this risk by a factor of 10 it is still small.
Riding a Motorcycle is considerably riskier than driving a car but that doesn't mean that an individual rider is likely to be killed in a crash.
The rates of increase in risk were just to illustrate my point.
I have read several papers on the subject.
No need to get your knickers in a twist.
tapereel said:
So 2 out of the 3 places you would place speed enforcement cameras are places where drivers generally do not use excess speed. Why on earth would you do that? It makes no sense.
How come you missed outside of hospitals...everyone speeds outside of hosiptals...don't they!!
2 things, it's not about where people usually break speed limits (for me, 100+ on a CLEAR motorway is fine), it's about where people do it and their likelyhood to murder innocents! There was one tHow come you missed outside of hospitals...everyone speeds outside of hosiptals...don't they!!
t on here the other day bubbling about being done at 85 in a 30! No fking excuse!!!Schools - definately required!
Towns/villages - there are plenty of w
kers that come through mine at much more than 30, and a while straight road through, there are plenty of side roads that join!Hospitals? If you feel it's justified, although they are usually situated in built up areas, so would probably already be covered by my reckoning...
From the videos I've watched on-line and from the things I've read, it would seem that the majority of drivers on the Autobhan for example, know the score and keep right unless overtaking etc.
I honestly don't think our country's drivers could cope with an increase in the motorway speed limit never mind anything else. I worry that it would merely result in the idiots continuing to idiotic things at a higher speed and of the limit were to increase to 80mph or whatever, the speeders will be doing 90-100.
I honestly don't think our country's drivers could cope with an increase in the motorway speed limit never mind anything else. I worry that it would merely result in the idiots continuing to idiotic things at a higher speed and of the limit were to increase to 80mph or whatever, the speeders will be doing 90-100.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff