Small speed camera boxes - Heathrow

[Angry engineer]

I am an airport worker and have concerns about the increased danger to road users caused by the poor communications and the unnaturally low speed limit now imposed on the Northern perimeter road from the Central area tunnel, round via the Eastern perimeter road to Hatton Cross.
I have been in communication with HAL via a landside operations lead.
He has tried to use an irrelivant online article to justify the reduced speed limit and cited crashmap.co.uk to justify and show the sequencing of the traffic signals at the junction of the Eastern perimeter road and envoy avenue (the ones that go red when you approach them), unsuccessfully .

I have spelt out to him that their actions have made that section of road more dangerous, not less dangerous because speed is not that dangerous, whereas individuals driving at different speeds on the same road is. The natural speed for the section I refer to is at least 40mph, a 40mph speed limit is the appropriate and safest limit to put in place.

I have seen some poor overtaking on this 30mph limit section in the last month or so that I have never seen before, over more than 30 years using the road and I myself was frustrated into overtaking an individual driving at 24mph on the single carridgeway section.

Needless to say he is not listening and is unable to see that slower is not always safer. The ANPR cameras and joke communication has lead to several online forums like this one showing contrasting veiws of the situation, this will obviously lead to individuals driving at different speeds on the perimeter road.

I have been driving past the cameras (when possible and safe to do so) at the correct speed for the road, up to 40mph (in the 30mph section I refer to), so far I have recieved no communications from HAL or the police relating to this action.

I have no issue with ANPR cameras used to keep us safe from terrorist and to assist the police in combating serious crime, I have no time for individuals stupidity and lies that make the roads more dangerous.

I also wonder if the ANPR cameras are a test for the upcoming pollution zone charge coming in 2022.

Moderator edit to remove name, iaw Posting Rule 22.

Edited by Scrump on Sunday 23 June 14:21

[aeropilot]

Angry engineer said:

I also wonder if the ANPR cameras are a test for the upcoming pollution zone charge coming in 2022.

You're not the only one thinking this.

[Plymo]

aeropilot said:

Angry engineer said:

I also wonder if the ANPR cameras are a test for the upcoming pollution zone charge coming in 2022.

You're not the only one thinking this.

Are you talking about this one: https://your.heathrow.com/vehicleaccess/
Charging vehicles to reduce emissions - while building a 3rd runway!

Interestingly they have a solution to the revenue dropping off as more and more cars meet the new standards - to apply it to ALL vehicles after a while.

[Angry engineer]

Yes Plymo, those are the charges we were talking about.

To pretend it is to improve air quality makes me laugh. Its like charging someone to take a piss in the sea while stood on a 10ft diameter pipe pumping raw sewage into the sea. One of the biggest problems with "green" issues is they provide extra revenue streams while little or no improvement results from the charges. At least when it changes to VAC (vehicle access charge) they are admitting they are highway men.

[jamei303]

If they wanted to improve air quality they could start by reducing the Heathrow Express train fare so it's no longer the most expensive in the country.

For us living in Cambridge it's generally far cheaper to drive there and back at 42p per mile including parking than it is to get the train via the HEX.

[matt21]

Any more news on these. Anyone been caught?

[xjay1337]

If a member of public gets "caught" on these cameras

1) do they get a fine and points from her majesty
2) do they get a fine from heathrow?

if 2, are the legally obliged to pay it??

[Smiljan]

parabolica said:

Why on earth would LHR fine you? The perimeter roads are public highways, not private property.

OP FYI these cameras are also up on the A24/240 between Epsom and Tolworth and also along the A3.

That's interesting, I always thought they were airport owned hence various airport vehicles being allowed to drive on them despite not having road tax.

Edit - Yep, perimeter roads are airport owned per page 16

https://www.heathrow.com/company/partners-and-supp...

Edited by Smiljan on Saturday 31st August 13:59

[aeropilot]

Smiljan said:

parabolica said:

Why on earth would LHR fine you? The perimeter roads are public highways, not private property.

OP FYI these cameras are also up on the A24/240 between Epsom and Tolworth and also along the A3.

That's interesting, I always thought they were airport owned hence various airport vehicles being allowed to drive on them despite not having road tax.

Edit - Yep, perimeter roads are airport owned per page 16

https://www.heathrow.com/company/partners-and-supp...

Edited by Smiljan on Saturday 31st August 13:59

This has already been answered earlier in the thread....

[Smiljan]

aeropilot said:

This has already been answered earlier in the thread....

Not sure what the point of your post is but er... thanks.

[VAGLover]

Second Best said:

Yes, they are. Sneakily put up on 1 May without telling anybody - I work at LHR and we got a notice 12 hours after the cameras went live, from Landside Ops - probably can't share it, but the gist of it is that the new tiny cameras are speed cameras first, ANPR cameras second, and security cameras last. Good to see the airport police have their priorities in order.

The cameras are individual speed cameras as well as being able to measure average speed too. When we asked if the cameras differentiated for vehicles or caught security risks, we were simply told "The easiest way to not come to notice of the cameras is to obey the speed limit."

Edit: the same cameras have been used airside for a while now, LHR have just decided to put them landside too because the general public speed too much and don't pose any security risk to the busiest airport in Europe.

I’m sure the airport had security before these cameras went live. I doubt they are needed for that purpose. Stop acting like the airport is compromising security because they are also focusing on speeders.

[VAGLover]

Earthdweller said:

It seems that anyone seen speeding will be reported to the Police for anti social behaviour under S59

Total bks and good luck with that one !

Since when is speeding anti social?

[Countdown]

VAGLover said:

Since when is speeding anti social?

adjective: anti-social
1. contrary to the laws and customs of society, in a way that causes annoyance and disapproval in others.

e.g. "children's antisocial behaviour"

synonyms: objectionable, offensive, beyond the pale, unacceptable, unsocial, asocial, distasteful;

[jamei303]

Countdown said:

adjective: anti-social
1. contrary to the laws and customs of society, in a way that causes annoyance and disapproval in others.

e.g. "children's antisocial behaviour"

synonyms: objectionable, offensive, beyond the pale, unacceptable, unsocial, asocial, distasteful;

What's being talked about here is this:

Police Reform Act 2002 - Seizure of motor vehicles - S59
Vehicles used in manner causing alarm, distress or annoyance
(1)Where a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which—
(a)contravenes section 3 or 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving), and
(b)is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public,
he shall have the powers set out in subsection (3)

Speeding rarely in itself constitutes an offence of careless or inconsiderate driving under S3 of the RTA so the letter is ridiculous.

[Graveworm]

VAGLover said:

Since when is speeding anti social?

In England and Wales speed alone is not evidence of S3 offences so S59 fails before needing to show anti social. S59 isn't an offence in it's own right. In most circumstances the driver would have to have been previously warned as well.

[Flumpo]

Angry engineer said:

Yes Plymo, those are the charges we were talking about.

To pretend it is to improve air quality makes me laugh. Its like charging someone to take a piss in the sea while stood on a 10ft diameter pipe pumping raw sewage into the sea. One of the biggest problems with "green" issues is they provide extra revenue streams while little or no improvement results from the charges. At least when it changes to VAC (vehicle access charge) they are admitting they are highway men.

Don’t be silly the charge will stop people unnecessarily driving to the airport when they could use a more enviro friendly method. It is NOT a cash grab disguised as a green win.

I hope they have installed plenty of new long stay bike racks though. All those families cycling to Heathrow with their suitcases, kids and other gear for the new 6am flights are going to need somewhere to park the bikes.

[Graveworm]

Flumpo said:

Don’t be silly the charge will stop people unnecessarily driving to the airport when they could use a more enviro friendly method. It is NOT a cash grab disguised as a green win.

I hope they have installed plenty of new long stay bike racks though. All those families cycling to Heathrow with their suitcases, kids and other gear for the new 6am flights are going to need somewhere to park the bikes.

Can't cycle there can't walk there ..

[nonsequitur]

Graveworm said:

VAGLover said:

Since when is speeding anti social?

In England and Wales speed alone is not evidence of S3 offences so S59 fails before needing to show anti social. S59 isn't an offence in it's own right. In most circumstances the driver would have to have been previously warned as well.

Despite the legalities, evidence and warnings etc, many would consider speeding as an anti-social activity. (And not a little dangerous in certain circumstances).

[Graveworm]

nonsequitur said:

Despite the legalities, evidence and warnings etc, many would consider speeding as an anti-social activity. (And not a little dangerous in certain circumstances).

Overall the majority of cars are speeding (Up to 87% depending on road type) - it's the norm so, by definition, it almost can't be anti-social.

[nonsequitur]

Graveworm said:

nonsequitur said:

Despite the legalities, evidence and warnings etc, many would consider speeding as an anti-social activity. (And not a little dangerous in certain circumstances).

Overall the majority of cars are speeding (Up to 87% depending on road type) - it's the norm so, by definition, it almost can't be anti-social.

The remaining 13% must have a powerful voice.