A9 average speed cameras

[Vipers]

J66JBo said:

brrapp said:

Back on the A9 again at the weekend and I noticed something I hadn't before. On the first average camera section north of Perth, there are actually two short sections of 'dual carriageway' near 'Taste Perthshire' and near the Stanley turnoff. As these will have a 70mph limit, and are between the two cameras, how does a conviction on this stretch work with the two different limits in place?
I know the sections only have a single lane in each direction but as far as I'm aware, they are still classed as dual carriageways as the lanes are divided by a physical barrier.

A good observation. Given there would be no way to calculate an average in the 60 sections I would say that no conviction would be possible.Does anyone anyone actually know of someone who has been caught by the average speed cameras on the A9?

Just asking, do those sections have NSL displayed?

[s2kjock]

I've not heard of anyone being done by the average cameras I have to say - I am sure I read somewhere that they are not all operational, although I can't imagine why.

[brrapp]

Vipers said:

Just asking, do those sections have NSL displayed?

No, not as far as far as I remember and can't see any signs on google earth.

[jshell]

J66JBo said:

brrapp said:

Back on the A9 again at the weekend and I noticed something I hadn't before. On the first average camera section north of Perth, there are actually two short sections of 'dual carriageway' near 'Taste Perthshire' and near the Stanley turnoff. As these will have a 70mph limit, and are between the two cameras, how does a conviction on this stretch work with the two different limits in place?
I know the sections only have a single lane in each direction but as far as I'm aware, they are still classed as dual carriageways as the lanes are divided by a physical barrier.

A good observation. Given there would be no way to calculate an average in the 60 sections I would say that no conviction would be possible.Does anyone anyone actually know of someone who has been caught by the average speed cameras on the A9?

They're not DC. Was a huge discussion on those sections in S,P&L a year or 2 back. They're carriageway dividers.

Edited by jshell on Monday 19th February 17:27

[J66JBo]

s2kjock said:

I've not heard of anyone being done by the average cameras I have to say - I am sure I read somewhere that they are not all operational, although I can't imagine why.

A number of them aren’t operational (and never have been).

[Drive Blind]

s2kjock said:

I've not heard of anyone being done by the average cameras I have to say - I am sure I read somewhere that they are not all operational, although I can't imagine why.

the stories I hear on the A77 average speed cameras suggest that there are only 2 pairs of working cameras.

to add weight to the rumour I've been increasingly seeing unmarked cars parked in lay by's using the speed gun. Why would you need to do that if all the cameras were working ?

[brrapp]

jshell said:

J66JBo said:

brrapp said:

Back on the A9 again at the weekend and I noticed something I hadn't before. On the first average camera section north of Perth, there are actually two short sections of 'dual carriageway' near 'Taste Perthshire' and near the Stanley turnoff. As these will have a 70mph limit, and are between the two cameras, how does a conviction on this stretch work with the two different limits in place?
I know the sections only have a single lane in each direction but as far as I'm aware, they are still classed as dual carriageways as the lanes are divided by a physical barrier.

A good observation. Given there would be no way to calculate an average in the 60 sections I would say that no conviction would be possible.Does anyone anyone actually know of someone who has been caught by the average speed cameras on the A9?

They're not DC. Was a huge discussion on those sections in S,P&L a year or 2 back. They're carriageway dividers.

Edited by jshell on Monday 19th February 17:27

As I understand it, the definition of dual carriageway is ' one or more lanes in each direction divided by a physical barrier'. Do you know why these weren't classed as DCWs as they match that definition?

[andym1603]

I am sure the sections of the A9 that are dual carriageways are not covered by the Average speed cameras. The last camera before you join the dual "Closes off" the last section of NSL and the first camera after a dual carriageway starts the next monitored zone.

[jshell]

brrapp said:

jshell said:

J66JBo said:

brrapp said:

Back on the A9 again at the weekend and I noticed something I hadn't before. On the first average camera section north of Perth, there are actually two short sections of 'dual carriageway' near 'Taste Perthshire' and near the Stanley turnoff. As these will have a 70mph limit, and are between the two cameras, how does a conviction on this stretch work with the two different limits in place?
I know the sections only have a single lane in each direction but as far as I'm aware, they are still classed as dual carriageways as the lanes are divided by a physical barrier.

A good observation. Given there would be no way to calculate an average in the 60 sections I would say that no conviction would be possible.Does anyone anyone actually know of someone who has been caught by the average speed cameras on the A9?

They're not DC. Was a huge discussion on those sections in S,P&L a year or 2 back. They're carriageway dividers.

Edited by jshell on Monday 19th February 17:27

As I understand it, the definition of dual carriageway is ' one or more lanes in each direction divided by a physical barrier'. Do you know why these weren't classed as DCWs as they match that definition?

That was my argument last time too, but when the google earth pics were posted, I could see the point of those arguing that they were barriers to stop dangerous turns - not official DC's. They are very, very short sections. It was ages and ages ago and I can't be @rsed to search the exact thread...

[JM]

There's also the section of DC at the north Pitlochry junction.
There is even signs showing the end and start of the 50 limit for HGV's.
But the section is in a camera'd section.

[matchmaker]

andym1603 said:

I am sure the sections of the A9 that are dual carriageways are not covered by the Average speed cameras. The last camera before you join the dual "Closes off" the last section of NSL and the first camera after a dual carriageway starts the next monitored zone.

Perth (Broxden) to Dunblane has cameras. No dual carriageway stretch from Broxden to Inverness has them.

[brrapp]

matchmaker said:

Perth (Broxden) to Dunblane has cameras. No dual carriageway stretch from Broxden to Inverness has them.

There's a set just North of Broxden on the single carriageway, but the road turns to dual and back to single twice before the other end of the camera zone.

[alangla]

Is it definitely a real camera? Pretty sure some of them are dummies. I did a return journey on the section south of Perth a couple of weeks ago in the dark and it was noticeable that only some of the cameras had the red glow from the box next to them.

[Bizmo]

I got my license last month and was on a return trip from North England, eventually joining the A9 this week. I didn't click that I was passing the average speed cams north of Dunblane as my passenger was diabetic with low blood and we stupidly had no sugar supplies left. We eventually pulled into Auchterarder and I'd guess that I was going at around 80mph between each set of average speed cams. I know it's been thrown around a few times in this thread already but no solid answers, does anybody think that you can receive multiple tickets for the same offence on the same stretch of road by ASCs? When I rejoined from Auchterarder to Perth I was well within the speed limit so no issues after that, it's just between Dunblade and Auchterarder that I'm worried about. I've also heard a lot about these cameras not always being in use and it was very late at night, so not much traffic on the road at all.

[rovcallum]

Bizmo, let us know how it goes....tickets, etc..

[J66JBo]

Bizmo said:

I got my license last month and was on a return trip from North England, eventually joining the A9 this week. I didn't click that I was passing the average speed cams north of Dunblane as my passenger was diabetic with low blood and we stupidly had no sugar supplies left. We eventually pulled into Auchterarder and I'd guess that I was going at around 80mph between each set of average speed cams. I know it's been thrown around a few times in this thread already but no solid answers, does anybody think that you can receive multiple tickets for the same offence on the same stretch of road by ASCs? When I rejoined from Auchterarder to Perth I was well within the speed limit so no issues after that, it's just between Dunblade and Auchterarder that I'm worried about. I've also heard a lot about these cameras not always being in use and it was very late at night, so not much traffic on the road at all.

Was that 80 on your speedo or GPS speed? Even if it was a true 80mph GPS speed you will probably be ok given you’ll have at least 10mph leeway. I usually sit at a true 77 on these sections with no problems.

[matchmaker]

brrapp said:

matchmaker said:

Perth (Broxden) to Dunblane has cameras. No dual carriageway stretch from Broxden to Inverness has them.

There's a set just North of Broxden on the single carriageway, but the road turns to dual and back to single twice before the other end of the camera zone.

[brrapp]

matchmaker said:

brrapp said:

matchmaker said:

Perth (Broxden) to Dunblane has cameras. No dual carriageway stretch from Broxden to Inverness has them.

There's a set just North of Broxden on the single carriageway, but the road turns to dual and back to single twice before the other end of the camera zone.

Yes, that's the point I was making, there are some longish sections of dual carriageway and you're right, no cameras on them. But on the (mostly) single track section just north of Perth, there is a set of cameras with two short sections of dual carriageway contained within that section. Meaning that the cameras on that section can't possibly prove speeding (unless above the dual carriageway limit) for that entire mixed limit section.

[Cat]

brrapp said:

But on the (mostly) single track section just north of Perth, there is a set of cameras with two short sections of dual carriageway contained within that section. Meaning that the cameras on that section can't possibly prove speeding (unless above the dual carriageway limit) for that entire mixed limit section.

If you are talking about the sections near Bankfoot they aren't dual carriageway. The central dividers there are traffic islands (albeit long ones) intended to prevent vehicles from making right turns.

Cat

[brrapp]

Cat said:

If you are talking about the sections near Bankfoot they aren't dual carriageway. The central dividers there are traffic islands (albeit long ones) intended to prevent vehicles from making right turns.

Cat

As I understand it, any__ carriageways split by a physical divide are classed as dual carriageways. Maybe it wasn't the intention when building them in this way, but if they fit the legal definition then they __are dual carriageway sections and the speed limit for a dual carriageway should apply.