New Speed Cameras on M4
Discussion
Found on the Times online
Motorway driving at over 70mph? You're on camera
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
THE last haven where drivers can creep over the speed limit is being invaded by cameras.
From tomorrow one of Britain’s busiest motorways will be monitored in the first attempt to enforce the 70mph limit.
Until now police have struck only when motorists drive well over the limit on motorways. With their central barriers, gentle curves and grade separated junctions, motorways are considered to be far safer than any other road.
Shortly after midday tomorrow, drivers on the M4 in Wiltshire, between junctions 14 and 18, will face a £60 fine and three penalty points for speeding by as little as 9mph.
Cameras in marked vans will be operated from bridges over the motorway. Police and civilian operators will use laser guns on vehicles when they come within a kilometre of the bridges. Under the rules governing mobile cameras, the vans must be visible from 100 metres. But most drivers will be caught long before they come within that range.
More than half of all cars on motorways exceed the speed limit and a fifth travel at more than 80mph. Existing patrols tend to book only motorists who exceed 85mph.
Last night motoring groups accused the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership of seeking to raise revenue without offering any evidence that safety would be improved.
Motorways are five times safer per mile driven than the average road and eight times safer than urban A roads. There were 9 crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres on motorways in 2003, compared with 76 on urban A roads. Most of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras are on A roads. On motorways they usually enforce only temporary speed limits during roadworks. The southwest section of the M25 has cameras on gantries to enforce the lower speed limit in operation during congested periods.
Under Department for Transport rules, camera partnerships can deploy mobile cameras only on stretches where there have been at least two collisions resulting in death or serious injuries per kilometre in the previous three years.
The Wiltshire partnership, which includes the police and the county council, will argue tomorrow that the casualty rate on the M4 is higher than on the average motorway and meets the level required by the department. There were 18 deaths, 69 serious injuries and 641 slight injuries between junctions 15 and 17 between 2001 and 2004.
Signs on the M4 and approach roads will alert drivers that they are entering a speed-trap area but they will not know where the vans will be parked. A spokeswoman for the partnership said that motorists who slow down for the yellow Gatso cameras before speeding up again would be caught by the M4 cameras: “People aren’t supposed to slow down just because they have seen a camera. They are supposed to slow down because it’s the law.” She said that the trigger speed for the cameras could be as low as 79mph and “could change from day to day”. The exact speed will remain confidential to prevent drivers from setting their cruise controls just below it.
The RAC Foundation accused the partnership of using irrelevant crash statistics to justify deploying cameras. Edmund King, its director, said that the casualty problem on the M4 was caused largely by people driving too close to the vehicle in front, stopping on the hard shoulder, overtaking without checking mirrors and failing to slow down for fog.
ROAD SAFETY
# Motorways account for a fifth of road traffic. In 2003, 184 people died on motorways compared with 1,890 on rural roads
# The average speed of cars on motorways (71 mph) has remained about the same since 1998
# The proportion of cars exceeding the 70mph limit was 57 per cent in 2003, up from 54 per cent in 2002
Motorway driving at over 70mph? You're on camera
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
THE last haven where drivers can creep over the speed limit is being invaded by cameras.
From tomorrow one of Britain’s busiest motorways will be monitored in the first attempt to enforce the 70mph limit.
Until now police have struck only when motorists drive well over the limit on motorways. With their central barriers, gentle curves and grade separated junctions, motorways are considered to be far safer than any other road.
Shortly after midday tomorrow, drivers on the M4 in Wiltshire, between junctions 14 and 18, will face a £60 fine and three penalty points for speeding by as little as 9mph.
Cameras in marked vans will be operated from bridges over the motorway. Police and civilian operators will use laser guns on vehicles when they come within a kilometre of the bridges. Under the rules governing mobile cameras, the vans must be visible from 100 metres. But most drivers will be caught long before they come within that range.
More than half of all cars on motorways exceed the speed limit and a fifth travel at more than 80mph. Existing patrols tend to book only motorists who exceed 85mph.
Last night motoring groups accused the Wiltshire & Swindon Safety Camera Partnership of seeking to raise revenue without offering any evidence that safety would be improved.
Motorways are five times safer per mile driven than the average road and eight times safer than urban A roads. There were 9 crashes per 100 million vehicle kilometres on motorways in 2003, compared with 76 on urban A roads. Most of Britain’s 6,000 speed cameras are on A roads. On motorways they usually enforce only temporary speed limits during roadworks. The southwest section of the M25 has cameras on gantries to enforce the lower speed limit in operation during congested periods.
Under Department for Transport rules, camera partnerships can deploy mobile cameras only on stretches where there have been at least two collisions resulting in death or serious injuries per kilometre in the previous three years.
The Wiltshire partnership, which includes the police and the county council, will argue tomorrow that the casualty rate on the M4 is higher than on the average motorway and meets the level required by the department. There were 18 deaths, 69 serious injuries and 641 slight injuries between junctions 15 and 17 between 2001 and 2004.
Signs on the M4 and approach roads will alert drivers that they are entering a speed-trap area but they will not know where the vans will be parked. A spokeswoman for the partnership said that motorists who slow down for the yellow Gatso cameras before speeding up again would be caught by the M4 cameras: “People aren’t supposed to slow down just because they have seen a camera. They are supposed to slow down because it’s the law.” She said that the trigger speed for the cameras could be as low as 79mph and “could change from day to day”. The exact speed will remain confidential to prevent drivers from setting their cruise controls just below it.
The RAC Foundation accused the partnership of using irrelevant crash statistics to justify deploying cameras. Edmund King, its director, said that the casualty problem on the M4 was caused largely by people driving too close to the vehicle in front, stopping on the hard shoulder, overtaking without checking mirrors and failing to slow down for fog.
ROAD SAFETY
# Motorways account for a fifth of road traffic. In 2003, 184 people died on motorways compared with 1,890 on rural roads
# The average speed of cars on motorways (71 mph) has remained about the same since 1998
# The proportion of cars exceeding the 70mph limit was 57 per cent in 2003, up from 54 per cent in 2002
This is probably one of the most blatant revenue raising actions I have seen.
Why can't the 'safety' partnership spend the money on better signs and even start up a driver education service or something??
If the main problems are attributed to lack of observation and problems with speeding in fog then these are the issues that need to be addressed, not just general speed on a sunny afternoon. If you think about it the only speed related problem is the speeding in fog, but you have to be a major buffoon to be breaking the speed limit in fog!
People generally do about 80mph on motorways, which I think is fine considering the conditions at the time. The people we need to blame for this, along with the greedy partnership, are the idiots who are clocking over 80mph to around 100mph. If there weren't people like this on the road doing these speeds then this course of action wouldn't have been allowed to be taken.
Why can't the 'safety' partnership spend the money on better signs and even start up a driver education service or something??
If the main problems are attributed to lack of observation and problems with speeding in fog then these are the issues that need to be addressed, not just general speed on a sunny afternoon. If you think about it the only speed related problem is the speeding in fog, but you have to be a major buffoon to be breaking the speed limit in fog!
People generally do about 80mph on motorways, which I think is fine considering the conditions at the time. The people we need to blame for this, along with the greedy partnership, are the idiots who are clocking over 80mph to around 100mph. If there weren't people like this on the road doing these speeds then this course of action wouldn't have been allowed to be taken.
funkyrobot said:
This is probably one of the most blatant revenue raising actions I have seen.
Why can't the 'safety' partnership spend the money on better signs and even start up a driver education service or something??
If the main problems are attributed to lack of observation and problems with speeding in fog then these are the issues that need to be addressed, not just general speed on a sunny afternoon. If you think about it the only speed related problem is the speeding in fog, but you have to be a major buffoon to be breaking the speed limit in fog!
People generally do about 80mph on motorways, which I think is fine considering the conditions at the time. The people we need to blame for this, along with the greedy partnership, are the idiots who are clocking over 80mph to around 100mph. If there weren't people like this on the road doing these speeds then this course of action wouldn't have been allowed to be taken.
Agree with most of this - It would be interesting to see a break down of the accidents during fog/poor visability or actually due to excess speed.
Dont necessary agree with the 80 - 100 comment 100% but when its congested or not suitable for the conditions then much above 85 may well cause problems due to difference in closing speeds of lorries and a car doing 100, but then its the driving skill at fault not per say the 'speed'. Many time 70 is too fast on mways for the conditions.
That a driver has not recognised the increased risk of their speed (whatever that may be ) and the unsuitability for the conditions is the problem and re-tests and better education is the key.
Re-test every 5 years ? Yes please. Get the bad drivers off the roads.
Remember ist not Speed that kills its Bad drivers.
borris-bear said:
Found on the Times online
Motorway driving at over 70mph? You're on camera
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
This is such an easy way for them to raise money, if Wiltshire get away with it, there's no doubt that it'll be nationwide in a year's time.
I wonder if these guys are secretly sponsored by Richard Branson ?
mcflurry said:
I for one would lose my licence very quickly there...
Between the M4 J12 and J14 the "average" speed there is seriously in excess of 90mph
That's inaccurate. On business days with the professionals driving the average speed is over 100mph. In the outside lane average speed is in the one hundred and teens.
At weekends its slower.
And on Combe trackdays at about 7:00am as the Londoners charge for the circuit I reckon 1.3 units of velocity is quite normal.
funkyrobot said:
..... The people we need to blame for this, along with the greedy partnership, are the idiots who are clocking over 20 mph to around 30 mph. If there weren't people like this on the road doing these speeds then this course of action wouldn't have been allowed to be taken.
and we'd all live happily ever after
Funkyrobot, this is a rather clumsy attempt to subversively encourage support for current government policy and the Speed Camera Partnerships.
Here you imply disdain for the SCPs in order to establish your position on the side of the motorist, but offer little substance and only very mild criticism.
Furthermore you offer the SCP an escape route by suggesting they set up a driver education programme - something they have already done and would probably be very pleased to expand upon, as it gives them the chance to indoctrinate more people with their anti-speed message.
Here you declare that exceeding the posted speed limit is inherently dangerous. Your tone appears to be an attempt to continue the campaign to make "speeding" socially unacceptable.
Here you indicate support for the current effective maximum permitted speed on the motorway.
Here you attempt to demonize anyone who drives above 80mph.
And here you attempt to misdirect our frustration away from the SCPs and onto other motorists, further demonizing them and by association the practise of travelling above the posted speed limit + 2mph + 10%.
Would you care to tell us which SCP you work for or to which pro-speed camera associations (eg BRAKE) you belong, or to declare any other interests (financial or otherwise) in the promotion of the current government policy on speed? Or are you working alone?
>> Edited by alexf on Tuesday 12th April 12:48
funkyrobot said:
This is probably one of the most blatant revenue raising actions I have seen.
Why can't the 'safety' partnership spend the money on better signs and even start up a driver education service or something??
Here you imply disdain for the SCPs in order to establish your position on the side of the motorist, but offer little substance and only very mild criticism.
Furthermore you offer the SCP an escape route by suggesting they set up a driver education programme - something they have already done and would probably be very pleased to expand upon, as it gives them the chance to indoctrinate more people with their anti-speed message.
funkyrobot said:
If the main problems are attributed to lack of observation and problems with speeding in fog then these are the issues that need to be addressed, not just general speed on a sunny afternoon. If you think about it the only speed related problem is the speeding in fog, but you have to be a major buffoon to be breaking the speed limit in fog!
Here you declare that exceeding the posted speed limit is inherently dangerous. Your tone appears to be an attempt to continue the campaign to make "speeding" socially unacceptable.
funkyrobot said:
People generally do about 80mph on motorways, which I think is fine considering the conditions at the time.
Here you indicate support for the current effective maximum permitted speed on the motorway.
funkyrobot said:
The people we need to blame for this, along with the greedy partnership, are the idiots who are clocking over 80mph to around 100mph.
Here you attempt to demonize anyone who drives above 80mph.
funkyrobot said:
If there weren't people like this on the road doing these speeds then this course of action wouldn't have been allowed to be taken.
And here you attempt to misdirect our frustration away from the SCPs and onto other motorists, further demonizing them and by association the practise of travelling above the posted speed limit + 2mph + 10%.
Would you care to tell us which SCP you work for or to which pro-speed camera associations (eg BRAKE) you belong, or to declare any other interests (financial or otherwise) in the promotion of the current government policy on speed? Or are you working alone?
>> Edited by alexf on Tuesday 12th April 12:48
Here you perform a pseudo psyhological analysis in an effort to create a flamewar.
alexf said:
Funkyrobot, this is a rather clumsy attempt to subversively encourage support for current government policy and the Speed Camera Partnerships.
funkyrobot said:
This is probably one of the most blatant revenue raising actions I have seen.
Why can't the 'safety' partnership spend the money on better signs and even start up a driver education service or something??
Here you imply disdain for the SCPs in order to establish your position on the side of the motorist, but offer little substance and only very mild criticism.
Furthermore you offer the SCP an escape route by suggesting they set up a driver education programme - something they have already done and would probably be very pleased to expand upon, as it gives them the chance to indoctrinate more people with their anti-speed message.
funkyrobot said:
If the main problems are attributed to lack of observation and problems with speeding in fog then these are the issues that need to be addressed, not just general speed on a sunny afternoon. If you think about it the only speed related problem is the speeding in fog, but you have to be a major buffoon to be breaking the speed limit in fog!
Here you declare that exceeding the posted speed limit is inherently dangerous. Your tone appears to be an attempt to continue the campaign to make "speeding" socially unacceptable.
funkyrobot said:
People generally do about 80mph on motorways, which I think is fine considering the conditions at the time.
Here you indicate support for the current effective maximum permitted speed on the motorway.
funkyrobot said:
The people we need to blame for this, along with the greedy partnership, are the idiots who are clocking over 80mph to around 100mph.
Here you attempt to demonize anyone who drives above 80mph.
funkyrobot said:
If there weren't people like this on the road doing these speeds then this course of action wouldn't have been allowed to be taken.
And here you attempt to misdirect our frustration away from the SCPs and onto other motorists, further demonizing them and by association the practise of travelling above the posted speed limit + 2mph + 10%.
Would you care to tell us which SCP you work for or to which pro-speed camera associations (eg BRAKE) you belong, or to declare any other interests (financial or otherwise) in the promotion of the current government policy on speed? Or are you working alone?
>> Edited by alexf on Tuesday 12th April 12:48
Tip of the Iceberg this.
Given how busy it is this road seems remarkably safe unlike urban areas where the most accidents occur.
These resources would be far better used in urban areas
Best write to your MP and/or a local MP in the area
james@jamesgray.org (Witshire North)
and worth perhaps an email
safety.cameras@wiltshire.police.uk
Given how busy it is this road seems remarkably safe unlike urban areas where the most accidents occur.
These resources would be far better used in urban areas
Best write to your MP and/or a local MP in the area
james@jamesgray.org (Witshire North)
and worth perhaps an email
safety.cameras@wiltshire.police.uk
sadako said:
<picture indicating thread hijack in progress>
Here you perform a pseudo psyhological analysis in an effort to create a flamewar.
Can't help smiling at that
. I apologise for progressing the hijack. The previous post seemed suspicious but it seemed a bit much to start another thread on it. Not interested in flamewar, just don't like deceptive arguments. Back on topic, the relevant news seems to be:
1. New cameras on the M4 - ok, we'll update our databases. Time for change of government to indicate to politicians that they will pay for their actions.
2. The RAC are speaking out against the SCPs - given their recent pro camera comments, I wonder if this indicates a genuine change of direction, or if they're just pretending in order to regain our trust (money).
supraman2954 said:
“People aren’t supposed to slow down just because they have seen a camera. They are supposed to slow down because it’s the law.”
From the horses’ mouth: the enforced slow down is nothing to do with safety
A little harsh. The speed limits are intended to enhance safety, or else there's no other justification for them. The issue is the level at which they are set, and by extension the bodies permitted to set them and those who influence them.
In short, if the motorway speed limit was set to 150mph, dual carriageways to 120mph, single carriageways 90mph and towns 30mph (20 at appropriate places/times), 95% of us would be happy to support the partnerships. Those limits would not be target speeds nor applicable in all conditions, and speed would then be left to drivers' discretion as it should be.
Don said:
That's inaccurate. On business days with the professionals driving the average speed is over 100mph. In the outside lane average speed is in the one hundred and teens.
correct..
however this isn;t the issue.
The cameras are not going to get the idiots that tailgate, change lanes randomly and jump into my safty gap between me and the car in front.
I bet there are more accidents.. mainly due to people not concetrating anymore, and tailgating.
I went searching for the accident statistics for the M4 and found this:
This is Wiltshire (first published 16 Dec 2002)
THE M4 motorway was today declared one of the safest motorways in the country despite a catalogue of accidents and four deaths in the past year.
The 30-year-old 200-mile stretch of road, linking Wales and the West Country with London and the South East, is ranked as one of the safest by the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP).
EuroRAP, an independent European think-tank, has looked at recent historical data to measure and plot the rate at which people are killed or seriously injured on roads across the continent.
It has graded each section of road using a star rating system, awarding zero stars for the most dangerous and four for the safest.
And the 29-kilometre Swindon stretch of the M4 between junctions 15 and 17 is ranked as a four star road, even though commuters have faced chaos there this year after a series of accidents and hold-ups. [See link at foot - S]
Statistics reveal that between January 1 and October 31 this year there have been four fatalities, 15 serious and 87 slight accidents on the entire M4, compared with four fatalities, 10 serious and 93 slight for the same period last year.
Each weekday the M4 carries an average of 160,000 vehicles and is credited as being the main factor in the economic prosperity of the M4 corridor.
Inspector Bob Walton of Swindon police said: "... I don't think the M4 is the most dangerous road in the country. ..." [Edited to reduce in length - S]
Check out EuroRAP's safety assessments; M4 J14-J18 is rated 'LOW'.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Wednesday 13th April 12:06
This is Wiltshire (first published 16 Dec 2002)
THE M4 motorway was today declared one of the safest motorways in the country despite a catalogue of accidents and four deaths in the past year.
The 30-year-old 200-mile stretch of road, linking Wales and the West Country with London and the South East, is ranked as one of the safest by the European Road Assessment Programme (EuroRAP).
EuroRAP, an independent European think-tank, has looked at recent historical data to measure and plot the rate at which people are killed or seriously injured on roads across the continent.
It has graded each section of road using a star rating system, awarding zero stars for the most dangerous and four for the safest.
And the 29-kilometre Swindon stretch of the M4 between junctions 15 and 17 is ranked as a four star road, even though commuters have faced chaos there this year after a series of accidents and hold-ups. [See link at foot - S]
Statistics reveal that between January 1 and October 31 this year there have been four fatalities, 15 serious and 87 slight accidents on the entire M4, compared with four fatalities, 10 serious and 93 slight for the same period last year.
Each weekday the M4 carries an average of 160,000 vehicles and is credited as being the main factor in the economic prosperity of the M4 corridor.
Inspector Bob Walton of Swindon police said: "... I don't think the M4 is the most dangerous road in the country. ..." [Edited to reduce in length - S]
Check out EuroRAP's safety assessments; M4 J14-J18 is rated 'LOW'.
Streaky
>> Edited by streaky on Wednesday 13th April 12:06
Im just glad Im moving away!
I have to enjure the rath of the M4 and its numpty drivers everyday!!!
It is a bad section of motorway, but that doesnt give them the right to pick off practicaly every car that travels along that road.
Cruise will now be set to 79, although Im a little concerned at the worry of being distracted!!!
I have to enjure the rath of the M4 and its numpty drivers everyday!!!
It is a bad section of motorway, but that doesnt give them the right to pick off practicaly every car that travels along that road.
Cruise will now be set to 79, although Im a little concerned at the worry of being distracted!!!
I never use cruise control. It really does mind numb you, you also lose the extra bit of deceleration which may help prevent a norml brake into a hard braking - hard to put into words what I mean - you tend to wait with CC on hoping the car doing a bit slower will pull in, and then it doesnt etc which casues a later responce then if I had my foot on the pedel.
So much more control and insintive reations to the pedal - often you will let off and slow almost unaware to filter and adjust your spacing on the mways.
Much safer IMHO with CC off.
So much more control and insintive reations to the pedal - often you will let off and slow almost unaware to filter and adjust your spacing on the mways.
Much safer IMHO with CC off.
atom290 said:
Cruise will now be set to 79, although Im a little concerned at the worry of being distracted!!!
Yeah, well........The article went on to say that they'd be changing 'on a daily basis' the threshold at which you get done, so 79 is not a guarantee that you won't get NIP'd
Same article stated that a third of the crashes on the M4 are caused by tailgating.
Funny that, I always thought it was the case that people tailgated and lost concentration because they were driving at dead on 70?????????
I'd like to see someone do some analysis on how many deaths these schemes cause.
Bastards.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff