Speed camera information for drivers on M6, M56, M60 and M62

Thanks Neil.

I've been passed these several times. No letter yet!

So in theory, a high-miler (or indeed anyone) with an enthusiastic and heavy right foot could lose his or her licence in a day.

Would the law actually be applied to that degree ie "you have been caught speeding 6 times therefore you get 18 points and a ban" or would the powers that be show some commonsense and leniency?

On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to average 78mph on the M6 car park in my area.

Crap system. So anyone can drive for miles and miles, pissed out of their heads, and all they get is a speeding ticket!

Rasher - soz to disagree but not a crap system at all.
And while I'm at it if we paid for more cops on the motorways to look at all the other issues then perhaps people wouldn't speed. Its not as if they don't know they are doing it - look what happens when there is a cop on the motorway - miraculously (probably spelled wrong!lol) everone suddenly discovers how to do 70mph!
Rant over -I'll get me coat (as someone else on this forum often says)

Why shouldn't serial law breakers lose their license?
What is it with this country that a large minority of drivers think they should be able to break the law with impunity.?
Bob

Urban Myth time'

From the BBC.co.uk
Speed camera warning 'a hoax'

Rumours that a £16m motorway congestion warning system has been hiding the latest hi-tech speed cameras have been refuted. The police, the AA and road safety chiefs have all dismissed as a hoax an email claiming that hi-tech signs on the M4 contained the Specs system, digital equipment that works out drivers' average speed between cameras.

In October, transport minister Kim Howells launched the congestion warning scheme - which detects slow-moving or stationary traffic and displays electronic warnings - between junctions 12 and 14 of the motorway.

Since then an email has been sent round warning that the Specs system has been launched, working 24 hours a day and with "absolutely no limit on the number of tickets that it can issue".

We had heard of the email and it is a complete load of rubbish

AA spokesman The rumours have led Speed Check, the firm behind the Specs cameras which are used at a number of UK sites, to issue a firm denial.

A spokesman said: "Speed Check has received a number of enquiries in relation to a hoax email.

"It has been implied that a Specs system has been installed on the M4.

"Speed Check would like to assure all interested parties that there are currently no Specs systems in place on the M4."

An AA spokesman told BBC News Online: "We had heard of the email and it is a complete load of rubbish.

The system aims to cut congestion on the M4 "We have had that confirmed by the Highways Agency."

The rumours have been blamed on the fact that there are two CCTV cameras operating as part of the system.

But they are there to monitor if the signs are working correctly and the traffic itself.

A statement from Thames Valley Police read: "There are no speed cameras and no Specs cameras in the signs.

"The only involvement Thames Valley Police has is to change the messages on the signs according to the conditions to give up-to-date information."

nick.lees at btinternet.com

quote:

---

Why shouldn't serial law breakers lose their license?

---

Get real Bob

quote:

---

look what happens when there is a cop on the motorway - miraculously (probably spelled wrong!lol) everone suddenly discovers how to do 70mph!

---

And when this happens the traffic all bunches up and the speed drops to around sixty. This is more dangerous than a free-flowing motorway with plenty of distance between each vehicle and the fastest vehicles in the outside lane doing about 85.

Have you ever wondered why the marked police vehicle usually parks up or exits the motorway when this happens?

As for the "camera information" at the start of this thread, it's a hoax.

It's all revealed here.

Speed accounts for just 7.3% of all road accidents. If we spent more time and resources on improving dangerous single-grade T junctions and less on cameras we might beging to rise above the plateau we've been stuck in regarding accident rates for he last five years (despite the massive increase in speeding convictions during that period.)

It is time we focused more on making roads safer and more efficient and less on politically correct and ineffective "phase shifting."

Anyone who thinks that lowered and rigidly enforced speed limits has anything to do with safety is a naive fool.

Regards,

Steve.

I know that you drive for a living and and such will have a good idea of how to make the roads safer. I also know that getting points on your licience is a big deterrent for you.

I know several policemen socially and they all say the same thing. Road accidents are lower in countries which impose lower speed limits.

Therefore by rigorously imposing the 70 mph limit, less people will suffer death or injury and that is the most important thing in my book.

Regards

Mick

Mick,

They've recently raised limits in the US. Guess what? The accident rate actually fell for the reasons I outlined above.

Facts count in these issues not politically fashionable opinions.



Regards,

Steve.

"And when this happens the traffic all bunches up and the speed drops to around sixty"

Which is of course causd by the speeding motorists approaching from the rear not the ones travelling at the appropriate speed.

"This is more dangerous than a free-flowing motorway with plenty of distance between each vehicle and the fastest vehicles in the outside lane doing about 85"

Which is is in turn more dangerous than a free flowing motorway travelling at 70.

Matthew

Matthew,

You don't even drive so you wouldn't know that at 70 in the outside lane a vehicle is only doing 14 mph more than the lorry two lanes to the left.

To keep traffic flowing there needs to be a speed differential between each lane of around 10mph. To achieve this you'd have to cut speed limits for lorries to 40 mph (then watch UK industy costs soar.)



Regards,

Steve.

My 2p of opinion is that the biggest problem on motorways is speed but that everyone sits in the fast lane in fear of being boxed in, thus leaving the other two empty. So everyone gets stuck in a massive queue.

My other motoring opinion is that the trafic police would be better patroling towns and their approaches where variable traffic conditions abound rather than on the motorway where everyone is doing roughtly the same speed and and all are going in the same direction.

Tom

Actively enjoying it all

I’m a reasonable bloke who is getting fed up with this speed speed speed message – its provable bollox and pissing me off. It’s got more to with PC councils and police fundraising than safety. About 6% of accidents are caused by speed ABSOLUTE FACT. Has a look at these to very good sites and stop believing this shite. Some bits of Italy’s limit is up and guess what – accidents down – same the world over. There is only one cause of the carnage on the roads – BAD DRIVING.
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/
http://www.abd.org.uk
Regards Martin

quote:

---

I know several policemen socially and they all say the same thing. Road accidents are lower in countries which impose lower speed limits.

Therefore by rigorously imposing the 70 mph limit, less people will suffer death or injury and that is the most important thing in my book.

Regards

Mick

---

Mick, you're talking rubbish. Countries that have rigidly enforced speed limits - UK, Australia, Sweden have seen their fatal accident rates plateau over the past 10 years while their revenues from speeding fines have skyrocketed. In the meantime other countries that don't rigidly enforce speed limits (France, Germany etc) have seen the continuation of a long-term downward trend in fatalities.
The message from the UK & Australian governments at the moment - and it's been parroted on many threads by many people just on this site - is that you are perfectly safe if you stick to the speed limit (and you're going to die a horrible death if you don't). As an example, I saw a guy on the news, following a multicar pile-up in fog, saying "they didn't tell us that we should slow down". Little wonder that accident rates haven't fallen if we no longer train people to think for themselves.

John
France has the highest road fatality rates in Europe. I spend a lot of time in France and the view of the authorities and the public is that it is down to 2 factors; speeding and alcohol. There is currently a big crackdown nationally on speeding and speed cameras are being reintroduced.

Bob

Studies 1 & 2 are cited as having found a relationship between speed reduction and collision frequency (1mph / 5% fewer collisions per year). Study 3 found that cameras reduce casualties by 28%. Study 4 found that half of motorists involved in a fatal car accident involving a pedestrian or cyclist were found to have been speeding.

1. Finch D J, Kompfner P, Lockwood C R and Maycock G (1994). Speed, Speed Limits and Accidents. Project Report 58, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), Crowthorne.

2. Taylor M C, Lynam D A and Baruya A (2000). The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents. Report 421, TRL, Crowthorne

3. Hooke A, Knox J and Portas D (1996). Cost Benefit Analysis of Traffic Light and Speed Cameras. Police Research Series paper 20, Police Research Group, Home Office, London

4. Jones, L. 1996. Putting Transport on the Social Policy Agenda. Social Policy Review 8: 247-264

quote:

---

"This is more dangerous than a free-flowing motorway with plenty of distance between each vehicle and the fastest vehicles in the outside lane doing about 85"

Which is is in turn more dangerous than a free flowing motorway travelling at 70.

---

Which is in turn more dangerous than a free flowing motorway travelling at 50mph ... etc. etc. Of course the safest motorway is when all the cars are stationary. But then the economy would grind to a halt and instead of spending more of our lives doing what we want to we'd spend more of them travelling.

My two pennies:

worst most myopic driving I've ever seen = Canada (100km, cruise contol on along arrow straight roads in the middle of nowhere, same speeds screeching round corners on the outskirts of towns - bizarre), most rigidly enforced speed limits I've ever seen .... Canada.

the road I'm most petrified about - right outside my front gate, 30mph is way too fast, loads of the houses have kiddies, there are two schools, busses regularly belt along at way more than 30 and just think how quickly one of those would be able to stop. Are there any speed cameras here, of course not. Where are the local speed cameras, on a 3 lane bit of nearly motorway standard dual carriageway with a 50mph limit, barriers at the side of the road, central reservation, etc.

The whole thing stinks
Phil

Martin D & John Sheridan

Here, here!

Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by bob mccluckie:
John
France has the highest road fatality rates in Europe. I spend a lot of time in France and the view of the authorities and the public is that it is down to 2 factors; speeding and alcohol. There is currently a big crackdown nationally on speeding and speed cameras are being reintroduced.

Bob

---

Riiight. So no crackdown on driving pissed??

Steve
(Not knocking your observation BTW, Bob!)

Driving fast is fun and exciting but we all know it is dangerous.

Driving at 70 mph is fast enough and if you go faster, you increase your chances of being involved in an accident.

Before you accuse me of being a paragon of virtue, I have been pulled up seven times on a motorway for speeding (I used to run Jaguars) but fortunately I talked my way out of it each time.

Thats one advantage of being middle aged and wearing a suit.

The law protects us and others from ourselves.

Regards

Mick

Mick - you were lucky. You can't charm a camera these days no matter your age, status or choice of suit. And that's what most people object to. It's a bit like a trial without a jury - and nobody likes those!

Steve

I was photographed doing 36 mph, going through a red light last year.

It was a £30 fine and 3 points and I blame no one but myself. I don't drive through lights anymore.

Regards

Mick

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mekon:
Studies 1 & 2 are cited as having found a relationship between speed reduction and collision frequency (1mph / 5% fewer collisions per year). Study 3 found that cameras reduce casualties by 28%. Study 4 found that half of motorists involved in a fatal car accident involving a pedestrian or cyclist were found to have been speeding.

1. Finch D J, Kompfner P, Lockwood C R and Maycock G (1994). Speed, Speed Limits and Accidents. Project Report 58, Transport Research Laboratory (TRL), Crowthorne.

2. Taylor M C, Lynam D A and Baruya A (2000). The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents. Report 421, TRL, Crowthorne

3. Hooke A, Knox J and Portas D (1996). Cost Benefit Analysis of Traffic Light and Speed Cameras. Police Research Series paper 20, Police Research Group, Home Office, London

4. Jones, L. 1996. Putting Transport on the Social Policy Agenda. Social Policy Review 8: 247-264

---

1 & 2) speed reduction NOT speed enforcement. Speed reduction is achieved by people driving to the conditions.
3) how surprising, the police claiming their revenue earners are saving lives. Pity the real facts don't support them. The flaw in the statistics? They looked at too small a sample. Just because you had x number of accidents at a spot in one year, put in a camera and then the next year have x/2 accidents doesn't mean that the camera has halved your accident rate. Try looking at the previous 10 years or more of data and you'll see that these claimed reductions aren't real but just normal fluctuations.
4) more likely it found that they were driving too fast for the conditions (excessive speed is what the government chooses to call speeding, not exceeding the speed limit, which is how they manage to achieve their 30% of accidents caused by 'speeding' claim rather than the official police figures of less than 10%). As a cyclist I have far, far, far more issues with cnuts who think they own the road, don't look where they are going, don't indicate, and so on. Speed is NOT the issue bad attitudes and bad driving ARE the issue. As I've said before, far too many people think the LIMIT is some sort of fixed speed at which you (a) must drive and (b) you're not going to die. Rain, hail, fog, snow, you name it they're driving at the posted speed limit because the government has convinced them it's safe.
Another example for you. On one of my drives from Sydney to Adelaide. Posted speed limit is 110km/h. Bright, sunny, early morning, almost no traffic. I was driving at 130km/h (they usually give you 20km/h leeway). Passed a few cars along the way who were sitting on the speed limit. Came to the southern highlands. Thick fog. Very low visibility. I slow to 50km/h due to the conditions. The cars I'd passed earlier come belting past me still stuck on the speed limit. Question: who were the police (and it would seem members of this forum) more likely to pull over and accuse of endangering the lives of innocents? Next question: who was far more likely to have a major accident?

quote:

---

going through a red light last year.

---

f*ck me, and you say speeding's dangerous... what can be more dangerous than running a red?