Average speed cameras on m25

[Blue in Munich]

As someone who uses the M25 very infrequently 5 or 6 times a year I don't mind the ASC what I do object to is the idiot in lane 3 doing 67MPH when the inside 2 lanes a are clear meaning all traffic has to pass him on the outside lane. It would appear that although now illegal Police are coming down as hard on these people as they are on people still using mobile phones while driving.

The problem is catching them.
Traffic Police numbers are down, there are simply not the same numbers of Police on the roads to catch people in at he act.
If they do catch someone they do prosecute.
It's all well and good making up new laws if there are not enough Police to put them into practice..

Spot on Imurg; absolutely no point in Parliament creating new laws if there is no instrument to enforce them. Unfortunately the bean counters are more interested in dealing with offences that produce revenue than the ones that will actually make our roads safer so don't expect it to change anytime soon.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Motorways in the UK are the safest roads in the country.
I think the facts from last year were as follows;
Accidents on motorways represented only 4% of all motor-vehicle accidents during the year.
These accidents only represented 2% of all fatalities.

Most accidents occur on inner-city roads (people driving into the back of someone etc...)
But the most fatalities occur on rural roads - due to head on collisions (the impact speed is therefore significantly higher).

Therefore you could argue that speeding on a motor way is a lower risk than driving the speed limit on a rural road.

In terms of speed cameras. They don't clock you if you are just above the limit. There is a buffer.
For a fixed speed camera (i.e. one of the many on the A3) the speed they flash you is 10% above the limit, plus 2. e.g. if the speed camera is set at 50, you need to be travelling above 57 to get flashed.

For mobile speed cameras (e.g. police vehicles in a car on the motorway) I have heard they will typically not pull you over unless you are doing more than 86 (when the limit is 70).

Therefore, you could realistically drive at 55mph during an average speed camera zone and you wouldn't be penalised.

Somewhat oversimplified regarding the speed issue I'd suggest. Motorways are generally safer because all the traffic is (or should be) travelling the same way, the joining manoeuvres are merging rather than turning, all the turning manoeuvres are removed from the main carriageway by the use of grade separated junctions and the most vulnerable groups of road users (cyclists and pedestrians who don't have a protective cage around them) are prohibited from using them.

Personally I wouldn't put the 86mph theory to the test either.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I think ASCs are the most effective moderator of speed there is! That doesn't stop me from 'hating' them - especially at weekends when there is no-one actually working in that section - nor getting angry at the guys flying past at significantly higher!

And that's as a motor-cyclist who hasn't yet seen one facing in the direction to pick up my plate!

Foxholer, the limit often stays in because either the lanes are narrower than standard or because safety measures like the central barrier may not yet be fully engineered up to the standard for the full limit, not just to protect the work force.

 

[Imurg]

Yes, Motorways are statistically the safest roads
There are more crashes around town, in 30 limits and the like.
Speed, however, is a huge factor.
Crash into another car at 30mph and the chances are you'll both walk away with maybe a few cuts and bruises.
If a car, doing 90, goes through the central reservation and hits another car coming the other way doing 90, nobody will be walking anywhere.

Safer they may be, but if you do have a crash on a motorway it's almost always going to be a buggy...

 

[MadAdey]

From my experiences this morning of doing 40 Miles in 2 hours on the M25 I don't think there was much chance of me getting done......:sbox:

 

[markgs]

The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you

 

[Deleted member 15344]

The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you

Totally false.

 

[Blue in Munich]

The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you

Totally false.

Is the correct answer.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The difference between 70 and 90 MPH over a short distance doesn't make much difference but we travel to Scotland to see the outlaws every couple of years and it makes a massive difference over those kinds of distances. We travel over night when the roads are empty so the missus and kids can sleep all the way there and it takes us 7 hours door to door. If I did the same journey during the day it can take up to 12 hours! If I want to speed for the thrill I take the bike out for a good hard ride away from any speed camera sites in Cornwall.

Absolutely agree - and I do that as well. Used to get the kids in their pyjamas and head off from Surrey at 6-7pm. Get past Preston and the M6 and then M74 were empty. Great. But we wanted to get there asap. Maybe sometimes we don't have to get somewhere as quickly as possible and so maybe it is sometimes good to take your time.

 

[Fish]

I've never stuck to the average speeds when there are miles of average speed camera's (M6 & M25) and by saying never stuck, I mean nowhere near! Whether travelling to golf courses early morning or wanting to get back home later, no thrill seeking, just wanting to get their and get back I go as fast as I can as safely as I can dependent on the traffic and conditions and have not received a speeding ticket.

They must work though as Clarkson fell foul to them on the M6 after midnight around Stafford and complained on National TV that there were no workmen at that time and very little traffic so felt he could increase his speed, but it cost him.

 

[vkurup]

Dont worry.. soon Insurance companies will require you to have a blackbox on you machine that will record your driving style, which can be easily overlaid with GPS coordinates and therefore they can predict your driving behaviour. So if the cameras dont get you, the insurance will get you...

 

[Imurg]

The trouble is they don't give the whole picture.
The Black Box may record speed, acceleration, braking and steering but unless you have a dashboard camera they don't know the situation.
Someone could drive at the speed limit all the time, accelerate smoothly and brake smoothly - but be cutting up other drivers and pulling out at junctions/roundabouts and generally causing havoc.

And get a discount on their insurance...

 

[AMcC]

Is the correct answer.

Would have to agree to disagree on this matter, but saying no more :smirk:

We have fixed ASC on the A77 for a fairly decent length of the road and what really gets me is the people doing less than 70, 60 or 50 depending on what part of the road they are on, and seeing the cameras and immediately braking !!!!!!! Did they not read the signs saying they were average speed cameras.

 

[Andy808]

Would have to agree to disagree on this matter, but saying no more :smirk:

We have fixed ASC on the A77 for a fairly decent length of the road and what really gets me is the people doing less than 70, 60 or 50 depending on what part of the road they are on, and seeing the cameras and immediately braking !!!!!!! Did they not read the signs saying they were average speed cameras.

Are they the ones heading up to and around Ayr bypass?
If so I know them well and I've not had a ticket off them even when I've not worried about speed too much (forgotten they are there!)

 

[AMcC]

Yes, they stretch all the way down from Symington, round the Ayr bypass and down to Girvan.
The ones at Symington to Dutch house are now 50 mph. The traffic generally flows at a steady speed through most of the cameras. I know the traffic boys have been patrolling and catching people who do not pass through two cameras and turn off before the second one. A good few people have been caught this way.

 

[londonlewis]

Crash into another car at 30mph and the chances are you'll both walk away with maybe a few cuts and bruises.
If a car, doing 90, goes through the central reservation and hits another car coming the other way doing 90, nobody will be walking anywhere.

Safer they may be, but if you do have a crash on a motorway it's almost always going to be a buggy...

Not necessarily.
Head on collision for two cars travelling at 30mph = an impact speed of 60mph

Drive into the back of someone on a motorway, the impact speed is likely to be less. Unless someone is driving 120mph into the back of someone doing 60mph.

And the typical accident on the motorway does not usually occur with motor vehicles from both sides of the motorway (i.e. a car crossing through the central reservation).

 

[MadAdey]

Not necessarily.
Head on collision for two cars travelling at 30mph = an impact speed of 60mph

Drive into the back of someone on a motorway, the impact speed is likely to be less. Unless someone is driving 120mph into the back of someone doing 60mph.

And the typical accident on the motorway does not usually occur with motor vehicles from both sides of the motorway (i.e. a car crossing through the central reservation).

I think the point murg was making is that people more often than not step out of their car when accidents happen in a residential area. But on motorways people more often than not have to be cut out, or their car is on its roof.

Low speed accidents are normally things like people pulling out in front of another car, or going to the back of someone. Both which have a low impact speed. But when you get a car hit another from behind doing 80 which pushes that car in the way of a lorry which then swerves, that lorry is going 50 with a weight of 40+ tons behind it what ever that hits is going to be crushed.

 

[Foxholer]

The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you

Complete rubbish!

Urban myth - based on the initial 'proving' period, when they only covered 1 lane

 

[londonlewis]

I think the point murg was making is that people more often than not step out of their car when accidents happen in a residential area. But on motorways people more often than not have to be cut out, or their car is on its roof.

Low speed accidents are normally things like people pulling out in front of another car, or going to the back of someone. Both which have a low impact speed. But when you get a car hit another from behind doing 80 which pushes that car in the way of a lorry which then swerves, that lorry is going 50 with a weight of 40+ tons behind it what ever that hits is going to be crushed.

I agree but only 4% of all fatalaties occur on motorways. The example above is going to be a very rare incident.
The biggest cause of incidents on motorways is due to driving whilst tired. Not driving too fast.
Driving too fast may cause a secondary issue (i.e. if someone falls asleep at the wheel, you will have less reaction time to move out of the way) but the actual cause of the accident was not someone driving too fast.
We could go round in circles on this all day, like driving on the M25.

 

[vkurup]

The average speed cameras only work if you stay in the same lane if you change lanes they can not record you

Complete rubbish!

Urban myth - based on the initial 'proving' period, when they only covered 1 lane

I think this is down to Jeremy Clarkson doing something on Top gear. I think it was true many many moons ago, but these days the Avg speed cameras use ANPR cameras, so no such options.