Cycling UK Forum

All I know about average-speed enforcement systems is what I've observed. I don't know anything about the operational details. I know there are all sorts of stories going round and I don't know which are correct and which are urban myths. It's also important to recognise that technology changes. eg There was once a belief that the average speed cameras could be defeated by switching lanes: a vehicle which entered the system in one lane would not be measured if it exited in another. More recently, I've heard tell of drivers being caught. Who knows where the truth starts and ends?

There's at least one book been published purporting to have been written by a retired police officer with all the stuff "they don't want you to know." One of my neighbours is convinced that the speed cameras on so-called "intelligent motorways" where there's a variable speed limit can only be calibrated for one speed and that's normally 50mph so anything else is unenforceable. Again, I really have no idea.

I answered this so it didn't appear I was ignoring it. Others will know the answers, they may post. Or not.

Average speed systems also expose the number of drivers who don't know what the law is. I recently drove the A9 in a van doing exactly 60mph (by SatNav) on the dual carriageway sections. There was also a large number of cars doing exactly 60mph on the DC sections suggesting they don't know cars can do 70mph on rural National Speed Limit DCs.

As with most things the penalties ore just trivial. A minimum should be 5 digits plus a years ban. 2nd offence. Life ban. The system doesn't allow private individual evidence to the extent it should as well.

Are you suggesting that having five fingers chopped off would prevent people texting, or that the minimum penalty should be £10,000?

Please don't take this seriously but a friend amused me, he said he could cure all speeding and bad driving instantly, when I asked how he said: "all cars should be fitted with a 12 inch spike in the middle of the steering wheel". No one would tailgate speed etc... their total attention would be on the road and braking as smoothly as possible... It made me smile

No government would come down hard on the motorist. There are too many loseable votes involved. On average speeds. These were in force on French Motorways in the late 80s. There was always a police car parked at the tolls issueing fines and ready to chase somebody who did not want to pay.
I'd confiscate the car so the rich and poor pay a fair amount. When I used to commute at 7am I always wondered who the hell they were talking to at that time in the morning. I don't want to talk to anybody at that time. Don't understand it. It would be good if the person on the other end would ask "Are you driving" If so, then they should put the phone down. The worst thing that happened is all these free texts and calls. It just encourages abuse.

bigjim wrote:........ The worst thing that happened is all these free texts and calls. It just encourages abuse.

Nail,head,on!

thirdcrank wrote:The word "crime" is bandied about quite a lot and with different meanings in different contexts.

So, the criminal law largely relates to matters ....................that seems clear to me is opaque to others.

Thanks

The true of it all is that we can chew the fat as much as we like but until people who commit driving crime are caught doing it,and the penalties harsh enough to not make it worth their while,nothing will happen.
For that to become a reality we need an effective police force and a determined judicial system that sweep aside excuses for crime
Until that happens we're sunk.

It's a free far all on our roads ATM and IMHO it'll only getting worse as things are.

A neighbour has reported someone driving their very distinctive car on the road without MOT,VED or insurance not once but on a quite regular basis.The police response was that they don't have the manpower to track it down,and that should it come up on an ANPR check they stop it.

Whilst having tyres fitted a couple of weeks back,the garage owner,who fits tyres to the local police fleet,was telling me of various conversations he's had with officers with ANPR cars.And that they switch off the MOT facility and concentrate on insurance avoidance,as they'd 'get nothing done' for stopping MOT avoiders.
They also tell him they rarely get five miles from the station before they've stopped a car without insurance.
Policing is woefully inadequate and completely undermanned IMHO.

thirdcrank wrote:There's at least one book been published purporting to have been written by a retired police officer with all the stuff "they don't want you to know." One of my neighbours is convinced that the speed cameras on so-called "intelligent motorways" where there's a variable speed limit can only be calibrated for one speed and that's normally 50mph so anything else is unenforceable. Again, I really have no idea.

The intelligent motorways used to have standard speed cameras that could only be set for one speed. While they sometimes set them for different speeds, and used the correct camera according to the speed limit, in 2014, they began replacing them with digital enforcement cameras. These are not traditional speed cameras. They have two digital radar units in them, and a computer calculates the speed of any vehicle. They also don't need the little white lines, which is why when sections with these new cameras are resurfaced, the speed camera line are not always repainted.

These cameras are also more accurate, so the 'limit' at which fixed penalty notices will be issued may have changed. Digital enforcement cameras are now in place on the M1 and M25 where variable speed limit are used.

http://www.redflex.com/index.php/en/med ... cs-cameras are the most commonly used cameras, but there is a brand made in the Netherlands as well. I have forgotten the name of it.

reohn2 wrote:... They also tell him they rarely get five miles from the station before they've stopped a car without insurance....

These insurance ads on TV amaze me when the advertise that they cover your losses should you be hit by an uninsured driver. That will cost the insurance company money which they effectively get by increasing they premiums. So in effect you (a legal insured driver) are paying for cover for illegal uninsured drivers ! and when things get to such a point strikes me that the system has broken down and needs radical overhaul.

Ian

The extra that policyholders pay to cover uninsured and untraced drivers is regularly quoted in the media. I suppose it's another way of expressing the costs of running the MIB which is the way the insurers pick up the tab. It's surprising that there isn't a much stronger campaign on behalf of insured drivers to deal with this. I suspect that a lot of people are simply oblivious to this, in spite of the publicity. It's a bit like serious crashes: it takes a serious injury or a bereavement to convince people how bad things are.

irc wrote:Average speed systems also expose the number of drivers who don't know what the law is. I recently drove the A9 in a van doing exactly 60mph (by SatNav) on the dual carriageway sections. There was also a large number of cars doing exactly 60mph on the DC sections suggesting they don't know cars can do 70mph on rural National Speed Limit DCs.

or perhaps they just think 70 mph is too fast for roads which could have slower users such as cyclists, tractors, allow pedestrians etc....

Photograph or video them and submit the footage to the Police.

andrewk wrote:Photograph or video them and submit the footage to the Police.

Who will then, IME, do precisely nothing. The claim that they take this seriously causes me to fall about laughing, or would if the morons with phones weren't so dangerous. The other thing is, it's not only phones. Make up mirrors, cigarettes, sandwiches, distracting children all happen, all are dangerous, hardly any are ever dealt with. The only realistic solutions are long term ones - driverless cars, or proper infrastructure to segregate the motons away from people.