OT: Smart Motorways and overly smart cameras?

Hi all,
So, after seeing HADECS 3 speed camera (flash) going off a few times in a 40mph variable speed section of the M25 (J29 anticlock)
https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/database/EEE/eee180.htm
the other day got me looking into it all and wondering what the *actual* point was and where we might be going with all this.
https://www.speedcamerasuk.com/hadecs-3.htm
In a nutshell, I think I remember these 'Safety Cameras' being originally being installed (initially grey then they were forced to paint them yellow?) in 'known accident blackspots' and in situations where it might be prudent to keep people down to the speed limit (like outside a school, even though that could still be way too fast in the fog or snow etc). ;-(
Since then we seem to have moved to a situation where against those original intentions we are could all (?) become 'soft targets' to receiving a fine (~50% of your weekly wage) and 3 points on your licence for momentarily straying up to say 41 mph in a (temporary even) 40mph zone, even where there is no practical, logical or safety implication for limiting a section of road down from 70mph to say 40 mph at_that_time (e.g. No road works, no debris on the road, no congestion there or for many many miles, perfect weather conditions etc etc).
I think the old NPCC or ACPO guidelines were perfectly reasonable and they typically stated things like...
"1.1.3 Speed enforcement is expensive - it is both time and resource intensive and competes with other important policing issues of equal public concern. Enforcement is mainly reactive and should not be seen as a preventative measure to achieve vehicle speeds. Prevention has to rely on public support and compliance by the majority and enforcement of the minority who ignore the law."
https://www.cambs.police.uk/roadsafety/docs/201305-uoba-joining-forces-safer-roads.pdf
So, is drifting up to 42 mph on a clear, dry free moving motorway (to say get past a HGV that has started indicating to pull out as you were beside it) intentionally / directly 'ignoring the law' (by any RW view of such things) or in any other way 'driving dangerously or inconsiderately'?
Even if it was, how does that sort of action compare with those driving under the speed limit but who actually were driving erratically or dangerously but completely unrecorded by said cameras?
And then we come to the legal matter of 'De Minimis', where, in a real_human world, very few things will be *that* precise and we may well see an increase in road traffic accidents because of people fixating on their speed rather than the road around them?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_minimis
We don't have a zero threshold for say alcohol in the bloodstream or many people would be 'done' after using a mouthwash or from the party two days earlier.
Is this just a way of pushing for vehicle speed automation or maybe even just raising revenue or will we all be just going 5-10mph under the speed limit from now on?
Maybe they can now raise the national speed limit to 80 mph rather than not bothering to prosecute at anything below 79 as they have been doing?
Cheers, T i m
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/the-truth-about-speeding-fines/
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/item/speeding-revised-2017/
p.s. I read of a case where a driver has his fixed camera location speeding offence prosecution dropped because he measured the spacing between the white lines on the road (secondary speed measurement) and found them 3" too close together. I wonder if all the previously issued / questionable penalties were withdrawn after that was discovered? ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/17 15:30, T i m wrote:

No. cameras generate income. They are there to generate income to pay for themselves, the consultants on 'speed awareness' courses and wherever the fines go.
--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
..I'd spend it on drink.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 29 May 2017 16:05:32 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

Non camera speed enforcement is probably expensive though.

And some don't and why they have been removed.

When they are there and working and positioned where they are partly hidden or in an area where there is no particular risk but at say the bottom of a hill (where the upside of the hill will normally cancel out any speed increase naturally and ecological) they can do.

The courses cost the participants and at the current capture rate with these new Smart Motorways and variable speed cameras they will be in work for a long long time. I believe these funds do go to the Police

The Police Commissioners hoped they would go to that force (see Bedfordshire) but they have been told the moneys will go to the treasury (where some cash could go to the NHS to pay for all the extra accidents with people losing concentration on the road or getting bored etc). ;-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11975971/Motorists-face-zero-tolerance-approach-to-speeding-on-the-motorways.html
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/17 16:50, T i m wrote:

Should be grateful - at least we can use GPS cam databases and alerters.
In France, any device that *can* identify the position of speed/lights cameras is illegal to possess in a car. Not just operate, but to possess.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, every smartphone then? ;-)
I seem to recall from our last trip to France that our navigation app (Waze) just stopped giving precise locations and instead just identified "speed camera zones", presumably to get around the ruling. I've no idea whether all navigation apps treat France the same way though.
To be honest though, the French seem to be pretty good at putting up signs a few hundred metres before every speed camera warning you of its presence so I'm not sure why they make such a song and dance about other systems.
Tim
--
Please don't feed the trolls

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Those are going to be removed.
--
There's no obfuscated Perl contest because it's pointless.

- Jeff Polk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/17 19:33, Tim Streater wrote:

I do wonder why the frogs stand for this nonsense - I thought they had more dignity...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I've never seen one, unless you mean the 'Radar Controle' signs that seem to be on the approach to every town and village.
The sneakiest thing I've ever seen was on the E40 in slow moving traffic. As I was crawling past one of those large green upside down dustbins with the left and right pointing arrows at an off-slip, by virtue of being on the 'wrong' side of the car I had a beautiful view in my rear view mirror of the backside of one which had a hole cut out of it with the speed camera mounted inside!
--

Terry

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30/05/2017 11:04, Terry Casey wrote:

On the other hand, I have also seen totally non-profit speed control in France, where exceeding the speed limit simply causes the lights at the junction ahead of you to go red just before you get there. Simple and effective at reducing speed.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 May 2017 20:09:53 +0100, Steve Walker

How clever. ;-)
I have seen a couple of areas round here where the phasing of the lights are so predictable that the regulars know there is little point even driving at the speed limit between them so just pootle between each set often keep rolling. There are some you could get though faster if you raced but there are also cameras along there. ;-(
That's not to say they wouldn't sometimes traverse that sequence of lights quicker if they were more random, just that they aren't. ;-)
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/17 17:34, Tim Watts wrote:

Does that means you have to drive with your eyes shut?
Or remove your mk I eyeballs?
--
"When one man dies it's a tragedy. When thousands die it's statistics."

Josef Stalin
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Whilst I'm sure you are right, although I'm not sure what use they are under the variable speed limit / zero tolerance scheme? Ok, they warn you there is a radar device ahead but not what speed it is *currently* policing and if you are following and about to overtake a couple of artics, what speed you might be doing (since the last speed marker) as you pass under the gantry that you don't see till the last moment?

I have never really considered them because I'm not sure you can rely on them and if you aren't regularly speeding and suitably are observant, you shouldn't need one?
I guess there may be the odd time they *could* pay for themselves though ...
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2017 21:16, T i m wrote:

If you can't see the signs you shouldn't be driving. The speed limit cameras don't change as soon as the sign does.
I take the view that if you got caught by a bright yellow gatso you should be banned and made to take an eye test before you could get your license back.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't have a license. I might have a licence though.
HTH.
--
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
(and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 29 May 2017 21:39:51 +0100, dennis@home

See, in your left brained world there can be no circumstances where seeing the signs may be difficult. You would also be unable to understand why 'good drivers' might take prompts from their general surroundings re how the speed limits might change. It's the same reason people (ITRW) hit others up the back when they anchor up for no reason (and why 'slam on's' became so lucrative for the scammers).

One Police are have suggested there is a 60 second delay between the sign changing and the camera threshold changing to match but they may not apply across the country.

I agree, but there could well be times that those of us who aren't robots might not be looking for a yellow box on a pole but which way the deer might run in the oncoming HID headlights that are dazzling both you and the deer.
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2017 22:08, T i m wrote:

Making stuff up again. A good driver will also see the signs and they make some of the prompts.

Where don't they apply?

So you are taking the prompts and you would be driving at a safe speed to cope with the HID lights dazzling you and the dear running out as well as the highly visible gatso safety camera. However you may not have noticed the hidden police speed enforcement camera so what do you do then?.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 May 2017 14:44:17 +0100, dennis@home

Yup, that's the problem with droids, no imagination or empathy. ;-(

I'm sure they will / do. That's why some very good drivers (even professional) manage die each year eh?

have to explain *everything* to these left brainers ...). That's why, when interviewed, the head Police commissioner of each area will often start their statements with 'This may only apply in the county of xyx but the ...'.

No, I'm saying exactly the opposite of that. I'm saying you are *trying* to deal with these things and so may not be able to *accurately* deal with something well down the priorities list, like going though a speed limit change at the right speed.
Now, if we all drive like you do at 10 mph and so have plenty of time to deal with any unforeseen circumstance ...

You go though it of course, just as you would anything low down the list of (survival) priorities.
When you are hanging off a cliff with one hand you don't wonder if you turned the heating off indoors.
You wouldn't be wondering that of course as:
1) You wouldn't be anywhere near the cliff in the first place (even if the rest of your U3A group were walking along it).
2) Your 'Home Exit' checklist would have reminded you to turn the heating off before you left.
3) Your crystal ball would have predicted *every* circumstance in the future and guided you round it.
We aren't talking about those instances that catch out the maniacs or those like you who go everywhere at 10 mph <g>, we are talking of those generally conscientious drivers, just trying to get from A to B in the least amount of time and doing their best to do so safely and legally.
And then something happens ... (look up Chaos theory).
"Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future."
That driver in that vehicle on that road at that time with that camera and that sunset and that lorry and that baby being sick ...
Cheers, T i m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Same law was due to come in here, but it ran out of parlimentary time at the end of one of the government terms 2 or 3 terms back. It also included a reduction in points awarded for people only just over the limit, and raising speed limits on motorways to 80 to match most of rest of Europe, although I think that might have been dropped before the whole change was lost, and it was the delay due to that which eventually lost the whole bill.
--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 29/05/2017 16:50, T i m wrote:

They can't, it is impossible as the revenue does not comeback to the police or councils so they have to pay for the cameras and their upkeep. If they don't have cameras it saves them money unless they still want to enforce the limits. The old system did allow the councils to keep the cash to spend on road safety.

It all goes in the general tax fund. It costs the police/highways agency money to run the cameras but they think it is worth the trouble of doing so. So do drivers that understand how smart motorways work and what they do.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Much better if such funds do *not* end up with the local authority or local police. That way, you avoid the sort of legalised banditry they enjoy in the US.
--
HAL 9000: Dave. Put down those Windows disks. Dave. DAVE!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.