Warning - New Stealth Tax on Motorists! Coming to a motorway near you..........

[Ootohere]

Time dependent but very much location dependent, 

there are lots of different kinds of Motorways around the UK dependent on when built or upgraded,

and even no Motorways North of Perth Scotland.

 

But the Road Traffic Laws and Speed Limits on Motorways & Dual Carriageways is pretty similar around the UK 

and slightly different by Vehicle Class on Dual Carriaegeways is in need to clear posting of limits and variable times 

and then the Policing of the limits, and not by the Police in most cases, but by Roads Authorities on behalf of the Government Agencies.

 

Things need to be made fit for purpose, and if you see Signs & Traffic restrictions warnings and Radio Announcements all wrong 

then complain to the Traffic Agencies.

 

**It is a Twitter & Social Media age, so tell them,  no point telling Forums & people online with no control over the Signs**.

 

in Scotland tell these.

http://trafficscotland.org

http://trafficscotland.org/currentincidents

http://trafficscotland.org/livetrafficcameras

Edited 28 January, 2015 by goneoffSKi

[bealine]

 

 

Have you ever tried it?   Phone rings and rings with no answer.

 

Incidentally, these new stealth cameras are rolling out on all motorways and, despite the police (ACPO) asking for a 10% +2mph tolerance, they are set for exactly 70 mph.

I know the concensus of opinion on Briskoda is against my views, but motorways are our safest roads and this is nothing more than a momey-making scam.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2015/01/25/big-brother-ready-to-get-zap-happy-with-motorway-stealth-cameras/

Edited 28 January, 2015 by bealine

[Ootohere]

Never wrung the English ones.

 

Contacted the Office of the Roads Minister in Scotland . at that time Keith Brown MSP, 

and communicated directly with him by Email, & with Traffic Scotland & Bear Scotland.

 

Then the office of Alex Salmond MSP FM, 

and with the Opposition Leaders.

 

The issues at the time were resolved, 

because i forwarded the Communications to all the Scottish Newspaper Editors, and BBC Scotland & Sky News.

 

Some moan online,

& some like me are Keyboard Warriors, and Freedom of Information & Modern Communications is an advantage not a hindrance.

 

** They work for you.,  

they take the Salary and the Expenses, and if they are in charge of a fiasco, and systems not fit for purpose, tell them,

then tell the whole world, if you can be bothered.**

 

I have never heard people that stay below the maximum applicable speed limits & take care never to exceed the posted limits being caught going over them, and if errors are made they can be rectified.

If they play the lottery of going over, then you might have to pay the price.

& i have the T-Shirts as do many others.

http://bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-30972743

Edited 28 January, 2015 by goneoffSKi

[Ootohere]

PS

The country needs camaras all over now anyway, 

they did away with Paper Tax Discs and are now relying on ANPR,  so combine the Speed Cameras with VED/ VOSA / DWP / Insurance / HMRC / Police / Anti Terror Agencies etc.

 

Joined up thinking, big brother knows the cars are legal, can trace the Registration Numbers where displayed,

then you catch quicker those in Illegal none insured T&T vehicles, on the Grip & on the Rob and claim for not on the job,

and taking other Tax Payers money.

 

Big Brother is here and the plan is coming together,

so they might as well issue Trackers to all Driving licence holders & Registered Keepers, and make carrying them a Legal Requirement 

in Vehicles,  then Cameras become redundant, you just needs GPS / Mobile Phone / Rely Station Technology.

& Electricity obviously. Solar Powered will do for Day Time.

[SEVrs]

You slightly miss the point. We are told that speeding is dangerous, but there is little proof that it is. Therefore the government doesn't actually target resources at this area because they know it'll make little difference to safety on the roads.

 

Therefore the reason we're being told that "speeding is dangerous" is in order to justify using speed enforcement cameras and raising cash that way (keep telling people the same message over and over and eventually they'll believe / accept it).

It's just another cynical and manipulative mode of government that leads to people being less trusting of politicians. And also, interestingly, the storey appears at a time when fuel prices (and corresponding tax and duty revenue) is declining, therefore leading to the conclusion that they are making up the shortfall via speeding fines.

 

Motorist's have long been seen as a group fit for fleecing by successive governments and it gets a lot of people (me included) pretty p***ed off!

 

 

There's a few issues here, not just the blanket "yes it is/no it isn't "wrong" to exceed the speed limit"

 

First off, you're correct. Exceeding the posted speed limit is not necessarily dangerous in itself.  Many speed limits were brought into being taking account of traffic and road conditions and the car of the day's ability to stop (and handle).  Whilst the latter's undeniably improved over the years, the former issues have regressed, making the driving environment more dangerous than ever before, partly due to the number of drivers on the road (and I would argue also, partly due to the number  of incompetent, inconsiderate and downright dangerous drivers on our roads today).

 

The issue of whether it's all a revenue generating scheme is one most, would I think, have some sympathy for.  Generally, the purpose of M-way variable speed limits and speed cameras is to regulate the flow of traffic to avoid congestion or to safeguard highways workers.

 

Whilst I have no sympathy whatsoever for any inconsiderate ape who speeds through roadworks putting the lives of workers at risk, I have every sympathy for those caught by stealthy means as an obvious revenue generating scheme.  Motorways remain the safest places to drive, yet abound with speed cameras these days.  People are effectively receiving points on licences and even prospective bans mainly because of environmental control measures, and NOT safety concerns.  I have a problem with that, even though anyone caught really hasn't a leg to stand on.  

 

Most accidents occur in and around urban/built up areas within the 30 or 40mph zones where speeding contributes towards the deaths of pedestrians, so should be strictly enforced there.  No-one, I suspect, has an argument or problem with that.

 

Outside of those areas, whilst speed can be a contributing factor (and here I readily admit that I don't know the true figures) it is in my experience (of witnessing accidents rather than being directly involved) driving without due care and attention or poor car control which is the biggest single cause of accidents, something for which no camera can alter the stats.  As a seasoned biker, I am only too well aware that people pulling out on other motorists, overtaking where it isn't safe, or cutting white lines on blind corners have accounted for more near misses where I have been the one "missed"!  

 

I don't buy the conspiracy theories about dropping fuel prices meaning that local highways agencies or councils need to see revenue by other means, ie cameras.  It takes months if not years to plan, engineer and deliver camera sites, including the infrastructure needed and such investment is not done on the whim of a volatile fuel market, it's done as part of a highways control strategy.  A fair question, I guess, is whether that strategy is revenue related or safety related.  Speed is an easy target for safety campaigners because its a very easy aspect for driving control without the need for lots of manpower.  That alone leaves it open for mis-use, or being kind, "alternative use" (read revenue generation and environmental control).

 

The question is not whether it is considered "right or wrong" as the rights and wrongs don't come into play for the strategic planning that deliver them as far as I'm concerned, but whether it's a good use of public funds in today's cash strapped society.  Personally, I'd rather see the money going to the police or to the NHS where its arguably needed more.  It would, imho, be a better use of the cash, as would simply maintaining our blasted roads which where I live anyway, are becoming nothing more than pot-holed farm tracks.

Edited 28 January, 2015 by SEVrs

[SEVrs]

 That statement alone is utter rubbish - certainly not on the motorways I travel.  Maybe we are better policed in Scotland but if I set the cruise control to 70 I am only ever passed by a few cars on a 30- 40 mile journey, and I certainly pass more cars than pass me.  That's assuming of course the roads are unconjested enough to even travel at 70!

 

Not a Motorway but average speed cameras were recently installed on the A9 from Dunblane to Inverness, at teh same time the limit for HGV's was raised to 50 (which most of them did anyway) - the result is that traffics is much calmer with nobody blasting past the odd slow lorry in stupid places, everyone just sits at 50 ish and you get there just as quickly.

 

That doesn't make it so everywhere else.  Locally, if you drive at 70 on the M5, you are made to feel like you're parked stationary, any time of the day or night.  80 is more the norm and plenty drive faster than that.

[Ootohere]

But,

Not for much longer it seems if the 'Stealth Cameras', as the OP & Media are calling them are being rolled out.

[SEVrs]

True 

[slider]

That doesn't make it so everywhere else.  Locally, if you drive at 70 on the M5, you are made to feel like you're parked stationary, any time of the day or night.  80 is more the norm and plenty drive faster than that.

being a sheep still doesnt make it acceptable

[Laurie61]

Something else to consider is traffic volumes on M ways. Going by my local roads, where cameras have been installed in 30 mph zones, traffic speeds have fallen from 30-35 mph to around 24-26 mph. On these roads you might argue it makes little difference to journey times or road capacity. If the same happens on M ways it will reduce per hour totals and reduce or reverse the benefits of a variable limit .So gov will have invested millions of our money, alienated many drivers and done nothing to improve congestion.        

Edited 28 January, 2015 by Laurie61

[stever750]

The managed sections on the M42 have made a huge difference at peak times. It's rarely stopped, whereas previously it would be stop start all the way to the M40 interchange (southbound direction)
Limiting the speed means it's pointless hopping from one lane to another. That's had a huge impact on the flow

Edited 29 January, 2015 by stever750

[bealine]

That doesn't make it so everywhere else.  Locally, if you drive at 70 on the M5, you are made to feel like you're parked stationary, any time of the day or night.  80 is more the norm and plenty drive faster than that.

 

Last night, on the M4, I set the cruise control at 68 mph and it felt positively dangerous.   Most cars were passing me at 80-85 mph, but the slipstream of the few that were close to "the ton" seriously shook Roger Rapid.    I also had two coaches pass me, one being a six wheel "Megabus" and that felt intimidating.   Interestingly enough, a police Range Rover was one of the few seriously exceeding the limit - obviously on a "shout" - but with no blue lights so must have been a "covert" job.   We would have had no chance of survival if I had needed to change lane though!

 

 I really don't hold with this "70 mph is safe" camp at all unless everyone else conforms.

[Brimma]

This is getting tedious now

Just drive at whatever speed you like, get prosecuted, then argue your mitigation in court that you were under duress to drive at that speed for fear of your life

[SEVrs]

being a sheep still doesnt make it acceptable

 

Who was suggesting otherwise?  Not me. I am merely pointing out the facts.  Travelling at 70mph is the legal maximum on UK motorways yet many exceed that by some margin. 

Edited 29 January, 2015 by SEVrs

[SEVrs]

Last night, on the M4, I set the cruise control at 68 mph and it felt positively dangerous.   Most cars were passing me at 80-85 mph, but the slipstream of the few that were close to "the ton" seriously shook Roger Rapid.    I also had two coaches pass me, one being a six wheel "Megabus" and that felt intimidating.   Interestingly enough, a police Range Rover was one of the few seriously exceeding the limit - obviously on a "shout" - but with no blue lights so must have been a "covert" job.   We would have had no chance of survival if I had needed to change lane though!

 

 I really don't hold with this "70 mph is safe" camp at all unless everyone else conforms.

 

 

I'd say that depends on the prevalent driving conditions at the time.  A relatively empty motorway with some others choosing to "do the ton" doesn't make it unsafe to drive to the posted speed limit, yet at other times I agree with you.  With juggernauts bearing down a few feet from your rear bumper, mid lane hoggers refusing to pull over, or worse, travelling at stupidly high speed making it difficult (and dangerous) to estimate speed  of approach in the rear view mirror if you're indicating to pull out are all examples of increased hazards.  Hazard awareness and driving accordingly is the only way to stay safe but I must admit, if variable speed limits are being introduced, it seems sensible in some ways to raise the maximum speed limit to 80 or 85 if conditions and traffic allow.  Absolutists don't show much in the way of brain power sometimes, as the reality is that whilst unlikey to land you a ticket, it is often safer for a brief squirt up to 80 to reduce the risk of say a fast approaching car if you're overtaking is safer than the blanket approach of "I'm not doing more than 70 and sod everyone else".  Of course, not pulling out in the first place is equally valid an argument   although sometimes, through no deliberation, you may not see these things until its too late, so some reaction other than "nope...they can brake as I refuse to do more than 70" would appear to be the more sensible course of action.  Just examples.  Its not a perfect world, and yes, if the limits were multilaterally adhered to, it would be a safer place to drive.

Edited 29 January, 2015 by SEVrs

[Dr Zoidberg]

 That statement alone is utter rubbish - certainly not on the motorways I travel.  Maybe we are better policed in Scotland but if I set the cruise control to 70 I am only ever passed by a few cars on a 30- 40 mile journey, and I certainly pass more cars than pass me.

 

Same here. Drove down to cheltenham today and counted about half a dozen very quick vehicles on the way there and back - 85+ at a guess.

The majority were anywhere between HGV and low 70s with me passing more than overtook me.

 

I noticed motorway speeds dropped when fuel got expensive in about 2008 and they've stayed lower since then, with almost no effect on journey times as there's less congestion.

 

I've certainly never felt it was unsafe to be only doing 70 outside of Oulton Park or Thruxton.

[BJM]

That doesn't make it so everywhere else.  Locally, if you drive at 70 on the M5, you are made to feel like you're parked stationary, any time of the day or night.  80 is more the norm and plenty drive faster than that.

 

Interesting comment.

 

I drive the M5 in Glos. daily, at various times. Leaving out that there are various speed restrictions due to roadworks atm, I find that at present the traffic rarely travels at 70+, and during the dreaded Summer Midlands lemming like rush to the South West, the speeds are usually sub 60.

[stever750]

You're all welcome to visit my house, as my driveway has no speed limit.

[slider]

Who was suggesting otherwise?  Not me. I am merely pointing out the facts.  Travelling at 70mph is the legal maximum on UK motorways yet many exceed that by some margin.

Was a statement, not an accusation

[bealine]

It seems like we have scored a victory!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-115574/Hundreds-speed-cameras-scrapped.html

[stever750]

That requirement has always been the case (it has here in wales anyway). Cameras are only placed at known blackspots where previous accidents have occurred, and have had to have been painted yellow for several years now. This is just The Daily Mash  at work again.

 

http://www.gosafe.org/cameras/where-we-place-cameras.aspx

 

The debate over cameras for cash has long since moved on, it's recognised that their primary function is to slow traffic, and that only works if you can see them, and know they are there. A good camera is one that makes no money. GoSafe are certainly not trying to catch anyone out - witness the 3 months notice period pof the cameras on the M4 Port Talbot flyover. Despite that, 100 a drivers a day are still being caught. No such thing as stealth tax, it's a moron tax. Get over it.

Edited 30 January, 2015 by stever750

[Ootohere]

Who is 'We;  is that the Royal Wee?

 

The OP was about Stealth Tax on Hidden Cameras on Motorways, and they are going ahead, breeding and multiplying.

 

As for the 'Invisible' Cameras now, still in place & that people that might exceed the Speed Limit might not spot.  well that was Tough Titty really IMHO.

[Brimma]

Who is 'We; is that the Royal Wee?

The OP was about Stealth Tax on Hidden Cameras on Motorways, and they are going ahead, breeding and multiplying.

As for the 'Invisible' Cameras now, still in place & that people that might exceed the Speed Limit might not spot. well that was Tough Titty really IMHO.

I'm sure Bealine was personally involved in the national protest against these cameras?

Or maybe he did nothing but mouth off on a car forum

Lay your bets please

[aolt]

My boss was caught on the M5 near Bristol the other day. 80 in a 70. She will be doing a speed awareness course today. Fair play. The cameras are there, and people know about them anyway. However I see the gantries flash on the odd occasion. Granted these are not the 'stealth' cameras.

 

These 'stealth' cameras are being placed on the Smart motorways, and they tend to have a different feel to the traffic flow in the area anyway.

 

I haven't felt unsafe doing 70 on a motorway for being too slow. Coaches are generally quicker than HGVs, so I expect them to look for an overtake if there is a HGV in from of them. However I wouldn't normally expect to be overtaken by a coach at 70mph.

 

I notice a difference in motorways. For example M4 in from Severn Bridge to Cardiff is generally lower speeds (Even on the non variable speed limit zones). 70mph and I will be in lane 3 overtaking most people. However if I do M4 Bristol towards Swindon then at 70mph I am overtaken most of the time.

[bealine]

I'm sure Bealine was personally involved in the national protest against these cameras?

 

Of course he was.  I did not take up arms for Queen and country to let little petty minded politically motivated "little Hitlers" ruin our hard fought for democracy.   If you must know, I was instrumental in getting rid of wheel clamping on private land too because I was the one that got both issues raised in the House.