• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Are speed cameras too conspicuous?

Status
Not open for further replies.

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,643
Location
Northern England
There's a speed camera just up the road from me which has been switched off for years. But it still serves a purpose - it's a visual deterrent. And if you spend a little time standing on the pavement alongside it, you'll see it works. As the road leads into a town where speed limits are naturally slower due to volume of traffic, it does help keep limits down. So I'm very much in favour of making cameras as obvious as possible, even if they're not operational. I'd actually like to see decommissioned cameras given to local councils so they can place them as visual deterrents.
But do they speed up again as soon as they're out of sight of the camera? I'd wager some do.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
But do they speed up again as soon as they're out of sight of the camera? I'd wager some do.
It seems that those who regularly complain about cameras and their (lack of) visibility regard them as a substitute for a speed limit sign. So long as the speed limit signs are displayed correctly (including the removal of any objects likely to obscure that visibility such as untrimmed vegetation), there is no need to advertise the presence of any speed detection device. The motorist has the ultimate control of their speed and a pretty reliable indicator of the actual speed that by law, errs on the safe side. The driver has full licence to travel at any speed up to that of the advertised limt subject to road, visibilty and traffic conditions at the time.
Those that insist on pushing their luck by treating the speed limit as a nominal speed will inevitable come up against problems. As for those that insist that their 'safe speed', which may include driving in excess of the legal limit deserve the consequences that they invite. The fact that a camera wasn't visible to them does not alter the speed that it recorded. Irrespective of how any monies left after the costs of installation and maintenance of detection equipment and the legal process to deal with lawbreakers are used is irrelevant to their breaking of the law. The poor drivers are the cash cow, not the system for their censure by relatively small financial penalty.
In no other section of the law is there such reluctance to accept culpability, yet some driving law breakers perpetually claim to be 'victims' of persecution and scape goats.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
On a busy motorway I drive my car in the second/middle lane mostly, the first lane is typically full of trucks. Sometimes one might be able to revert to the first lane but not for long, one might be trapped there because overtaking drivers leave gaps that are too short. Using the outside lane exposes one to possible bullying attempts by vip drivers.

Any time there is a jam one soon sees how bad lane discipline is, the third or outside lane usually carries more vehicles than the others
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Sometimes one might be able to revert to the first lane but not for long, one might be trapped there because overtaking drivers leave gaps that are too short.
I find it's normally possible to indicate right as a slightly larger gap approaches and when lane 3 is clear. The car approaching in the middle lane will usually move into late 3 to make a space.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Re middle lane hogging, I find it worse the closer to London you get, and in particular on 4 lane stretches. The M40 south of Beaconsfield is bad for it.

Also, on All Lane Running sections, Lane 1 is barely used by anyone in a car or van, even when the road is empty.
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
Re middle lane hogging, I find it worse the closer to London you get, and in particular on 4 lane stretches. The M40 south of Beaconsfield is bad for it.

Also, on All Lane Running sections, Lane 1 is barely used by anyone in a car or van, even when the road is empty.
Driving in general gets worse closer to London!
I've also noticed that lane 1 ALR is hardly used. I'll happily use it myself, but rarely do because before long I'll be approaching some cars going slower than me in lane 2/3, and I might get boxed in unable to overtake. I suppose people think that they might find a stopped car in lane 1.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Driving in general gets worse closer to London!
I've also noticed that lane 1 ALR is hardly used. I'll happily use it myself, but rarely do because before long I'll be approaching some cars going slower than me in lane 2/3, and I might get boxed in unable to overtake. I suppose people think that they might find a stopped car in lane 1.

One reason why driving in lane 1 is unpleasant is the ruts in the road created by lorries.
 

py_megapixel

Established Member
Joined
5 Nov 2018
Messages
6,643
Location
Northern England
I'm slightly confused - is lane 1 here what would ordinarily be the hard-shoulder, or is it what would ordinarily be the leftmost running lane?
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
I would use 'lane 1' for the nearside lane. Sometimes there are even four or more lanes, so I use numbers. The outside lanes are of course NOT 'fast' lanes
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
I'm slightly confused - is lane 1 here what would ordinarily be the hard-shoulder, or is it what would ordinarily be the leftmost running lane?
On a "traditional" motorway, lane 1 is the one nearest the hard shoulder. On a "dynamic" hard shoulder smart motorway, I personally would still classify lane 1 as the same, with the hard shoulder being referred to as such, even when it's being used as a running lane. Where the hard shoulder has been permanently converted to a running lane (all lane running), the former hard shoulder becomes lane 1. This is what I was referring to.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Driving in general gets worse closer to London!
I've also noticed that lane 1 ALR is hardly used. I'll happily use it myself, but rarely do because before long I'll be approaching some cars going slower than me in lane 2/3, and I might get boxed in unable to overtake. I suppose people think that they might find a stopped car in lane 1.

I think that’s the problem - some people think they might be boxed in so don’t use it. I also think there are a sizeable minority of drivers who don’t even realise the lane is active at all times, ie when on a motorway they are used to driving with 12ft of tarmac to their left. Either way, it’s not great driving.

Around 50% of the time I can happily sit in Lane 1 on a busy ALR or ATM section and there will be nothing, literally nothing, in front of me for as far as I can see. I’m afraid anyone in Lane 3 or 4 that is going slower than me will find themselves undertaken. Yes, I know.

One reason why driving in lane 1 is unpleasant is the ruts in the road created by lorries.

Fairly rare on ALR sections though, as they are generally relatively new (I think the first was M25 J23-27 in 2014).

On a "traditional" motorway, lane 1 is the one nearest the hard shoulder. On a "dynamic" hard shoulder smart motorway, I personally would still classify lane 1 as the same, with the hard shoulder being referred to as such, even when it's being used as a running lane. Where the hard shoulder has been permanently converted to a running lane (all lane running), the former hard shoulder becomes lane 1. This is what I was referring to.

Perfect description!
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
Around 50% of the time I can happily sit in Lane 1 on a busy ALR or ATM section and there will be nothing, literally nothing, in front of me for as far as I can see. I’m afraid anyone in Lane 3 or 4 that is going slower than me will find themselves undertaken. Yes, I know.
Sounds familiar! :D

Given that I only qualified to drive towards the end of 2019, I don't think I can quite justify undertaking, because should a police officer (or other person of authority) see it, they might be tempted to remove my licence, whereas for yourself (who, I assume, has been driving for many years) they'd be much more likely to just say "don't do it again".
Of course, that's only if they're bothered about it, but I'd rather not take the chance!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
I think that’s the problem - some people think they might be boxed in so don’t use it. I also think there are a sizeable minority of drivers who don’t even realise the lane is active at all times, ie when on a motorway they are used to driving with 12ft of tarmac to their left. Either way, it’s not great driving.

Around 50% of the time I can happily sit in Lane 1 on a busy ALR or ATM section and there will be nothing, literally nothing, in front of me for as far as I can see.
On the original "smart" motorway on the M42 the hard shoulder, when in use as a running lane, becomes the departure lane at each junction. I suspect most people travelling further quickly get sick of dodging out of it whenever that happens, or missing the sign and being sent up the slip road.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
I find it's normally possible to indicate right as a slightly larger gap approaches and when lane 3 is clear. The car approaching in the middle lane will usually move into late 3 to make a space.

Normally, but there's a disappointing amount of drivers who do seem to be utterly oblivious to other drivers and reading the road when behind the wheel
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
Sounds familiar! :D

Given that I only qualified to drive towards the end of 2019, I don't think I can quite justify undertaking, because should a police officer (or other person of authority) see it, they might be tempted to remove my licence, whereas for yourself (who, I assume, has been driving for many years) they'd be much more likely to just say "don't do it again".
Of course, that's only if they're bothered about it, but I'd rather not take the chance!

Why wouldn't they? Undertaking isn't illegal
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,622
It seems that those who regularly complain about cameras and their (lack of) visibility regard them as a substitute for a speed limit sign. So long as the speed limit signs are displayed correctly (including the removal of any objects likely to obscure that visibility such as untrimmed vegetation), there is no need to advertise the presence of any speed detection device. The motorist has the ultimate control of their speed and a pretty reliable indicator of the actual speed that by law, errs on the safe side. The driver has full licence to travel at any speed up to that of the advertised limt subject to road, visibilty and traffic conditions at the time.
Those that insist on pushing their luck by treating the speed limit as a nominal speed will inevitable come up against problems. As for those that insist that their 'safe speed', which may include driving in excess of the legal limit deserve the consequences that they invite. The fact that a camera wasn't visible to them does not alter the speed that it recorded. Irrespective of how any monies left after the costs of installation and maintenance of detection equipment and the legal process to deal with lawbreakers are used is irrelevant to their breaking of the law. The poor drivers are the cash cow, not the system for their censure by relatively small financial penalty.
In no other section of the law is there such reluctance to accept culpability, yet some driving law breakers perpetually claim to be 'victims' of persecution and scape goats.
It's not about who is right or wrong its about who lives and dies. Well, it is unless there's a tidy penny to be earned by ignoring that concept.

It's all well and good suggesting posted speed limit signs should be enough, but they are not as people ignore them. It matters not one bit what the offense is, whether they'll get caught, what their punishment will be and whether it deters them from doing it again, the fact is, if they're driving too fast, they could kill someone and a speeding fine is rather immaterial at that point. If people are not going to slow down for a sign in plain sight, but they WILL slow down for a camera painted bright yellow and their action of slowing down means Mrs Lidcracker's grandson bobby doesn't get killed when, with her knackered knees she can't push his pram out of the road fast enough then to argue hiding the camera so they kill young bobby AND get a speeding fine doesn't sit particularly well with me.

Why wouldn't they? Undertaking isn't illegal
Correct, although it can be tied into another offense which will be purely subjective and based around whether the officer in question is in a good or bad mood. Leaving something to those types of odds can be risky.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,447
Location
UK
As I said I don't want to take the risk that an officer of the "I'm going to get you" type turns up and sees a young person undertaking. Give it five years or so and I'd probably be more inclined to try.

The likelihood of you being stopped is very very slim indeed
 

telstarbox

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2010
Messages
5,928
Location
Wennington Crossovers
Can you be overtaking (in lane 2) if you can't see the vehicle you're overtaking (further ahead in lane 1) at the time? I'm thinking of the M20 just outside London which is quite hilly and has lots of HGV use. So a "middle lane hogger" at 65 could legitimately be overtaking the next lorry at 60 even if they don't know it yet :)
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Sometimes one sees a vehicle using the middle lane when the first lane is clear. I like to move from the first to the second to the third to overtake them, signalling clearly then the same 3-2-1, wondering if the member of CLOD (Center Lane Owner Drivers) might wake up and move over.

No need to get too upset, I don't suppose they cause many 'accidents' through their relaxed driving style.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Why wouldn't they? Undertaking isn't illegal

Every day is a school day - I thought it was, but evidently not! I always wondered how the law made a distinction between undertaking in constant streams of traffic and doing so on emptier roads. Answer - it doesn’t.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Every day is a school day - I thought it was, but evidently not! I always wondered how the law made a distinction between undertaking in constant streams of traffic and doing so on emptier roads. Answer - it doesn’t.

From the highway code:

Rule 268​

Do not overtake on the left or move to a lane on your left to overtake. In congested conditions, where adjacent lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, traffic in left-hand lanes may sometimes be moving faster than traffic to the right. In these conditions you may keep up with the traffic in your lane even if this means passing traffic in the lane to your right. Do not weave in and out of lanes to overtake.

Not illegal (it is not "You Must Not..."), but it is poor practice, except during congestion.
 

LSWR Cavalier

Established Member
Joined
23 Aug 2020
Messages
1,565
Location
Leafy Suburbia
Every day is a school day - I thought it was, but evidently not! I always wondered how the law made a distinction between undertaking in constant streams of traffic and doing so on emptier roads. Answer - it doesn’t.
Undertaking certainly should be restricted. More rules are needed!
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
From the highway code:


Not illegal (it is not "You Must Not..."), but it is poor practice, except during congestion.

I’d say compared to being in Lane 3 of a 4 lane motorway, doing 65 with nothing in lanes 1 or 2 for a few hundred metres, and not paying the slightest bit of attention to what’s coming up behind you... then carefully undertaking in Lane 1 is the lesser of two evils there!

And if one were to, accidentally, lean on the horn for 3 seconds whilst completing the manoeuvre, whilst your child gesticulated wildly at then from the back seat, then that would be a remarkable coincidence.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I’d say compared to being in Lane 3 of a 4 lane motorway, doing 65 with nothing in lanes 1 or 2 for a few hundred metres, and not paying the slightest bit of attention to what’s coming up behind you... then carefully undertaking in Lane 1 is the lesser of two evils there!

Granted

I do personally do that occasionally with Lane 3 hoggers (usually on a 4 lane motorway) - carefully undertake using Lane 1, with Lane 2 clear as a "barrier lane".
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Why wouldn't they? Undertaking isn't illegal

Depending on the circumstances it *could* be prosecuted as driving without due care and attention, but then so can middle lane hogging - if the middle lane wasn't being hogged there would be no need for it.

Assuming lane 3/4 is available, though, I find one of the most satisfying acts available legally on the motorway (!) is to approach a middle-lane-hogger in the left lane, then, indicating correctly and leaving appropriate safe distances, to indicate, pull out to lane 3, overtake, and again indicating return to lane 1. Very often this wakes them up and they move left.

It's up there with being incredibly polite to someone who's giving you a gobful on the phone.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,035
Location
No longer here
Sounds familiar! :D

Given that I only qualified to drive towards the end of 2019, I don't think I can quite justify undertaking, because should a police officer (or other person of authority) see it, they might be tempted to remove my licence, whereas for yourself (who, I assume, has been driving for many years) they'd be much more likely to just say "don't do it again".
Of course, that's only if they're bothered about it, but I'd rather not take the chance!
There is nothing wrong with passing on the left.

If:

A lorry is in the left hand lane going 55mph
You are in the middle lane doing 70mph
An idiot is in the right lane doing 65mph

...there is nothing wrong with passing the idiot to his left. He shouldn't be in that lane if he isn't "making progress".

Being behind someone and undertaking in a fast or aggressive manoeuvre isn't clever though, and in some situations can amount to careless driving.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Assuming lane 3/4 is available, though, I find one of the most satisfying acts available legally on the motorway (!) is to approach a middle-lane-hogger in the left lane, then, indicating correctly and leaving appropriate safe distances, to indicate, pull out to lane 3, overtake, and again indicating return to lane 1. Very often this wakes them up and they move left.

Yes I do that too, but increasingly it seems to have no effect.


...there is nothing wrong with passing the idiot to his left. He shouldn't be in that lane if he isn't "making progress".

or she. Let’s not be presumptious!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top