M25 speed cameras will go digital from February 15th
7 February 2008

The Highways Agency has confirmed rumours that speed cameras located along the most western stretch of the M25 are to go digital on February 15.The cameras currently in place are run off film, meaning that they can only take a limited number of pictures before the film runs out and the camera stops working. Converting them to digital allows as many photos as necessary to be stored.The Highways Agency is also planning to alter road markings on the motorway to give a more accurate basis for speed readings, and will reduce the speed at which the cameras are triggered from 90mph to 79mph, when the variable speed limit on the road is 70mph.

Join the debate

Comments
69

sob

8 February 2008

Yet another case of DOT not knowing what they are doing!!! Anyone who goes on that part of the M25 knows that congestion is caused by those camera's,soon no one will have a licence full stop!!!

9 February 2008

Yank here:

Rush hour in Detroit is a law enforcement safe 85mph ride for even minivans and 25 year old rustbucket deathtraps. It gets scary when the deathtraps top 100mph while the driver is futzing with his stereo, or downshifing a scorched automatic trasmission to cover for nonexistant brakes. Cops??? tending to accidents and doughnuts.

These "vehicles" can be bought for 400 dollars on craigslist all day long. Fuel them with 2.50 petrol, and you have a sustainable chan reaction.

It is an urban version of the Road Warrior. Give me the that Interceptor, or rather a Mustang Bullitt

10 February 2008

Agree with 'Sob'. Not only do the speed limits (set in 1965) establish nothing about safety (either weather conditions or the main cause of accidents which are bad driving and nowt to do with speed) but they also enforce a limit that doesn't reflect driver ability, concentration or the vehicle technology (cars capable of exceeding 70mph in perfect safety).

People worried about TV being dumbed down should look at speed limits, one of the dumbest laws around!

And finally these things cost £25,000 each. There's 1,000's of cameras in the UK, just do the maths on that! And who's paying for it? The motorist who's doing nothing wrong in 99.88% of cases. We have a system hell bent on criminalising ordinary citizens. It's Pathetic.

10 February 2008

[quote JJBoxster]

Agree with 'Sob'. Not only do the speed limits (set in 1965) establish nothing about safety (either weather conditions or the main cause of accidents which are bad driving and nowt to do with speed) but they also enforce a limit that doesn't reflect driver ability, concentration or the vehicle technology (cars capable of exceeding 70mph in perfect safety).

People worried about TV being dumbed down should look at speed limits, one of the dumbest laws around!

And finally these things cost £25,000 each. There's 1,000's of cameras in the UK, just do the maths on that! And who's paying for it? The motorist who's doing nothing wrong in 99.88% of cases. We have a system hell bent on criminalising ordinary citizens. It's Pathetic.

[/quote]

They're after you JJ - they're gonna get you.

11 February 2008

The big cash cow that is the motorist, surely, if what is being reported above is true, how can speed camera's be any use on this stretch of road.

Could this be a case of having too much money left come the end of the financial year, so they end up spending it on anything in order to get their allowance next financial year?

11 February 2008

[quote Jon Hardcastle]

Could this be a case of having too much money left come the end of the financial year, so they end up spending it on anything in order to get their allowance next financial year?

[/quote]

No - they are really just after JJ.

He has been identified as dangerous in charge of a vehicle.

11 February 2008

£25,000 a pop for a piece of technology that has no place on the motorway!!!

Any chance of them fixing the god awful roads round my way? of course there isn't.

The roads are degraded, potholed and scared from cable installation to such an extent that they actually cause accidents, like the poor women who hit a pothole on Tuesday night last week swerved and kindly removed my electric wing mirror for me. Of course as dangerous as the roads may be there is no financial reward for big brother! until they bring in national road charging on the basis that it the only way to fix the roads because the entire network needs doing (anyone else see a conspiracy theory building here???)

Maybe they could approach the cable companies to help with the bill, unfortunately they will have made a "donation" to the government election fund which may discourage this cause of action... alternatively they could maybe use some of the money raised from fuel duty, road tax or even speed camera fines etc... sorry I just realized what I’d typed how ridiculous I must sound.

Cameras are a lazy and in effective way of policy bad driving, the real cause of accidents. When will the government start spending the money the extract from us on what is required i.e. real police they can judge competence, road and vehicle condition better than a camera. And decide whether a fine, criminal conviction or a good old fashioned dressing down is required.

As someone wisely pointed out in this thread what is more dangerous a fully loaded Toyota Townace (the funny little mini van) doing 70mph in the fast lane during a period of high cross winds or a brand new Ford Mondeo doing 85mph down the same piece of road… of course we know as would the traffic officer but the camera doesn’t!

11 February 2008

[quote pippippip]As someone wisely pointed out in this thread what is more dangerous a fully loaded Toyota Townace (the funny little mini van) doing 70mph in the fast lane during a period of high cross winds or a brand new Ford Mondeo doing 85mph down the same piece of road… of course we know as would the traffic officer but the camera doesn’t! [/quote]

But to me that's the point of a speed limit - different types of vehicle and different abilities of driver = the need for a framework within which ALL can safely operate.

I suppose the point I'm making is that they all use the SAME PIECE OF ROAD.

You might not like it guys but it's the reality of UK roads. Where I do agree with much of what has been said here is in the context of the way the law is enforced - I'd like to see more Mk1 human eyeball rather than Mk1 indifferent camera.

11 February 2008

Scummy you believe in the 70mph 'framework' to enforce 'safety' yet ignore the assertion that a rammed full Toyota pick-up is unsafe at 70mph whilst the Mondeo is perfectly safe at 85mph!

Regarding your preferring police 'eyeballing' to speed cameras. I was once tailed doing 125mph for 20mins on a dual carriageway. The car eventually overtook (doing 130-135mph) and a 'move over' sign popped in the rear window. After taking my license and insurance details the police officer came back saying 'ok you can go'. I asked did he stop me for speeding? 'No this is autobahn. It was your unusual number plate' the policeman replied.

Yes that was in Germany and at 11 at night. It shows not only your 70mph limit is a joke regarding ascertaining safety but also that many people (including the police) regard driving over 100mph as a perfectly safe/sane thing to do and does not warrant being fined or criminalised.

11 February 2008

[quote JJBoxster]

Scummy you believe in the 70mph 'framework' to enforce 'safety' yet ignore the assertion that a rammed full Toyota pick-up is unsafe at 70mph whilst the Mondeo is perfectly safe at 85mph!

Regarding your preferring police 'eyeballing' to speed cameras. I was once tailed doing 125mph for 20mins on a dual carriageway. The car eventually overtook (doing 130-135mph) and a 'move over' sign popped in the rear window. After taking my license and insurance details the police officer came back saying 'ok you can go'. I asked did he stop me for speeding? 'No this is autobahn. It was your unusual number plate' the policeman replied.

Yes that was in Germany and at 11 at night. It shows not only your 70mph limit is a joke regarding ascertaining safety but also that many people (including the police) regard driving over 100mph as a perfectly safe/sane thing to do and does not warrant being fined or criminalised.

[/quote]

Utterly spurious again - criminally stupid.

Enough already.

Pages

Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review

Driven this week

  • Lexus LC500
    Car review
    20 October 2017
    Futuristic Lexus LC coupé mixes the latest technology with an old-school atmospheric V8
  • Maserati Levante S GranSport
    First Drive
    20 October 2017
    Get ready to trade in your diesels: Maserati’s luxury SUV finally gets the engine it’s always needed
  • Jaguar XF Sportbrake TDV6
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The handsome Jaguar XF Sportbrake exhibits all the hallmarks that makes the saloon great, and with the silky smooth diesel V6 makes it a compelling choice
  • Volkswagen T-Roc TDI
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    Volkswagen's new compact crossover has the looks, the engineering and the build quality to be a resounding success, but not with this diesel engine
  • BMW M550i
    First Drive
    19 October 2017
    The all-paw M550i is a fast, effortless mile-muncher, but there's a reason why it won't be sold in the UK