Ah if I understand your description correctly then I feel that does not fit my definition of being caught speeding when “overtaking”. I was thinking more on a single carriageway where you cross to the oncoming traffic side. Otherwise anyone caught by a camera speeding whilst in the middle or outside lane of the motorway was “overtaking”. Do you get me?

Ps, baggsy your lungs

Of course you can. Luckily for you I’ve never been a smoker. £5,000 OK? Send the money now and I’ll tell Mrs Z to put you down for them. 😀

5plusn8

Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible – roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

I think we are talking crossed purposes here.

NOpe. I know what you mean. On the A1 on a single carriageway section south of edinburgh there is a long straight suitable for overtaking. there is a camera there specifically intended to catch drivers overtaking. Set up for exactly the scenario you think cannot happen

5plusn8 – Member
Ah if I understand your description correctly then I feel that does not fit my definition of being caught speeding when “overtaking”.

Well, there you go. Everyone else is wrong according to my definition of speeding. Which will obviously be that anyone who has an accident is speeding, everyone else is good to go.

Set up for exactly the scenario you think cannot happen

Did I say cannot?
I said

I can’t really see many people being caught speeding whilst overtaking

and to clarify I meant it was only unlikely in a normal camera set up. What you describe isn’t normal, nor is it the set up that caught you in the outside lane of a dual carriageway.
Which has me wondering, how can you be sure this set up is for the purpose you describe?

So you and your brother haver neve broken a speed limit then? I find that hard to believe. In which case stick your sanctimonious drivel up your arse.

No I don’t speed, never have. It’s quite simple to stick to the limits you know. I don’t recall my brother doing so either. He can’t now though on account of being dead because somebody who was speeding hit him causing a massive brain bleed.

I think a little compassion is required here. It worries me that one persons right to arrive a bit earlier or to have more fun appears to trump others right to life.

5plusn8 – because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people overtaking

Fair enough, I don’t doubt that’s the case.

This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road
https://goo.gl/maps/1iiNNwJ8Hh32

I think a little compassion is required here. It worries me that one persons right to arrive a bit earlier or to have more fun appears to trump others right to life.

Thank you. What I find incredulous is the fact that somebody can’t seem to understand that others don’t speed. That, in my opinion, is part of the issue. Speeding has been accepted to such a degree (by some individuals) in this country that they simply assume it’s something everybody does.

The limit is just that, a limit. It’s not a target or a minimum requirement. It’s how fast you are legally able to travel under optimal road conditions. Perhaps some need revising, I would agree that this is the case for certain stretches of motorway and some dual carriageways.

You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

That’s very common IME, I always thought it was so you couldn’t evade the camera by just using the other lane rather than a specific measure to catch overtakers.

Or given what the others said earlier about how cameras can work both ways isn’t this just to get speeders in any direction? I am sure it will get overtakers too, but I wonder that with the cost of cameras etc that this was set up only with the purpose of getting overtakers? Rather than just speeders in both directions.

Many palces on the A9 and A1 where this is possible – roadside fixed gatsos that can get cars in both directions on both sides of the road. I know of one specifically placed to do this

No you don’t, Gatsos cannot do that.

This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

That’s not a Gatso. It’s the same type of camera they use to enforce red lights, IIRC it works by using sensors in the road (I don’t know what it’s called though). Could potentially work in both directions, I’m not sure.

tjagain – Member
This is the one. You can see the marking lines both sides of the road

But you said that was on a “long straight”. That’s obviously a bend.

I’m pretty sure that style of camera is only capturing traffic moving away though, so it does seem set up to catch overtakes (heading towards a bend in the road)

FWIW there are no Gatsos on the A9 now. They were removed when the ASCs were installed. Some of the road markings still exist- with the expected comedic responses 🙂

Maybe its not the one I was thinking of

I thought these were gatsos. Oh well.

Assuming it is set up specifically to catch overtakers, you have to admit that it is an uncommon arrangement.

5plusn8 – because of the set up of the camera. Its clear its to catch people exceeding the speed limit while overtaking

Fixed.

The limit is just that, a limit. It’s not a target or a minimum requirement. It’s how fast you are legally able to travel under optimal road conditions. Perhaps some need revising, I would agree that this is the case for certain stretches of motorway and some dual carriageways. [/I]

Yep, an arbitrary number decided in the past – in fact the motorway and NSL limits were reduced for a time in the 70’s as a fuel saving measure.

And as you say ‘legally’, so probably worth posting one of my favourite quotes (Michael Winner). To add context, I spent a lot of time riding a motorcycle in/around London, and there’s no consistency to whether you can go in a bus lane or not, so had a fair few visits to TfL’s appeals department.

They only charge you £60 to use them, and you get no points. Wonderful value!

The limit is just that, a limit. It’s not a target or a minimum requirement.

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you’ll fail. Strange, that.

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you’ll fail. Strange, that.

It is arbitrary, if the limit was 15mph then you wouldn’t fail, you only fail because you are holding everyone else up.

I mentioned before that the statistics show that driving slower than the average speed increase the risk of an accident, much like going faster does.

Indeed. Google “85th percentile.”

And yet, if you drive everywhere at 15mph on a driving test without good reason you’ll fail. Strange, that.

Exactly as you say, without good reason. Driving idiotically slowly, as mentioned above, is also extremely dangerous. If the road was covered in ice or you were driving in heavy fog you’d have good reason to drive at 15mph. Some people would continue to drive to the limit though because they seem to think that’s the speed you have to go.

Yep, an arbitrary number decided in the past

Not all limits were set in the past. Plenty around where I live have been altered over the last few years. This is normally down to the number of accidents that have occurred on certain stretches of road. As I’ve previously said, some limits probably need looking at. In all fairness this would more than likely lead to further reductions not increases in limits. The road network appears to not be equipped to deal with the amount of traffic that utilises it.

Not all limits were set in the past. Plenty around where I live have been altered over the last few years. This is normally down to the number of accidents that have occurred on certain stretches of road. As I’ve previously said, some limits probably need looking at. In all fairness this would more than likely lead to further reductions not increases in limits. The road network appears to not be equipped to deal with the amount of traffic that utilises it. [/I]

Although its often ‘policy’ too, there’s a road that travels down the Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire border and it’s 60 in Buckinghamshire and 50 in Oxfordshire…

Exactly as you say, without good reason. Driving idiotically slowly, as mentioned above, is also extremely dangerous. If the road was covered in ice or you were driving in heavy fog you’d have good reason to drive at 15mph. Some people would continue to drive to the limit though because they seem to think that’s the speed you have to go.

No arguments here, that’s bang on the money.

Not all limits were set in the past

You have limits set in the future?

You have limits set in the future?

😆

Roads, where we’re going you don’t need roads.

Too much traffic, too much emissions, increasingly lazy driving standards. People driving around with 30 points cause “they couldn’t work without a car”. Brits treat cars like sacred cows, it’s pathetic. They should start crushing cars and permabanning people for much less than they do. make people take a bit more responsibility and care over their driving.

Olly

Too much traffic, too much emissions, increasingly lazy driving standards. People driving around with 30 points cause “they couldn’t work without a car”. Brits treat cars like sacred cows, it’s pathetic. They should start crushing cars and permabanning people for much less than they do. make people take a bit more responsibility and care over their driving.

Honestly, why stop there.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10ZYnTGiWXQ[/video]

There are some places where speed limits have been set deliberate low, with a camera, before the road was even open: the Batheaston bypass. It was built to take traffic from the highly congested village, which was also an accident blackspot, and was constructed as a dual carriageway from some way up a hill, and the limit was set at 50mph, with a camera set up under a bridge where the road straightens up from the bend as the traffic comes down the hill.
The justification for having the speed limit on a dual carriageway and a camera before the road was opened was down to the rules stating a camera can be installed a kilometre from an accident blackspot – so they put one on a brand new road, designed to bypass the blackspot, with an artificially low limit for a dual carriageway.
The camera is now off.

I was reminded of this discussion after a mate told me he got flashed by an “other side camera” yesterday on a 70MPH Dual carriageway with a wide central reservation.
He was in the inside lane, doing 90+ and the camera was on the other side of the dual on the hard shoulder side.
Apparently it was early morning, bright and nobody on the road in either direction but him. Is he done for?

If it’s a double flashy distance travelled between the two photos job then I expect not. He’ll have triggered it but even if there were lines painted on his side I’d imagine his vehicle would only be in 1 photo and not 2..
IANATrafficpolice

Nick, that’s what I thought, but IA also NATrafficpolice… It was a double flashy, no lines painted on his side (I drove past it to have a look on my way n this morning). I wondered about the wideangleness of the lens. I wonder if the lens only covers the lane it is interested in, whereas the radar to trigger it may have wider coverage.

I’ve often thought that painting lines on both sides like the example given above is a cheap way to try and enforce both carriageways at one time. Some may take the risk, most won’t.

As for the ‘law of the land’ argument. Nobody asked me to sign up for these before I popped out of the womb. Like everyone else, I abide by the Laws I agree with, and I ignore the Laws I disagree with. The nation state’s ability to lock me up and throw away the key is driven purely by use of force.

The morality of breaking the Law is irrelevant to me, because I am already abiding by the Laws that I agree with by my individual moral code.

You can argue that by the process of applying for a driving licence, sitting my test, etc. I agreed to abide by the law of the land as regards motoring. However, I see it as a bit like the Apple terms and conditions, there is no other way to get to the end result I’m after, I’ll say anything and then carry on as I see fit. There was a good article on here a while back about how it can actually work out cheaper to drive unlicenced, untaxed and uninsured. Even if you get caught. I just don’t want that hassle, as I suspect the majority of people don’t.

I speed. I religiously stick to the limit in built up areas because of my perception of risk to other road users and innocent bystanders. I also just do not think it is right to treat somewhere people live as a racetrack. Otherwise, I break the law if I want to, and I feel it is safe to do so. If I get caught, so be it.

I am happy to admit that by speeding when I feel it is safe to do so, I am still endangering other road users and innocent bystanders unnecessarily, purely for my own enjoyment or other selfish reasons.

But then I am only driving a car in the first place, because I have chosen to be a very selfish person. In the same way that I heat my house, and add to the population pressure by existing. The logical conclusion to the question, ‘how can I remove all risk I pose to other people?’ is to commit suicide. But then EVEN doing that does not actually remove all risk to other people!

(I am not arguing that I speed because I’m not suicidal BTW!)

I’ve often thought that painting lines on both sides like the example given above is a cheap way to try and enforce both carriageways at one time.

Apologies, my English isn’t always the best. I meant that there were NO LINES painted on his side.