Average Speed Cameras On M6

[Vagus]

Drove up the M6 on Monday night through the road works. Set the cruise control to 53 mph and was overtaken by loads of hgvs.
Does anyone know why these lorries can just charge through the road works ignoring the 50mph average speed check or am I missing something?

[Hopkirk]

Probably a lot of the lorries were foreign, and they know full well they won't be pursued.

It's made even more difficult because foreign trailers have their own number plates, unlike British ones which have to show the number plate of the tractor unit towing it.

[sunny-dave]

I’m sure you’re right, Hoppy - but why aren’t our Police at the ports with a list of offenders and a credit card machine “you wanna go home, you pay da fine” - as I’m sure their French counterparts would be ... ?

[RobNorth]

The 5% of drivers who have had a speeding ticket sure generate some heat about it. Speedometers are generally accurate to about 5% so the car makers always set them on the safe side, i.e. they read "fast". This means that speedsters are using up any allowances plus 5%.
The 95% of Joe public drivers who never get a ticket don't seem to count. The lawbreakers in this case, mainly youngsters and "important" people in German cars get the oxygen.

[Vagus]

I have checked my speedo against my sat nav and 53 on my speedo is 50 on my sat nav. That’s why I set my cruise control at 53. Normally the M6 is so busy that you can’t get to 50 anyway but this was at night and quite quiet.

[Hopkirk]

Lorries have limiters that stop them going over 56 mph, in practice nearer 55, so they could hardly be 'charging past you'

[Vagus]

Think the speed limit for hgvs was increased to 60. Not sure how that works with speed limiters. Think the 56 May be an European thing. Either way being overtaken by large hgvs in roadworks with narrower lanes at night, it seemed like they were charging past.

[Old_Geezer]

"Do you ask your electricity supplier to prove your electric meter's accuracy every time they send you your bill"

You're right, I should. But if the figure claimed is about right the effort is not worth it to me. I know that I owe something anyway. (I'm more annoyed at the fiddling they seem to do when I reject their estimation, send in the right reading, and they still find ways to rejig past figures to make the new demand almost as big !)

[Zacs-Master]

Thing to do is stay tucked at 2/3rds the way down the HGV in the outside lane and match it’s speed. No way the cameras are going to get you then ;-)

[Denton]

To make it clear,I was done by a Camera Van,and told it would be a waste of time appealing.

[Gizmonster]

//// To make it clear,I was done by a Camera Van,and told it would be a waste of time appealing. ////

Whoever told you that has misled you.
Granted that the chance of getting off are small, but I got a ticket through a while ago, from a cop sat in the back of his van.
I requested a photo as I couldn't remember who was driving at the time (HONEST !!).
Luckily for me, when the photo was taken, you could hardly see my face - mainly a reflection of my ladders on the windscreen, so I asked if there was anything else they could add and I gave them full details of how me and a friend had both used my car within 20 minutes of each other and driven up the same stretch of road and could not remember who was driving at the time of the alleged offence.
The ticket was quashed :)

I was lucky in this case, insofar as the picture didn't incriminate anyone .... but the motto is, never say never :)

[New Judge]

Was it discontinued without it going to court GM? If so you were extremely lucky. Effectively you committed an offence under S172 of the RTA by failing to name the driver. The statutory defence to that is that "...you did not know who was driving and could not, using "reasonable diligence", find out". The only place this defence can normally be tested is in court (because the "reasonable diligence" test is a subjective one which needs a judicial decision).

In any case, in the OP's case, there doesn't seem to be any issue about who was driving, does there?

[New Judge]

^^^
Sorry, not the OP. I don't know who was done by the camera van.

[Denton]

Me,nj, I was told fine would almost certainly have been increased.

[New Judge]

"Me,nj, I was told fine would almost certainly have been increased."

You don't actually appeal as such, denton (though I appreciate that is the usually understood term). What happens is that you are usually offered a course (if the speed wasa up to Limit + 10% +9mph and provided you have not done one in the past three years) or a fixed penalty (up to 20mph over the limit in 20 or 30mph limits, up to 25mph over for other limits). You are entitled to no evidence at this stage (though they may provide photographs "to help identify the driver" provided you ask before naming the driver). You can decline these offers and opt for the matter to be dealt with in court. If you are convicted you face an income related fine (the lowest being half a week's net income, the highest 1.5 times that income), a surcharge of 10% of the fine (minimum £30) and costs which range from £85 if you plead guilty up to £620 if you go to trial (and possibly more if the prosecution has to call on expert testimony). So at the very best you will pay considerably more than £100 and you may (again depending on the speed) end up with up to six points or a short ban. So court is to be avoided unless you are sure you have a good defence, so you were given good advice.

Successfully defending a speeding charge on the basis of a disputed measurement is not easy. As I said earlier, the prosecution will produce evidence that detection was made by an approved device operated in the correct manner. The court is entitled to assume, in those circumstances, that the measurement is accurate. If the defendant doubts that the burden rests with him to show why (and simply saying "I don't think I was doing 95 so the machine must be faulty" won't cut the mustard). Many drivers believe that the police go out of their way to secure convictions and may resort to dodgy tactics to do so. They've no need to. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

[Denton]

Thanks,nj, that is exactly what I was told.

[Hopkirk]

The HGV speed limit on motorways has been 60 mph for years.
However they can't reach it as EU laws require limiters set no higher than 56.

The increase in speed limits for HGVs was to raise the single carriageway limit from 40 to 50, and for dual carriageways from 50 to 60.

[Gizmonster]

//// Was it discontinued without it going to court GM? ////

Yep :)

I still have the letter that I got from them, as a "souvenir".
If you're interested, I don't mind copying the contents on here, with my details edited out of course :P

[New Judge]

Thanks, GM, but no need. I don't doubt what you say. You were very fortunate!

[Gizmonster]

Yea sorry NJ - I knew you didn't doubt what I said. I was just wondering if you were curious as to the actual wording of the letters I received.

[douglas9401]

"The increase in speed limits for HGVs was to raise the single carriageway limit from 40 to 50, and for dual carriageways from 50 to 60."

In England and Wales, not Scotland. With the exception of the A9 from Perth to Inverness where on single carriageway sections there's been a 'trial' 50mph limit for HGVs since the average speed cameras were installed over that part and from Dunblane to Perth on the dual carriageway.
The aim is to dual all two way sections by I think 2025. Not gonna happen though.