M25 speed cameras to be switched on in Surrey

No speeding: Police are taking control of M25 cameras

No speeding: Police are taking control of M25 cameras

First published in News
Last updated
This Is Local London: Photograph of the Author by , Chief reporter

Speed cameras on the M25 have not been operating since their installation in 2009, but all that is due to end in Surrey this summer. 

The cameras, already installed on the motorway and with warning signs aplenty, sit dormant behind overhead signs that tell drivers to reduce their speed to 60, 50 or 40mph during busy periods.

But the cameras have not flashed once since they were installed and many motorists have happily, and dangerously, exceeded the speed limit without comeback on almost the entire London orbital.

The cameras currently only work in between junctions two and three of the motorway.

But further flashes could be coming soon, with cameras between junction 10 at Cobham and the M40 due to be working by the summer.

A Highways Agency spokesman said: “Sections of the M25 where mandatory speed limits are displayed in red rings have continued to work effectively to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flow and have operated well without fixed camera enforcement.

“We are working with Surrey Police, who are taking over responsibility between junctions 10 and 16, to resume enforcement.

“The speed limits are enforceable by the police and the cameras will be operational by summer 2014.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:32am Wed 15 Jan 14

emelem says...

why were they not on?! fine waste of money (and maybe some lives) that was....
why were they not on?! fine waste of money (and maybe some lives) that was.... emelem
  • Score: 1

11:38am Wed 15 Jan 14

EwellMan says...

ka ching.......More tax reveneues to build more social housing for the lazy!!!
ka ching.......More tax reveneues to build more social housing for the lazy!!! EwellMan
  • Score: 23

12:27pm Wed 15 Jan 14

parimalkumar says...

EwellMan wrote:
ka ching.......More tax reveneues to build more social housing for the lazy!!!
There's a simple solution to not paying this wonderful tax - don't break the speed limit.
[quote][p][bold]EwellMan[/bold] wrote: ka ching.......More tax reveneues to build more social housing for the lazy!!![/p][/quote]There's a simple solution to not paying this wonderful tax - don't break the speed limit. parimalkumar
  • Score: 7

2:16pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Stevo98 says...

Speeding fines are a tax the same as fines for urinating in the street are a tax. Only criminals pay these taxes. Speeding drivers killed a thousand people last year, speeding drivers cause misery every single day. Fine these idiots, make them pay for their anti-social stupidity.
Speeding fines are a tax the same as fines for urinating in the street are a tax. Only criminals pay these taxes. Speeding drivers killed a thousand people last year, speeding drivers cause misery every single day. Fine these idiots, make them pay for their anti-social stupidity. Stevo98
  • Score: -38

2:37pm Wed 15 Jan 14

EwellMan says...

Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad.

Its equally as bad pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph to overtake a lorry and not exceed 70 so there are instance where incresing to 75/80 for a short period of time is acceptable whether rightfully lawful or not.

In scotland the A9 has many many accidents because people driving too slow in a single carriageway and causing fustration overtaking?

So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too?

Cant have one rule for one and one rule for another?
Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad. Its equally as bad pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph to overtake a lorry and not exceed 70 so there are instance where incresing to 75/80 for a short period of time is acceptable whether rightfully lawful or not. In scotland the A9 has many many accidents because people driving too slow in a single carriageway and causing fustration overtaking? So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too? Cant have one rule for one and one rule for another? EwellMan
  • Score: 52

2:50pm Wed 15 Jan 14

emelem says...

"Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad."

not true, because i don't. not at all. i figure driving at a legal speed is way quicker and comfy than walking so i appreciate the privilege. also, with good time management, there is no need to speed.

"So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too? "

i thought they were...?
"Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad." not true, because i don't. not at all. i figure driving at a legal speed is way quicker and comfy than walking so i appreciate the privilege. also, with good time management, there is no need to speed. "So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too? " i thought they were...? emelem
  • Score: -33

3:38pm Wed 15 Jan 14

EwellMan says...

emelem wrote:
"Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad."

not true, because i don't. not at all. i figure driving at a legal speed is way quicker and comfy than walking so i appreciate the privilege. also, with good time management, there is no need to speed.

"So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too? "

i thought they were...?
I see more dangerous a people driving 20 in 30mph limits for example on the roads in Epsom and Ewell then people i would say are excessively speeding.

There is a novel method to catch people like this and it called more police on the streets! Oh i forgot, more council tax each year means less police. Although saying that police are not interested in repremanding people that are driving too slow.

Also there are roads in the area that have been marked down to a 30mph limit which:

1. Has only been done to catch drivers for revenue
2. Causing more polution as you have to stick in 2nd gear to meet the speed as up a hill
3. Has no houses for 75% of the stretch of road so unsure why it was imposed as no risk to pedestians.

And coming back to the point at hand, i think you will find there are less accidents on the German Autobahns than the M25 and there people are free to go as fast as they like.
[quote][p][bold]emelem[/bold] wrote: "Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad." not true, because i don't. not at all. i figure driving at a legal speed is way quicker and comfy than walking so i appreciate the privilege. also, with good time management, there is no need to speed. "So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too? " i thought they were...?[/p][/quote]I see more dangerous a people driving 20 in 30mph limits for example on the roads in Epsom and Ewell then people i would say are excessively speeding. There is a novel method to catch people like this and it called more police on the streets! Oh i forgot, more council tax each year means less police. Although saying that police are not interested in repremanding people that are driving too slow. Also there are roads in the area that have been marked down to a 30mph limit which: 1. Has only been done to catch drivers for revenue 2. Causing more polution as you have to stick in 2nd gear to meet the speed as up a hill 3. Has no houses for 75% of the stretch of road so unsure why it was imposed as no risk to pedestians. And coming back to the point at hand, i think you will find there are less accidents on the German Autobahns than the M25 and there people are free to go as fast as they like. EwellMan
  • Score: 36

5:19pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Stevo98 says...

EwellMan wrote:
Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad.

Its equally as bad pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph to overtake a lorry and not exceed 70 so there are instance where incresing to 75/80 for a short period of time is acceptable whether rightfully lawful or not.

In scotland the A9 has many many accidents because people driving too slow in a single carriageway and causing fustration overtaking?

So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too?

Cant have one rule for one and one rule for another?
If you are unable to drive within the speed limit you need additional training- it's a basic driving skill.

If you get frustrated at slower vehicles you are not fit to drive.

If you encounter a slower driver, feel frustrated so carry out a dangerous overtake you are an idiot- you are in charge of the vehicle, nobody else.

It's shocking there are drivers like you on the road, unable to obey simple rules.
[quote][p][bold]EwellMan[/bold] wrote: Every single person on the roads speed at some point or another so dont write on a forum that speeding is so bad. Its equally as bad pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph to overtake a lorry and not exceed 70 so there are instance where incresing to 75/80 for a short period of time is acceptable whether rightfully lawful or not. In scotland the A9 has many many accidents because people driving too slow in a single carriageway and causing fustration overtaking? So how are the people driving too slow and dangerous going to be caught and fined too? Cant have one rule for one and one rule for another?[/p][/quote]If you are unable to drive within the speed limit you need additional training- it's a basic driving skill. If you get frustrated at slower vehicles you are not fit to drive. If you encounter a slower driver, feel frustrated so carry out a dangerous overtake you are an idiot- you are in charge of the vehicle, nobody else. It's shocking there are drivers like you on the road, unable to obey simple rules. Stevo98
  • Score: -39

5:36pm Wed 15 Jan 14

emelem says...

funny i'm getting thumbs down for NOT speeding....whatever
, people.
funny i'm getting thumbs down for NOT speeding....whatever , people. emelem
  • Score: -44

5:50pm Wed 15 Jan 14

EwellMan says...

Stevo98,

What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real?

Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer.

I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons.

For your info:

I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?
Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability? EwellMan
  • Score: 28

6:09pm Wed 15 Jan 14

John Cam says...

Surrey police collect the fines from these yellow money boxes. The law states that for them to do so all operational cameras must be coloured yellow on the back and be clearly visable. The cameras on the M25 are neither of these, being grey and hidden behind the gantries. Until this is rectified (they have been trying to find a solution) the cameras will remain switched off. Emelem, I personally think motorway speed limits should be increased but also think speed limits near all schools should be reduced. Speed should be adjusted to what is appropriate to the conditions and surroundings. Not just what a sign tells you to do.
Surrey police collect the fines from these yellow money boxes. The law states that for them to do so all operational cameras must be coloured yellow on the back and be clearly visable. The cameras on the M25 are neither of these, being grey and hidden behind the gantries. Until this is rectified (they have been trying to find a solution) the cameras will remain switched off. Emelem, I personally think motorway speed limits should be increased but also think speed limits near all schools should be reduced. Speed should be adjusted to what is appropriate to the conditions and surroundings. Not just what a sign tells you to do. John Cam
  • Score: 39

8:00pm Wed 15 Jan 14

Reality_Cheque says...

So the Highways Agency declare “Sections of the M25 where mandatory speed limits are displayed in red rings have operated well without fixed camera enforcement."

So why do we NEED fixed camera enforcement?

Ahh. Money.
So the Highways Agency declare “Sections of the M25 where mandatory speed limits are displayed in red rings have [snip] operated well without fixed camera enforcement." So why do we NEED fixed camera enforcement? Ahh. Money. Reality_Cheque
  • Score: 24

9:25pm Wed 15 Jan 14

l4m4_f4c3 says...

I suggest all those people talking negatively about this, spend a couple of early morning shifts listening to the 999 calls Police receive from people driving like idiots and causing accidents. See how much time is spent on road closures whilst police investigate the cause of the BMW in a bush (no offence against beamers) and then listen to the complaints come piling in about people stuck in traffic because the road has come to a halt. Police don't tend to be pedantic about a couple of miles an hour over the limit but will go to town on those that are driving 80mph, tailgating with no lights on...

To reality cheque...the government are cutting police budgets left right and center which means less police officers out there in their cars. Surrey Roads policing units cover the M25, M23, M3, A3, A31 and A331. Speed enforcement cameras are a deterrent for motorists to drive at excessive speeds meaning less accidents so police can get to serious incidents more quickly.

If this move means less people dying on our roads I'm all for it.

On a side note I believe driving too slowly is also a road related offence and police will and do pull them over as well but they can't be everywhere. Take the reg and dial 101. (or 999 is it is an emergency :D )
I suggest all those people talking negatively about this, spend a couple of early morning shifts listening to the 999 calls Police receive from people driving like idiots and causing accidents. See how much time is spent on road closures whilst police investigate the cause of the BMW in a bush (no offence against beamers) and then listen to the complaints come piling in about people stuck in traffic because the road has come to a halt. Police don't tend to be pedantic about a couple of miles an hour over the limit but will go to town on those that are driving 80mph, tailgating with no lights on... To reality cheque...the government are cutting police budgets left right and center which means less police officers out there in their cars. Surrey Roads policing units cover the M25, M23, M3, A3, A31 and A331. Speed enforcement cameras are a deterrent for motorists to drive at excessive speeds meaning less accidents so police can get to serious incidents more quickly. If this move means less people dying on our roads I'm all for it. On a side note I believe driving too slowly is also a road related offence and police will and do pull them over as well but they can't be everywhere. Take the reg and dial 101. (or 999 is it is an emergency :D ) l4m4_f4c3
  • Score: -19

12:16am Thu 16 Jan 14

MrTwit says...

1.The 70 mph dual carriageway speed limit is arbitrary.

2. Speed/safety cameras are non-discriminatory, i.e. one could drive like a maniac, endangering/inconven
iencing other road users at 60mph and not be 'snapped'. On the other hand, one could drive very responsibly, in dry conditions, on a carriageway clear of traffic at 80+ mph and be prosecuted.

It doesn't make sense.
1.The 70 mph dual carriageway speed limit is arbitrary. 2. Speed/safety cameras are non-discriminatory, i.e. one could drive like a maniac, endangering/inconven iencing other road users at 60mph and not be 'snapped'. On the other hand, one could drive very responsibly, in dry conditions, on a carriageway clear of traffic at 80+ mph and be prosecuted. It doesn't make sense. MrTwit
  • Score: 10

2:52am Thu 16 Jan 14

lex.raine says...

I understand the concerns of speeding, however, driving at a speed much lower than the speed limit can e a lot worse.We were on the M25 on a motorcycle around junction 13 or 14, in the fast lane. A lady undertook us and then slammed on brakes for no reason, the car in front of her was a long while away, but she suddenly slowed down to just over 40 ... on the motorway, we nearly hit her, and the car behind us nearly hit us. (Oh and we were doing about 68 mph
I understand the concerns of speeding, however, driving at a speed much lower than the speed limit can e a lot worse.We were on the M25 on a motorcycle around junction 13 or 14, in the fast lane. A lady undertook us and then slammed on brakes for no reason, the car in front of her was a long while away, but she suddenly slowed down to just over 40 ... on the motorway, we nearly hit her, and the car behind us nearly hit us. (Oh and we were doing about 68 mph lex.raine
  • Score: 7

9:44am Thu 16 Jan 14

zzyzxuk says...

It's about time that these cameras were switched on, but I would far rather see 'average speed' cameras used, as they encourage drivers to obey the law across long stretches of motorways, and not just at the points where there are cameras. The 50 mph stretch of the A3 is a classic example of a road where many drivers only obey the speed limit when they're being watched (at a camera site), and recklessly disobey speed laws the rest of the time...
It's about time that these cameras were switched on, but I would far rather see 'average speed' cameras used, as they encourage drivers to obey the law across long stretches of motorways, and not just at the points where there are cameras. The 50 mph stretch of the A3 is a classic example of a road where many drivers only obey the speed limit when they're being watched (at a camera site), and recklessly disobey speed laws the rest of the time... zzyzxuk
  • Score: 1

11:13am Thu 16 Jan 14

Tenpindee says...

The variable speed limits between junctions 10 - 16 do not work in slowing the traffic, they only work to increase traffic jam's, improve damaging the ozone layer through more fumes through slow vehicle movement and make the driver want to speed when there is a long enough gap in the jam to do so, which may cause more accidents.
I travelled the M25 for 9 month's between these junctions between 07:00 - 09:00, and then 16:30 - 18:00 and every single day the warning signs told us there were queue cautions, accident's ahead, and rubbish on the carriageway when there was absolutely no identifiable reason for them to be on.
Travelling on the M25 through the roadworks into Kent on the average speed camera's, yes the traffic is heavy but more often than not it works.
You have to ask yourself who is the Highways Agency listening to when we say the variable speed limits do not work and they pay the counties/Police that the fines will go to, Surrey, Kent, Middlesex, Met Police via the Government tax office.
They have these variable speed limits wrong, they cause utter misery for the commuter more often than not and at other times of the day and not just the rush ( 5 hour) hour. It does Not get the traffic flowing easier, it does Not do the driver any favours and thanks to the idiots who put the speeds in place for leaving the "accident ahead" signs on for hours after the non-existent accident causing misery... When you sit in the jam, look over to the opposite side and have a look at the speed limiter that is flashing to say there is an accident or queuing ahead, slowing them down and invariably there is nothing there most if not all of the time because you have just driven in the opposite direction past an accident free carriageway.
It is about time they stopped thinking of us as idiot's and really look at the M25 VSL for 12 hours without the controllers knowing what day, time or area in case they start to do the job they are paid through our taxes to do. Oh and the Motorbikes get away with it because the cameras do not get the back of the bikes number plates as is the average speed checks neither work, and 99% of motorbikes I see undertake or squeeze between the outside and inner lanes over the speed limit between cars that invariably are doing over 70 in the first place.
All the comments about this are reasonable arguments from the poster here, a very hot topic that The Highway's Agency should be made aware of then perhaps the M25 motorists will get the service they deserve
The variable speed limits between junctions 10 - 16 do not work in slowing the traffic, they only work to increase traffic jam's, improve damaging the ozone layer through more fumes through slow vehicle movement and make the driver want to speed when there is a long enough gap in the jam to do so, which may cause more accidents. I travelled the M25 for 9 month's between these junctions between 07:00 - 09:00, and then 16:30 - 18:00 and every single day the warning signs told us there were queue cautions, accident's ahead, and rubbish on the carriageway when there was absolutely no identifiable reason for them to be on. Travelling on the M25 through the roadworks into Kent on the average speed camera's, yes the traffic is heavy but more often than not it works. You have to ask yourself who is the Highways Agency listening to when we say the variable speed limits do not work and they pay the counties/Police that the fines will go to, Surrey, Kent, Middlesex, Met Police via the Government tax office. They have these variable speed limits wrong, they cause utter misery for the commuter more often than not and at other times of the day and not just the rush ( 5 hour) hour. It does Not get the traffic flowing easier, it does Not do the driver any favours and thanks to the idiots who put the speeds in place for leaving the "accident ahead" signs on for hours after the non-existent accident causing misery... When you sit in the jam, look over to the opposite side and have a look at the speed limiter that is flashing to say there is an accident or queuing ahead, slowing them down and invariably there is nothing there most if not all of the time because you have just driven in the opposite direction past an accident free carriageway. It is about time they stopped thinking of us as idiot's and really look at the M25 VSL for 12 hours without the controllers knowing what day, time or area in case they start to do the job they are paid through our taxes to do. Oh and the Motorbikes get away with it because the cameras do not get the back of the bikes number plates as is the average speed checks neither work, and 99% of motorbikes I see undertake or squeeze between the outside and inner lanes over the speed limit between cars that invariably are doing over 70 in the first place. All the comments about this are reasonable arguments from the poster here, a very hot topic that The Highway's Agency should be made aware of then perhaps the M25 motorists will get the service they deserve Tenpindee
  • Score: -1

12:19pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Siwarner234 says...

EwellMan wrote:
Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?
I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fast lane". You are meant to use the lane in the middle and the inside to obstacle before pulling back in. There is nothing "dangerous" about doing 70 in the inside lane if the person behind is also obeying the speed limit. If people choose to use it as a "fast lane" and do 80 then yes it's dangerous but it's not the person observing the speed limit that's the danger.
[quote][p][bold]EwellMan[/bold] wrote: Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?[/p][/quote]I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fast lane". You are meant to use the lane in the middle and the inside to obstacle before pulling back in. There is nothing "dangerous" about doing 70 in the inside lane if the person behind is also obeying the speed limit. If people choose to use it as a "fast lane" and do 80 then yes it's dangerous but it's not the person observing the speed limit that's the danger. Siwarner234
  • Score: -6

3:29pm Thu 16 Jan 14

EwellMan says...

Siwarner234 wrote:
EwellMan wrote:
Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?
I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fast lane". You are meant to use the lane in the middle and the inside to obstacle before pulling back in. There is nothing "dangerous" about doing 70 in the inside lane if the person behind is also obeying the speed limit. If people choose to use it as a "fast lane" and do 80 then yes it's dangerous but it's not the person observing the speed limit that's the danger.
Call it what you want the lane on the inside is faster moving in most times of the day than the one on the inside, sorry if my use of the word fast offended.

I think there are more dangerous people on the roads than most people doing 80 on the M25, that was my point.
[quote][p][bold]Siwarner234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EwellMan[/bold] wrote: Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?[/p][/quote]I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fast lane". You are meant to use the lane in the middle and the inside to obstacle before pulling back in. There is nothing "dangerous" about doing 70 in the inside lane if the person behind is also obeying the speed limit. If people choose to use it as a "fast lane" and do 80 then yes it's dangerous but it's not the person observing the speed limit that's the danger.[/p][/quote]Call it what you want the lane on the inside is faster moving in most times of the day than the one on the inside, sorry if my use of the word fast offended. I think there are more dangerous people on the roads than most people doing 80 on the M25, that was my point. EwellMan
  • Score: 8

4:59pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Siwarner234 says...

But the point still remains that all three lanes have the same speed limit so doing 70 should not be considered an issue. I guess most people drive badly at that point because the person behind then is flagging them and driving very closely.
But the point still remains that all three lanes have the same speed limit so doing 70 should not be considered an issue. I guess most people drive badly at that point because the person behind then is flagging them and driving very closely. Siwarner234
  • Score: -1

6:36pm Thu 16 Jan 14

Davey1980 says...

EwellMan wrote:
ka ching.......More tax reveneues to build more social housing for the lazy!!!
I'm in social housing and certainly not lazy. I work hard in the city earning 60k a year.
[quote][p][bold]EwellMan[/bold] wrote: ka ching.......More tax reveneues to build more social housing for the lazy!!![/p][/quote]I'm in social housing and certainly not lazy. I work hard in the city earning 60k a year. Davey1980
  • Score: -4

5:11am Fri 17 Jan 14

Paul_S_ says...

Siwarner234 wrote:
EwellMan wrote:
Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fast laneSiwarner234, I have to correct you on your terminology. The lane furthest to the right is actually called the outside lane, hence "pulling out" to overtake and then "pulling in" afterward. As a driver, it's important to know the difference as the police take a very dim view of people who overtake on the inside, which your post implicitly suggests is OK.

I would also point out that if everyone sticks rigidly to the speed limit, even in the outside (right) lane, then the result is more congestion and danger, because every impatient driver (of which there are a lot in rush hour) will move to the right to try to overtake. This in turn encourages the most impatient drivers to overtake on the inside instead, since it is now half-empty due to the heavily-congested outside lane. I've seen this on a daily basis on my commute, and it's not pretty.

If everyone would simply keep left unless overtaking, this problem wouldn't be so bad. In my opinion, driving with care and considerstion is far safer than watching the speedo like a hawk to keep it under 70 when one should be watching the road.
[quote][p][bold]Siwarner234[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]EwellMan[/bold] wrote: Stevo98, What planet are you on? So following someone in a 40 zone driving 20mph for 5 miles and you would not get frsutrated? Are you for real? Pulling out into the fast lane at 65mph on a motorway and not speeding up to 75/80 to make a clear pass is more dangerous than driving within the limit and i was told that by traffic officer. I dont obey anyone, i not some slave, i abide by the rules of the road but there are sometimes when these have to be crossed for safety reasons. For your info: I have been driving for 30 years, never had an accident, have a clean license and my car is in pristine condition. However a 70 year old living up the road form me that i have followod on occasions driving 20 in a 40, has a hanging off wing mirror, scrapes and scratched down the side of her car? So i wonder who you should be criticing on driving ability?[/p][/quote]I just want to point out that there is no such thing as a "fast laneSiwarner234, I have to correct you on your terminology. The lane furthest to the right is actually called the outside lane, hence "pulling out" to overtake and then "pulling in" afterward. As a driver, it's important to know the difference as the police take a very dim view of people who overtake on the inside, which your post implicitly suggests is OK. I would also point out that if everyone sticks rigidly to the speed limit, even in the outside (right) lane, then the result is more congestion and danger, because every impatient driver (of which there are a lot in rush hour) will move to the right to try to overtake. This in turn encourages the most impatient drivers to overtake on the inside instead, since it is now half-empty due to the heavily-congested outside lane. I've seen this on a daily basis on my commute, and it's not pretty. If everyone would simply keep left unless overtaking, this problem wouldn't be so bad. In my opinion, driving with care and considerstion is far safer than watching the speedo like a hawk to keep it under 70 when one should be watching the road. Paul_S_
  • Score: 3

5:19am Fri 17 Jan 14

Paul_S_ says...

Siwarner234, I have to correct you on your terminology. The lane furthest to the right is actually called the outside lane, hence "pulling out" to overtake and then "pulling in" afterward. As a driver, it's important to know the difference as the police take a very dim view of people who overtake on the inside, which your post implicitly suggests is OK.

I would also point out that if everyone sticks rigidly to the speed limit, even in the outside (right) lane, then the result is more congestion and danger, because every impatient driver (of which there are a lot in rush hour) will move to the right to try to overtake. This in turn encourages the most impatient drivers to overtake on the inside instead, since it is now half-empty due to the heavily-congested outside lane. I've seen this on a daily basis on my commute, and it's not pretty.

If everyone would simply keep left unless overtaking, this problem wouldn't be so bad. In my opinion, driving with care and considerstion is far safer than watching the speedo like a hawk to keep it under 70 when one should be watching the road.
Siwarner234, I have to correct you on your terminology. The lane furthest to the right is actually called the outside lane, hence "pulling out" to overtake and then "pulling in" afterward. As a driver, it's important to know the difference as the police take a very dim view of people who overtake on the inside, which your post implicitly suggests is OK. I would also point out that if everyone sticks rigidly to the speed limit, even in the outside (right) lane, then the result is more congestion and danger, because every impatient driver (of which there are a lot in rush hour) will move to the right to try to overtake. This in turn encourages the most impatient drivers to overtake on the inside instead, since it is now half-empty due to the heavily-congested outside lane. I've seen this on a daily basis on my commute, and it's not pretty. If everyone would simply keep left unless overtaking, this problem wouldn't be so bad. In my opinion, driving with care and considerstion is far safer than watching the speedo like a hawk to keep it under 70 when one should be watching the road. Paul_S_
  • Score: 8

11:23am Fri 17 Jan 14

ttt888 says...

Siwarner234 - I can imagine you're the type of person who thinks it's okay to sit in the middle lane of a motorway/A-road when you're not overtaking? This is in fact a traffic by-law offence. The inside lane is for normal driving, the middle/third/fourth/
outside lanes are for OVERTAKING ONLY. This is a well established fact and if drivers were to respect that rule the way they do in Germany for example, there would be less congestion on the roads, less accidents and less deaths - FACT.

I actually appreciate the way Surrey Police handle speeding, they Police roads according to how dangerous they are, the more accidents/fatalities
, the more presence and monitoring. The A3 for example has typically been a pretty safe road over the years, which is why many stretches are hardly monitored. Fundamentally though, the people speeding are considerably more likely to be killed than they are to kill others in an 'incident', and if that is not enough of a deterant, than I would suggest that £100 fines and 3 points are unlikely to make a huge difference, unless of course there are people out there who value their lives less than their money.....??

The current law works just fine for speeding, the limit on motorways and other applicable roads is 70mph and (dependent on the county) the police will only prosecute people above 10% over, with some 10% +4mph. And let's all be honest, the vast majority of us spend plenty time on the motorway between 70mph and 80mph.

If Surrey Police want to target speeding, they should be pro active and target those inconsiderate people sat in the wrong lane, causing congestion, with the effect of frustrating drivers around them and in turn increasing the likelihood of people speeding. I would propose that the CAUSE of most incidents on motorways and A-roads is a lack of diligent driving as opposed to just plain speed.

My suggestions to Surrey road policing unit:
1. Target those causing congestion on motorways by sitting in the wrong lane. Persistant offenders should receive points (a proposed change in legislation is I believe in the offing).
2. Base prosecutions on merit. Don't hit a driver with fines and points if they're doing 80mph on an empty stretch of motorway, but give people doing 35mph in a 20mph zone next to a school a short-term ban.
3. Increase (heavily) fines and penalties for people driving without tax or insurance. They're increassing the deficit, which is surely what the speed camera revenue is seeking to reduce in the first instance.
4. Target the morons driving with missing or faulty brake lights/reversing lights/tail lights/head lights. They're much more likely to CAUSE an incident.
Siwarner234 - I can imagine you're the type of person who thinks it's okay to sit in the middle lane of a motorway/A-road when you're not overtaking? This is in fact a traffic by-law offence. The inside lane is for normal driving, the middle/third/fourth/ outside lanes are for OVERTAKING ONLY. This is a well established fact and if drivers were to respect that rule the way they do in Germany for example, there would be less congestion on the roads, less accidents and less deaths - FACT. I actually appreciate the way Surrey Police handle speeding, they Police roads according to how dangerous they are, the more accidents/fatalities , the more presence and monitoring. The A3 for example has typically been a pretty safe road over the years, which is why many stretches are hardly monitored. Fundamentally though, the people speeding are considerably more likely to be killed than they are to kill others in an 'incident', and if that is not enough of a deterant, than I would suggest that £100 fines and 3 points are unlikely to make a huge difference, unless of course there are people out there who value their lives less than their money.....?? The current law works just fine for speeding, the limit on motorways and other applicable roads is 70mph and (dependent on the county) the police will only prosecute people above 10% over, with some 10% +4mph. And let's all be honest, the vast majority of us spend plenty time on the motorway between 70mph and 80mph. If Surrey Police want to target speeding, they should be pro active and target those inconsiderate people sat in the wrong lane, causing congestion, with the effect of frustrating drivers around them and in turn increasing the likelihood of people speeding. I would propose that the CAUSE of most incidents on motorways and A-roads is a lack of diligent driving as opposed to just plain speed. My suggestions to Surrey road policing unit: 1. Target those causing congestion on motorways by sitting in the wrong lane. Persistant offenders should receive points (a proposed change in legislation is I believe in the offing). 2. Base prosecutions on merit. Don't hit a driver with fines and points if they're doing 80mph on an empty stretch of motorway, but give people doing 35mph in a 20mph zone next to a school a short-term ban. 3. Increase (heavily) fines and penalties for people driving without tax or insurance. They're increassing the deficit, which is surely what the speed camera revenue is seeking to reduce in the first instance. 4. Target the morons driving with missing or faulty brake lights/reversing lights/tail lights/head lights. They're much more likely to CAUSE an incident. ttt888
  • Score: 11

12:13pm Fri 17 Jan 14

MrTwit says...

ttt888 - That is spot on.
ttt888 - That is spot on. MrTwit
  • Score: 0

12:52pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Mind the gap says...

The poor hard done-by motorists bleating on again. Unable to stick to the rules then blames anyone other than themselves when they get caught. The simple fact is there are too many cars and not enough space, traffic will get heavier and average speeds lower FACT
The poor hard done-by motorists bleating on again. Unable to stick to the rules then blames anyone other than themselves when they get caught. The simple fact is there are too many cars and not enough space, traffic will get heavier and average speeds lower FACT Mind the gap
  • Score: -7

5:43pm Fri 17 Jan 14

Grombler says...

Its either the nanny state or a stealthy tax. Lives will NOT be saved by forcing everyone to bunch up, fall asleep, and become frustrated at the amount of extra time we'll be sitting on the **** M25. And in what demented world of mathematics do the idiot civil servants live where 'driving more slowly gets you there faster'? Driving as fast as you can gets you there fastest. Simple. Don't pretend that bunching us up to 'pack more cars per mile' makes the slightest sense. If there's congestion, we go slower, if not why bunch?
Its either the nanny state or a stealthy tax. Lives will NOT be saved by forcing everyone to bunch up, fall asleep, and become frustrated at the amount of extra time we'll be sitting on the **** M25. And in what demented world of mathematics do the idiot civil servants live where 'driving more slowly gets you there faster'? Driving as fast as you can gets you there fastest. Simple. Don't pretend that bunching us up to 'pack more cars per mile' makes the slightest sense. If there's congestion, we go slower, if not why bunch? Grombler
  • Score: 1

8:49am Mon 20 Jan 14

Hufftie says...

The article states that the current speed signs without the cameras being switch on "have continued to work effectively to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flow and have operated well without fixed camera enforcement." Therefore the only reason to turn the cameras on is not safety but cash generation. Whether people speed on that area or not has nothing to do with the decision.
The article states that the current speed signs without the cameras being switch on "have continued to work effectively to reduce congestion and smooth traffic flow and have operated well without fixed camera enforcement." Therefore the only reason to turn the cameras on is not safety but cash generation. Whether people speed on that area or not has nothing to do with the decision. Hufftie
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree