Great Western Coffee Shop

From the BBC - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37474415


Rail services provide a real economic benefit to the towns they serve, yet only a small proportion of that benefit flows back to the train and/or network operator through the farebox. Some of the rest is levelled out through the franchising system, but there still remains the question of how to balance train services between the marginal finances of the actual operation and the big benefits to their catchments.

I don't really think it's the solution, but as I read the article about council's incomes from box junction infringements, I got to wonder if just a little of that income couldn't be used to support public transport. "Due to significant demands put on the Council against ever diminishing resources, I have to inform you that I am not able to provide funding" states Wiltshire Council's Associate Director of Highways & Transport to the Community Rail Partnership for this year though "the Council would like to continue to work in partnership with the CRP to improve services and facilities and infrastructure where our respective organisations have a common objective".  Calculations tell me that a single year's income from that box junction in Fulham (which I do understand is not in Wiltshire!) would have covered requested funding for 431 years ...

box junctions wouldn't earn anything if drivers stuck to the rules - they're there for good reason

Mass rule breaking is generally an indication that a rule, or the management of whatever it is in place to enforce is not fit for purpose and should be adapted to reflect reality. The law is sometimes, quite simply an ass. Sticking to the rules in the example above appears to result in conflict and gridlock, neither of which are really acceptable outcomes.

If you watch the video attached to the BBC report above, it appears it is not possible for the driver to enter the box junction without infringing, due to the manner in which the traffic lights work - i.e. her exit from the box junction is perpetually obstructed - I think the point here is that better traffic management needs to be put in place to allow people to make due progress without infringing, if the council intend to strictly enforce it. Otherwise it is seen as a 'set up' to make money.

From the article....


If 7m can avoid a fine, the other 'few' can too

Perhaps a simplistic interpretation? Many factors including driver error (deliberate or otherwise) can be involved. Traffic levels vary and congestion caused by a badly designed junction along with drivers unfamiliar with the road may be amongst the reasons for looking again at traffic management. I can imagine that over seven years, a million vehicles per year pass through a London junction off peak. I am, of course, speculating with no personal evidence.

The other 'few' is around 180000 (£120000/£65) people, hardly a statistically irrelevant number...

There is clearly a problem with this junction, the council shouldn't 'cash in' from this without addressing the issues that are causing the problem, be that traffic management, road layout or driver education. I suspect some small changes to traffic management and road layout would cure the issues at this junction.

Isn't the fine £130 (with 50% off for prompt payment?) - so half that - over 7 years is just over 1,250 a year, just 4 a day when millions a day go over it.....

That assumes that the ticket issuing system hasn't been set a limit of 4 tickets a day, which it may well have been.

I am generally supportive of a big toughening up on driving standards and I like the idea of optional taxes (only paid by the foolish and selfish), but I would prioritise my cash collecting activities on traffic infringements which are genuinely dangerous (ie speeding) rather than merely selfish/inconvenient (blocking junctions, parking).

In the interests of justice I'd also like to see some kind of effort to remove the perceived conflict of interest here whereby the council appears to be incentivised to keep a road layout which catches people out and raises money for the same council.

But subject to some proper safeguard, catching poor drivers using all technology available is a good thing to do.   

But speed in itself simply isn't dangerous. It is inappropriate speed that is dangerous. I do wish we in this country could become more obsessed with general driving standards (observation, anticipation, vehicle handling skills, good manners) than concentrating on speed alone.


Agreed, watching the video on the original article posted, it does look as if the road layout needs to be reviewed at that particular junction. You can often make some pretty significant improvements to traffic flow and safety by making some quite cheap and subtle changes to road layout & traffic management.


What we really need is more traffic police on the roads to enforce things like middle lane hogging (in my opinion the single biggest cause of motorway congestion currently, after volume of traffic), mobile phone use and all those things that technology simply cannot enforce without severe intrusion of privacy. Pinging people for being 10mph over a speed limit on an empty motorway or hanging a few feet into a box junction understandably results in people feeling aggrieved.

Yep, just noticed the article is confusing, nice bit of journalism BBC. One figure relates to an 18 month period, another to 7 years, others to a year....  :o



From the BBC article, reinforcing my point, I think these guys should know a thing or two about highway design:

I understood that police won't 'ping' motorists doing speeds below 90mph unless it's perceived to be dangerous too. And the automatic ban for a ton or more I support fully.

I wouldn't go faster than 79 mph on the M4 in Wiltshire.  Their Chief Constable apparently has a thing about speed - even on motorways.

But a camera will. It does not offer the discretion that a traf pol has. Often infringements can be best dealt with by means of a stern telling off - saves on paperwork for the officer, no fine/hassle for the motorist and I firmly believe that direct interaction with a person rather than a camera and the automated penalties that follow, is much more likely to prevent someone from further infringements, or at least prompt them to think twice in future. Say you're doing a real 105mph, caught by a camera you're guaranteed a court summons, caught by a traf pol in the right circumstances and you pass the attitude test, then they might reduce the recorded speed to say, 98mph in order to deal with it by means of a fixed penalty notice which is better all round.

100mph+ tends to result in a visit to a magistrates court (or crown if deemed serious enough), where it can be dealt with by various means, be that a short ban (i.e. no points) plus a big fine, lots of points plus a smaller fine, there's no 'automatic' ban per se - depends on your attitude in court and how the magistrate feels on that day.

I think magistrates guidelines from the MoJ require a ban in most cases over 100mph

I'd hope they would on the roads near my house. 20mph limit!  :P

P.S. Most constabularies use the NPCC guidelines of the speed limit + 10% + 2mph as the threshold for prosecution, so on a NSL motorway, you could be ticketed at 79mph or above.

Perhaps, but a disqualification can be dealt out in 2 different ways, either a straight disqualification (no points added to license) or adding points (essentially causing a totting up ban). Depends a lot on previous driving history and whether the magistrate wants to retain some points on your license as a deterrent (these stay for 3 years). I suspect a first offence over 100mph is likely to get a short ban of a couple of weeks or so plus a hefty fine; someone who has, say, 9 points already is likely to end up with a load more points, effecting a longer ban, plus a hefty fine and the continued risk of further disquals until the original points have cleared.

An interesting discussion - but all rather academic for me.  ::)

My van is physically limited to a maximum of 62 mph (although I have managed to get it up to 65 mph, going downhill on the southbound stretch of the M5 between Portishead and Clevedon.  ::)

I should also add that the above refers to cars - HGV's, vans and vehicles towing trailers or caravans have a lower limit of 60mph on the motorway, so would be liable to prosecution from 68mph on that type of road.

Tut, tut!  ;D

Out of curiosity, would that be 62mph as per the factory fitted speedometer, or is limited by some other accurately calibrated device, like an LGV tachometer?

Simply to clarify: the speed limit for my van (a Mercedes Sprinter) on a motorway is 70 mph.  Oh, if only ...  :P

The problem I often find is that I am stuck behind a lorry limited to 58 mph, but with my van limited to 62 mph, I generally don't have the necessary acceleration to overtake - so I'm then effectively limited to staying behind it at 58 mph myself.  ::)

So it's more of a Mercedes Dawdler than Sprinter?  :P

Are lorries really limited in their speed? I thought the little signs on the back were just for show, they often seem to be going much more than 60!

On a slightly different vein (already way off topic anyway, so no regrets!) I have often wondered why cars that can go 100+ are sold. If that is such a deal-breaking threshold then why is there no requirement for manufacturers to add limiters?  ???

Yes, absolutely. With pretty heavy penalties for drivers and/or operators found to have tampered with the speed limiting devices. Maximum limit of 60mph on motorways, but generally limited for fuel economy reasons to between 52-56mph.



I think the 100mph thing has become important as it is really starting to result in quite high closing speeds with other 'normal' traffic. For whatever reasons of myth/psychology, it has been a bit of a number I have noticed not many people are willing to exceed, so it is self regulating. We don't all have an individual security guard to escort us around shops to ensure we don't steal anything, so why limit cars to 100mph when it is largely self governing. I suspect you'd also notice a lot more cars being driven like lorries - foot flat to the floor with max speed bumping off the limiter.

HGV's on the other hand are speed limited because of the devastating effects of collisions involving them - owners and operators have demonstrated in the past that they will overload, drive for huge periods of time without rest and do hugely inappropriate speeds without heavy regulation, so they became regulated.

Is this only UK registered/based vehicles? I have (alas) been motorway driving daily for the last month and lorries happily go along in the 65-70 range. Or is it a limited when laden type of thing giving a higher speed when not so full?

Alternatively the car I use has a very inaccurate speedo!


I do not quite buy the security guard analogy - I think when it comes to driving a large number of people break the rules but I suspect most of them would not think of shoplifting. Although the 100 mark may well be the limit as you say.

For me I think any frustration comes down to what you said earlier about driving standards in general. I do not mind if somebody goes past me at 80+ too much. It is when they indicate after they have starting pulling in in a too small gap in front of me, simultaneously braking (or similar, etc) that gets my goat.

I was back on the train this morning, quite nice to be able to daydream while looking out the window!

That may well be part of it.  Car speedos do tend to err on the side of over-estimating speed for obvious manufacturer liability reasons.  But one would imagine that the speed limiters on lorries were similar. 

HGVs have to have their speed measuring devices calibrated regularly (for tachometer accuracy), but it is common for this to be done with a very worn set of tyres, giving a slightly higher speed when normal tyres are refitted. I've not seen an HGV dong more than about 56/57 mph for as long as I can remember, and that's with doing up to 320 ish motorway miles every week for the last 15 years or so. Due to the calibration, their speedometers tend to be more accurate than cars.

Car speedometers legally cannot under read (under vehicle construction & use laws) and must be within 10% of the actual speed, so typically they over read by a few mph i.e. a displayed 75mph is probably closer to an actual 68-70, which explains the discrepancy between car & lorry speeds. In areas such as average speed zones, I tend to speed match the lorries as their speed readings are more accurate and they cannot be accruing 3 points here and there for infringements as they'd soon end up with a totting up ban.

The best way to check how much difference is to use a sat nav with a speed reading display they are Allways more accurate than the speedo in your car.

I'm currently in correspondence with my council over a supposed 20mph speed limit near me.  There's an end sign raising the limit back up to 30mph - but no start sign!