Next generation speed cameras now spot distracted driving by Jamie Rogers | Jan 16, 2019 | Motoring | 138 comments Image: © Copyright David Hawgood on Geograph and licensed for reuse under CC2.0 “Always eyes watching you and the voice enveloping you” – one of the lesser-known quotes from the George Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which ‘Big Brother’ is always watching. Despite being seventy years old this year, the whole “Big Brother is watching you” has never been apter, with the number of speed cameras dotted around. A raft of new speed cameras introduced in the south-west has the ability to monitor your speed, check your seatbelt, detect mobile phone usage or see whether you’re eating, smoking or drinking, and it could lead to prosecution. These new cameras have been nicknamed ‘The Yellow Vultures’. While we’re used to seeing average speed check cameras throughout various locations, these new cameras are the next generation, they use infrared tech and high-definition, which means that day or night, they have the ability to catch you unawares. The legality While smoking, eating or drinking while driving isn’t actually illegal (currently), there is an argument for distracted driving; a study by Leeds University found that motorists consuming food while driving were on average, 44% slower than usual. But if you were found to be speeding while distracted, you could face a charge of careless driving, along with the speeding conviction. One further point is that these new breed of cameras are much more accurate, which in theory, means that when we reported back in August that Chief Constable Anthony Bangham, Britain’s Road Policing Chief wanted to fine motorists for breaching the speed limit by just 1mph, he may just get his way. Currently, the National Police Chiefs Council guidelines recommend a 10+2 limit, that is 10% over, plus 2mph – 35mph in a thirty limit, 57mph in a fifty and so on, but that really is only a courtesy, set in the days where speedo accuracy wasn’t top of the list for the manufacturer; most speedometers were set from the factory to under-read by around 5% purely for this reason. It’s also worth pointing out that the old ‘lane change’ trick won’t work either – gone are the days that you could confuse an average speed check camera by swapping lanes, or by riding a motorcycle with only a rear-facing number plate. The yellow vultures are capable of spotting every indiscretion, committed by any vehicle. Spotting the cameras At the moment, the new breed of super-camera only has limited geography – based in the south-west on the Gdynia Way heading into Plymouth and the A38 at Haldon Hill, but if proven successful you can almost guarantee that they’ll be rolled out nationwide. The camera unit itself is similar enough to existing average speed cameras, but the tell-tale is that they’ll be preceded by a bank of LED equipment and sensors 20 metres before the first camera, even so, you’ll need sharp eyesight to know when you’re entering a zone. The reality is that the cameras are there for speeding, and while they’re technically capable of spotting things like missing seatbelts, eating and smoking, it’s unlikely to lead to prosecution unless you commit an act of careless driving due to it. However, they’re also capable of spotting mobile phone usage, and that can only be a good thing. What seems to be an unknown is whether the cameras are constantly scanning for illegal or dangerous driving, or whether they only activate due to speeding. Avoidance From what we understand, it seems a genuine effort to place the emphasis on safety first rather than raise revenue, but this could just be the tip of the iceberg, the trial run before understanding just what the real-world capabilities are. As we reported last week, slow doesn’t necessarily mean safe, but it seems that on the whole, anti-speeding measures are generally accepted, where appropriate. As to whether a fine for eating a sandwich on the go, or staying caffeinated would be quite so well received remains to be seen. It would seem that since ‘speed’ cameras were overtaken by ‘safety’ cameras (meaning fewer locations), the battle has been on to justify further camera usage, perhaps in a bid to minimise loss of revenue, or it could just be that the UK is in need of safety education when it comes to driving? Driving within the speed limit is clearly the best way to avoid prosecution, and perhaps you’ll be doing your digestive system good by not having a three-course meal ‘on the go’, but then perhaps you should be allowed to choose for yourself.
scare mongering! the camera doesn't do that it'll be a process clerk, ...and in fairness since time began, if other offences have been disclosed from a picture then they would be pursued.
If a zero tolerance to speed limits is ever adooted the biggest stumbling block is inaccurate vehicle speed meausuements. None of my vehicles read the same as the satnav in/on each vehicle! Sometimes there is a variance of 3/4 mph!
Zero tolerance would be total bull, there is a 2 percent difference in speed between new and worn tires. You can calculate the size of the effect from simple geometry. Tire wear reduces the diameter of the tire, which reduces the circumference of the tire. New passenger car tires typically come with 10/32" to 11/32" of tread depth (source). Tires are considered fully worn-out when only 2/32" of tread remains. So the tire has lost 8/32"--9/32" on the radius, or 1/2"--9/16" on the diameter over the life of the tire. What does this mean in terms of a "percent error?" To find out, we need to know the starting circumference of the new tire. First, a primer on tire size notation. An example tire size would be 205/45-R17. First number: section width in mm. The tire is 205 mm wide Second number: aspect ratio. The sidewall height of the tire is 0.45 times the section width Third number: rim size in inches. The tire fits a 17"wheel. Tire diameter is (roughly) given by the wheel rim size plus two times the sidewall height. In the case of our 205/45-R17 tire, the diameter is roughly 616mm. (17 * 25.4) + 2 * (205 * 0.45) = 616.3 (must multiply the rim size by 25.4 to convert inches to millimeters) The circumference of this new tire is therefore approximately 1936mm 616.3 * 3.14 = 1936 Now we said we could lose 1/2" in diameter over the life of the tire, so the worn diameter would be 604mm 616.3 - 1/2 * 25.4 = 603.6 Which means the worn circumference is 1896mm, or 2% less than the new tire circumference. So for this example, over the life of your tire, you'd pick up a 2% speedometer error. Har
Playing Devi's advocate: I can't imagine "my spedo isn't accurate" would hold up in court as a defense. If I buy a breathalyzer test kit and it says I'm OK to drive but police pull me over and I'm over, I won't get off because of my breathalyzer said I was OK. We could try driving 10% under the limit by default to take into account any inaccurate spedo's. CR (Currently watching his mailbox every morning as expecting a NIP any day now).
Well Northamptonshire Police has these cameras on part of the M1 in their county. If you look at their safer roads team link with regard to speed limits they link straight to the gov.co.uk https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
This country amazes me. With all the issues we have that need attention and funds, they do this.. Money spinner
There has been a speed camera installed on the main road by me and so far there have numerous accidents since as it’s just up from a staggered junction with macdonalds Drivers slow down then pick up speed and taking out those crossing the junction A motorcyclists was the latest casualty on Tuesday
Ducbird,have i misread your reply as it says " Installed on the main road by Me",you must have arms like popeyes
Duke of whatever crashed up our way yesterday. By all accounts he pulled out of a side road into oncoming traffic in daylight. There is already take of fitting average speed cameras on the road in question. To me that implies they are saying the other car was driving to fast (with a baby on board) rather than him being nearly 100 and shouldn’t be on the toad.
