Graeme gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying:

As the tolerances for speed cameras are not advertised, then it is
foolish to risk your license by driving past at any mph above the
posted limit.

ACPO's recommended +10%+2 notwithstanding...

ACPO also recommended upping the Motorway limit to 80mph, that was
ignored as well.

You don't understand the difference between recommending a change to
legislation (which requires political agreement) and recommending a
tolerance for enforcement (which doesn't)?

I do, I was just being sarcastic. They don't have much choice with the
tolerance, car speedometers are only legally required to be accurate
within 10%.

But only in one direction. Zero tolerance in the other direction.

In message , d
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:

Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed.

Did anyone believe it worked anyway?

Both the Home Office and the manufacturer confirmed so.

Why would anyone writing the software
make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place?

You misunderstand. Home Office approval applied only to systems that
recorded speeds of vehicles which maintained their lane when SPECS
cameras first appeared in 1999. So, while a change of lane didn't affect
the SPECS reading, any attempt at prosecuting a speeding driver who had
changed lanes between the two relevant SPECS photos would almost
certainly have failed on the basis that the system was being used beyond
its approved purpose.

As David pointed out, the Home Office closed this loophole in 2007 by
changing the regulations.

The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front
number plate which I've done on many an occasion.

Erm ... SPECS3 can read the rear number plate
--
Paul Terry

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from
fines.

So, you don't accept that you are misinformed?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:35:29 +0100
Paul Terry wrote:
Why would anyone writing the software
make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place?

You misunderstand. Home Office approval applied only to systems that
recorded speeds of vehicles which maintained their lane when SPECS
cameras first appeared in 1999. So, while a change of lane didn't affect
the SPECS reading, any attempt at prosecuting a speeding driver who had
changed lanes between the two relevant SPECS photos would almost
certainly have failed on the basis that the system was being used beyond
its approved purpose.

Ah ok. Not a technical shortcoming then.

The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front
number plate which I've done on many an occasion.

Erm ... SPECS3 can read the rear number plate

Only if they point the cameras in the right direction. They don't have
x-ray vision... yet!

B2003

In article
,
" wrote:

On 28 July, 21:53, Adrian wrote:
Sam Wilson gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying:

... *I'm still not sure whether
to believe it, but he slowed down to 40-ish for the cameras his satnav
told him about (A68 - not many).

The theory is commonplace, but I doubt the practice - not least because
it's entirely possible for two nominally visually identical vehicles (and
certainly very similar in overall outline or cross-section) to have
different speed limits.

Basically, I just don't think the cameras are intelligent enough.

Talivans, otoh...

SPECS3 combined with ANPR, Bristol and South Wales trials went very
well.

Yeah, but these were point speed cameras (GATSOs or whatever) not
SPECS-type average speed setups.

Sam

In message , Graeme
writes

IIRC in the original installations each lane was monitored by it's own set of
cameras. The assumption was each set was independent all through the chain.
Not necessarily true but urban myths get taken up very rapidly.

According to the manufacturer of SPECS, writing in 2008 and quoted in
the article in The Register reference up-thread, it was no urban myth,
but simply the case that the cameras were not authorised for use in
situations where a vehicle had changed lanes between check points:

"Until recently, the only HOTA [Home Office Type Approval] available
applied to cars maintaining their lanes. However a new test schedule was
carried out last year, which means that average speed checking can be
applied even where cars change lanes."

In other words, SPECS could technically work out the average speed, even
when the driver changed lanes, but if the speed was above the limit
there would be little chance of a successful prosecution because the
system would not have been deemed to have been used in an approved
manner prior to late 2007.
--
Paul Terry

In message
Paul Terry wrote:

In message , Graeme
writes

IIRC in the original installations each lane was monitored by it's own
set of cameras. The assumption was each set was independent all through
the chain. Not necessarily true but urban myths get taken up very
rapidly.

According to the manufacturer of SPECS, writing in 2008 and quoted in
the article in The Register reference up-thread, it was no urban myth,
but simply the case that the cameras were not authorised for use in
situations where a vehicle had changed lanes between check points:


You misunderstood, the urban myth was about the reason the system didn't
work. I doubt the average motorist has even heard of HOTA.

--
Graeme Wall

This address not read, substitute trains for rail
Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/

"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...

Yeah, but these were point speed cameras (GATSOs or whatever) not
SPECS-type average speed setups.


Even a single-point camera could enforce vehicle-specific speed limits by
bolting on a bit of ANPR technology.

--
DAS

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:19 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras were
paid for by central government while the income from fines (formerly)
went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from
fines.

So, you don't accept that you are misinformed?


Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on the local authorities
who are complaining bitterly about losing an income stream which you
appear to be implying they never had. ;-)

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 11:06:19 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 04:01:01 -0500,
wrote:
In article ,
(Bruce) wrote:

It's because the purchase and installation costs of the cameras
were paid for by central government while the income from fines
(formerly) went to local government coffers.

Evidence that the fines ever went to local government coffers?


All the "evidence" anyone should need is the bleating of local
authorities ever since they were denied the income stream from fines.

So, you don't accept that you are misinformed?

Perhaps you should concentrate your efforts on the local authorities
who are complaining bitterly about losing an income stream which you
appear to be implying they never had. ;-)

You have been told elsewhere in this thread that was in the form of
government grants, not receiving the fines.

--
Colin Rosenstiel