Morning:
13°c
An awesome and ridiculous film that leaves you thrilled beyond the point of your natural endurance
London faces a wave of bus and Tube strikes that could cause chaos for millions of passengers as unions walkout over pay and conditions
More...
Drivers can avoid speeding tickets...by changing lanes
Last updated at 23:07pm on 15.10.06
A massive flaw in a new generation of speed cameras means motorists can avoid fines and points on their licence simply by changing lanes.
The Home Office admitted last night that drivers can avoid being caught the by hi-tech 'SPECS' cameras which calculate a car's average speed over a long distance.
The astonishing loophole means that millions of speeding drivers around Britain could escape a £60 fine and three points on their licence. The hidden blind-spot - revealed today by the Daily Mail - raises questions about the supposedly foolproof hi-tech camera system which is increasingly used on Britain's roads.
Although designed to improve road safety, the loophole means that drivers may actually increase the risk of accidents by continually switching lanes.
Police chiefs were last night forced to urge drivers not to exploit the shortcoming by trying to evade the cameras.
The flaw affects the controversial SPECS cameras. Unlike standard Gatso cameras which individually flash a car as it passes, these cameras measure a driver's average speed between two fixed points - which can be many miles apart.
If this average speed between cameras is higher than the speed limit, the driver gets a fine through the post and three points on their licence.
The cameras were designed to catch motorists who simply slow down in front of a camera, and then drive above the speed limit until they reach the next one.
But, under Home Office rules governing the camera equipment, prosecutions are only valid if a driver is filmed in the same lane at the start and finish of each section by a linked pair of cameras.
The Home Office admitted yesterday that the hi-tech SPECS cameras - produced by Camberley-based Speed Check Services - are only approved to be used one lane at a time.
That means a three-lane motorway would require three separate sets of cameras - one for each lane. If drivers leave the speed-camera zone via a different lane to the one they entered in, they cannot normally be prosecuted.
The camera's manufacturers - Speed Check Services (SCS) - confirmed that drivers could escape prosecution by lane-hopping but discouraged it on 'safety' grounds.
Sets of the cameras have been installed at 27 sites around the UK at a cost of between £180,000 and £1.5 million per site, according to Geoff Collins, SCS's sales and marketing manager.
Fourteen of the sites are permanent while another 13 are temporary at road works, where their presence has mushroomed in recent years. Sites that run for longer distances cost more because they need more cameras.
They include permanent cameras around Nottingham, a 20mph zone around Tower Bridge in London, the M8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and at roadworks on the M6 in the West Midlands, the M25, the A1(M) and the M1 in Hertfordshire, the A2 in Kent, and the M56 in Cheshire.
The SPECS cameras work by measuring the time a vehicle takes to pass between two number plate reading cameras set up to 6.2 miles apart.
A computer works out the time it takes to cover the distance, and then calculates the average speed.
If this is higher than the speed limit, a colour photograph taken by a third digital camera is stored for enforcement purposes. Multiple sets of the cameras are installed on stretches of road to make 'enforcement zones'.
But under Home Office 'type approval' rules, each individual set cannot be linked to any of the others. So cars are timed only between sets of number plate readers 'paired' for the same lane.
Most of the time each number plate reader in a pair will be directed at the same single lane of traffic and will therefore not detect lane hoppers, according to Mr Collins. He said:' If it's configured to monitor one particular lane, then it wouldn't pick up a lane changer.'
He added: 'There are configurations when (a speeding vehicle) would not be picked up, if it's gone from lane one to lane three between cameras.'
The company's technical director Graeme Southwood said that when the devices were approved by the Home Office in 1999, they passed strict tests for use in one lane at a time. But there was not enough time or finances to extend Home office approval tests to cover the cameras' use over two or three lanes at a time. This has created the loop-hole.
He still claimed - without spelling out any detail - that this loop-hole was not actually foolproof and that some of those who attempt to use it will still face a speeding prosecution.
And Med Hughes, head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said it would be 'irresponsible' and dangerous for drivers to change lanes in a bid to avoid detection - adding that motorists would 'not be able to guarantee' they could avoid being penalised if they changed lanes.
Mr Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, said: 'Motorists who change lanes in average speed detection lanes, such as major road works, will not be able to guarantee avoiding detection. Multiple enforcement systems are often used and detection zones will vary depending on the placement of the equipment.'
'Motorists are strongly advised not to seek to evade detection by unnecessarily changing lanes as this would generate a greater risk of collision and may lead to other offences being committed which the police may prosecute.
'These camera systems are designed to make our roads safer by reducing speed and casualties. It is irresponsible for motorists to deliberately seek to evade detection and speed.'
A spokeswoman for the Home Office said: 'The manufacturers applied for the camera to be type-approved to measure one lane only. It has been type-approved for this use - this can be either the lane under the camera or a lane to either side of it.'
'A SPECS camera measures a vehicles speed over distance in one lane.'
Motoring groups say police are putting too much reliance on cash-raising speed cameras which can fine a driver a few miles above the speed limit - but are unable to spot a dangerous, drunk, uninsured, or untaxed driver in an unroadworthy or stolen vehicle who is driving under the speed limit.
Last year more than 2 million motorists were caught speeding on camera, raising £120m a year in revenue for so-called 'Safety Camera Partnerships' comprising police, magistrates councils and road safety groups.
Speed cameras have boomed on British roads from a handful a decade ago to 3,300 fixed sites and 3,400 mobile devices today. At the same time there has been an 11 per cent cut in police patrols.
Edmund King, director of the RAC Foundation, said: 'I think the danger might be that you get people playing Russian Roulette and nipping from one lane to another to lessen their odds of being caught. They won't know entirely but they might think there's more chance.'
Reader views (42)
does anyone know how much over the speed limit can you go before getting caught on a speed camera? i was doing 73mph on the m20 yesterday then realised there were cameras around
- Jo Wickens, gravesend
A National Don't Speed week to reduce income wouldn't work. They still prosecute the innocent.
Better still a campaign to take EVERY speeding offence to court instead of merely accepting the fixed penalty.
Plead not guilty and make them work for their living. At worst the fine will be slightly higher and the magistrates courts would be under immense pressure to the extent they wouldn't be able to cope. At best they will lose your file, lose crucial evidence or simply run out of time to prosecute and who knows, you might even be found not guilty as so many charges are laid with poor practice behind them which wouldn't stand up in court anyway.
Pepipoo.com is the place to go for advice on your own traffic related queries.
- Lynn Robson, Peterlee, County Durham
There actually is a way in which anyone receiving an NIP can avoid both the fine and (more importantly) the points. It costs £40 per year to join and another £60 per NIP to deal with, but you do save the dreaded 3 points and possible 'totting-up' ban. If anyone is interested I shall forward you the web address, just post your details. I don't want to publish there details here just incase it's turned off. The system as it stands is unfair.
- Mark Richardson, Bristol, UK
- Kit Waites, Oxford, UK,
You seem to have overlooked the word "UNNECESSARILY" in the Chief Constable's comment..Unnecessarily as in suddenly realise due to lack of attention that the end of the SPEC's camera zone is approaching, pulling out into another lane to avoid detection (because you were also exceeding the limit whilst not paying attention) and either causing a smash or baulking another driver who is in that lane for valid reasons already. You know it's the sort of thing that already happens when drivers fail to pay attention to what they're doing...they make mistakes...much like you just did....opened your mouth and put your foot in it.
- Kev Owen, Goole, East Yorkshire
Credit crunch is biting hard, they are getting crafty in making cash and feed on public like vultures.Government has taken too much control over our lives. yet still we call it freedom. filling up their pockets with expenses and penalising us with fines. very nice. Corrupt government. are we slaves. has noone got a tongue to say anything?
- Jason, uk
i was caught doning 55, on a apparant national sped limit a road, but the council had changed the speed limit without indication, and left up the signs, i recieved 3 points and a 60 pound fine. what do i do??
- Ryan Darvill, Bridlington
what r the loopholes everyone is talking about is there no free downloads
- Ade, sheffield england
On the way to visit my grandaughter in hospital (YES, this is actually TRUE), I was 'caught' by a manned camera doing 39mph in an area in which I have never travelled before. Can anyone help me here please - is it a legal requirement for cameras to be made visible?
Three years ago, I was fined £60 and got 3 points for doing 36 in a 30 zone, a mile down the road from where I lived because they had put new cameras there. I vowed I wouldn't be criminalised again. All advice welcome. Thanks.
- Kate Palmer, Leeds
And what do these cameras do about bikes with only rear number plates ???
- Graham Edwards, Cambridge Cambridgeshire
Mr Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police says "Motorists are strongly advised not to seek to evade detection by unnecessarily changing lanes as this would generate a greater risk of collision and may lead to other offences being committed which the police may prosecute."
Really? Does anyone actually believe this nonsense? Changing lanes lead to a greater risk of collision? Really? And exactly what offences can we be prosecuted for by simply changing lanes?
I really dont think that any sensible person will accept this scaremongering and brainwashing attempt by these condescending bullies.
- Mw, Lymington, Hants
I think that cameras are just another income generator / stealth tax but they are also very dangerous. The majority of people are too busy watching the Speedo making sure they do not get snapped for being a couple of miles an hour over the set limit to notice what is going on around them.
Durham Constabulary do not have any fixed cameras but have reduced accidents by pointing mobile vans to accident blackspots. I still think that they should go back to good old fashoned policiing where you speed, get stopped, get ticked off and made aware of your wronding rather than just speed, flash, pay, points and nothing in your mind about being careful, more just a case of "I hate the government and the police"
- Pt, Newcastle
I think that for 1 they are to make money. 2 they are dangerous. If these cameras go on an average it does not enable any scope for human error. I am sure that every commuter will support me on this. So you go into an average speed of 50. If you drift to 55 then slow down to 50 again you will get a fine. So to stop that you drive constantly staring at your speedo. Then you are not concentrating on the road and car in front. Its stupid. I can't afford points on my license so I have watch my speedo. They are just to make money.
- Miles, lewes england
It is interesting that the so-called head of roads policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers, is recommending I commit a more serious offence than speeding, namely that of "undue care and attention" by not changing lanes when it is safe to do so, and there by observing the correct lane discipline stated in the Highway Code. The Highways Agnacy themselves have recently been promoting their "Keep left unless overtaking" campaign on motorway information signs.
I think these cameras should be withdrawn with immediate effect until the necessary approvals have been obtained. If nothing else to save the tax payer from the unnecessary expense of contesting in court each and every appeal that will now ensue as a result of another poorly implemented taxation scheme on the hard-pressed British motorist.
- Mike Sloan, Chinnor
Here we go again. The government has overspent (or needs money), so the drivers have to help claw back some losses. Very soon there will be talks to link all cameras on lanes, just to plug this loophole. The funny thing is that this stupid government will not use the cash to train and pay live traffic officers to patrol the streets and catch drunk drivers, dangerous joy riders, uninsured cars, untaxed cars etc. Less police means less salaries, and more revenue. Fools.
No camera will be as good as a well trained cop's intuition. Well, that's another problem because these so called 'specially trained police drivers' also get trigger happy and drive like loons, putting lives at risk.
The government wonders why hard working, honest Brits are packing up and fleeing to Spain and other countries? Because we have incompetent, clueless judges and ministers running this country. Because we are depending too much on cameras which are cash cows.
How about taxpayers' money is used to get more police to patrol our roads and crime infested council estates. And get rid of those stupid laws which prevent career criminals in their early teens from prosecution and punishment. Also, how about get magistrates and ministers who actually know how life is in urban Britain.
Speeding fines will not increase safety, education and co-operation will. Also, us Brit drivers have had enough of being easy targets for funds. Stop being cowards and spend our taxes wisely...NOT ON CAMERAS! WISE UP!
- Nii Noi, South Essex. UK
Simon, Reading: you're not up to date with politics are you?
- Craig, Nottingham
Perhaps if our road workers actually were present at the location of road repairs and got on with the job, it would not be necessary to set up 'multiple enforcement scenarios' for months at a time.
- Ziggy, Middlesex
As usual, only the honest will be caught because it is so easy for them.
- Peter Hessler, Aberdeen
I would love to see the governments reaction, if, for 1 week, every driver in the UK obeyed the speed limit.
The government would absolutly panic knowing how much fine revenue they had lost for the 1 week!
It is in the governmnets financal interest that we speed and break the law, just as it's in their interest that people smoke. Tax, Tax, Tax
Don't speed = no money for Tony B!
- Simon, Reading, UK
Where does all this money go? To all the people who send out the letters/photos? Perhaps all the proffit should go to hospitals for treating RTA victims? Perhaps Tony Blair's using it as his retirement fund!
- Ben, Bicester, Oxfrodshire.
Use the money from existing cameras to finance more traffic police. Catch the un-taxed, un-insured, stolen, dangerous, intoxicated, un-roadworthy. Only put new cameras where they are needed, at accident black spots, schools, old people's homes, hospitals etc, where people are at risk from speeding motorists.
- Nigel, Steyning, UK
Criminalising millions of motorists to raise money to buy more cameras to criminalise even more motorists... wake up!
- Harry, London
If you confine and frustrate people in any situation eventually there will be an expression of this. In terms of motoring, this can be seen by actual rises in fatalities in or adjacent to speed camera areas.
- Tom, London
We've been told for many years that cameras are only EVER put in accident blackspots.
Can ANYBODY explain how a SPOT can be 6.2 miles long?
- Chico, Malaga - Spain
Yes Gordon, we all let our children play on the verges of motorways...
- Stuart Holmes, Glasgow
A review of speeds on all roads is the way forward and slower is the main aim. But I feel there are some conditions when higher should be considered too particularly on major A roads and Motor ways.
Inevitably all new cars will come fitted with black boxes, GPS trackers or some hitech device to monitor your every movement. Pay as you drive for insurance and road tolls is coming just a matter of time.
- Jim, Middlesex - England
Revenue generator or not, they only generate revenue from people breaking the law. Sorry that you feel you are above the law or that this law doesn't apply to you, but if you are speeding and a child runs out in front of your car - it is your fault because you couldn't stop in time.
- Gordon, Cambridge
"Mr Hughes, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, said: 'Motorists are strongly advised not to seek to evade detection by unnecessarily changing lanes as this would generate a greater risk of collision and may lead to other offences being committed which the police may prosecute.'"
Watch out... not content with fining those going 5mph over the speed limit, the police are moving onto prosecuting those who change lanes on the motorway. Unless you're uninsured, untaxed, unlicensed, drunk and drugged up, of course, because how are the cameras meant to catch you then?
- Kit Waites, Oxford, UK
Speeding Motorists don't cost lives - it's human beings being where they shouldn't be! Step onto a road and it's the driver's responsibility here in the UK, step onto a train track and as far as everyone is concerned you put your life in your own hands. Go figure. Survival of the least stupid I say!
- Andy, Doncaster
Righto mates! Stick it to those coppers. Speed cameras are merely a revenue generator and the government doesn't like it when you evade their collectors.
- Piit B. Awot, NYC, USA
I drove past a burning speed camera on the A66 near Darlington, it did put a smile on my face! I would have loved to buy that guy (or girl) a pint! I can understand a speed camera outside a school or shops, what I can't understand is that a old Mini could bomb along at 70MPH back in the 60's on the M1 and now a brand new Mini for example with ABS and state of the art safety features can only do 70MPH on a better surfaced 2006 road.
I believe the speed limits should be increased on motorways but can understand enforcement in built-up areas. We have had a speed camera tactically placed in Middlesbrough several times in the last few weeks. The pavement is at least 10 feet from the side of the road so not a dangerous stretch at all. There is a school a mile down the road. When I asked the policeman reading his magazine why it was there and not outside the school, he explained because it "wasn't a suitable location for the equipment". WELL BUY BETTER EQUIPMENT... or was it prehaps that he wouldn't catch as many people?
If anyone has a link to a website where people are burning speed camera's then chuck it my way!!!
- Matt Rhucroft, Middlesbrough, GB
I actually LOVE Simon Rerrie's idea! As much as the government say they want to stop speeding motorists, I think it would seriously harm them if we did suddenly stop! Stick one up them I say.
- Stuart Barnard, Bolton, UK
Excellent, made my day! I know what to do next time im up at Hemel, put some super wide bumpers so I can play Dodgems.
- Raj Rahman, London, UK
Can't we all just take our numberplates off? After all, you never actually see a police patrol on the roads anymore...
- Philip Johnson, Bedford
So if everyone in the country stopped speeding tomorrow would we bankrupt the government? What could they start to penalize us for instead that would generate the same revenue, surely now they are dependant on this revenue, which them makes it all about raising funds and not safety.
- Simon Rerrie, Birmingham, UK
Glad to hear that the Government's speed camera farce may be slowly toppling down around them - with this and the oh so suprising revalation that cameras are mainly produced to provide revenue for the Government and their dirty little lies.
- Peter Butler, Bridport, Dorset, UK
What part of Canada do you live in Mike? I'll admit I havent been east of Manitoba but all the major western cities I've been to have speed cameras now...
- Matt, Canada
Thanks Paul for fixing it.
Another tip - don't speed and you won't generate any revenue. I seemed to have missed the connection between libertarianism and crusading speeders?
- Alfie, London, UK
Speed camera's, another reason why driving in the UK is a pain, might be good to consider a move to a more wide open country like Canada as many UK ex-pats already know. No camera's in Canada, wide open roads, less congestion overall, petrol at half the cost, and of course the cost of living is half. And if you have a London house you can easily buy a huge house over here with money to spare! (not incd. the posh parts of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver though)
- Mike, Canada
Rightly then these cameras will only catch those right hand lane drivers bombing along at a ton plus, except now they will cut in and out between overhead gantry's on packed motorways causing a truly dangerous hazard. Safety is clearly a poor relation to revenue raising, unmarked police cars are the answer because they can crack down on the real cause of most accidents, dangerous driving as well as speed. As someone who often drives on motorways its not speed that worries me but pure incompetent and dangerous driving which cause the near misses I have encountered.
- James Ritchie, London, UK.
Strange, I thought drivers were expected to change lane - you move to a right hand lane to overtake and move back to the left afterwards.
- David Marsh, Lewes, Sussex
I can't believe you Brits are letting your government do this.
From the article, Mr. Hughes states: 'These camera systems are designed to make our roads safer by reducing speed and casualties. It is irresponsible for motorists to deliberately seek to evade detection and speed.'
Let me fix that for you, Mr. Hughes: 'These camera systems are designed to generate revenue . It is irresponsible for motorists to deliberately seek to evade highway robbery.'
- Paul, Detroit, USA
About time we had more detail on how shakey these prosecutions are. Well done!
- Frank, London.
