Specs average speed cameras..

The loop-hole used to be that it could not accurately determine your speed by the distance travelled, if you had changed lane.

I've no idea whether they have fixed it though.
 
MikeHiow said:
The loop-hole used to be that it could not accurately determine your speed by the distance travelled, if you had changed lane.

I've no idea whether they have fixed it though.
Click to expand...

The loophole was actually that SPECS cameras could only operate in pairs.

So if you change lanes, they would not measure your speed, as you're now in a different pair.
 
BigglesPiP said:
I don't speed in these, but I like hiding behind a HGV as I pass the cameras.
Click to expand...

Ditto! :D

I don't speed in road work areas and stick to the limits regardless of whether there are workers there or not - it's just not worth the risk. I do go over the speed limit in other areas, except 30s, 40s I stick to by the book - 50s I allow myself a bit of "interpretation" and nationals I take my chances. :)

As annoying as the restricted limits are on motorways, if everyone stuck to them during the works areas the traffic would flow much better. For the sake of a couple of miles is it really worth trying to circumvent the system?

Besides, when the national sign comes up it gives you a good excuse to drop a couple of cogs and boot it :D
 
BigglesPiP said:
The loophole was actually that SPECS cameras could only operate in pairs.

So if you change lanes, they would not measure your speed, as you're now in a different pair.
Click to expand...

Is it possible this was implemented to stop tickets being issued if you changed lane?

I'm sure I have a memory of someone contesting their case after changing lanes and getting a ticket, starting the whole loophole off.

I maybe wrong, though.
 
SPECS should be more popular with those who like to speed a little. After all the system does allow you to exceed the posted limit, just as long as you slow down accordingly in time to pass the second camera.
There's probably a market for a GPS device which can tell you how fast you can go, for how far, and when to slow down and for how long. Or whether to stop on the hard shoulder! Maybe it'll be in the next version of Tomtom.
 
markweatherill said:
SPECS should be more popular with those who like to speed a little. After all the system does allow you to exceed the posted limit, just as long as you slow down accordingly in time to pass the second camera.
There's probably a market for a GPS device which can tell you how fast you can go, for how far, and when to slow down and for how long. Or whether to stop on the hard shoulder! Maybe it'll be in the next version of Tomtom.
Click to expand...

For 99.9% of people, that will be pointless - there's no point speeding for fun on a motorway when the limit is 50 - to get any actual fun out of it you'd need to be going considerably faster than 70. And it would just mean you'd have to slow down to 30 for the other half the journey (assuming you'd only gone up to 70) which would disrupt the whole traffic flow and ultimately mean you didn't get there any sooner (which would be the only reason for speeding on such a road). If you want a fun drive, you go on A-roads and hope it's not busy.
 
growse said:
There's a law that says that a piece of law-enforcing technology works in a particular way? I can't show you something that doesn't exist :confused:
Click to expand...

You seem to be suggesting that type approval for the current SPECS system does not exist? :confused:

growse said:
If you want to kick some common sense into gear, you only have to look at sections of SPECS-covered road where there are more cameras than lanes. Unless you think they only monitor certain lanes?
Click to expand...

The original type approval for the current SPECS system requires one camera per lane monitored, and each camera can monitor either the lane directly under it or a lane adjacent to it. What I want to see is some proof that the current SPECS system has been re-approved for multi-lane monitoring. According to some in here this has been the case for a long time, but without evidence I'm not convinced.

The new SPECS3 system has been submitted for type approval and will cover rear plates and multi-lane monitoring.
 
I was wondering the other day when I passed some of these - it was on an unlit carriageway, pitch black, pouring with rain - how can the cameras get a clear picture of the registration in these conditions?
 
Do these use IR cameras at night? I always wondered this as it would be hard to meter for numberplate reading at the front at night with today's XENON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! headlights and the odd chavster with offroad halogens installed.
 
Dogbreath said:
You seem to be suggesting that type approval for the current SPECS system does not exist? :confused:
Click to expand...
Ah, apologies, I didn't know you meant type approval specifically.
The original type approval for the current SPECS system requires one camera per lane monitored, and each camera can monitor either the lane directly under it or a lane adjacent to it. What I want to see is some proof that the current SPECS system has been re-approved for multi-lane monitoring. According to some in here this has been the case for a long time, but without evidence I'm not convinced.

The new SPECS3 system has been submitted for type approval and will cover rear plates and multi-lane monitoring.
Click to expand...

HOTA documentation doesn't seem to be available online. However, the manufacturer asserted back in 2008 that multi-lane monitoring was approved in early 2008 (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/speed_camera_myth/) and the scottish government currently thinks that SPECS3 has already been approved (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/08/26141950/10 from august).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom