RE: PH Blog: let's talk about SPECS
Discussion
miniman said:
I've toyed with the idea of constructing a device comprising an electromagnet & switch, a large steel washer and a packet of crisps.
First I fit the electromagnet behind the front numberplate, mounting the switch somewhere discreet in the driver's footwell. With the magnet switched on, I eat the crisps then pop the washer into the empty packet and stick it to the numberplate so it is held on by the magnet neatly obscuring the number plate.
Should plod put in an appearance, a quick flick of the switch and "what crisp packet, officer?"
Plus I get to eat the crisps. Win win, I think you'll agree.
Worth writing the blog for this response alone. First I fit the electromagnet behind the front numberplate, mounting the switch somewhere discreet in the driver's footwell. With the magnet switched on, I eat the crisps then pop the washer into the empty packet and stick it to the numberplate so it is held on by the magnet neatly obscuring the number plate.
Should plod put in an appearance, a quick flick of the switch and "what crisp packet, officer?"
Plus I get to eat the crisps. Win win, I think you'll agree.
sinizter said:
SS2. said:
GreenDog said:
I thought the owner of the car became liable in these circumstances.
If the driver's identity couldn't be confirmed, it's likely they would pursue a case of failing to furnish against the recipient(s) of any NIP / s.172 request where the required information was not supplied.BrightonEd said:
So chaps, it seems that (anecdotally at least) very very few people actually seem to have been fined. And the people who mention it say that it's someone they knew/ heard about as opposed to them.
So, anyone? Got proof of a fine?
I had my sister in laws NIP in my hand when she asked me what it means. But I didn't scan it I'm afraid. (70 in a 50. She "didn't notice any roadworks"...)So, anyone? Got proof of a fine?
miniman said:
I've toyed with the idea of constructing a device comprising an electromagnet & switch, a large steel washer and a packet of crisps.
First I fit the electromagnet behind the front numberplate, mounting the switch somewhere discreet in the driver's footwell. With the magnet switched on, I eat the crisps then pop the washer into the empty packet and stick it to the numberplate so it is held on by the magnet neatly obscuring the number plate.
Should plod put in an appearance, a quick flick of the switch and "what crisp packet, officer?"
Plus I get to eat the crisps. Win win, I think you'll agree.
You make Ill buy one......First I fit the electromagnet behind the front numberplate, mounting the switch somewhere discreet in the driver's footwell. With the magnet switched on, I eat the crisps then pop the washer into the empty packet and stick it to the numberplate so it is held on by the magnet neatly obscuring the number plate.
Should plod put in an appearance, a quick flick of the switch and "what crisp packet, officer?"
Plus I get to eat the crisps. Win win, I think you'll agree.
BrightonEd said:
So chaps, it seems that (anecdotally at least) very very few people actually seem to have been fined. And the people who mention it say that it's someone they knew/ heard about as opposed to them.
So, anyone? Got proof of a fine?
The inference of your post is that the SPECS cameras are either dummies or set to very high thresholds.So, anyone? Got proof of a fine?
I'd argue they're more effective than static cameras, because the detection zones are much bigger and the cameras themselves are better signed and more visible, so people are less likely to miss them altogether. Secondly, they're typically placed in low speed or roadwork sections, where people generally don't or don't have opportunity to break the limit as often. Finally, it is harder than you think to achieve a high average speed in order to get caught.
Chris Harris said:
miniman said:
I've toyed with the idea of constructing a device comprising an electromagnet & switch, a large steel washer and a packet of crisps.
First I fit the electromagnet behind the front numberplate, mounting the switch somewhere discreet in the driver's footwell. With the magnet switched on, I eat the crisps then pop the washer into the empty packet and stick it to the numberplate so it is held on by the magnet neatly obscuring the number plate.
Should plod put in an appearance, a quick flick of the switch and "what crisp packet, officer?"
Plus I get to eat the crisps. Win win, I think you'll agree.
Worth writing the blog for this response alone. First I fit the electromagnet behind the front numberplate, mounting the switch somewhere discreet in the driver's footwell. With the magnet switched on, I eat the crisps then pop the washer into the empty packet and stick it to the numberplate so it is held on by the magnet neatly obscuring the number plate.
Should plod put in an appearance, a quick flick of the switch and "what crisp packet, officer?"
Plus I get to eat the crisps. Win win, I think you'll agree.
BrightonEd said:
So chaps, it seems that (anecdotally at least) very very few people actually seem to have been fined. And the people who mention it say that it's someone they knew/ heard about as opposed to them.
So, anyone? Got proof of a fine?
I've Said on Page 3 that I got done. Don't have the evidence any more though. Beds Police got me for 67 in a 50. got the 3 points and an SP50 on my licence to prove it So, anyone? Got proof of a fine?
I've read through most of the posts on this article and have found many interesting.
Thought I'd add my 2p's worth.
Being a Civil Engineer, I have worked for many contratcors on roads projects for the Highways Agency on the M25, M40, A34, M4 and so on. I have worked closely with Traffic Management and Speed Monitoring contractors. It has been 1.5 years since last working on a roads project, however the following was true then;
1.) If you look at any given set of cameras, there are usually less cameras than there are lanes of traffic. Cameras are usually setup to monitor the outside (fast) lanes of traffic as this is the most likley lane for the speeding offence.
2.) Cameras are paired for monitoring average speed. This is usually in sequence i.e. Cameras 1 & 2, or 2 & 3, or 3 & 4. The reason for this is that they have to run cables between sites - longer the cable runs the higher the installation costs. It is usually also the approach cameras, as redcuing the traffic speed before the works area is the ultimate aim.
3.) It is common practice to only monitor traffic speeds in one direction (even if they're cameras on both carriageways). This is usually the carriageway where the workforce is carrying out work. For works on the central reservation it is necessary to close the minimum of the fast lane on both carriageways, however the works will be carried out from one side.
4.) Illumination - Cameras require a floodlight in advance so they can detect the registration plate. There should be a floodlight post approx. 30-50m in advance of the camera site, if not then it's probably a dummy camera (see below).
5.) Dummy cameras - Do exist and do work to good effect. See 4 above for a way of identifying them. Another way of identifying them is the lack of surface laid cables feeding the cameras. Cables are usually surface laid (rather then buried, due to cost) and visible from a distance (green or black ducting).
6.) In heavy rain/spray the cameras are often not able to read no plate info. Especially at night time due to glare from headlights etc.
7.) Why they are utilised - I noticed many comments above about them being used to protect the workforce, yet often there is nobody working. Understandable comments. Often when travelling through Traffic Management, it looks like miles of road is restrcited with ony work being carried out in one location. Governement legislation controls the layout of the Traffic Management (TM) layouts.
TM is required to have a set amount of TM in place in advance of a works area and after it. The same legislation dictates that if reducing the number of lanes running, you may not merge slow moving traffic into the outside (fast) lanes (this prevents slow moving HGV's from pulling out in front of faster moving vehicles). In this situation a 'switch' is required. Fast traffic must be merged into the slow lanes first, then once at the pace of the slow traffic, redirected back across into the outside lanes. The merging of lanes can only take place over a set distance. All of these rules equate to long sections of traffic management for a small works area.
When it is necessary to reduce lane widths (below 3.4m I think?), which is called 'Narrow Lanes' (Contraflow or hardshoulder running), legislation dictates that the road speed must be reduced to 50mph. This is to protect not only the workforce but also the road user. I'm sure we've all travelled through 'Narrow Lanes' when someone has drifted out their lane? Imagine this at 80mph. The only way to really enforce this reduced speed limit is by using SPECS.
In summary what I'm saying is that there is no rule of thumb for beating the SPECS system, and you are always making assumptions when you try and we all know what assumptions are the mother of, don't we? However, if you really must speed through SPECS sections in an emergency; stick to the inside lane and pray for a lack of floodlights and visible cabling!
On a serious note, before I began my career I had a lot of negativity towards roadworks. Obvioulsy through first hand experience my opinion has changed. Traffic Management is an essential part of the job not only to protect the workforce but also the road user too. All of the projects I have worked on, have vastly improved the section of road and are in the interest of the motorist in the long run, it's just unfortunate that a little bit of pain is necessary in the short term. I've seen some hideous driving and reactions to road works; being spat on, have abuse hurled at me, bottles of definitely not Tango thrown at me, people ignoring diversions and driving through closed carriageways etc etc. Working within TM on a wet dark night with traffic ripping past at 80mph is bloody scary. The restrcitive legislation on Traffic Management is a response to accidents experienced in the past. By reducing the amount of accidents hopefully this legislation can be kept at it's current level and not increased.
Thought I'd add my 2p's worth.
Being a Civil Engineer, I have worked for many contratcors on roads projects for the Highways Agency on the M25, M40, A34, M4 and so on. I have worked closely with Traffic Management and Speed Monitoring contractors. It has been 1.5 years since last working on a roads project, however the following was true then;
1.) If you look at any given set of cameras, there are usually less cameras than there are lanes of traffic. Cameras are usually setup to monitor the outside (fast) lanes of traffic as this is the most likley lane for the speeding offence.
2.) Cameras are paired for monitoring average speed. This is usually in sequence i.e. Cameras 1 & 2, or 2 & 3, or 3 & 4. The reason for this is that they have to run cables between sites - longer the cable runs the higher the installation costs. It is usually also the approach cameras, as redcuing the traffic speed before the works area is the ultimate aim.
3.) It is common practice to only monitor traffic speeds in one direction (even if they're cameras on both carriageways). This is usually the carriageway where the workforce is carrying out work. For works on the central reservation it is necessary to close the minimum of the fast lane on both carriageways, however the works will be carried out from one side.
4.) Illumination - Cameras require a floodlight in advance so they can detect the registration plate. There should be a floodlight post approx. 30-50m in advance of the camera site, if not then it's probably a dummy camera (see below).
5.) Dummy cameras - Do exist and do work to good effect. See 4 above for a way of identifying them. Another way of identifying them is the lack of surface laid cables feeding the cameras. Cables are usually surface laid (rather then buried, due to cost) and visible from a distance (green or black ducting).
6.) In heavy rain/spray the cameras are often not able to read no plate info. Especially at night time due to glare from headlights etc.
7.) Why they are utilised - I noticed many comments above about them being used to protect the workforce, yet often there is nobody working. Understandable comments. Often when travelling through Traffic Management, it looks like miles of road is restrcited with ony work being carried out in one location. Governement legislation controls the layout of the Traffic Management (TM) layouts.
TM is required to have a set amount of TM in place in advance of a works area and after it. The same legislation dictates that if reducing the number of lanes running, you may not merge slow moving traffic into the outside (fast) lanes (this prevents slow moving HGV's from pulling out in front of faster moving vehicles). In this situation a 'switch' is required. Fast traffic must be merged into the slow lanes first, then once at the pace of the slow traffic, redirected back across into the outside lanes. The merging of lanes can only take place over a set distance. All of these rules equate to long sections of traffic management for a small works area.
When it is necessary to reduce lane widths (below 3.4m I think?), which is called 'Narrow Lanes' (Contraflow or hardshoulder running), legislation dictates that the road speed must be reduced to 50mph. This is to protect not only the workforce but also the road user. I'm sure we've all travelled through 'Narrow Lanes' when someone has drifted out their lane? Imagine this at 80mph. The only way to really enforce this reduced speed limit is by using SPECS.
In summary what I'm saying is that there is no rule of thumb for beating the SPECS system, and you are always making assumptions when you try and we all know what assumptions are the mother of, don't we? However, if you really must speed through SPECS sections in an emergency; stick to the inside lane and pray for a lack of floodlights and visible cabling!
On a serious note, before I began my career I had a lot of negativity towards roadworks. Obvioulsy through first hand experience my opinion has changed. Traffic Management is an essential part of the job not only to protect the workforce but also the road user too. All of the projects I have worked on, have vastly improved the section of road and are in the interest of the motorist in the long run, it's just unfortunate that a little bit of pain is necessary in the short term. I've seen some hideous driving and reactions to road works; being spat on, have abuse hurled at me, bottles of definitely not Tango thrown at me, people ignoring diversions and driving through closed carriageways etc etc. Working within TM on a wet dark night with traffic ripping past at 80mph is bloody scary. The restrcitive legislation on Traffic Management is a response to accidents experienced in the past. By reducing the amount of accidents hopefully this legislation can be kept at it's current level and not increased.
rog007 said:
Does anyone know anyone who has had a ticket from these?
Yes. A very good friend of mine got a ticket a couple of weeks ago for 60 in a 50 at 4am on the M25. There were at least two people on the Speed Awareness course I did a couple of months ago that did too.As a revenue generator they're rubbish, but as a deterrent they're clearly very effective.
Walter Sobchak said:
I think the best use of The Force when it comes to SPECS cameras would be firing a load of lightning at them.
this isn't at you specifically Walter. Your post is just a convenient "remove them all" post"It's apparent that in motorway works without SPECS (currently there are a few on the M5), many people do not do 50, many don't even slow down at all. Presumably many people also want the cameras removed so they do not have to do 50 either.
So the next question is: If you had to stand within 10ft of the traffic on a motorway, all day, with just a line of cones between you and the traffic. What speed would you want the traffic to be doing? Particularly given many will be distracted by you and try and watch you rather than the road.
Use them smarter, and only where workers are. I wouldn't disagree. But remove them all together, and have faster traffic near workers? I'm not sold on that idea.
I personally think they do some good for road saftey in the right situations and have no great problem with them in areas where roadworks are going on, I do however have an issue with them when they needlessly slow traffic down in areas where no work is going on or areas like the Hindhead tunnel etc where they just have been left for no good reason.
myhandle said:
I am sure of one thing - driving in the 1990s was a hell of a lot more enjoyable. My Clio Williams 2 seemed so quick everywhere and there were almost no cameras to worry about, just well-displayed Volvo 850s and Senators on motorway bridges.
Yes It was much more fun. I used to drive fairly often from Edinburgh to London and back. I became an expert at spotting the Jags, Senators, SD1's etc setting off down the slip roads to try and get a half mile lock on me and I would then adjust my speed accordingly. Got followed a few times for a few junctions and then would get the flash "We know what you were doing and we'll get you the next time".
But they never did.
Well, until they started doing the spotting thing from bridges with calibrated marks on the road.
That was, frankly, cheating.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff