"Average Speed" Speed Cameras

Wishbone Ash

Signage on the A1 in Co Down near the border with Co Louth state "AVERAGE SPEED" below the standard "SPEED CAMERA" sign.

Am I correct in assuming that a motorist is timed between the two camera positions to determine his/her average speed?

Is this a phoney thing to act as a deterrant or is it real?

Has anyone on Boards been fined/summonsed/convicted on "average speed" speeding offences?

(I'm just curious )

Alun

They've got a lot of them in the (mainland) UK as well, and yes, they are real and definitely not phoney! Came across lots of them a couple of weeks ago when I was over in Scotland, and they seem to work quite well.

smashey

They are on the M42 south of Birmingham also. I think it is only a matter of time before we have them.

Victor

They are really useful if you combine the average speed and the instantaneous speed.

cast_iron

Victor wrote:

They are really useful if you combine the average speed and the instantaneous speed.

I don't quite see how this is more useful?

Seth Brundle

I drove along the A1 last week. I found that they were fairly distracting. I can underestand them along a dual carriageway or motorway but they don't make much sense along a stretch of normal road which is interrupted by several roundabouts, bad bends, etc. A driver can be well under the speed limit but still be driving dangerously!

Victor

cast_iron wrote:

I don't quite see how this is more useful?

You get to check them 3 times.

TempestSabre

Victor wrote:

You get to check them 3 times.

I still don't get it.

Victor

The first camera checks the instantaneous speed, the second camera checks the instantaneous speed, the computer then matches the vehicle details and the average speed over distance can be calculated, i.e. you can have 2 cameras doing 3 checks, not 1 or 2.

TempestSabre

ahh, ding! I get it.

A Dub in Glasgo

Extremely effective system. They were on a 5 mile stretch of the M6 last year for roadworks and almost everybody slowed down to the speed limit. They have a permanent section on the A77 and it has resulted in fewer accidents and deaths.

probe

While I believe that speed cameras are a dangerous distraction that ends up “terrorising” motorists to focus their eyes more on the speedometer than on the road in front of them, the average speed camera is the least worst option in my view.

In the few locations on the Continent where they are used each car’s license plate is scanned at point A and again at point B – generally 5km down the road. If the speed limit is 100 km/h, any car completing the distance between point A and point B in less than 180 seconds is obviously breaking the limit (aside from the usual tolerance allowances).

Average speed cameras are better because if you are overtaking a car, it is often unsafe to keep precisely to the limit during the overtaking phase because you increase the risk of a head-on collision with another oncoming vehicle. If you watch the speedometer instead of the road while overtaking you are increasing your chances of not seeing the obstacle heading towards you, until it is too late. i.e. careless/negligent driving.

If there is any benefit in cameras systems, they should be deployed to nab the reckless driver – the type who is driving considerably higher than a safe limit for the road in question, who is continually overtaking where no overtaking lane is provided, and the tailgater who doesn’t leave enough reaction and braking time between him and the vehicle in front for the speed they are travelling at.

Some speed cameras in France and Germany measure the “inter-distance” between vehicles – you are required to drive 100m+ from the vehicle in front on autoroutes (marked by the 2 white lines along the right painted between the “slow lane” and the emergency stopping lane – (and keep up to 300 m distance where the vehicle in front is a bus in some tunnels).

I have only come across one item of research on the effectiveness of (non averaging) speed cameras in Britain, and this showed a substantial INCREASE in the accident rate after a large number of cameras are installed on a given road over a long period (eg several years).

.probe

TempestSabre

probe wrote:

While I believe that speed cameras are a dangerous distraction that ends up “terrorising” motorists to focus their eyes more on the speedometer than on the road in front of them, ....

Agreed, you see this a lot in the UK. But likewise I agree the averge time promotes better driving as people realise theres no point driving like a muppet on that stretch.

cast_iron

Victor wrote:

The first camera checks the instantaneous speed, the second camera checks the instantaneous speed, the computer then matches the vehicle details and the average speed over distance can be calculated, i.e. you can have 2 cameras doing 3 checks, not 1 or 2.

While i understand what are saying, I'm still not sure how this would be advantageous.

Are you suggesting that a motorist should get up to 3 speeding tickets on the stretch of road where the average speed is detected?

Surely this would be far too harsh - say if a motorist was 5 km/hr over the limit....and 6 points arrives in the post!

TempestSabre

I assume he means its more likely to penalise a habitual speeder.

Alun

It ain't going to happen anyway. The cameras used in these systems aren't actually capable of measuring speed, they're just cameras that take a picture of your number plate which is then passed through some image recognition software. They look just like CCTV cameras and are mounted high above the road on gantries.

ad hoc

Dublin City Council are already 'trialling' pairs and triplets of vehicle (and face) recognition cameras on the M1/N1 between the airport/M1 grade-separated rotary junction and Whitehall, southbound.

Have a look for them the next time you're on that stretch. The first is situated on the M1 stretch passing under the airport junction.

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/motoring/2006/0301/3188722104MOT01_DANIELPG1.html

TempestSabre

Alun wrote:

It ain't going to happen anyway. The cameras used in these systems aren't actually capable of measuring speed, they're just cameras that take a picture of your number plate which is then passed through some image recognition software. They look just like CCTV cameras and are mounted high above the road on gantries.

I thought at the minimum they know you're time between cameras is too quick you must be speeding.

A Dub in Glasgo

How does it work?
SPECS works using automatic average speed digital technology. A pair of cameras creates a speed controlled zone and groups of cameras can be linked to create a speed controlled network. As vehicles pass between the cameras pairs they are digitally recorded. The time it takes for the vehicle to travel between both points is used to calculate the average speed.

If the vehicle speed is above a speed threshold, a speeding violation record is automatically generated. This includes images of the registration plate, a colour image of the vehicle and text data including the time, date, location and average speed travelling between both locations.

Violation records are stored on large storage capacity discs. This system functions 24 hours a day and can be interfaced with existing ticket processing systems.

http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/FAQs.htm

Alun

TempestSabre wrote:

I thought at the minimum they know you're time between cameras is too quick you must be speeding.

Exactly, they know the time you've taken to travel the total distance between cameras, and can therefore measure your average speed over that distance but they can't measure your instantaneous speed when you pass under each camera. They're cameras only, not speed measuring devices.

Victor

cast_iron wrote:

Are you suggesting that a motorist should get up to 3 speeding tickets on the stretch of road where the average speed is detected?Surely this would be far too harsh - say if a motorist was 5 km/hr over the limit....and 6 points arrives in the post!

Perhaps harsh yes, but I would see it as three chances of catching them, not an oppurtunity for three penalties.

thebman

Victor wrote:

Perhaps harsh yes, but I would see it as three chances of catching them, not an oppurtunity for three penalties.

I agree with you. If a person is stupid enough to drive past two speed check camera's and speed through an average zone then they deserve the points.

Hell if someone is that stupid they should just have their license taking off them.

Even if they only need standard cameras they should also catch the speed of the person there too.

This ensures that the person is obeying the limit going into the zone and coming out of it aswell.

Although we are in Ireland so they might continue with not putting film in the camera making the whole thing pointless.

tinkerbell16

Victor wrote:

Perhaps harsh yes, but I would see it as three chances of catching them, not an oppurtunity for three penalties.

Wisha indeed, Yera what harm luveen..Int It AWWful God HELP US!!!

mackerski

kbannon wrote:

I drove along the A1 last week. I found that they were fairly distracting. I can underestand them along a dual carriageway or motorway but they don't make much sense along a stretch of normal road which is interrupted by several roundabouts, bad bends, etc. A driver can be well under the speed limit but still be driving dangerously!

I have to disagree with you on almost every point here. Those cameras on the A1 are at about 2 or 3 locations on the poorer single-carriageway stretches - the dangerous bits. Since every other means of speed enforcement seems to focus on non-danger spots "because it's too dangerous to operate a speed trap where it's bendy", then this would seem an imaginitive solution.

The police really do have better things to be doing than sending tickets to people doing 75mph on the dualled bits of the A1.

Dermot