UK drivers change lanes to outsmart SPECS speeding cameras

Why pay thousands for that temptation-quelling adaptive cruise control option, or dream about the forthcoming Siemens VDO electronic governor, when all you have to do is switch a few lanes while smashing the pedal to the metal? The Home Office has fessed up to a "massive flaw" in the costly (and abundant) SPECS speed monitoring / ticketing cameras, which allows drivers to avoid any legal repercussions by simply ending up in a different lane than the one they began in. The system takes the average speed between two points to calculate if a motorist has been speeding, and then snaps their photograph and sends them a very unwelcome ticket in the mail if they were; however, the cameras are only designed to analyze and penalize those who remain in the same lane throughout the speed-checking segment, opening up a very exploitable loophole. Government officials, along with the cameras' manufacturer (Speed Check Services), have resorted to begging with the public to not evade the presumably imminent £60 ($112) fine in order to maintain a "high level of safety" on the roadways, but it's not likely that pleading to deaf ears (and lead feet) will entice folks to willingly suffer a penalty this easy to avoid.

[Via FARK]

[Nick @ Oct 16th 2006 10:50AM]

haha - good bit of info to have, especially as I have to drive down the M1 to Watford this weekend.. no more 40 for me.. hurrah!

[Nick @ Oct 16th 2006 10:51AM]

if only it was that easy to evade all tickets...

[Alex @ Oct 16th 2006 10:52AM]

Hahhaha, that's awesome.

[aeo @ Oct 16th 2006 10:56AM]

Lazy revenue generators got what was coming to them. Automated ticketing is such a crock.

[ishtar @ Oct 16th 2006 10:57AM]

Beg? If that would work, then there wouldn't be a nedd for there in the first places, now would it?

[ramond @ Oct 16th 2006 10:58AM]

Sounds like the system didn't have enough funding for proper testing so it might give you the least hassle in the long run if you change lanes anyway even if you are going under the speed limit.

[Chocolate Starfish @ Oct 16th 2006 11:04AM]

Oh the irony -- a bunch of drivers speeding and swerving in and out of lanes to /avoid/ tickets. Now drinking and driving is the surest way to avoid a fine in the UK!

[Typist @ Oct 16th 2006 11:09AM]

Thats entirely stupid; now instead of people speeding along with the crowd..we now have people speeding and weaving in and out of lanes. Thats just great.

[RyanTV @ Oct 16th 2006 11:11AM]

couldn't you just get a polarized license plate cover and then when they take a picture of your plate it would just come out as a blur?

[Smillie @ Oct 16th 2006 12:15PM]

Most of these systems are CCTV camers with OCR software so they don't actually flash.

[ElvisLives @ Oct 16th 2006 11:27AM]

Help wanted: programmer competent in c squared = a squared plus b squared. Reply in confidence to Speed Check Services.

[teo @ Oct 16th 2006 11:40AM]

Sorry, Elvis, that doesn't work as unless a driver is intent on not doing so, the car will decellerate as the movement of the car shifts from 100% forward to partially lateral. Pretty easy to refute the ticket in court.

[John @ Oct 16th 2006 11:41AM]

I seriously doubt this is true.

[ChronoZaga @ Oct 16th 2006 11:48AM]

If those things ever come to my neighborhood, I'll do more than change lanes. It'll be time for some guerilla action, and "big brother" won't be happy when their new toys are broken.

[iBorg @ Oct 16th 2006 12:08PM]

Greetings all.

Its about time i wrote an article on this subject.

Back in the year 2000, i was asked to Pilot a development of a system for HM Customs and Excise. Known as ANPR, Automatic Number Plate reader. Which was then deployed to all UK ports. Originally designed to montior for Firearms, Peodos, drugs etc. One day in the office, i learned that police wanted it, and were itching for it!! I did not see why at the time.

However to cut a long story short, the Police and indeed these Other commercial companies have poluted and inseed perverted my work. Simply put they are insane, and can only see ������

History
-------

It was around the Year 2000, that another pilot scheme was run in Southend, where they took 1 GATSO camera and by design said, that any frines from this scheme can be kept by the police for ROAD SAFETY enhancments. Before the Pilot scheme, the police did approx 700 fines/prosections using this camera, and in the following months after the pilot started, the Police had issued over 17,000. These facts i remember quite clearly.

This is ofcourse a direct and verifiable example of CORRUPTION.

Check the figures for yourself they were also reported in the local paper there, around that time.

Feasibility
-----------

This most definately needs addressing! Have you noticed the little wires crossing a road a month or 2 before, a Gatso gets put in ? Well thats the Feassibility test. It would have been "Good" if the powers that be, put a Gatso, where there were accidents etc straight from word go, however, they conduct this test, to make sure that the camera(s) will make sufficient money, to not only pay for the �18,000+ camera but also make a profitable return!!!

in short... Corrupt, and they perverted my work.

So yea. change lanes... and fight the fines, there are SO many people out there that simply surrender their licence and cash! If you ficht it, its not worth it for them, so they drop it. And remember that they ONLY have 6 Months Statute of limitation to issue you with a summonds! and NEVER EVER fill in their illegal Request for Information forms !!!!

have fun...

iBorg

[KultiVator @ Oct 16th 2006 1:15PM]

Hi iBorg,

Northants Police use heavy-handed tactics - either sign the Request for Info form or get a summons for withholding information.

So even though the law used to state that a person is innocent until proven guilty... it seems to be different when the police are milking a nice stream of revenue.

I wish UK citizens were a little less laid back - we do seem to let politicians (from each end of the political spectrum) push us around. Maybe the French had it right with their revolution!



KultiVator

[Raptor @ Oct 16th 2006 12:10PM]

This has got to be the least safe vulnerability imaginable.

A line of cars going 15 miles over the limit while staying in one lane is hardly a hazard. That same group of drivers changing lanes like mad, however, is liable to get someone killed. I've never cared much if a car blows past me at 90mph on the highway, but if he cuts me off in the process of moving two or three lanes over, I'm suddenly a lot more worried about my ability to brake as someone destroys my 2-second safety zone. One wrong move can turn a $100+ ticket into a five-car pileup.

[John @ Oct 16th 2006 12:11PM]

Don't you guys see. This engadget cover up is right up there with the grassy knoll and bush's involvement in 9/11. Cmon, where are my tin foiled brethren?

They are just encouraging you to speed through these traps and perform wreckless driving at the same time. If you dig deep into Weblogs, Inc. revenue stream, you will find the UK government paying directly for stories like this to be written.

... you have been warned!

[rhyuso @ Oct 16th 2006 12:33PM]

The problem is that at some point they will fix the vulnerability. What happens then? Everyone exploiting it will be collared. Ooops, not worth the risk if you ask me.

[GreatSunJester @ Oct 16th 2006 12:37PM]

Probably just update the software to track vehicles as they change lanes -- then tack the Brit equivalant of "reckless endagerment" to the speeding charge.

[Jimmy @ Oct 16th 2006 12:41PM]

Haha cool, so now were going to have people randomly swapping lanes as well as breaking right in front of the camera. I hope it works.. at least its better than the it cant see you if your doing 170+ theory.

If they really want to stop speeding they need to have proper sentences for running down & killing someone.. not a �250 fine and a slap on the wrist like you see now.

[Andir3.0 @ Oct 16th 2006 8:15PM]

"If they really want to stop speeding they need to have proper sentences for running down & killing someone.. not a �250 fine and a slap on the wrist like you see now."

Innocent until proven guilty. You didn't kill someone yet, so you can't be tried for it. You can however be tried for breaking the speed limit which is alot easier than determining if you were gunning for the car full of kids.

Then it all boils down to money. If they were actually out there to provide public safety, they would be pulling over everyone with a cell phone just to slow them down. Adding a ticket to the mess is only for revenue.

[T @ Oct 16th 2006 1:22PM]

Are these the average speed cameras you get on the motorway? I'd always wondered how they got round that problem. Seems they don't :)

[Grant @ Oct 16th 2006 1:34PM]

How much more proof do we need that speeding tickets DON'T deter speeders, they are a money making scheme! The few people detered by speeding tickets are the ones that would not be speeding normally, and usually the ones that drive like idiots at high speeds anyway.

Hopefully this will start to enlighten officials and this government BS regarding traffic citations except in the most necessary situations (DUI and wreckless driving [defined as driving like an idiot not a citation for a violation that doesnt exist]) will be ended!

[elbob @ Oct 16th 2006 1:40PM]

It's high time for the young, athletic types to start a little activism against this kind of garbage and the proliferation of cameras everywhere. A pair of gloves, a mask, a hammer and a quick shimmy up the pole can fix one of these overpriced big brother POS in seconds.

Of course, if you live in a place that still has a shred of personal freedom, a shotgun blast is a lot quicker.

[CJ @ Oct 16th 2006 3:41PM]

Ok this is going to cause more accidents... oh no i am speeding and I am in the path of that camera
so i dodge rapidly to the left trying to avoid getting a ticket onto another vehicle...

[CraigS @ Oct 16th 2006 3:43PM]

I don't get why people are so against speed-cams and think they are just revenue generators. Stick to the rules and you don't get a fine, it's as easy as that. Yes there are plenty of other dangerous ways to drive that are done below the legal speed limit, , but that doesn't make driving fast anymore better. If you or someone else does something wrong and you hit them at 60pmh you're going to be better off than hitting them at 90mph. So relax, leave earlier and arrive in one piece.

[Darkith @ Oct 16th 2006 3:47PM]

Man, that's really dumb.

The worst bit will be that even if they fix the vulnerability (probably take a few months at least to develop new code, test, and deploy), people will be madly weaving lanes for years as this "tip" will linger in people's minds long beyond it's best-before-date.

D.

[vudean @ Oct 16th 2006 5:00PM]

Thats GREAT!!

Though, they could probably just put up signs that say no lane changes (or pain the lines or put up some small barrier) and police could then ticket those who change lanes... It'll take actual police work (if you call ticketing that) but it will probably deter people from changing lanes for a while.

[sparx104 @ Oct 16th 2006 5:44PM]

Or perhaps, God forbid, you could actually keep to the posted speed limit and avoid any chance of a fine?

[Juaquin @ Oct 16th 2006 7:26PM]

Nice to see that these smug bastards' attempts at being Big Brother are hindered by their own stupidity. Maybe we don't have to be worried after all...

[Jkswiss @ Oct 16th 2006 10:54PM]

"Follow the speed limit".
Never mind the artificially low speed limits imposed on us. Seriously. Remember the 55mph nationwide speed limit?
These jackoffs make a country roads speed limit 45mph when you could easily go 55mph no problem.
Plus, who the hell follows the speed limit. I know if I followed the speed limit on the way to school on I5, little old ladies would be passing me by and giving me the bird.

[Dick Barber @ Oct 17th 2006 1:46AM]

Relying on those already breaking the law to break the law slightly less so they can be found guilty is obviously nuts. It is especially nuts if it is expensive.

Far better to have HM officials simply post a blank speeding ticket to all drivers on a regular basis. The instructions would have you fill in the ticket each time you had been speeding and send in the appropriate fine.

This idea is much better than the current plan in that it will work just as often but cost far, far less.

[TripleS @ Oct 17th 2006 4:17AM]

I would be wary of this as a means of circumventing the SPECS system and avoiding speeding tickets until we get a positive explanation of how the system works.

In any case I'm not too bothered about speed cameras in built-up areas or temporary systems in roadworks, but as SPECS becomes more widely used as a permanent feature on our road system generally, that would be a different matter.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[corporateWhore @ Oct 17th 2006 8:20AM]

Of course if everyone stuck to the speed limit we wouldn't need a government to waste tax money on such a system. It's not big or clever to speed. When all is said and done the laws are there to protect us, and if you choose to break them then you should be prepared to accept the consequences. So stop bitching about it.

There seems to be an ever growing tide of people who believe the world owes them something, living their lives with little or no regard for others. Get a grip of yourselves, and next time you make a decision that might break the law and possibly endanger peoples lives, THINK about the consequences.
And when you receive you ticket in the post, just remember, you have no one to blame but yourselves. Driving at speed kills people, and those people are often the innocent.

[NJS @ Oct 17th 2006 11:35AM]

"Driving at speed kills people, and those people are often the innocent."

Don't be so daft as to say something as broad as that. It's all about the conditions you're as to if it's dangerous or not, use your common sense. Doing 40mph past a school in clear conditions at 1am isn't really dangerous now is it? Do the same thing at 3pm and you should be strung up, simple. Going 90mph on a clear motorway with good weather isn't an issue, now if you do the same speed when it's foggy and congested it's pretty stupid. The 70mph motorway speed limit was introduced back in the 60's when cars had cross ply tires, non servo assisted brakes, drum brakes and no ABS. It's been proven that the stopping distances that you learnt when passing your test are now halved by modern cars.

[CorporateWhore @ Oct 18th 2006 3:27AM]

Point taken, that statement may well be "daft".
It's often irresponsible drivers that can kill innocent people. (Is that more acceptable)?
I stand by the rest of what I said. Regardless of mine, or your opinion of the current speed limits, they are still the law, and if you're caught breaking the law then you should expect to pay the consequences. My point is if drivers want to break the law then they shouldn't bitch about it when the government waste tax payers money implementing systems to catch them doing so. The money might well be better spent improving the roads or somesuch.

"The 70mph motorway speed limit was introduced back in the 60's when cars had cross ply tires, non servo assisted brakes, drum brakes and no ABS. It's been proven that the stopping distances that you learnt when passing your test are now halved by modern cars."

I can be overtaking on the motorway travling at 70mph and find I have someone screaming up behind me and then hanging on my tail only inches away until I have to move. I don't believe you statement about technology improvements would help me here. If I was to apply my brakes at that point there would be only one outcome.

In a perfect scenario your statement about the technology improvements would be valid, everyone would abide by the limits (whatever they might be), travel 2 car lengths apart and the traffic would move along nicely without any issue or incident. Unfortunately we don't live in that world. If you attempt to leave a suitable gap between yourself and the car infront, other drivers see this as a gap they can move into an opportunity for them, and often without indicating they are about to do so.

SO .... because we can't be trusted to police ourselves and act in a responsible manner, the government is forced to implement systems to protect and punish. They treat us like the children we behave like. When people drone on about the "nanny state" I can't help but think that we as the people of this nation are in part to blame.

If all the people on here complaining about "big brother" were actively doing something to change the laws then I might have more respect for their opinions.

[Doobry @ Oct 18th 2006 3:55AM]

"I can be overtaking on the motorway travelling at 70mph and find I have someone screaming up behind me and then hanging on my tail only inches away until I have to move. I don't believe you statement about technology improvements would help me here. If I was to apply my brakes at that point there would be only one outcome."

So you didn't use your mirrors then? Just because the person behind you is breaking the law, it doesn't give you the right to pull out in front of them.. That's against the Highway Code. Something like "Do not make a manoeuvre that will cause another vehicle to take avoiding action" i.e. braking, steering around you etc.

2 wrongs on our roads normally make a crash.

Speed does not kill.
Inappropriate speed kills.

Following on from the comment about fog, 70MPH in thick fog on the motorway driving a C reg Nova is not technically illegal unless there are speed markers with a red circle around them enforcing a lower speed limit. But it's exponentially more dangerous and likely to kill than 120MPH on the same stretch of motorway in a modern performance car on a perfect, sunny day. Which one will get you thrown in prison and pilloried in the media?

[CorporateWhore @ Oct 18th 2006 12:18PM]

"So you didn't use your mirrors then? Just because the person behind you is breaking the law, it doesn't give you the right to pull out in front of them.. That's against the Highway Code. Something like "Do not make a manoeuvre that will cause another vehicle to take avoiding action" i.e. braking, steering around you etc."


Oh please this is just plain ridiculous. Of course I use my mirrors, I could be overtaking a number of cars having changed lanes quite legally, if your just looking for a fight, I'll meet you by the bike sheds after school. If you seriously think that's the only time people scream up behind you i suggest while your father is driving you watch the other cars around you.

[NJS @ Oct 18th 2006 11:19AM]

"It's often irresponsible drivers that can kill innocent people."

I totally agree but speed isn't always the factor invovled here. People can quite easily be doing the speed limits but because they're pre-occupied with other things like a cigarette for example they can end up having an accident. Lack of awareness for the environment you're in is more of a problem. But the police cannot control these factors very easily so instead they put up speed cameras and say this will sort out the problems. Driver education should be enforced not fines.

Again you're right that people do drive too close together on motorways etc... but again this has nothing to do with speeding.

"Following on from the comment about fog, 70MPH in thick fog on the motorway driving a C reg Nova is not technically illegal unless there are speed markers with a red circle around them enforcing a lower speed limit. But it's exponentially more dangerous and likely to kill than 120MPH on the same stretch of motorway in a modern performance car on a perfect, sunny day."

Yup, agreed. It's a shame not too many people realise this. It's similar to a 4WD offroader that can be doing the 70mph speed limit but if it has to take evasive action for some reason then it might end up on it's roof because it's centre of gravity is too high. I've seen this happen. But not to worry he wasn't breaking the speed limit so thats ok.

[CorporateWhore @ Oct 18th 2006 12:30PM]

"I totally agree but speed isn't always the factor invovled here. People can quite easily be doing the speed limits but because they're pre-occupied with other things like a cigarette for example they can end up having an accident. Lack of awareness for the environment you're in is more of a problem. But the police cannot control these factors very easily so instead they put up speed cameras and say this will sort out the problems. Driver education should be enforced not fines."

I don't disagree, but surely the faster you're traveling at the harder it is to correct a mistake made whilst distracted by the cigarette? Education is the key, but that's not where we're at. Who would foot the bill for the re-education?
I'm not disputing this is a sticky subject, I'm just tired of people being unable to take responsibilty for their actions, blaming it on some faceless government smacks of cowardice to me. Call it a pet peev.

I am enjoying this debate though, and I'd like to thank you for taking the time to discuss it with me.

[Jay @ Oct 18th 2006 12:24PM]

lol, if they want to rely on trust then they don't need the camera's in the first place...

[CorporateWhore @ Oct 18th 2006 12:31PM]

I think that's my point ... If we could be trusted we wouldn't need them.

[CorporateWhore @ Oct 19th 2006 5:45AM]

I thought I'd already replied to this but it seems not.

"I think you need to calm down. Did I insult you with my comments? Question your age? Threaten violence against you in anyway? No.. But you seemed to do all three in your reply... Chill, it's only the internet.."

I am completely calm, I responded to you in the manner you did to me. Childishly. You make assumptions based on a limited thought process. Can you only imagine one scenario where a car would be hanging on the tail of your car? Have you never witnessed or experienced a situation where whilst traveling quite legally a car can approach from behind at a much higher speed than yourself?
I suspect not.
I imagine there are a number of differing scenarios where a car could find itself only 2" from the back of another car, maybe a few of them might be legitimate, for example sat in traffic, waiting at lights, parked? :)
Look when I'm driving along taking care to drive safely and with respect for other road users, with my 16 month old and eight year old in the back, I get a little frustrated by anyone who has no respect for me or the safety of the people in my car. When did this become ok?

I believe it is about speed, the driver behind me attempting to intimmidate me into getting out of the way by being so close, has only one thing on their mind. That is to travel faster than me. Impatient they may be, but surely you cannot deny they are so because they want to travel faster than the speed limit. I was insulted by your comments, because again you assume I drive in a particular way, you qustion my driving technique ...

"So you didn't use your mirrors then?"

you then accuse me of dangerous driving ...

"it doesn't give you the right to pull out in front of them"

And now you act like you're the injured party? I responded emotionally. Maybe I shoud have risen above it.

I feel strongly about this subject and have given it some thought. I am tired of hearing excuses for the behaviour of the few who drive with a complete disregard to others, it's indicative of the state of the country. We seem to be slowly slipping down the pan whilst at the same time complaining about it and without taking responsibilty for it.

I seem to be going off track, but ... in my opinion (and I realise that it's open to interpratation and question) there are many aspects of our society today that are going the same way, which leads to a bigger more serious situation for society as a whole. When complaing about the "nanny state" we should maybe consider our own role in society and ask the question, are we to blame? As it's been said, it's about education, but also respect, and probably a few other things as well :).

I whole heartidly agree about the smoking at the wheel. One of my other pet peevs is about smoking, why do smokers think that it's ok to disgard the remains of the cigarette on the floor? Why is this not considered littering? Anyway, that's a discussion for a whole different time ...

I hope this clarifies my thoughts.