New smartphone app to allow public to submit evidence of speeding drivers

Thanks for that.
You mentioned a sample report but how many forces accept this ? Essex only want video, so not sure how I can use it (although it would be great where I live).

I think that its fair to say that the forces aren't expecting this. So don't expect systems to automatically accomodate the new technology. I am confident that it will be accepted, but we do have a very patchy set of constabularies on enforcement, especially "where people are". There will be pioneer forces who will see the benefits and others who are still only migrating from Gatso. 

The point about uploading video and report is that the report saves analysing the video. But if challenged the video can be manually analysed also. Its all a lot more straightforward that analysing most dashcam or headcam submissions. 

It will be transformational. But some forces may take longer to transform than others. I have every confidence that it will make a huge difference.

It will be transformational. But some forces may take longer to transform than others. I have every confidence that it will make a huge difference

It won't be, and it won't make any difference while the cyclist's main enemy is the police- the technology may well work, but the main aim of the police is to find any excuse for not doing anything. GPS speedos work well on helmet cams but the aim of the police is to retain the certainty that all cyclists are always travelling at less than 10mph, so they will reject any technology whhich is to the detriment of motorists.

I got a pretty good eye for speed as I do for 1.5 space plus my rear Garmin Radar goes red if coming from behind at a speed greater than 30mph.

Hi Rod, I read with interest with interest your comments, but laser speedmeters do not work using Doppler Effect.  Equally, cosine is an accepted by-product of any resulting measurement taken from angle to an approaching/retreating target and always in favour of the defendant, plus there is no 'need' for calibration as that is not a condition of Home Office Type Approval.

What recognised tests would be done on a daily basis to ensure and demonstrate the phone and application was working correctly and who would attend court when a case was challenged if a prosecution resulted? 

Is audio also recorded when video clips are recorded?

What happens when several vehicles appear in the recorded footage, how is the offending vehicle identified from those that aren't?

What have lasers got to do with it, and why do you need audio?
The alleged offences won't be going to court.

hirsute, you ask what have lasers got to do with it?  Perhaps you didn't read Rod's opening blurb above?:

'If its rad or laser it involves measuring the speed by bouncing a wave off the oncoming vehicle and measuring the doppler effect produced because the vehcile is moving.'

It was that to which I commented.  Laser based technology does not use doppler, instead multiple infra-red pulses and those that are returned are measured against the first ranging pulse and an internal clock, a speed and distance reading resulting.

I never stated that accompanying audio would be 'needed'.  I simply asked if audio is recorded?

What is your interpretation of 'enforcement'?  What value would there be in passing 'evidence' to police if not for some form of legal follow up such as the issue of a Notice Of Intended Prosecution?  If the latter never took place, then Speedcam Anywhere is nothing more than a novelty app.

Chain of custody doesnt stop Cycle cam submissions, so my assumption is thats not a major issue.

I think you're correct about the Speeding offense thouhgh.  May be able to get them for Careless or similar though.

Rich_cb wrote:

I'd agree with the comments so far, this is very unlikely to be admissible in court as evidence of speeding. Everyone's favourite Road Safety Expert/Shameless Self Publicist (*delete as appropriate) would likely have a field day if anybody tried. What would be far more interesting would be a privately run portal funded by the insurance industry. I imagine they'd be very keen to see evidence of dangerous driving even if it didn't meet the legal evidential standard. Premiums could easily (and legally) be adjusted significantly. That might concentrate drivers' minds far more than a warning letter and if the insurance industry also ended up with lots of evidence of uninsured cars being driven dangerously they'd have a lot of motivation to push the police to prosecute for uninsured driving at the very least.

They can easily get some quality data from in-car black boxes, but they'd need to promote it in reverse - lower premiums for running the black box and even more reduced rates for careful drivers.

In pure speeding offence terms yes, but I never understand when there is clear video evidence of the act of speeding taking place and its very obvious in a 30 limit when someone is driving much faster than that, even if you cant prove the exact speed for a speeding ticket, why can't they just use a careless driving charge instead ?

Is it too much hassle, paperwork,legal loopholes,unsympathetic magistrates?

Too much hasssle and time to analyse is the issue. But this app provides all the evidence of speed. And if someone is doing 40mph in a 30 then that certainly is "reasonable cause" to believe a Section 59 offence has been committed. And "reasonable cause" is all a police officer needs.

The issue will be convincing police forces they can do that as I ve submitted footage in the past, which included a close pass and clear case of speeding, and they NFAd it. Told me they couldn't take it forward as my camera wasn't calibrated for speeding offences,yet the car was visibly travelling at near double the speed limit.

This is the worst exposition opf the 'safe drivers like me should be allowed to speed' argument I've seen in quite a while. I'd love to see your evidence for your last sentence - or is that also another 'I know best' assertion?

brogs wrote:

Personally, I'd rather be passed at 40 with plenty of room than run over at 30. 

I'd rather be passed at 20, making the likelihood of me being run over at any speed significantly lower. Honestly, you can't seriously believe that it would be a good idea to allow drivers to set their own limit based on their assessment of their ability?

Additionally, one of the reasons for setting lower speed limits is that outcomes are better. If a child runs out in front of a car travelling at 20mph then they have a far better chance of surviving than 40mph.

brogs wrote:

I think this could be useful to gather general evidence of inappropriate speed in problem locations but it is not going to be an approved device for speed enforcement. Even when approved devices are used by the community speed watch brigade, it cannot result in prosecution. It may result in targeted enforcement for repeat offenders. 

However, it's important to understand that speeding (exceeding a posted limit) is one small component in the complicated science of road safety. Personally, I'd rather be passed at 40 with plenty of room than run over at 30. I've yet to meet someone who wouldn't. Skills and attitudes are the main components involved in safer roads. Those attributes lead to drivers being able to set a safe speed which may be below or (controversial for some) above the posted limit which is often arbitrarily set. The roads won't get safer until we build a proper system of training and assessment for drivers (or human drivers are retired in favour of self-driving vehicles). The best thing community speed watch individuals can do to improve local road safety is enroll themselves in a driver development course. 

If a driver looks at a simple instruction (drive at x speed or less) and responds with, I'm far to splendid at driving to be constrained by such laws, then it is a bit of a stretch to suggest such a driver has the attitude to be considered a safe driver.

Sounds like the cobblers that some 'advanced' drivers trot out to justify breaking the law.

Quote:

However, it's important to understand that speeding (exceeding a posted limit) is one small component in the complicated science of road safety. .... Skills and attitudes are the main components involved in safer roads.

Er - speed is rather important, I'd say.  Given that it affects both the likelihood of an accident and the consequences.  As to "posted limits" could I suggest a (quite entertaining) video by NotJustBikes on the subject of speed limits and how (not) to set them?

Skills and attitudes are indeed important.  However the latter is tricky to control or change.  Maybe it's simpler to look at behaviour.  As mentioned in the video the effect of the environment on behaviour is really substantial.  That can be 1) infrastructure - which doesn't just affect speed as mentioned but behaviour in general.  2) The social environment.  People act to avoid loss of prestige, avoid shame etc.  Community groups like those you mention can certainly feed into that.  3) The likelihood of more direct enforcement e.g. chance of getting caught by the law and the consequences that will lead to are also a factor, wouldn't you say?

Quote:

The roads won't get safer until we build a proper system of training and assessment for drivers (or human drivers are retired in favour of self-driving vehicles).

I don't think either are among the most important factor needing action for road safety. I'd certainly like to see repeated assessment for drivers, rather than once-and-you're-in. As for the second it's possible that will change things. However I don't think it will happen very soon and I suspect it will bring its own challenges.

We have made our roads very safe by global standards over decades of changes.  An often overlooked change was encouraging non-motorists off the roads - and putting barriers up to keep them off.  I'd count that as a cost.  Then there have been improvements in medicine, engineering vehicles to be easier to drive safely and to better protect their occupants in crashes, building safer and simpler road infrastructure and adding and enforcing rules.  There's also been some cultural change e.g. less drink driving - although that still continues at a lower level.

Aside from regular retests we may have reached a point of diminishing returns in terms of exhortation and training.  Humans are not well-suited to going fast in busy environments.  We all sometimes make terrible mistakes - that amounts to a certainty over a large number of people.  However if we can have fewer people driving - maybe because more journeys are made by bike - that will certainly reduce the number of crashes *.  It may even reduce the rate (if it becomes easier for drivers to cope).  Reducing speed similarly can reduce both the consequences of crashes and may reduce their number.

* other things being equal e.g. as long as they're not then driving faster / are not expecting other road users so stop concentrating / this selects for the most "keen" drivers and we get more berks.

Seconded. If the police and local highways authorities insist onn ignoring evidence, then a gretaer weight of evidence, and more community invovlement and empowerment in the production of that evidence is the obvious next step.