On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:28:53 -0700 (PDT),
" wrote:

On 29 July, 15:15, wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 15:01:56 +0100


Paul Terry wrote:
In message , David Walters
writes

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010 14:08:34 +0100, Paul Terry wrote:

Added to which, it has been widely reported (and confirmed by the
cameras' manufacturer) that drivers can defeat a SPECS camera by the
potentially unsafe practice of lane-hopping during the measured section
of road.

That hasn't been the case since sometime in 2007.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07...d_camera_myth/

Ah, glad to hear that that loophole has been closed.

Did anyone believe it worked anyway? Why would anyone writing the software
make the cars lane part of the database key in the first place? It makes
no sense whatsoever.

Possibly for the sake of simplicity to allow for e.g. the difference
in speed between two vehicles remaining in parallel in lanes 1 and 4
where there is a significant curve between measurement points. If the
usual 10% etc. tolerance is ignored and speed limits applied strictly
then in theory it would be possible for the two vehicles to stay
together with one under and one over the speed limit.

The best way of deafeting specs cameras is just remove your front number plate
which I've done on many an occasion. Or ride a motorbike.

B2003

The cameras being installed as part of the extended trial here face
both ways, and a colleague of mine has just fallen victim to them.
Alerted the patrol officer that his rear number plate was too small
and he got stopped three miles down the road. One biker who claimed he
would never be stopped.