Safe Speed Forums

New speed camera can catch drivers committing five offences at once
Steven Morris - guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 November 2010 14.45 GMT
Motoring organisations give promised system a cautious welcome - as long as it is not used just to raise money
The traditional Gatso speed camera, which could be replaced by the multi-function Asset system.

A speed camera designed to catch motorists committing up to five offences at the same time could be heading to Britain's roads. As well as catching speeding motorists, the Asset camera should be able to pick out drivers who are not wearing seatbelts and accurately measure distances between moving cars to identify tailgating.

Asset (advanced safety and driver support for essential road transport) can also note number plates and recognise cars with out-of-date tax discs and no insurance.

Funded by the European commission, the camera system is being developed by a consortium that includes a number of European universities and research institutes and is being tested in Finland.

Motoring organisations and campaigners in the UK gave the system a cautious welcome. AA president Edmund King said he was pleased if it stopped motorists tailgating but hoped it would not be used as a money-making measure. "Tailgating is more dangerous in most cases than speeding so I think most motorists would welcome it," he said. "We will need sophisticated technology to police the roads and there would have to be safeguards. But it needs to be done as a safety measure, not as a money-making machine."

The campaign group Speed Cameras Dot Org said the devices should not become a replacement for traditional traffic police officers. A spokesman said: "We cautiously welcome a device that can detect several potential motoring offences, but it remains to be seen how accurate it is and how fairly it will be used.

"The main actions that cause the most accidents, namely not paying attention to the road, misjudging distances and other drivers' intentions, cannot be detected by a device of any sort. More police patrols and better driver education are the only ways to reduce accidents."

The development of Asset began in 2008 and is due to end next year. The developers hope that by 2013 its cameras will be set up across Europe, including the UK. Its selling point is that one camera can do a series of tasks: cameras now tend to be used for different jobs.

Matti Kutila, senior research scientist at VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland, where the system is being tested, said: "The main intention is to support traffic police to supervise that the drivers follow traffic rules such as wearing seat belts, preventing over-speeding and maintaining sufficient distance to the front vehicle. This of course is beneficial for road safety."

Scariest speed camera of all... It checks your insurance, tax and even whether you are tailgating or not wearing a seatbelt
By Luke Salkeld
Last updated at 11:28 PM on 2nd November 2010

Even the most law-abiding driver might feel a shiver down the spine when spotting this speed camera at the roadside.
For as well as detecting speeding, it is packed with gizmos that check number plates to make sure insurance and tax are up to date.
It also measures the distance between vehicles to spot tailgating and takes pictures of the inside of the car – to make sure you are wearing a seat belt.

The latest weapon in speed camera technology can capture footage from 150ft away.
It is the first to detect multiple offences at the same time and is connected to police computers via satellite, so that prosecutions can be started within seconds of any offence.

Development of the system, known as Asset – Advanced Safety and Driver Support for Essential Road Transport – is being funded with around £7million of European money.

It is undergoing testing in Finland and is expected to be deployed across Europe from 2013, with each unit costing £50,000.
Motoring organisations gave it a mixed reception. AA president Edmund King said: ‘Tailgating is more dangerous in most cases than speeding so I think most motorists would welcome it.
'But it needs to be a safety measure, not a money-making machine.’

Campaign group Speed Cameras Dot Org said the device should not become a replacement for traffic police.
Pugh.jpg - image
A spokesman said: ‘We cautiously welcome a device that can detect several potential offences, but it remains to be seen how accurate it is and how fairly it will be used.
‘It’s a pity that the main actions that cause the most accidents, namely not paying attention to the road, misjudging distances and other drivers’ intentions, cannot be detected by a device of any sort.
‘More police patrols and better driver education are the only ways to reduce accidents.’

The Asset test project is running until December 2011 with the aim of improving traffic safety.
The ‘Big Brother’-style set-up takes various pictures before filing details back to a central database via a GPS system. The equipment automatically destroys images over a month old and those in which no traffic violation is evident.
Its testing comes at a time when the Government has cut central funding for speed cameras and reduced the road safety budget by £38million.
The Asset camera is being tested by the VTT Technical Research Centre in Finland. It is currently mounted on a trailer but it is eventually expected to be converted to fit inside police vehicles.

Matti Kutila, senior research scientist at VTT, said: ‘The main intention is to support traffic police so that drivers follow traffic rules such as wearing seat belts, keep to the speed limit and maintain sufficient distance to the vehicle in front.
‘This, of course, is beneficial for road safety.’

Britain currently has separate cameras to detect speeding, tax and insurance violations, but Asset is the first to be able to spot a number of offences.
One of the first counties in the country to switch off its speed cameras is to turn them back on again – after speeding soared.
Oxfordshire deactivated its 72 fixed and 89 mobile units on August 1 after the county council withdrew its funding to Thames Valley Safer Roads Partnership.
Shortly afterwards the partnership claimed the number of drivers speeding past deactivated cameras had increased by up to 88 per cent.
Yesterday it emerged that the police and council were nearing a deal to turn all the cameras back on.

check number plates to make sure insurance and tax

It is impossible to tell from the number plate whether or not the correct insurance is in place. There is no legal requirement that a motor car be insured.[/hobbyhorse]

Indeed DCB, also, how on earth can it detect seatbelt offences?
I used to own a 2 seat sports car, and the seatbelt anchors were lower than the door, so from the outside it was impossible to see the belt.
Does this mean that everyone who owns such a car will have to spend a considerable amount of wasted time each year disproving these offences?

What makes you say that? All cars have to be insured to ensure a minimum of (3rd party fire, theft that incorporates) the "Public/ Council needs"(ah forget it's name, sorry) - it covers any damage done to any Council items, which all people who own vehicles have to ensure that this minimum is covered for each car.

I'm under the impression that some policies can let someone with fully comprehensive insurance can drive any car (with owner's permission), but with 3rd party protection only.

DOC extension only provides the driver with cover providing the vehicle is already insured. If there isn't already insurance in place then the DOC isn't valid.

What makes you say that? All cars have to be insured to ensure a minimum of (3rd party fire, theft that incorporates) the "Public/ Council needs"(ah forget it's name, sorry) - it covers any damage done to any Council items, which all people who own vehicles have to ensure that this minimum is covered for each car.

Mine don't -according to my broker - but - only "whilst I'm physically in the car" .

I think you need to check that as it has been the case for many years that DOC third party liability only applies to vehicles already insured. Are you sure your broker understands the question? Unless you have some kind of trade policy where you are driving cars via that then it just isn't the case in the small print in the majority of the policies I've seen.

That loophole certainly has been shut. My broker told me that DOC is being removed from policies unless you specifically ask for it and there is a growing list of exclusions....

ASSET Speed Camera Tracks Your Financial Well-Being At Traffic Stop [The ASSET Speed Camera Does A Lot More Than Check Your Speed]
Posted November 8th 2010 by Steve Andersen under Cameras & Camcorders | Cars | Transportation Tech

I don’t have to tell a lot of you that speed cameras are the bane of most every driver’s existence. Some set to preposterous lengths, implacable, unable to exercise any sort of discretion and in many cases regarded as little more than moneymakers for cash-strapped municipalities, they’ve just ratcheted up the old Big Brother levels by about one million percent with the new ASSET camera.

ASSET camera
The ASSET camera, you see, is not just a speed trap…no sir, this thing does a whole lot more than just note how fast you’re going and then crack off a ticket to arrive in your home mailbox days later. Oh no, the ASSET–which stands for the unwieldy name of Advanced Safety and driver Support for Essential road Transport–can do all the normal traffic camera sort of things, but it can also connect to remote databases to look up your insurance information, take pictures of you and your license plate, tell if you’re wearing a seatbelt, and even determine if you’re too close to other vehicles so it can actually ticket you for tailgating too.
It’s got a wireless data connection and an internal power generator sufficient to keep an ASSET operational for fully eight hours on its own.

These are being tested in Finland right now, and word is that they’ll invade the rest of Europe by sometime in 2013, a development that should leave motorists everywhere quaking in their driving shoes. Folks in other countries, don’t think these might not well wind up in your area too, as more towns and counties look to find ways to get more of your money in their pockets.

I’m frankly horrified by the existence of these nightmarish wallet-sucking devices. Sure, we all want safe roads, but should they come at this cost? I don’t want some machine slipping into my insurance records, especially not one that’s been left by the side of the road for some enterprising hacker with a netbook to come sidling up to in the dead of night long enough to make my records his new spam property.

It’s a worrisome development for us all, especially considering that not so long ago, they were setting those cameras on fire in some places, and an even more intrusive device might be even more poorly received.

Is it the case that all drivers of the vehicle needs to be insured, as opposed to 'all cars' themselves? (there is a subtle difference)
I'm under the impression that some policies can let someone with fully comprehensive insurance can drive any car (with owner's permission), but with 3rd party protection only.

For example if a car was not insured by the 'owner / driver' for whatever reason but I wished to drive said vehicle (assuming it had Rd Fund license) then although I am covered to drive 3rd party, the car driven doesn't have the minimal road ins cover .... The only time it can be on the road is going to the MOT station. (Even repair is only covered if going to the garage from MOT station - and that is even a grey area !).

143 - Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—.
(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and.
(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act..

Although that insurance covers all people there needs to be a cover for each car.
For example if a car was not insured by the 'owner / driver' for whatever reason but I wished to drive said vehicle (assuming it had Rd Fund license) then although I am covered to drive 3rd party, the car driven doesn't have the minimal road ins cover ....