A new smartphone app will allow members of the public to submit evidence of speeding drivers to police forces.
The app, called Speedcam Anywhere, can also be used on tablets and is currently being trialled by volunteers from the 20’s Plenty For Us charity, which campaigns for lower speed limits.
Currently available on the Google Play Store (some users in the reviews report problems logging in, an issue which apparently has been fixed in an update), an iOS version is also said to be on the way. According to its developers, who also have a comprehensive FAQ on their website,
Speedcam Anywhere turns your smartphone or tablet into a portable speed camera. Simply install the app, stand in a safe place at the side of the road and point your camera at a passing vehicle and tap to capture a short video, which will be analysed to accurately calculate its speed.
Your videos will be uploaded to our servers and analysed using AI to create a full and accurate report that will be emailed to you. Your report will include where and when the video was taken, the speed of the vehicle and the speed limit of the road it was driving on. It will also include details of the effect of the speed on air quality, stopping distances and pedestrian fatalities.
20’s Plenty For Us says that the through enabling anyone with a suitable device to obtain evidence of speeding and send it to the police for processing, it can lead to wider enforcement of and compliance with speed limits.
Rod King, Founder and Campaign Director for 20’s Plenty for Us said : “By allowing communities and local authorities to submit clear and unambiguous evidence of careless and inconsiderate driving this technology will be a game-changer in speed limit enforcement.
“It allows police forces to align with community needs for compliance without imposing an increased load on the police. We expect it to be welcomed by all those interested in making our communities safer,” he added.
41 thoughts on “New smartphone app to allow public to submit evidence of speeding drivers”
Nice idea, I’m 99% sure the
Nice idea, I’m 99% sure the police and courts would not accept this as evidence though.
It depends – evidence of
It depends – evidence of speeding doesn’t have to be from an approved device. All that qualification means is a change in how the evidence is introduced and an assumption of reliability that yiu have to,overturn.
courts use Newton hearings all the time to establish an approx value for speed as regards sentencing, and so this can be used here. The offence is exceeding tehe speed limit, so if you can prove that using video evidence and show the speed is then at least x value you can sentence.
From memory, police speed
From memory, police speed check duties start by verifying that the signage at either end is in place. The Home Office approved speed guns are pretty much irrefutable evidence, but as you say, aren’t the only source of evidence.
Nice idea in the concept, but
Nice idea in the concept, but even if you report drivers via their official website/portal, no action is taken and it is only for ‘statistical purposes’ only. The police are far too overwhelmed and underfunded sadly to bother with speeding motorists – sadly.
Of course, the driver
Of course, the driver narrative then says “money making scam”, etc when they do carry out enforcement for speed.
Most people have an app on
Most people already have an app on their phone for reporting illegal parking and red-light jumpers. There is also a mode for missing or illegible number plates.
This more evidence of an
This more evidence of an alternative universe- this app is completely worthless. You may be able to send stuff to the police, but they won’ be paying attention to it and it will be immediately filed in the bin. I think there are still people even on this site who don’t appreciate the police modus operandi! It is: Bin Everything
The lorry with the number plate below indisputably went through a red light. The lorry is clearly labelled Brand’s Scaffolding of Poulton-Le-Fylde. The compny has 5 directors, all named Brand. The premises are an industrial estate by the main road. The vehicle has had no tax or MOT for 12+ years. The police response is: NFA ‘as the registration number provided is not allocated to a vehicle’.
The lorry would be easily identifiable- either it’s carrying a false plate or it’s been on the road for 12+ years with no VED or MOT, or the police have phoned them up and warned them to put a different plate on
Strange response from the
Strange response from the police if that is on a red Daf truck.If so raise a complaint as it’s on the truck the DVLA says it should be on.
Strange response from the
Strange response from the police if that is on a red Daf truck
There’s no doubt that the lorry belongs to Brand’s Scaffolding of Poulton. The rear plate is convincingly MX66 YKN, and no number believably close to it comes up as a likely candidate. The firm’s publicity shows a Mercedes lorry whose cab looks like this one and has a MX plate, but has a hoist mounted just behind the cab. I will go out to Poulton spotting some time, but Lancashire Constabulary has a lot of form letting HGVs off red light offences, either by not responding at all or by thinking up stupid excuses like “the NIP was accidentally sent to the wrong address”. This one also got away with it.
Maybe you should have got someone to proof read your submission?
Maybe you should have got
Maybe you should have got someone to proof read your submission?
Occasional mistakes creep in, but there isn’t one in the submission to the police. MX55 YKN is the one which comes up as a red DAF
If (big if) the app can give
If (big if) the app can give approximate speed values to +/- 5% it could still have a use.
Obviously it won’t be any good for submitting footage of speeding to the police for a potential prosecution but it could enable community groups to prove there is a general problem with speeding cars and then demand enforcement on the back of that.
It’s a lot harder for the police / councils to ignore a problem when there’s some data to prove it – even if the data isn’t 100% reliable.
It seems unlikely that this
It seems unlikely that this will be either accepted as evidence in court, or will be acted on by the police anyway.
But, it might just lead to some re-evaluation of road law policing, as if the police are inundated with vids of speeding motorists, the powers that be might just start thinking about how such a process could be automated to ensure that law-breakers are dealt with. That in turn might have a knock on effect for videos like NMOTD, and cyclists’ videos might be treated rather more seriously.
Seconded. If the police and
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.
it’s unlikely the Police will
it’s unlikely the Police will do much. Enforcement and evidence are two different things after all after all.
I think this could be useful
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.
This is the worst exposition
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:
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
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:
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:
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?
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.
I am more concerned this
I am more concerned this could be used as an excuse for the police to do less.
Although from their FAQ – “
Speedcam Anywhere does not issue speeding tickets or fines like a conventional speed camera and has not been approved in the UK to be used as one. Speedcam Anywhere is the same as a dashcam, that can be used to gather evidence of motoring offences. As with a dashcam, any prosecution would always have to be done by the Police, and at the discretion of the local Police force.
Speedcam Anywhere do not ourselves pass on any information to the Police. We may be requested to do so at some future date.”
Sooo pretty pointless then! may as well just photo/film it with your phones camera.
I will download the iOS
I will download the iOS version when available… some drivers treat our village as a racetrack and even if a video submission only results in a warning then at least I’ll feel like I’ve achieved something rather than yelling and gesticulating from the roadside, fun though it is.
I’ve found the easiest way of
I’ve found the easiest way of reducing cars is to create your own virtual traffic jam: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/artist-creates-virtual-traffic-jam-with-cart-full-of-phones/
Get a load of cheap phones, stick them in a cart and pull them along a road to fool Google Maps into thinking there’s loads of congestion.
I’d agree with the comments
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.
Rich_cb wrote:
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
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
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
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.
I’m no legal expert, but two
I’m no legal expert, but two reasons why I can’t see how this can be effective in obtaining a conviction, firstly there’s no chain of custody for the footage, e.g. what’s to stop it being speeded up or otherwise doctored between download from service and upload to the law. Secondly, all equipment used for evidence of speeding in the UK must carry Home Office Type Approval.
Chain of custody doesnt stop
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.
Hopefully I can add some
Hopefully I can add some extra information here.
Most speed detection “devices” use a function within the device to measure the speed of a vehicle. 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. One issue with this is that you can rarely use the device in the path of the vehcile and therefore you do not measure the vehcile speed as it is reduced by the cosine from the sight line to the direction of travel. Because the device independently assesses the speed it needs calibration.
Spartcam Anywhere is different. It is not the smartphone that measures the speed. The ap buffers a video image and when you press the shutter as a car is passing and centred on the screen it selects a video snip of the previous 1 sec and next 1 sec. This is then uploaded to the cloud together with GPS location. The server then :-
The app user is then able to download the report and video clip for upload to the police dashcam. Here police can (if they wish) examine the video to verify the speed of the vehicle. A sample report is attached.
Because the wheels always follow the direction of the vehcile the angle of approach does not matter. You can use the app with oncoming or departing cars as long as you can see the number plate. A line of site with one edge of the image perpendicular to the road has been found to work best.
The requirement for a Home Office Type Approved device only exists for speeding convictions. It is an anomoly that presumes that the speed is measured on the device. Where it is a video, precedents have already been set whereby drivers have been prosecuted for careless or dangerous driving based on video evidence. This includes verifying speeding. However this does require expert analysis and often a measurement of road markings or scenery to provide a fixed distance to meaasure the travel time over. Speedcam Anywhere negates the need for this expert analysis by using AI and the wheelbase of the car as a fixed distance.
Section 59 Anti Social Driving offence only requires reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is being used on any occasion in a manner which contravenes section 3 or section 34 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (careless and inconsiderate driving and prohibition of off-road driving) and is causing, or is likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public. Hnece under “reasonable grounds” a Section 59 offence can be registered.
Speedcam Anywhere could gain Type Approval for the “process” rather than the “device”. In which case police and members of the public may use it for enforcement of speeding offence directly.
This really does use a great combination of modern databases, smart analysis and AI to provide an accurate measurement of speed using a Smartphone. Its not only a great invention but also a huge step forward for enforcement. When driving in future then any pedestrian you see could be a Speedcam Anywher pedestrian. Especially in urban and village settings drivers should be wary of blasting through those public places between buildings that we call streets. After all 20 is Plenty where people are.
See more at http://www.20splenty.org/speedcamanywhere
Thanks for that.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
Nope! Still a non-starter
Nope! Still a non-starter
Nine months on, has anyone
Nine months on, has anyone heard of any police action as a result of the use of this app?