Vector SR Spot Speed Camera

  • JackThePizzaGuy's Avatar
    Hi all,

    Just wanting some information on the Vector-SR Speed Camera.

    I’ve been reading some conflicting information and just wondering if anyone can clear it up for me?

    Do these cameras actively look for no seatbelt or mobile phone usage or is it a case of if you break the speed limit they can check for the footage for secondary offences?

    Some state they actively capture no seatbelt and mobile phone offences by AI, but most articles i can see about AI cameras are the new one been trailed by certain police forces which are the big grey ones deployed out of a van or a trailer.
  • 14 Replies

  • Nick's Avatar
    Community Manager
    Hey @JackThePizzaGuy , welcome to the RAC Community and thanks for making your first post - it's great to hear from you.

    Firstly I'm no expert here so could be wrong about this, but - I believe the Vector-SR is capable of capturing the sort of images used to detect mobile phone use and lack of seatbelts - however, I'm not sure it's being used for that as yet, mainly being installed for it's increased capability as an ultra-speed capture speed camera. I think the trials that took place around mobile phone and seatbelts maybe used a different type of camera - however the Vector-SR I believe has very similar function. The key is capturing a good enough quality image to show this, the image gets checked by AI for potential offences, before being then referred to human checks to determine if any law has been broken.

    I think! Any of our users please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!
    Thanks,
    Nick


    Got a question or want to start a discussion? Create a new post here. ✍
  • Santa's Avatar
    The best information I found is this:

    because the camera records footage of a driver breaking the limit, any visual evidence showing motorists driving without a seatbelt or using a mobile phone can be used for further offences.

    To me, this implies that they will only detect phone and seatbelt offences when they have video of a speeding driver.

    It looks as if they might well pay for themselves if this report is correct:

    Cornwall Council and Devon & Cornwall Police have also been using the new tech on their roads, with the reports in August that it had caught thousands of speeding drivers within a fortnight.
    The four cameras were put in place on routes with a history of problems with collisions and speeding vehicles and it was reported that 3,280 drivers were issued with tickets in the first two weeks.
    Last edited by Santa; 21-03-25 at 12:23.
  • Rolebama's Avatar
    With regards to the Cornwall Police catching thousands of speeders. I worked in Harrow some years ago, and picked up a few parking tickets. The local Traffic Wardens told me to ignore them as they issue so many there isn't time to process them. I would guess that now with so many systems being computerized that is no longer the case. It would be interesting though to know how many do slip through the cracks.
  • JackThePizzaGuy's Avatar
    @Nick

    Hi Nick,

    Thanks for the reply, I kinda figured it isn’t in yet as why would they be using the new AI cameras around the country and investing into this to catch people on the phone if they can just add it to the already placed Vectors. Surely it would be cheaper?
  • JackThePizzaGuy's Avatar
    @Santa

    Hi Santa,

    Thanks for replying.

    Yes thats the information i saw online that says the footage can be checked for secondary offence but first needs to be triggered by speeding. I just saw some conflicting articles stating it actively looks for phones so jus wanted some clarification.
  • olduser's Avatar
    When I was working on the meter inspection I got a NIP roughly a year after the claimed offence.
    It came in a letter from our legal department, the speeding offence was on a dual carriageway on a Cambridge ring road, the particular stretch was restricted to 40 MPH at that time, and I was said to have been doing 60!.

    The legal team were saying the company had owned this vehicle, and I had driven it, (along with many others in the area) so I must pay up.

    Having dug into the computer system, I found I had driven that vehicle that day, it was the day we changed vehicles (end of lease) for the new ones.

    On changeover days a transporter with new vehicles on would travel to each area, we would all meetup with it, take the new, and leave the old but on this day the transporter was moved on by the police, and had to move to another site, no one thought to ring me, so I drove it from home to the first site which was a side road off the ring road very close to the camera.

    Eventually, someone called me, I would have turned from the side road, left onto the dual ring road and past the camera, no way would that old crock accelerate that quickly.
    To get it to 50 you would need a packed lunch.
    (The leasing company charged for a new Variable Inertia Flywheel once they got it back.)

    I ask the legal team for the photographs, they had not got any, I asked the Cambridge cops, they first said they had none, I explained without pictures how can I be sure it was me or even that vehicle?
    One, picture turned up, with me in the LH lane, and a car overtaking in the RH lane.
    I now explain all that proves is, I passed that camera at that time, where was the other picture?
    From the two pictures I could workout my speed as (rounded) to 36 the car worked out rounded as 61.
    I got a blasting from our legal lot for antagonising the police, my impression was the police wanted it forgotten as quickly as possible.
    Actually I say police I don't know if the people I corresponded with were officers or civilians.

    I eventually got the full story, I was told the returned vehicles were inspected for damage, mileage, tyre condition, and service history.
    Anything that would reduce the estimated price at auction was charged to our company, and the cars were then shifted of to auction.

    So the NIP had gone to the leasing company as the owner, at first they could not locate the car on their records, as it had gone through several leasing cycles. (no one remembered to take it to swap)

    It eventually came to light, when the leasing Co were being threatened with court action due to the flywheel fault. (misrepresentation?)
    In making an effort to establish it's history they found where it had been, our legal lot then received the the NIP, and someone thought I was the last one to drive it.

    So, there was one that fell through the cracks but in the end it didn't.
  • olduser's Avatar
    Hey @JackThePizzaGuy , welcome to the RAC Community and thanks for making your first post - it's great to hear from you.

    Firstly I'm no expert here so could be wrong about this, but - I believe the Vector-SR is capable of capturing the sort of images used to detect mobile phone use and lack of seatbelts - however, I'm not sure it's being used for that as yet, mainly being installed for it's increased capability as an ultra-speed capture speed camera. I think the trials that took place around mobile phone and seatbelts maybe used a different type of camera - however the Vector-SR I believe has very similar function. The key is capturing a good enough quality image to show this, the image gets checked by AI for potential offences, before being then referred to human checks to determine if any law has been broken.

    I think! Any of our users please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong!

    Ai is getting blamed for everything these days!
    It would be an image recognition piece of software of the type frequently used on production lines for inspection. (has it got a lid or label, or is the biscuit coated, is the biscuit broken?)
    Basically the software analyses an image looking for a particular pattern of pixels (for seat belt two types, diagonal or two verticals on the body) and similarly for a mobile phone.
  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    When I was working on the meter inspection I got a NIP roughly a year after the claimed offence.
    .
    So, far too late for any action. The limit is six months from the date of the offence.
  • olduser's Avatar
    I asked our legal people about this, they said it was still live because the leasing company had acknowledged receipt of the NIP, saying they were not the driver but they were investigating who the driver was, which I believe was their standard response to any NIP's.

    Because they had acknowledged, the clock stopped.
  • Beelzebub's Avatar
    I asked our legal people about this, they said it was still live because the leasing company had acknowledged receipt of the NIP, saying they were not the driver but they were investigating who the driver was, which I believe was their standard response to any NIP's.

    Because they had acknowledged, the clock stopped.
    I hesitate to disagree with your legal guys, but ...

    You should refer them to s.127(1) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980:

    "Except as otherwise expressly provided by any enactment and subject to subsection (2) below, a magistrates’ court shall not try an information or hear a complaint unless the information was laid, or the complaint made, within 6 months from the time when the offence was committed, or the matter of complaint arose."
  • olduser's Avatar
    Thank you but the incident is history now.

    The legal team, in my time with the company, never offered any assistance for motoring charges, in fact almost the opposite.
    They were mostly interested in the cooperate image, rather like the Post Office Counter's lawyers!
  • Santa's Avatar
    When I managed a fleet, I would get Section 172 notices a couple of times a month. All our vehicles were "issued" to a single employee, but they would often swap cars for one reason or another.

    I would identify the person to whom the vehicle was issued and pass the NIP to HR for them to add their home address and return it to whoever issued it. It was more difficult with our small fleet of pool cars which could be driven by anyone. I kept a book and made them sign, but it still caused some arguments, such as when one person signed for a car but claimed that someone else was driving.

    I know that Lease companies with many hundreds of cars (I only had a hundred or so) often had a whole office dedicated to handling Section 172 notices.
  • TC1474's Avatar
    There are a number of camera sites in my area with one or 2 specifically targeting phone use.

    I have watched them in use.

    The camera takes a picture of every vehicle that passes, and then the software goes through each picture and pulls out those where the hand held phone or device is in use. These photo's are then double checked by human eyes before the subject of issuing proceedings is discussed or considered.

    The technology is being improved upon all the time and different areas are trialling/using different ideas, but eventually. like GATSO, Muniquip, Truvello, Laser which have been in use for years, will become a uniformed standard across the country.