How fast would you have to be travelling for a speed camera to be ineffective?
March 17th, 2010 | by admin |When you whiz through a speed camera, a speed sensor which works on the doppler principle logs your speed, and activates the circuits or mechanism to snap a picture of your car as it passes through the focal range of the camera.
Now, presumably, if you crank up your speed high enough, you would be able to escape out of the cameras field of view or focal range before the camera got activated.
But what speed would be required to acchieve this?
And would it be possible to travel so fast that the speed detector mechanism doesn’t even notice you because you’ve passed it by before it even had a chance to register your existence?
In theory this would be possible. Much would depend upon where the speed camera was set up. In most cases, you’d probaby need to be moving well in excess of double the legal speed limit at least.
The total reaction time for the typical speed camera system is well under half of a second — typically 1/10th of a second. Even at 100 MPH, you’ll only move a few feet — 14.6 to be exact — in 1/10th of a second. Even at 200 MPH, a motorway camera would still have you well in range.
21 Responses to “How fast would you have to be travelling for a speed camera to be ineffective?”
By John C on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Below the speed limit
References :
By little_friend on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Or over 130mph.
References :
By wild_eep on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
the idea is to get out of the camera’s field of view before the second flash. That is a much easier task than beating the electronics (which you NEVER will).
It’s been tested in something that did around 170mph, can’t remember what. Nice, clear, complete view in the second flash. Don’t bother!
References :
By my sheds on fire on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Topgear did this with a Lamborghini
The speed was about 180 miles an hour.
The camera detected the car but when it had took the photo the car had gone past.
It was on test track.
References :
By lester on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
they tried this out on top gear on a motor bike and if i remember correctly they had to go at over 167 mph for the speed camera not to work!
References :
By michellesexyjohnston on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
probably the speed of sound,or nearly as fast
References :
By 3243243 3 on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
dont do it , even if you test it, you can if you want, but then face the chargers and pay
LOL you had this under safty you naughty boy
References :
By Barry on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
MOST speed cameras in London are set to 10% over the speed limit plus 2 so:
30 = 35
40 = 46
50 = 57
70 = 79
so as long as you just below that you should be ok. not sure what the upper limit is
References :
By oadbywonder on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Faster than the speed of light
References :
By idiotinlondon on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Actually it was over 220 mph
References :
the person who said it was on top gear was right but the wrong speed i watched it..PS my Ford Escort can’t even do 70 so i’m safe
By ZION on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
325kph
References :
By MICHAEL R on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Approx 160mph.
References :
By xenobyte72 on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
You’ve had lots of sensible answers, but if you are an electronics wiz or you know one… with lots of time on your hands, you could sample the rf signals from the speed camera and devise an rf emitter to broadcast a false signal to cloak your car.
No its not a sensible answer but the theory is sound and its a lot more imaginative.
References :
By richiesown on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Surely it would be just as easy to slow down to 70mph as to speeding up to 170 and not sure if it’ll work? it could cost you a big fine and a long ban just to test it out.. go for it boy racer if you think you can handle 170 an hour it’s harder than it sounds, and chances are some family man/woman will phone ahead and have you pulled in.
References :
By c.j.davies on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
I know one way of avioding the flash of the camera – stick to the limit. But as for going fast enough no idea, why not try it and find out.
References :
By Jackie J on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Within the speed limit.
References :
By Alex P on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
Most couldn’t catch you if you exceed 224MPH, but some with a larger scan range, say for being planted on a hill, need a speed of nearer 250MPH.
References :
By bostonianinmo on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
In theory this would be possible. Much would depend upon where the speed camera was set up. In most cases, you’d probaby need to be moving well in excess of double the legal speed limit at least.
The total reaction time for the typical speed camera system is well under half of a second — typically 1/10th of a second. Even at 100 MPH, you’ll only move a few feet — 14.6 to be exact — in 1/10th of a second. Even at 200 MPH, a motorway camera would still have you well in range.
References :
By Graham N on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
at least over 180 mph
References :
its been done and proven on top gear
By spoton on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
why would you want to , are you one of those idiots who never think of the safety of other road users??!!
References :
By Camshy on Mar 18, 2010 | Reply
I was personally clocked by camera at 147mph! The picture was perfect, it was just prior to the law change and I was lucky to get away with 3 months ban and £ 385 fine! This was on an empty UK motorway during the night driving home from Germany in a modified RS Turbo.
References :