Police get precise information with less effort
You don't need the police to use AutoSpeedWatch as a deterrent, but their enforcement makes the system more powerful. They can choose to receive:
- generalised location intelligence, or
- specific vehicle AND general location intelligence
depending on what they want to achieve. More detail is available on the Police Intelligence page.
We've found some police hear "AutoSpeedWatch" and assume it's robots flooding them with data. Absolutely NOT. It's the opposite (see right). It gives the police one piece of high level intelligence, rather than loads of individual log data. The system is fully legal, driver educational, improves safety, and its operation is certified compliant with the BSCC Codes of Practice.
Which UK forces are already using AutoSpeedWatch?
The green areas show where police are known to be using AutoSpeedWatch. Grey areas are where we don't know, or haven't heard yet, although there may be parishes with AutoSpeedWatch units deployed. Yellow means being trialled. Red areas are where police currently refuse to support.
Common police queries
"It'll mean sending loads of warning letters"
Not so, but it's a common misunderstanding. The entire point is that it saves Police effort and cost. It identifies and collates the worst speeders automatically, allowing them to target resources to where it has the biggest safety impact. They can prioritise and send as few, or as many, letters as resources allow knowing they'll be far more targeted and effective. The intelligence AutoSpeedWatch provides means their limited resources have a bigger safety impact, and better public support.
"We can't because of GDPR and BSCC"
AutoSpeedWatch is fully compliant with Home Office camera guidelines and meets UK law, and is actually far less intrusive than other existing systems. It provides the same information as traditional speedwatch but organised to be more useful. It does not collect or store personal information, and is not constrained by GDPR, but nonetheless manages publicly visible VRN data as if potentially sensitive. Owner and keeper information always remain within the police domain. The Biometrics & Surveillance Camera Commissioner (BSCC, previously SCC) has confirmed the legitimacy of such systems. Autospeedwatch Limited has even been independently assessed and certified as compliant with the BSCC Codes of Practice for its use of the system. See our section on UK law for details. For those forces that do not want VRN data we provide an option to see only general location intelligence and not specific vehicle information.
"Policy says no fixed enforcement camera"
It's not an enforcement camera, it's a system that educates to modify driver behaviours. Where yellow enforcement cameras have been withdrawn, it will likely be due to the 2008 restructuring of funding support from the Department for Transport, or because of public sentiment against the police for 'profiteering' from speeding. AutoSpeedWatch does not issue fines. The public tend to support AutoSpeedWatch because it targets the worst driving, whilst modifying driver behaviour generally.
"It needs to be calibrated"
AutoSpeedWatch is not used to issue penalties, but it needs to be accurate and reliable sufficient to provide excellent police intelligence. Only Home Office type approved equipment can be used as evidence in a court of law, or for issuing penalties. The radar equipment used by Community Speedwatch groups are therefore not required to meet the Home Office type approval standards for evidence. Instead mass-market radar devices typically used for measuring sports performance are often used. AutoSpeedWatch has been well tested and shown to accurately report speeds.
"Calibration" suggests adjustment against another device and reflects a previous generation of radar guns which required regular frequency testing and tuning to ensure the speed reading was accurate. Nowadays most radar Doppler systems do not require frequency calibration. Instead they work on a different principle where the indicated vehicle speed is immutably linked to the laws of physics. AutoSpeedWatch uses this system. In addition it takes multiple readings, rather than just one. It's accuracy has been thoroughly tested and shown to be excellent.
"We need the visible deterrence of yellow jackets"
If you think about it, this argument make no sense at all. It's not the yellow jackets that changes driver behaviour, it's the risk of being caught. This is why motorway average speed cameras are so effective. By using Signs and the optional Consipicuity Kit then AutoSpeedWatch is very visible, and the risk of being caught is constantly present; an independent assessment demonstrated AutoSpeedWatch reducing speeding by half, even before police enforcement. If the expectation of being caught is constant then the impact will be longer lasting than ad-hoc traditional speedwatch.
Besides, AutoSpeedWatch does not prevent traditional speedwatch sessions; it adds to them. Traditional speedwatch has been around for two decades now. We still have speeding. Isn't it time to be more effective?