How a Moscow Road Safety System Keeps Cameras in Check and Errors in Check

Who maintains the cameras and how? Who verifies the accuracy of their work? Can a vast network of cameras operate reliably without frequent interruptions?

And finally, where do errors in photo and video recordings come from, how many occur, what steps should be taken, and is there any possibility to restore fairness in the process?

These questions were explored through the lens of a road safety solutions provider – MVS Group. The chief operating officer, Mikhail Rodionov, shared his insights in detail.

In the Moscow region there are nearly 1,500 sets of photo and video fixation systems. Who is responsible for all of this?

– It is important to note that this is more than a camera. The system represents a complex computer network and a precision measuring device rolled into one. The workload is distributed among several dozen professionals, including analysts, specialists in software support, metrologists, monitoring technicians, and, naturally, highly skilled technicians who maintain the complexes right on the border line of operation.

And how is it determined if a camera malfunctions? Should a service crew physically inspect every unit?

– Conducting a full round by a large team is impractical. We rely on a technical monitoring system where each complex transmits real-time data on multiple key parameters. This setup allows the duty operator to detect problems promptly, and the typical response time to an incoming alert does not exceed twenty minutes.

Most issues are diagnosed automatically, and the operator only needs to confirm the finding and implement the corrective action. We achieve a remediation window of about a day, and in practice we meet standards in 98–99% of cases.

Here is a newly installed camera. Who ensures it is correctly positioned?

– The traffic police provide unambiguous confirmation of the correct alignment of control lines; only after this confirmation does the operation of the fixation complexes begin.

Is there a process to verify violations and ensure accuracy in their resolution?

— This topic is widely discussed, but it helps to see real numbers. In the Moscow region, up to 30 million violations are logged each year. These are decisions on administrative offenses that undergo multi-stage verification and potential rejection of photographic material. Each year, roughly 8,000 requests related to the Fund arrive. These include standard matters like payment methods and similar issues. Even if all potential mistakes were present, the error rate would still be minuscule.

The math is simple: we are talking about hundredths of a percent. It would be remarkable if internet services delivered such quality! Mistakes can occur with any system, but every incident is investigated quickly; a repair team is dispatched immediately, or a remote software check is performed. In addition, there is ongoing collaboration with the manufacturers of the complexes, who participate in identifying potential problems when necessary.

A significant portion of past errors stemmed from malfunctions in the external registration databases. For example, there were cases where decisions were issued for vehicles that had been sold long ago. It is essential to know that if there are doubts about the proper execution of a decision, one should contact the traffic police through one of the available channels, and all errors will be promptly corrected.

Can hackers penetrate the system, steal data, and issue fake fines?

– Personal data resides in external federal systems; the fixation system cannot access this data, does not issue decisions about administrative offenses, and does not transmit them. It merely stores a sequence of photos and recorded speeds. The system is isolated from external access and cannot be reached via the Internet.

• And which camera violations are most commonly captured? We maintain a list for reference.
• Communication about violations can even appear in messaging apps like Viber.

“MVS Group”