THREAD CLOSED, PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSSION IN
"The Speed Camera Thread - Volume 13"
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?f=2&t=16...1
For the continued discussion of all things pertaining to Speed Cameras.
Volume Eleven filled up.
This is Volume 12, 11 is closed.
There is no need to repeat anything since earlier volumes will not be deleted, although I am quite sure that this will not stop you.
--
Dynamic Dave
Back Room Moderator
mailto:dave_moderator@honestjohn.co.uk
|
Today I had great pleasure in driving the M25 going through the dartford TOLL tunnel and around to J25, (from Swanley) has anyone else noticed the \"forest\" of new speed cameras that have grown recently? All covered at the moment with a pinky cover, written on it \"not in use\" - Oh Im sure they damn well will be pretty damn soon......
Dont get me wrong, I think the \"variable speed limit\" works well, but to just stick up more money making machines, to hit the motorist again stinks!
|
Scruffy,
Great to see you back on the site - you had fleas mate?!?
It\'s rather perturbing that all these cameras are popping up right in the area that I have just moved to.
Having said that, though, now I am getting older and more responsible ( ;-) ) I am of the opinion that those who get caught speeding on motorways get exactly what they deserve.
I do apologise if this sounds rather \'holier than thou\' but I recently completed a quite lengthy motorway journey (ok, mods - sorry!) at speeds of no greater than 65 mph and I have to say that I arrived at my destination so much more refreshed and alert than if I had been hammering down the M40 at 90.
I just cannot see the point in speeding these days. Everyone knows the risks (both financially and socially) so why bother?
Having said that, I am dead against people being penalised for driving at 32 in a 30, but that belongs to a different thread altogether.
Cheers
Rob
\"Lord of Lard\"
|
Rob - glad to hear that your 65 mph journey was completed successfully. I just hope it wasn't all in lane 2! Or, worse still, lane 3! For me, lane hogging is a far a worse offence than speeding.
Or has this been discussed before? :-)
|
|
I think I passed him. He was in lane 3, towing a caravan, pink fluffy dice hanging from rear view mirror, feet up on the steering wheel, mobile in left hand, copy of the Sun on his lap, cigarette in right hand. Obviously taking his advanced driver training to heart.
|
|
|
|
I had a friendly flash in Somerset last month to check my speed and there he was a mile in the back of his van up the road pointing his SAFE CAM down at us all doing 29 mph.
So it's SAFE CAMS now.
Does it make it more expensive or impossible to hire a holiday car with, say, 3 penalty points?
If you get yourself obsessed with fuel consumption that helps with controlling speed. Or take up gardening to calm yourself down to a steady pace through life.
|
> If you get yourself obsessed with fuel consumption that helps > with controlling speed.
This is so true. My car has a trip computer with a speed limit buzzer which can be set anywhere between about 30 and 155 mph (not sure why that high, when car's quoted max is 115 mph!) and a trip average mpg readout. The need to keep the latter reading over 41 mpg is far more effective than the former and is all the incentive I need to keep within the limit (that and the smug feeling I get in knowing that the local law will not be getting any little cheques from me!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mate of mine sent me an e-mail saying the following...
"New speed trap system has been installed on the M4 between Reading and Swindon. Cameras have been inset into small pillars placed periodically along the motorway and these will measure the average speed between them - they are linked directly to DVLA.
The system came into effect on 14th July - so beware!!"
Anyone else heard of this - is this is a hoax?
Cheers
|
|
The new generation VMS signs are being trialled along this stretch of the M4 this year(J12-14 I think), and sited at fairly short intervals. This could explain new placements on the verges, but they're nothing to do with speed detection.
|
|
We were discussing this on the MKIV Supra's site. The conclusion was that the speed camera bit is a hoax. There is an e-mail doing the rounds that eminates from a company that supposedly wrote the software. Nice bit of scare-mongering
|
I thought that "stealth" scameras were now un-recommended - recommendation was that cameras should be made MORE visible, not less, to increase the deterrence factor.
What surprises me is the number of drivers who, although they MUST be aware of the position speed cameras, still speed, albeit sometimes only a few mph over.
I'm thinking particular of the SW section of the M25 with its cameras above every gantry (i.e. every ...?mile? for about 10 miles), and the Thelwell viaduct on the M6 where people dutifuly slow down while passing the camera then speed up until the next one, which is pretty pointless as they are SPECS.
|
You will always see that at SPECS sites, an inner lane full of people who understand SPECS cameras, and the other lanes full of people zooming thru and braking for each camera.
Must be raking it in on the M6, they could afford to build a new one alongside by now. ;)
|
Well Rob C, I always wondered if all those people zooming past me through the 40mph B'Ham roadworks were getting nicked. Several miles of SPECS there.
I've got more sense these days and avoid the M6 like the plague.
Interesting re your comments on the inside lane. I think whoever maintains the cameras has cottoned on though as the last time I drove through the Thelwall Viaduct (used to be daily journey) - some cameras doing inside two lanes, some outside two. No escape!
|
Ive often wondered if the new toll road, Brum Northern Relief, will have a forest of camera's to increase the quite considerable wealth they intend to pick from your pockets as you enter onto it, or pehaps they will think they have fleesed you enough not to do that.
Another thought is it a private road and therefore not subject to normal speeding laws, since they will charge you to use it.
|
|
|
|
"I'm thinking particular of the SW section of the M25 with its cameras above every gantry (i.e. every ...?mile? for about 10 miles),"
On that section ( I live off J11) they are not on EVERY gantry. On average it works out to about 1 in 3.
"What surprises me is the number of drivers who, although they MUST be aware of the position speed cameras, still speed, albeit sometimes only a few mph over."
Because they are set to fire at +10% + 2mph. I know it, lots of others know it. I happily toodle thro the M25 variables at 55mph when set to 50, camera fires at 57, speedo over reads.
|
Yes I know RF, but you get my drift.
Anyway there are plenty who do considerably more than the limit + 10% + 2 through an obvious camera zone...
And while I happily sit at about 90 - 95 on open motorway, I am always VERY careful to remain within speed limit if there are 1) cameras 2) roadworks 3) lots of traffic or 4) bad conditions. And off-motorway.
(btw 250 miles from Wokingham to Lytham St Annes on Wed - AVERAGE speed door to door on tripometer was 73! Not bad eh? And actual (the tripometer lies) consumption was over 30 mpg, a first! Only managed 58mph on the way back)
OK, stoopid maybe - but don't bother slating me, I'm off on hols tomorrow :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like there is another potential loophole in the law for those caught speeding by speed cameras.
Briefly, 2 Cleveland police officers (!) had there prosecution for speeding discontinued because the warning signs advising of the speed limit were thought to be illegal. The case was discontinued because there was deemed to be insufficient chance of a prosecution. However, I\'ll bet the CPS were concerned that if they were proescuted and found not guilty a precedent would have been set and anyone else who had been fined in that area would have appealed instantly. Since there was no actual decision in the case the signs remain legal until proved otherwise.
For full details see the Teeside Evening Gazette:
tinyurl.com/jy5c
Another can of worms opens up...
|
Hold on there Robin, hold on.
Yup I read of it in Northern Echo and at the moment it has not been PROVED in law that the signs are illegal. It is merely the opinion of a Police Officer of my old Force engaged in Traffic Management Duties.
The offences occured in the Cleveland Police area who have a history of not prosecuting Police Officers (C/Supt CID and the name and shame saga). Why they didn't run this is speculation.
My initial thoughts without research is:
Was the restriction marked with the proper 40 sign?
YES
What legislation states that the restriction sign has to have Speed camera logo on it?. In fact what legislation covers the fact that logo required by law?
NONE that I have heard of so far (Maybe a Stat Instrument amending TS & GD's?)
Incidentally the two officers I understand are from N Yorks and maybe I am old fashioned but my initial thoughts were that if they have committed the offence then in upholding the good name of Plod they should have taken their punishment or has Society changed that much that we no longer require very white Plods?
But there again Off Duty they are citizens and therefore entitled to the rights of Joe Public.
Guess I'm into some deep research on this one.
DVD
|
|
|
I noticed on BBC1 "Look North" this evening (the local prog after the News at 6pm for Yorkshire Region) that the Council has boobed in Guisborough.
Two officers were caught by Gatso cameras exceeding the 50mph limit.
They were not prosecuted when they pointed out that the signs did not comply with the Law.
A rectangular sign, with normal 50mph circle atop, and a schematic of a Gatso below. Trouble was, the Gatso image was displayed on a yellow background, not white. The whole sign was edged in black and should not have been.
Cleveland and Guisborough authorities say they may have to overturn 50,000 speeding convictions obtained on that road.
Makes you think, n'est-ce pas?
|
One rule for them etc, etc...
|
|
AFAIK you don't need the gatso sign. Only if you want to give the money to the police rather than the government - plus a few other niceties. Unless the 50 sign was wrong.....
|
|
Ah but if they weren't Coppers they'd be "working class heros". Sorry a class defence, if the Council concerned had not put up an unlawful sign its their own fault.
|
|
|
Found a link:-
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire/314720...m
The signs, erected by Redcar and Cleveland Council as part of a force-wide pilot scheme to crack down on speeding, had a black border around a speed camera logo which infringed the Road Traffic Regulation Act.
Hmmm must look at the local ones - I'm sure they have a black border ;-)
|
|
Very well done martint123.
|
|
|
|
Perhaps some legal eagle could clarify this for the rest of us. I thought (just like Martin) that a camera sign was not a legal requirement for a Gatso camera to be effective.
The news article showed a rectangular combined 50mph/camera sign, with the 50mph at the top in normal colours and a picture of a camera underneath drawn in black, all on a yellow background, with a black border round the edge of the combined sign.
The commentator said that the prosecution failed because the picture of the camera should have been drawn in black on a white background, with a black border just round the camera instead of round the entire sign.
I wonder if the technicality was really that the 50mph sign didn't meet regulations because it was combined with a nonstandard drawing?
Ian
|
|
|
|
|
|
The government and local authorities are pooring in money to put up more Gatsos, why? because it makes them money.
If a mass drive slow was organised as a protest, no money would be made from speeders and they would soon stop erecting these things everywhere.
Don't get caught, don't fund another gatso!
|
Re the illegal signs, as far as I can make out:
Authorities were worried about the safety record on a section of the A.171 near Guisborough and in 2000 in conjunction with D of T implemented a 50 mph restriction by Order on the road. To give added clout they provided speed camera points within the restriction.
Because of street lighting in addition to signing start and end points, repeater signs were required.
The approach was to place on a yellow rectangular backing Regulatory sign 670, suitably legally altered to read 50. Underneath they added the black logo of a Camera with the words Speed Camera in black lettering. (Informative). The Camera and words were not on a white background with black border (See Sign 878). Surrounding the edge of the yellow rectangular backing was a black border.
Now to any reasonable person the message conveyed was a speed restriction area of 50 in which speed camera could be encountered.
Unfortunately, in addition to the incorrect Camera sign, it appears the presence of the outer black border could give rise to the argument that the sign in total became one and was neither covered as an authorized sign under the TSGD?s nor had specific authorization from the Sec. State.
Under Section 85(4) Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 other than on a restricted road a person shall not be convicted of speeding unless the speed limit is indicated by a traffic sign. You may now be able to pick up the argument.
Whilst the two speeding officers were booked for Court, proceedings were withdrawn before Magistrates made a decision as to whether the restriction sign lumped in as one with the camera sign was lawful. I would suspect that there was politics/economics involved in the decision not to go ahead. It would be cheaper to let off two offenders and correct the signs than be involved in costly Court proceedings up to Appeal. Further, if it was by law found that the signs were illegal then the cost would be considerable of tracing and reimbursing other offenders guilty of exceeding 50 mph the Fixed Penalty fee and effort to remove the Points from their Licence. CPS I understand do not like 50 ?50 cases. They want at least a 51% chance of success before running a case.
Just to add to the woes it was revealed last night that an other offender is attempting to get off by alleging that at one point between the repeater signs the distance is in the region of 850 meters whilst D of T Guidelines state that the Max distance should be 700 meters. TSGD?s only state at intervals without being specific so I doubt he has much of an argument.
An urgent review is being conducted in the North East to ensure signing is 100% and to be fair to the Authorities very few incorrect sites have been exposed.
For those who would wish to view the signs in TSGD?s go to:
www.tinyurl.com/b9kq
Scroll half way down to Schedule 1 and pick up the sign number that is the same as Diagram No. and click on.
DVD
|
|
Does the specs system work if you swap lanes between cameras?
|
Does the specs system work if you swap lanes between cameras?
Yes indeedy specs is not confined to lanes
|
|
|
|
Just come back from 3 weeks in Italy. (See "Xenon headlights abroad" thread).
They have installed huge numbers of speed cameras recently which look nothing like UK ones. They are about 4 ft high, painted grey with red and white flashing down the side. There are no calibrations painted on the road and the cameras appear to have two lenses about 6 inches apart that face the road at 90 degrees ie side on to the road, not facing the approaching car, nor taking a picture of the departing vehicle. Anyone got any idea how these work ? What is this system called ?
|
|
Is it for catching tailgaters?
|
|
No, Doug, definitely speed cameras. There are warning signs of "speed electronically controlled" about 300yds before the machines.
|
|
I`ll bear that in mind for my trip, thanks Bob. If they`re 90o to the road though, how on earth can they read number plates?
|
|
|
|
Read a previous dicussion on speeding so thought I'd check if any of you guys could help or point me in the right direction.
Travelling through Lincolnshire I was flashed by a tru velo camera, diferent to the Gatso the face forward to catch a picture of the driver. The flash is supposed to be passed through a magenta filter so that it does not distract the driver, but boy this one did. I'd even checked my speed not long before the camera and was inside the limit. I thought the chap going in the opposite direction had triggered it convinced it wasnt me.
So it was shock horror when nearly six weeks later I got the Notice of Intent to Prosecute. Why so late I asked, ti went to the fleet hire company first, can I have a copy of their letter and the adress to which you sent it, no it has nothing to do with you. phone put down by the ticket office.
So I wrote, can I have a copy of the photo etc, explained that as the flash was clearly way to bright and cosequently dangerous I had a feeling that the camera was faulty and anyway I had checked my speed and appear to be way under the 40 in a 30 zone they claim.
Again, no, evidence is only shown if you elect to go to court.
That leaves me with either declare my self guilty even though I believe I have somewhat of a case, or elect to go to court.
They strongly stress that if I do I risk a larger fine, more points and costs. That puts me in the position of not seeing the evidence they have to make my call.
Perhaps I was wrong but weres the evidence tomake a sujective judgement on, perhaps as they claim I must be particularly sensitive to light, Im the only person in the years they have had these cameras that has raise this issue. They dont see that as strange and therefore the possibility that the camera was faulty.
If I was on a small income I may be tempted to accept the £60 and three points rather than risk losing more money, they tend to come down on the side of camera from what I read.
Ive taken it to court, why should I declare myself guilty against my feeling and let them off the hook.
Any one with any pointers, web sites etc I can use to build my case.
Phil
|
There's lots for you to read on www.speed-trap.co.uk including descriptions of several successful appeals on www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The...m
You'll notice that the example NIP includes the speed camera's picture. Didn't yours?
www.speed-trap.co.uk/FAQ/FAQ.htm also explains the rules for access to evidence.
Ian
|
|
How long did they take to send the NIP; not how long did it take for you to receive it, but how long was it before it was sent to the registered keeper?
|
I asked who the NIP was sent to and they point blank refuse to disclose this either, they stated it was nothing to do with me, despite me protesting they would have to produce it in court as proof because I would query it, they wouldnt bend.
Nothing until I go to court so its catch 22, either accept what they say or chance a larger fine. Ive elected to defend it just hope the magistrates find it my way or at least unsertand why I had to take it that far.
|
|
|
|
No the point blank refuse to give me a copy of the photo without me opting for court and then not until I have a date for the hearing.
Interesting though your links point ot other examples where these flashes are visible, and blinding despite what the manufacturers and police claim.
Thanks
|
|
Ask for the photo because you can't remember who was driving at the time. They're usually more than eager to send you the mug-shot.
|
|
They may not with-hold the evidence until you appear in court. Once you elect to defend the case they will disclose evidence
|
The problem is that once I elect to defend it and they disclose the evidence I may find they were right all along and given that evidence earlier would have accepted the fixed penalty.
But they dont provide it so you cant make a judgement how strong your case is. I guess they hope you will accept the fixedpenalty rather that risk a much hire fine or point in court. Thats got to be against your human rights.
Imagine saying that to a burglar, "We know it you so cough up" and then well show you the evidence, they dont need to once the burglar give his statement and pleads guilty which is what returning the NIP and paying the fine is in effect. As someone else said on this site once you accept the offer you cant appeal it only the sentance, which they wont reduce anyway.
This is blackmail or sorts, plead guilty (even if you dont think you are, else well threaten you with bigger fines if you have the cheak to question us and go to court. Having talked to them it would seem a camera has never gone wrong, they are never wrong and you are guilty as hell, because they say so asnd no one has ever beaten the rap. Hey Ho justice.
|
It is this way because it is so much cheaper. If you are guilty, then say so and be done with it and the legal department involved does not have to spend valuable time and manpower instructing solicitors, collating evidence, etc., etc. If you are sure you are NOT guilty, then say so. If you are not guilty it is likely that the evidence will show that (note that I say 'likely' rather than' definite' - there are no guarantees in this life) and if this is in fact the case you should ask for costs. If you decide to fight the case and the evidence they have is not totally conclusive you will probably find that they will decide not to go ahead. The evidence required before a NIP is issued is rarely reviewed (for financial reasons) and if you accept it it saves everyone time and money. Once you have said you decline the offer of a fixed penalty the evidence is reviewed and someone has to decide whether the evidence is sufficient to proceed with a prosecution. If the evidence is good enough you will be expected to pay for the extra expense involved in the prosecution - quite rightly. If, on the other hand, it is decided that a conviction is not guaranteed by the available evidence they will cut their losses at this point.
It may seem unjust to you but if every piece of evidence from a camera (for example) had to be tested, fixed penalties would be many times higher just to mitigate the cost.
|
But to agree with this says that you only get justice if you can afford it, or are some low life career criminal when the state will pay. If they can't review photo's or in this case verfiy that the camera didnt have a fault they shouldnt use the technology, its sometime doesnt work quite as you intended, for no obvious reason. I work in computing I know this is a fact of life. How many people have just agreed to the system and paid fines because they cant be bothered with the hassle, were bullied by the threat of larger fines or were just too afraid of the system to question it.
I provided them with just cause to question their NIP, but thats the system they say and give its more than my jobs worth syndrome. I believe I'm not guilty, but as you say sometimes thats not good enough for the bench and I now have to spend time preparing a case, finding what evidence I need etc to make it strong etc.
It would have been cheaper to provide me with the evidence in the hopes that I will come to my senses (from their point of view).
|
Philip go and have a look at the website www.pepipoo.com/
I think you will find the information there very interesting. You will also find more information in the forum section and links to other sites. If you think you are not guilty the above site is a mine of information.
|
HisHonour succinctley outlines the procedure so little for me to add.
Before anyone says NIP outside 14 days, forget it as it is obvious you are not the Reg Keeper of the vehicle. NIP would be sent to them, which is good service. Can they support a claim that they only got it well outside 14 days and to show not posted within 14 days? If so you have some ammunition.
A point I made some time ago that it appears that different Forces disclose evidence on enquiry, others it appears do not. Wants standardising.
As HH states, you know whether or not you are Guilty. If you feel you are not then elect Court. There is always the option to change your plea before the hearing if under disclosure of evidence rules you are bang to rights. You can always either write or state in mitigation why and the path you have taken but the Magistrates may not take kindly to an abuse of the system.
DVD
|
I am case 7 on there. I was not disputing the fact that I was speeding, just the speed recorded. I asked for the video eveidence and they had apparantly destroyed it. It was only after going to court and admitting the offence that I realised that I should have stayed mum and they would have had to have dismissed the case.
I have a friend who went through a red light camera. Rather than stump up money and license she asked to see the picture. They had destroyed it, so she got off.
Both incidents occured in Greater Manchester, so if that's where your offence took place, you may be lucky, as they seem to be good at destroying the evidence. I do believe that they do hope people will own up without a challenge, and that is why they appear to be sloppy.
|
This has been sent to Pepipoo (I heard about it from the safespeed.org mailing list.) It is in relation to leaving a NIP u unsigned and what signing them actually means. It is from a solicitor in relation to his defence of a client caught by a gatso.
=======================================================
Dear Sirs
Re: CASE REF NUMBER
Further to my previous correspondence regarding the above alleged
motoring offence:
I have been informed that the Honourable Mr Justice Owen has decided
[dpp v Yorke & Mawdesely 2003] that the Section 172 notice of the NIP
amounts to a voluntary confession made under the provisions of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].
I should be grateful if you would please detail why my legal rights
under the provisions of PACE were not explained to me prior to my
completion of the form.
I would like to submit the following skeleton argument and should be
grateful if you would ensure that I receive a substantive reply by
return:
1 The prosecution case is said to be based on a voluntary confession,
which has, as aforementioned, been made under the provisions of The
Police and Criminal Evidence Act [PACE].
2 I will submit that I was neither cautioned, nor offered an
explanation of my rights, prior to being required to complete the
voluntary confession (s172 of the NIP).
3 In the circumstances, I will submit that my rights under the
provisions of PACE have been breached.
4 I will further submit that, as I was deprived of my rights under
PACE, I have been deprived of my right, under Article 6 of the ECHR,
to a fair trial and that I may be the victim of a malicious
prosecution.
Under the circumstances therefore any prosecution is bound to fail.
In the light of this, you may wish to consider withdrawing your case
rather than waste the Court's and witness' time. In the event that
you decide to proceed with the case and my not guilty plea is
successful, I will make an application for my costs.
I look forward to hearing from you by return.
============================================================
teabelly
|
teabelly
Go to
tinyurl.com/itp7
and read the full judgement of the Yorke case.
Pay particular reference to
Paras 28 on and in particular 31, 37 and 40(re human rights)
Very interesting?
DVD
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've had a notice to tell me I was caught doing 50 in a 30 area. It was 3am on way to airport and we were late as partner had left her medicine behind and we'd had to return home to get it. The atmosphere was a little strained in the car and I was obviously not concentrating properly on my driving. As it was 3am the roads and pavements were deserted. Is this in any way a mitigating factor ( the quietness, not my lack of concentration!) and what are the likely results of my court case-anyone like to guess? Can I plead guilty by post or do I have to appear in person?
|
|
sorry nothing mitigating there, not a matter of life or death. If I were you I would take the fixed penalty by post if offered, the magistrate wont like a +20mph offence in a thirty
|
It might be a mitigating factor, but not enough to beat a fixed penalty if you're offered.
Plead guilty as early as possible and get it over and done with.
|
|
I agree with DavidHM, as usual!
|
|
|
|
You should have my (non-driver) partner in the car. She none too subtly hints that I am speeding if she thinks that the needle has gone even a fraction over the limit. And she does this from the front passenger seat, without ever having heard about "parallax errors" and is completely ignorant of the fact that most speedos read "fast"!! No wonder I put my foot down when I'm in the car alone !!
L'escargot by name, but not by nature.
|
|
|
|
Has anyone reported, or know (by name) of a person who has reported being flashed by a truvelo forward facing camera with a light that caused them temporary blindness or disorientation. I need some evidence to show I am not the only one it ever happened to. Someone in Linconshire Police area would be great.
Phil.
|
Have you had an eye test in recent times Phil.? Its possible you have some vision defect of which you are not aware.
Happy Motoring Phil I
|
|
No problems with the eyes, Tru Velo when asked are very reluctant to talk about this other than to say they are licenced by the home office and that the cameras do flash and do not use infra red light. The magenta filter (pink coloured screen next to the lense) is there to filter the light. Now if you read up about the effects of a magenta screen (Im a photography in my spare time so Im keen on these things) Magenta filters out most of the colour in the spectrun and in the main lets only red light through. Infrared photography relies on such filters. Since the eye has far less recptors for red (which is why control rooms and cabins in airlines use red lights at night to enable visibility without losing night vision), it means that the flash should be almost inperceptable (or not seen at all). However as I have been temporarily blinded by one of these, then this must show that maintenance on the camera was faulty. With that level of flash it would never have got past Home Office checks. Ive seen posting here of people who have and have not seen these cameras flash, so occasionally one or two must also be at fault. In order to show Im not the only one I wanted to present concrete evidence that this has been brought to the notice of an authority before, please let it be Linconshire who say Im the only one ever to complain.
|
I believe the Truvelo camera uses infrared flash which does not emit any visible light? Not sure there is any kind of defence here.
It is an interesting point that a person who questions the validity of an alleged offence can be threatened with a heavier sentence if eventually found guilty. This is not a question of increased costs - I doubt if anyone would disagree that having to investigate a case takes more resources and will cost more.
It is known that cameras often malfunction and are often not correctly callobrated but apparently you can't attempt to be sure about this without some risk?
|
Truvelo say they dont use infrared, so technically the flash is visible, however the magenta filter is there to reduce the 'white light' you would seefrom a flash (its that that gives you flash blindness), but it does allow red light and some blue light through. The red light being near the infrared end of the spectrun should have little or no effect, you probably wouldnt notice it, but the film is sensativeto red.
So If I saw the flash (and if you check the net about 5 - 10% of the posts report a flash from a Truvelo. The either the filter is not up to the correct standard, or it wasnt fitted.
The Association of Chief Police Officers, say if the camera equipment is faulty you cant prosecute. Whe you report the flash, it a stock answer, the camera is type approved. Yes but was it working correctly at the time, or have the government apporved a camera that is more dnagerous that the speeding motorist.
Also if the flash in not working to spec, whats to say any other part of the camera is.
|
|
|
|
Recently I\'ve noticed ont of those mobile speed camera vans in a nearby village (Stanford in the Vale) fairly regularly. Does anyone know how they operate? The van\'s back windows are blacked out, and I take it the camera works through these. Do they only pick up traffic coming towards them, going away, or both?
For once this van is actually parked in a reasonable position, unlike one I have seen on double yellows by a bus stop and mini roundabout!
|
If the vans are without the warning stickers for 's************' on them, probably doing silent checks on registration number recognition.
The information being validated instantly, at DVLA. & followed up with a few fines for no tax, insurance, SORN declarations.
We had them in Beds/Herts, over past few weeks.All backed up with a fleet of traffic cars, full compliment of officers & a breakers yard full of scrappers, all pulled & being checked.
No objections to these road users being targeted, from me.
VB
|
|
ANPR hit town here a couple of weeks ago. Result was 17 arrests in an afternoon - all for crime related, mostly drugs, offences. The fall-out for the office was to have to blow the cobwebs off a couple of briefs who hadn't been near a custody unit in years. Late night that night. Hope they give us some notice next time !
|
|
|
|
I have just passed a camera van on the A435 at Redditch where it narrows from 70mph dual carriageway to 40mph single carriageway - southbound from the M43 J3. The van was a little way down the road and wasn't 100% visible on the first part of the restriction but still clear nonetheless. I think that I am okay but you never know.
Questions:
What is the range of the laser gun (assuming it was laser)?
Anybody have a feeling for real thresholds? I know the rule of thumb is 10%+2mph but do Warwickshire Police use this limit? +10mph perhaps.
|
What is the range of the laser gun (assuming it was laser)?
Supposed to be up to 1Km
|
Laser equipment will target up to 2 miles away but Laser is very rarely used these days and never at those distances. The accuracy becomes a problem at long distances - ever tried using a long camera lens or a pair of powerful binoculars, it's the same principle.
Also, the ACPO guide lines say that the officers should only use the speed equipment to confirm their suspicion of a speeding vehicle. In other words, they have to suspect you are speeding and only use the equipment to verify. It was proving too difficult to argue that they suspected the vehicle was speeding when it was such a large distance away.
The vast majority of speed trap equipment these days is radar and used at relatively short distances - 2 or 3 hundred meters...ish
|
|
I thought the opposite was true - most radar equipment has been obsoleted by laser...
|
Don't think so but I'm prepared to be proved wrong. I good quality contact in Avon and Som tells me that his force used to use these laser detectors but haven't done for a long time because of the accuracy problems and the fact that they are flat out catching as many people as they like with the other equipment which is much easier to use, doesn't throw up potential distance defences etc., and generally returns a much higher revenue.
I have had a high quality speed camera detector for about a year now. Don't know why because I don't speed but I like gadgets. In that year of driving I have covered about 50,000 miles in an area from Leeds/Manchester down to South Coast/Cornwall and across to London. I have in that time only once detected a laser device and that was a hand held unit on the M4 near Reading about 3 months ago.
|
I have had a high quality speed camera detector for about a year now...
Which one Jeds? Does it detect every camera there currently is, and at what cost? ie initial outlay and any subscription charges?
|
Bel 550 about £300.00
It seems to detect more or less everything. Fixed gatsos about 3 or 4 hundred yards and mobile gatsos about 2 or 3 hundred yards. As I said I have only picked up a laser device on one occasion.
I get a few false alarms but I don't mind that. I look at false alarms as just another reminder to check speed. I also keep it on the motorway setting which is more sensitve than the city setting so I'm bound to get a few.
I have the thing because it interests me more than avoiding speed detectors. I drive a lot on business and have been driving for 25 years without any problem. I am the calmest person on the road and nothing ever phases me although I do have concerns over driving standards and I am sure that speed cameras are a distraction from the real problems on the road.
|
|
I beg to differ Jeds, the scamera van partnerships are all using the most modern laser detectors. By the time you see the van they will have already measured your speed. Their is no way you can detect them because in practice their is no scatter from a laser and by the time you know about it they will have measured your speed.
|
I'm guessing, but second to cameras I'd suspect that the most common device for catching speedsters is VASCAR or something similar, where time over distance is measured, either from within a vehicle or from a suitable vantage point at the side of the road/on a bridge etc.
|
|
I think you would be right there smokie, very popular with our local TrafPol. There is a stretch of the A14 which they call the golden mile because they can park up and use the VASCAR and catch loads of people well over the limit.
|
|
|
Out for the day today in Bournemouth and couldn\'t help but notice the ammount of Gatso speed cameras that *litter* the A338 between Ringwood and Bournemouth once you enter the 50mph limit into Bournemouth. Not sure of the exact ammount of gatso\'s, but I\'m sure I counted four. On top of that for good measure was the *safety camera* van as well. I confess to usually travelling along that particular stretch of road at around 55 along with the rest of the traffic entering B-Mouth. I must have had some kind of sixth sence today as fotunately I was in the inside lane probably nudging no more than 51 or 52 at max. Next thing I know I see the camera box at the side of the road ahead of me and the van parked up a few yards ahead of it on the grass verge. I slowed to 48, and gave a glance in the rear view mirror. As I looked rearwards I saw a Corsa in the outside lane get zapped as he went past the box and then me at what couldn\'t have been no more than 55.
1. Why the van when there are already so many Gatso\'s on that road?
2. Why did the Corsa get flashed when his speed was within 10% of the limit?
I heard later through a mate that the police were out in force in other parts of the country today as well, catching all the unsuspecting holiday traffic. Lets hope any money earnt today goes towards improving the safety of our roads!!
|
I undertand that the answer to 2 is that although guidelines allow for an element of discretion (usually interpreted as 10% 2mph), it is up to the local force to decide what the acceptable threshold is at any time.
I heard that the Tories had suggested that speed limits might be raised when/if they next entered office. (Hardly an election winner on it\'s own really is it?). However, zero tolerance would mean pretty much that status quo would exist.
|
|
|
1. Why the van when there are already so many Gatso\'s on that road? 2. Why did the Corsa get flashed when his speed was within 10% of the limit?
Have you ever heard of anyone actually being prosecuted having been 'flashed' by the static cameras on the A338?
The 50 mph limit there is rather low for the conditions most of the time (exclude morning and evening 'rush hour'.
I suspect these cameras are not often operational and merely have a deterrent effect.
|
|
Yes i work and live in Bournemouth and 2 people I work/have worked with have been caught. Just last week there was a guy in the Echo having been caught doing 58 by the wessex way cameras.
|
|
I stand corrected, sort of! I, too tend to do a steady 55 along the Wessex Way but I seem always to be the slowest one on the road. If the cameras were always operational I think the 'catch' rate would be very much higher. Phoenicks - Do you of know of any justification for a permanent limit of 50 mph on that stretch? It does seem rather slow for an almost motorway standard bit of dual carriageway.
|
Its a bit of a nigthmare eh?! 50mph feels so slow on that road.
I think when they used to have no cameras it was a 70 limit. As soon as the introduced 2 cameras on each side 3-4 years ago ( i forget when) they dropped the limit to 50. Dont you think that congestion is a lot worse since they introduced the 50 limit and put more cameras on the road?! If it was faster then the congestion wouldnt be so bad with people slowing down for the speed cameras.
Also when they introduced the cameras/50 limit they said it was an accident blackspot. I have to be honest and say i have never seen or heard of that many accidents on the wessex way.
|
|
You are right - but at least the 50 limit is really only for a couple of miles, but it does seem slow for such a good road. Mind you, anyone trying to do 70 during the rush-hours must be homicidal! I drive along the Wesex Way several times a week and in all the years since it has opened I have never seen an accident there. Nevertheless, I drive up and down the M3 every day to London and back and in 23 years have seen only two accidents but there are lots, of course, (and I imagine that 90% of those are caused by excessive speed) so I suppose the fact we haven't seen them doesn't mean they don't happen.
|
|
I spent several days in Dorset last year on business, exhibiting at a conference in Bournemouth and staying at the Plumber Manor in Sturminster Newton. Dorset is a speed-camera nightmare, such a nightmare that my inclination to enjoy the delights of the county whenever possible has been downgraded to going there only if I really have to -- and I'm no speeder. And, as if the speed cameras weren't enough, I was followed by a nutter with his main beam on in full daylight and he stuck to my tail, even when I went off the main road and around a roundabout twice to try to shake him off. Oy vey! Don't do Dorset -- it'll do your head in.
|
The problem with the Wessex Way is very short slip roads with poor visibility (with the exception of the Springbourne exit). There are shunts every day on the lower part of the A338 and I would love to see the 50 limit extended to just past Blackwater, but that's another authority's patch. As it was, I understand that a dispensation had to be sought to lower the limit in the Bournemouth section. Think about the Richmond Hill slip, Eastbound, and tell me that anything short of a 911 could safely join that stretch with traffic travelling at 70?
I'm a self confessed speed addict, but only when safe to do so and that stretch just isn't safe when there is any volume of traffic. There's an argument for a variable speed limit, but can you see Bournemouth Council digging in the council tax coffers to fund that one?
As an aside, there do seem to be a few Back Roomers from Bournemouth/Poole. Perhaps a small-scale local meet should be arranged one day?
--
If I don't reply it's nowt personal, I'm just working!
|
|
|
|
|
Saw a large white van on the A3 today, parked in the layby on the southbound carriageway just before the Guildford town centre slip road, it was there for several hours. The rear door had an enlarged window set in to it with black (one way?) glass fitted. The van was parked forward facing so the blacked out window faced the oncoming traffic.
Speed camera? Anyone fromn Surrey police on the board and willng to share?
|
Assume thats the big layby?
I have always wondered when on earth they are going ot put cameras on the 50mph section from the wooden bridge to hogs back. Everyone speeds thro this and nearly every day there is an accident. There was a camera once but it went awol. Dont like cameras, but this section needs one.
|
Yep, between the Burpham and town centre ramps.
Very very curious vehicle, if its not a camera van then its been specially altered for some particular purpose I can't fathom.
|
|
The old bill (sorry Surrey Constabulary) love the A3 between Guildford and the M25. Its a gold mine for them. Specially when customers were picking up or testing the brand new McClaren F1s!!!!!
|
I too saw it yesterday afternoon on the A3 south but nearer the M25 with the police bikes further down A3 towards Guildford with van drivers being talked to.
It was definitely a Auto Number Plate Recognition van.
I have been by them many times around the region.
I have seen them near Hampton / Twickenham too.
I posted an item a while ago on it.
It links to MoT, DVLC and insurance databases to check as you go by.
Lots of surprises when they stop said people. Many arrests for a wide variety of activities.
|
|
|
|
Seen the latest? According to the local paper,here in Northamptonshire (home of the speedcamera) local village residents are being trained by the plod to use hand held speedcameras. Offenders will get a warning letter, after 3 will be \"targeted\" by plod. So vigillanties are OK now.
|
|
|
DIY speed camera slows traffic
tinyurl.com/m1ce
|
Whenever I read the WYCRP I always think it's a shame they removed the word "accident" from between casualty and reduction.
Philip Gwynne, a spokesman for the West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, which looks after the region's speed cameras, said he was not surprised by the move.
We could then see West Yorkshire CARP.
Regular readers will know exactly what I mean
|
|
|
>DIY speed camera slows traffic>
Perhaps, but impersonating a police officer is just as illegal as it ever was. Just because they are "slowing traffic" does not justify it, they are still vigillanties.
|
I saw a motorway cop by the side of the M4 today, window wound down, holding a light grey box which he was watching the traffic through.
Would that be a mobile hand-held camera, or would it be a speed measuring device, after which he'd have to chase and catch an offender? I.e. is there a chance I was done or not? :-)
|
|
Could be bad news Smokie. Trafpol now have a new generation of lightweight laser units.
|
|
Ah well, had to happen sooner or later - I'll report if I hear anything (and maybe slow down a bit for a few days!)
|
|
|
|
|
A Witney driving instructor was fined £300 with three points on his driving licence because he was unable to pinpoint which of two learner drivers broke a 30mph limit.
Witney Magistrates convicted him when he failed to identify the driver of his car after it was recorded doing 38 mph in a 30mph limit in Watlington Road, Oxford.
The driving instructor was giving two 17-year-old girls driving lessons on the day of the offence in January and they had swapped over during the lesson.
Rest of story at:- tinyurl.com/m71h
|
|
|
LTI20.20
i phoned the traffic section to ask for evidence to prepare for my defence, as i intend to plead not guilty.
lo and behold! i found i was actually talking to the officer who operated the device that suggests that i was speeding. he turned out to be a very pleasant and helpful individual who has persuaded me to go and view the video on television at the traffic office.
however; there's always one of them is'nt there?,there's so many parts to the set up procedure that it seems only right to check that they have all been rigidly adhered to. the operators manual the tests are detailed as 'critical' and they must be 'scrupulously' adhered to.
so, after running a calibrated police vehicle past at each site it is used at, at the beginning and end of each enforcement period, and , because the aiming scope and the laser beams are not the same, they must be checked for alignement, at a telegraph pole or some such.
then evidence of the calibration and alignment checks must be recorded either in the devices log book, or the operating officers notebook.
more recently ,technology has advanced in LIDARgun design (including revised versions of the LTI20.20). how this affects me in my case i should dearly like to know.
when i mentioned this convoluted 'set up' to our policeman friend he seemed to get quite upset. in fact he took it quite personally that i should criticise his equipment. i quickly backtracked and apologised that i had'nt meant to cause any offence. he explained to me that it only needs to go back to the manufacturers once a year for recalibration. so as he says to question the equipments accuracy will not do, but he admitted that the set up still had to be done correctly, and of course there's still the question of proper recording of the set up in the manual or device handbook.
so, i shall plead 'not guilty ' and ask for the prosecution evidence for the purpose of preparing my defence, so i can see for myself that all is in order. then, and only then, if it seems that they are correct and all their procedures are in order shall i change my mind and succumb to reason, should that be necessary.
all thoughts on this subject and advice will be very gratefully received.
|
|
I posted earlier in this thread about being caught doing 50 in a 30 area, 3am, late for a flight, empty road, rowing with wife etc etc . I was warned I would probably have to go to court but luckily have been given a fixed penalty. This experience has really made me aware of my speed and I always keep within 5 mph of the limit maximum. often under the limit now. The point of all of this is that I now notice how many people speed past me, and, with the increasingly congested roads, how many of them I catch up at the next junction/traffic lights/roadworks etc. There are obviously many people risking fines and ultimately their lisences for very little reason. I had a shock and a wake-up call, perhaps others should do the same. Chill out a bit, slow down a bit, save petrol and engine wear and you won't get caught.
|
Not sure if this is directly related to speed cameras (but it could be). I've noticed here in Brighton that there are more and more road locations that have double electric cables strung across the road and in close proximity to speed cameras - well, within 50-100 yards or so. The cables are attached to a big lockable box chained to the kerb. Do these cable's have anything to do with speed detection, or are they just there to monitor traffic flow?
Anyone know? I always understood that a single cable on the road could only record traffic, but two cables close together mean it's a speed trap...
|
Local Authority Traffic Count.
Cables hollow and pressures generated when run over can define car or lorry IRC.
Very first Gatso speed detection devices (from Australia) circa early 60's was similar - two tubes across the road at a set distance from which an average speed was produced when run over.
DVD
|
|
|
|
After a recent 300-mile trip on several motorways, I realised that I hadn't seen a single fixed speed (or is that 'safety'?!) camera the whole time. Plenty of markings at flyovers for mobile cameras, but no permanent types that I could see. I would guess that flyovers are the only practical way of monitoring all three (or more) lanes.......
With the notable exception of the variable-limit cameras on the M25 around Heathrow, do any other M-ways have permanently-installed cameras?
|
I beleive that there is a growing number of SPECS cameras on the motorways.These are the ones that read your numberplate and measure your average speed over a certain distance.
Big Brother is here and it is the thin end of a big wedge and a big wedge is what we the motorist will end up paying !
|
|
There are permanent SPECS cameras north bound M3 just after the M27 junction
|
From Hansard, posted without comment
John Barrett: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much money was raised from fines for speeding caught on speed cameras, in each year since 1997.
Mr. Leslie: The information available relates to England and Wales and only to those cameras covered by the special schemes introduced in April 2002, to facilitate investment in s*fety cameras. In 2003-03, the revenue from these cameras was £73 million.
Revenues are initially collected by the magistrates courts, part of which is transferred to the Department for Transport to cover the assessed cost of operating the schemes. Of the £73 million, approximately £66 million was transferred to the Department for Transport for distribution to the various partnerships of the scheme in England and Wales and approximately £7 million was paid to the Consolidated Fund.
|
|
|
> There are permanent SPECS cameras north bound M3 just after the M27 junction
Oh, great. Is that what those funny camera things are on the M27 itself, as well? Thought those were for measuring traffic density for the slip-road metering TLs?
(Mind you, last time I went up there, traffic was jammed solid anyway!)
|
Apropos of not alot I drove along the road where Brunstrom's daughter was caught doing nearly 70. It is a piece of dual carriageway that is 70 for huge stretches either side of llandudno ( i think it is around there) where suddenly the limit changes to a 50 for no reason whatsoever. The layout of the road doesn't change and I don't think the frequency of the on and off roads change either. It's a relatively short stretch so I am hoping I have not been caught out in the same way as I don't remember seeing the 50 signs on my return journey. I can understand the lower 50 limits in the conway tunnels and around there is it is pretty twisty but around llandudno it is a good clear stretch.
I also noticed something else odd. Instead of having the de-restriction black diagonal for a dual carriageway there were signs with the usual red surround and a large 70 in the middle. Why are they different?
teabelly
|
|
|
|
|
|
