**** THREAD CLOSED, PLEASE CONTINUE DISCUSSION IN
"The Speed Camera Thread - Volume 38" ****
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=35520
For the continued discussion of all things pertaining to Speed Cameras.
This is Volume 37.
There is no need to repeat anything since earlier volumes will not be deleted. But then if we only posted original stuff the backroom would grind to a halt in a fortnight.
;o)
A list of previous volumes can be found here:-
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=18846
DD.
|
I noticed a mention in the local paper (miles from Wiltshire) that they were placing evidence online - Photo, calibration cert etc and accesable via a PIN on the NIP.
I guess it could save a lot of hassle - our local scamera lot say the only way to see the evidence is to go to court.
secure.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk/optimalview/wr...w
|
Has anybody been advised of an offence with an access code that they are willing to share?
The site looks as though it may make interesting browsing.
--
pmh (was peter)
|
|
|
|
Saw an interesting set of cameras on the M4 tonight, about 1/2 mile past J18 (Bath turning), on a bridge facing eastbound (my direction of travel). Consisted of a pair of tripods about 10m apart over the eastbound carriageway, no sign of a van or police cars on the bridge. About 5 or 6 miles further on passed a lone police car parked discretly out of the way in a service road (rather than on a hump). I'm sure this cannot be a speedtrap as it would likely break the visibility rule so my bets are on that this is a ANPRS (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) exercise. Glad the cameras were not pointing back west down the eastbound carriageway (ie towards J18) as everyone is just speeding up to 50+ in the last 250 yards of the 40 zone!
Anyone got any thoughts on this?
|
Can't help you I'm afraid - based on your description, I'd say ANPR but I always thought there'd be loads ofcop cars (although it is a motorway)
I would say the cop car 5 miles up was genuinely doing speeders using the usual Vascar technique.
Just so you know, they're not visibility rules, they're visibility guidelines. They could cover themselves with leaves and climb up a tree and it'd still be legal.
--
Adam
|
|
|
I'm sure this cannot be a speedtrap as it would likely break the visibility rule
Not so. Only if the fine income is to be used to finance the local scamera lot in 'netting off'.
|
These are not new, they've been around for yonk's.
I've mentioned before in other threads that they are often seen along the M4 in S.Wales, especalliy on the intersection at Junc 23a Magor. The van always hides behind the bushes on the west bound side and a patrol car on the west bound slip, waiting. They also hide behind a large motorway sign at the side of the carriageway near a bridge. I've also seen one on the M5 north bound near Wellington and south bound at Exeter.
But whether they are speed traps or otherwise, I don't know.
Because on different bridges along the M4 they use a white van with its little side window open watching and trapping you mostly before the severn bridge tolls as you enter the 50mph zone, at holiday weekends or when some big function is on at the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff.
|
On radio 4 Today programm this week they mentioned these camaras and some in the north ,apparantly they are being used to try and track drug dealers moving from city to city.
|
On radio 4 Today programm this week they mentioned these camaras and some in the north ,apparantly they are being used to try and track drug dealers moving from city to city.
Great idea that then, so next time I take 50kg of Crack from Portbury to London I will take the A4 instead of the motorway.
|
That's nice. The drug dealers get told where the cops are looking for them and we don't.
--
Adam
|
Thinking about it, exactly what Cheddar said. Although he said it better he did.
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
|
Today I travelled anti-clock from Heathrow at about 9.30am through the Variable speed limit section.
I was travelling at about 60 in a NSL section when suddenly I noticed on an overhead gantry a 40 limit. I slowed to about 50 but could not brake sharply as a large lorry was close behind.
I saw no camera flash.
Should I expect a fine in the post?
The odd thing was that on the next gantry (about 300 yards) was a NSL sign again!
|
|
Before the ongoing roadworks I used to know which gantrys had cameras and which did not. I suspect the new gantrys will not all have cameras just as before (but I could be wrong). I've also heard that if the speed has just been reduced the cameras allow the previous speed for around 45 seconds.
|
Doc, you'll be fine.
The cameras in the gantries are GATSOs and so, always flash. Not to mention, there is a period between the limit as Steve says.
--
Adam
|
I heard before (maybe on this forum) that the camera behind each gantry sign showing a limit are triggered only at the speed of the preceding sign.
Does that make sense? It does to me!
|
Sorry smokie...Its an urban myth.
whats not an urban myth is that the cameras are not currently working while the roadworks are in place in that section.
ONly the box on pole gatsos are working.
|
|
I have seen the lights flash on gantries at near junctions 10, 11, 12 on the clockwise section, while I was travelling anti clockwise over the past 3 weeks. Whether it means they are registering or not, who knows. BUT they did not flash every time a car went through them.
|
10/11/12 are not in the roadworks section. Well not quite true - they are now as of last week
Working cameras 10 - 11
not working 11 - 15
Working 15 - 16
|
>Working cameras 10 - 11
How do these cameras work? I've seen them flash occasionally on the opposite carriageway but the camera distance markings on this section are pretty much completely obliterated. Can anyone here hold up there hand to being caught on this section? Or any section come to that?
|
|
I checked the gantries between 12 & 15 today, they do not seem to have installed any cameras (yet).
|
I don't know if i have just been very lucky or not, but over the last 5 years i've passed under a huge amount of M25 variable limit signs between 16-12 at 30mph+ over the stated limit, and so far (touch wood) have a clean license.
Disclaimer: Usually the signs were reading illogical limits when i went through 40's at 70 etc
The OP (sorry can't remember who is was) is perfectly safe.
|
|
An 'expert' on the local radio assured listeners that cameras only flash cars that are travelling away from them; can anyone confirm this?
I ask because I was flashed recently when approaching a camera (on other side of road ) in my defence it was 3.00am and there was no-one else around.
I've had no ticket, do they still flash if they contain no film?
Apologies if these questions have come up before.....
|
|
Beg pardon, should have changed subject, this particular camera was in a single carriageway town location.
|
It's also much better (especially for threaded view) if new topics are done as a Reply to the first post in the thread.
Fixed it now... smokie, BR Moderator) )
And I believe the answer to your question is that there are different types of camera, some which photo as you travel away from it (Gatso) and some as you travel towards (Truvelo & others). Gatso's flash. Truvelo's don't. If you passed a Gatso on the other side of the road (i.e. facing you) and it flashed then you are safe, albeit not as safe as if you weren't speeding :-)
|
|
Truevelo cameras do flash but only once. Flash is supposed to be near invisible due to filter over the bulb, but in fact you can often see it.
|
If it's a Truvelo, and it flashes brightly (because the magenta filter isn't over the lens) then it's illegal.
Just a handy tip.
--
Adam
|
|
|
Truevelo cameras do flash ...... but in fact you can often see it.
I only see a camera flash once in a blue moon, and I'm quite happy for it to stay that way!
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know if the laser 'guns' used by mobile units have to be panned manually? It seems unlikely, but I gather that there was a BBC TV programme recently (9th?) on the subject, which discussed the difficulty in ensuring that the same part of the vehicle was targeted, as the instrument is really measuring the distance, which clearly only works if it's looking at the same bit of the vehicle as it goes past. I don't see how a machine could easily know this (and I do have some experience with military radar), hence the question.
A speed gun manufacturer says that his device "uses a proprietary algorithm to predict where the vehicle should be, throwing an error code if the measurement deviates from this prediction"
which sounds a circular argument to me, as the only way it could predict anything is by knowing the speed in advance!
Also, if it's measuring distance travelled by triangulation (necessary if it's not directly ahead or behind) it will have to know your trajectory, which will be assumed as the road direction, but could easily be a degree or two either way, if you're changing lanes or just weaving a bit (especially on a bike).
This might all sound a bit pedantic, but it does rather call into question the accuracy of these things in real life, as opposed to a lab.
|
I think the programme in question looked at the Li20/20 device and did find that "slip" as you described can cause false readings. Its not for nothing the Li20/20 is known as the "dodgyscope" and has been found to register speeding brick walls and a 130mph Fiat Punto. It seems that these errors can quite easily be caused by the operators moving the device albiet very slightly in their, err excitement to capture a vehicle that might be going too fast.
The Li20/20 has been withdrawn by a number of state forces in both America and Australia as they felt it was inaccurate, but the Home Office continue to give it approval because ummm the manufacturers say it is OK.
Work it out for yourself, there is some good discussion over at Pepipoo about the instrument in question and the programme you refer to.
As always
Mark
|
|
Thank you Mark. Of course, I don't know for certain that I was nobbled by a 20/20 and presumably I won't unless I contest the matter. I do know I was caught at a fairly oblique angle, though, which increases the margin for error, but whether I can summarise radar, triginometry and algorithms convincingly to the local bench is another matter!
|
No problems JBJ
Heres a link to the BBC discussion page that talks about the programme, if you wade through the usual speed kills huff and puff there are some very erudite posts from those that know about these laser thingies.
www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/speed-ca...l
If you search on pepipoo.com under dodgyscope or Li20/20 there is a whole stack of additional information about the falibility of these devices and a number of cases in the success stories thread where Li20/20 evidence has been thrown out of court.
My favourite is the 58mph brick wall.
As always
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.use it regularly.On a friday afternoon,your lucky if you can do more than 20mph
|
Drove down it this morning at 41 mph (measured via GPS), rock steady on the cruise control.
Boy, did I get some abuse from behind!
|
|
last night tried doing 45mph through that section.Had a juggernaut 2 feet off my bumber the whole way.if i had lifted off the gas(let alone braked) he would have hit me.
|
|
Lucky you didn't go any faster. Speed kills, don't you know...
|
|
|
|
Hi,
I am looking for some advice.
I received an NIP for speeding approaching the toll plaza in Wales. The NIP stated a time >6hrs after I had been through there.
I rang up the helpline, and after she had studied the footage called me back. She said the time of 14:46 was on the film, I reckoned I had been through at 8:30am - so this is not simply a clerical error generating the NIP.
I have said I want to contest it as I can prove I wasn't there (I have boarding pass, for 10:30am on fastcat to Ireland, and VISA receipts within the window in Ireland after arrival)
However, anyone know whether this is likely to be good enough???
thanks in advance. Dave.
|
Sounds OK to me Dave.I think you are likely to get this dropped.
Not exactly the same but I once had a ticket issued for crossing a non lowered kerb over the pavement to a parking space on some waste ground near the railway station.
People had been parking there for months and then one day everyone was ticketed - must have been 50 cars. The time of the offence on the ticket was given as 2 pm and I was able to prove I was elsewhere, no one actually could say they had seen me cross the kerb.
The advice as to how to contest it and who to write to was given to me from the helpful desk sergeant of the local police and the ticket was eventually withdrawn.
|
|
|
Hi Dave
I seem to recall another example of wrong time on the camera being discussed and I think being successfully defended over at pepipoo.com.
I would head over there and ask your question before having anymore contact with the Scameraship in question. The guys over there do little else other than deal with speeding issues.
If you can get it thrown out spare a thought for all those who probably just paid up without question.
As always
Mark
|
You may consider putting all this in writing back to the SCP informing them at the TIME, date and place you vehicle was not being driven on that road and provide copies of the evidence that you mention. Likewise, for the request for the drivers details, you are unable to complete because the vehicle was elsewhere in your custody. It could therefore appear that a cloned vehicle may have involved.
They may well accept this and take no further action but they have some ammunition if they want to take it further and a Court hearing where it can be argued one way or the other and a decision made by the Bench. SCP can argue that the NOIP was in order despite the wrong time. The object of the NOIP is that it is intended to give an idea of the offence of which a defendant will be accused and to guard against the possibility of being taken unawares. High Court have held where the time of 1.15pm instead of 11.15am was quoted on a NOIP for dangerous driving,the mere fact that the time was merely stated wrongly made no difference. Pope v Clarke [1953]. However different considerations might apply (WILKINSON Traffic Law)where the charge was speeding and defendant had been on that road a number of times that day without being accosted.
dvd
|
Here we go I found the link to a case described on Pepipoo where the wrong time setting on the camera led to the case being dismissed. Might be worth a read in case there are some similarities to your situation.
pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=6498
Best of Luck
As always
Mark
|
A personal point of view, not based on knowledge, but I would say that as the camera is the only witness, the only source of evidence or fact, then the time is a fairly crucial part of that evidence. The camera says you were at x at x time, you have evidence to prove you were at y at x time then the sole basis of evidence is false.
|
Sorry forgot to say the authority is only left with probability. IE: as you were on that road that day, it probably was you captured on film. Not sure that probability is enough to convict.
|
I'm almost certain I read on PePiPoo the time was out by an hour or so and the court ammended and charged the poor sod. Given the time difference is so vast though, I imagine if you kicked up enough of a fuss, you'd get off with it.
Good luck
--
Adam
|
|
Not my field, but it seems to me that a conviction based on a speed camera relies totally on the accuracy of the camera. If the time is out by 6 hours, how can it be reasonable to suppose that the speed reading is 100% accurate? You also have the possibility of a cloned plate.
|
I would not mention that you had been through on that day at all. Simply that at the time of the photograph you were elsewhere - in a foreign country and can prove it. Forget entirely that you had been through that day - they don't know; so don't tell them.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
"they don't know; so don't tell them"
Agree entirely. You were nowhere near when they said you were, so no case to answer, surely?
It also calls into question any calibration data for the camera, which has to be checked within a certain timeframe. I would say it invalidates all records from that camera for that session.
|
|
Watch out for this thread disappearing soon and re-appearing in the Speed Cameras thread.
|
Perhaps Welsh Toll Plaza Time is 6 hours 16 minutes ahead of British Summer Time!
--
L\'escargot.
|
Question. Camera claims that your car was there at 14:46 - not you personally. You can prove that you weren't, but is that enough? Do you have to prove that the car wasn't there, and can you?
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
Question. Camera claims that your car was there at 14:46 - not you personally. You can prove that you weren't, but is that enough? Do you have to prove that the car wasn't there, and can you?
Ah there the rub you see. The NIP is for the driver and if not identified, the registered keeper. Not the car.
So the NIP says: were you the driver of car a at time b in place c. You truthfully answer a: yes, b: yes, c: no I was in D, and I can prove it.
|
Could someone comfirm or deny that the time on all NIP's is in 24 hour mode? ie 01:14 on form with no am or pm stated would be 1:14am as opposed to pm?
This is quite important as i have a pending case..
|
Whilst electronic devices with timing feature generally use the 24 hr clock there is nothing in law to ensure that they do so as far as I am aware. It will be up to the various SCP practices as to what they use.
dvd
|
|
|
Do they normally include a picture of the offense when sending out speed camera n.i.p.s?
regards,
P.
|
|
No, but you can request one.
|
No, but you can request one.
But you won't always get it. Some partnerships (Northants is one) will only release it if you elect to go to court. You cannot see the picture and then take a view on whether to accpet the offer of a fixed penalty. IMHO this is a major abuse and should be stopped in the name of fair and open dealing.
|
On the other hand, Wiltshire recently took the step of allowing the photograph to be viewed on line.
JS
|
|
|
|
No they don't.
You can request one but some forces are now refusing and saying 'we'll provide it to the court only'. This may be illegal.
Everything our need to know is on www.pepipoo.com which is a truly fabulous website (as is this one of course).
|
|
Northamptonshire police force are for some reason always in the forefront of screwing over the motorist. Bringers to you of the first camera van on a motorway bridge...
|
Northamptonshire police force are for some reason always in the forefront of screwing over the motorist. Bringers to you of the first camera van on a motorway bridge...
>>
Yeah ! They did my wife for 34 in a 30 limit, which was her first ever offence in 20 years of driving.
They also did my brother in law for 35 in a 30 who is a teacher and as far as I know has no interest in driving fast etc.
Cameras in Northampton are set on 'hair-trigger' limits.
|
I have made a mental note to reply to a NIP (if/when I get one) to the effect that if I am guilty then I will of course plead so and accept their kind offer. However, I (understandably)cannot recall my specific speed at the time & place which they quote, and would therefore be grateful to see their evidence of my guilt so that I can decide how to respond to their offer.
Then, if they refuse, I will decide whether to make them go to court to release the evidence. And if they do, and the evidence is damning, I will plead guilty and ask for my costs to reflect the utter waste of time in bringing proceedings when they could and should have just sent the photo to me on day 1.
If anyone has any thoughts on that strategy then I'd be interested to hear them.
|
|
|
Northants speed cameras are set to ACPO guidelines; they trigger at 10% plus 1mph over the limit so 34 in a thirty. At 34 they'll normally offer a speed awareness course instead of the points. SWMBO got one of these and found it £60 well spent.
34/35 in a thirty is probably nearer 40 indicated allowing for speedo error (they can read over but not under). Admittedly not tearaway territory but a tad careless to have crept so far over the limit.
|
|
|
|
Northamptonshire is also the force which formed a special squad (5 officers, a car and 2 bikes I think) to apprehend motorcyclists, who went thru speed traps with cameras which pictured the front of a vehicle, giving 'V' signs. No front numberplate on a bike! No suggestion that were definitley speeding - just showing disrespect to plod! Respect has to be earned and that is not a good way to go about it!
|
|
|
|
I would suggest your wife challenges this prosecution, ACPO guidelines clearly state that prosecutions should be for over 34 MPH in 30 zone.
|
|
|
|
|
'we'll provide it to the court only'
If they wait until then, it's witholding evidence from the defence, and you should therefore be able to secure an adjournment, which is effectively an own-goal for the prosecution.
You should also ask for any video evidence, machine details, calibration data and anything else they will be relying on in court.
|
As mentioned above by Thommo, www.pepipoo.com is a very useful site.
It does give basic information on what you should / should not do when stopped and also highlights some real cases which you would not believe if you were told them in the pub.
I dont want to defend speeding, however, by being in the know on some of the basic facts can be useful.
|
Many thanks for everyone for their input - question asked as I think I may have been 'tangoed' for doing about 45 on a 40 restricted bit of the M4 on Sat. - didn't realise that the speed had crept up, but didn't see a flash, perhaps the camera had run out of film?
P.
|
If your speedo said 45, you'll be fine.
|
When I was clobbered by a camera in Edinburgh I was told I could only see the evidence by applying in person. As I live 330 miles away I didn't bother.
On the other hand, aren't photos covered by the Data Protection Act? I thought this entitled anyone to see data about them on payment of a reasonable fee. Presumably a photo would qualify as data.
|
Would the Freedom of Information Act help here? Don't know what it covers but a lot of sensitive docs have been requested from the authorities (like the letter from Sir Ian Blair over the sad events in London).
Just a thought... maybe someone with more knowledge could figure out what to ask the police to get maximum info.
|
"what to ask the police"
Anything that they may later rely on in court. In general, the prosecution may not withhold evidence from the defence, which in this case is primarily video footage, although cameras also have to be calibrated (on the day, IIRC) which sometimes gets overlooked.
There are also problems surrounding the portable Li20-20 laser guns, which calculate speed from distance measurements and are therefore inaccurate if they get 'returns' from different parts of the vehicle, a thorny subject that I believe is currently before the High Court.
|
|
Here in good old speed scamera alley Northants our local constabulary are well known to locals for their zealous stance on speeding motorists and bikers. Anyway my question is, I get an NIP for speeding but my car is used by more than one driver, and I can't name the driver as I don't know who was driving, does this mean Northants scamera partnership won't let me have the photo to name the driver. Surely this means I have taken all reasonable steps to do so and the charge should be dropped, as in the Hamilton case.
|
You should write off to them an explain your difficulty in trying to name the driver and ask for photographic evidence to assist. It should also help to prove whether a cloned vehicle is involved.
Under S 172 RTA 88 a person shall not be guilty of the offence of failing to name the driver IF HE SHOWS that he did not know
and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver was. Bearing in mind this will have to be done to convince the Magistrates it will form part of your enquiries to show them.
If they do release it may also prevent a susbstantial fine and points if the photo presented at Court shows that it is yourself .
Bear in mind that SCP are under no obligation to release evidence
until disclosure stage after a NG plea on receipt of a summons.
dvd
|
I thought there was a ruling recently (possibly something to do with David Edgar and his gatso flash interval calibration tool case) that clearly said the person received the NIP had the right to see the photographic evidence before it being taken to court to ascertain the identity of the driver. If it shows it's you then you can either take the fine then or take it to court and challenge all the evidence if you are certain you were not exceeding the speed limit at the time or the prosecution speed is substantially different to what you were doing. The evidence should be sent out as a matter of course as there are so many cloned cars and defective cameras/laser guns/operators which could be giving people unnecessary points as they assume the evidence is accurate.
teabelly
|
Bear in mind that SCP are under no obligation to release evidence until disclosure stage after a NG plea on receipt of a summons.
Thanks DVD. My point to them would be that if I had drifted a knife into someone else, I would remember that rather distinctly. Hence, I would know from my own knowledge whether or not I was guilty, and could decide my plea based on that knowledge.
However, given that I drive circa 25,000 miles per annum, I might not recall specifically whether or not I drifted from 30 to 36 on a specific stretch of road at a specific time. Hence I do not have a knowledge advantage over them; quite the reverse. Therefore, in order to make an informed decision as to my plea, I need to see the evidence.
Given that some questions have been raised as to the reliability of speeding evidence, that there is a delay between the offence and the NIP, and that there are known and documented errors that have from time to time taken place in SCP offices, I do feel that asking for a plea before allowing sight of the evidence would be wholly unreasonable.
|
This thread (and any other speed / camera ones I come across) will be moved to the appropriate speeding threads later today.
DD.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a longish taxi ride last night ..chatting to the driver ..( anyone heard Peter Kay talking about that?)..I noticed he had a GPS speed camera warning device.
I was interested. He said it warned him when in the vicinity of a functioning camera , but as far as he was concerned the whole camera thing was purely about raising money , not reducing speeding.I suspect he was a fequent listener to Talksport phone-ins.
He then went on to say how good the device was, and that he was now much more aware of his speed and generally drove within the limit, which he hadn't done before.
I decided not to bring up the view that this meant that cameras had, in fact, modified his behaviour , because I think it might have produced an argument!
|
|
|
A132, Wickford On leaving the A127 road towards Wickford one camera on the left and one covering the opposite direction (near the Indian restaurant) 7/7/02
a "grey camera" (12ft in front of the above) on the same side of the road but facing Basildon bound towards the A127, camera flashed once im not sure if im gonna get points the speed limit is 40mph i was doing 30 as i just came off the round dabout im not sure if the cameras photographed me or the car which was heading the other way can anyone help
|
|
I am a bit dim and can't quite work out the geography of what you are describing but if the limit was 40 and you were doing 30 I can't see the problem! You have 14 or so days to wait to see if you are in the clear; this is the time they are allowed to take to send you a Notice of Intended Prosecution, unless you are in a company car. In the latter case the NIP goes to your employer or the leasing company and has to be with them in 14 days. It could take longer to be forwarded to you but would still be legal/
|
|
|
If you were doing 30 in a 40 zone you'll be fine even if you were photographed. The reason cameras flas twice is that they take two photos a set time apart so that it's possible to measure how far you travelled in that time and therefore your speed. They don't automatically send NIPs out to every car photographed.
Given that there was only one flash there are a few options:
(1) It wasn't the camera that flashed - it was something else
(2) It flashed the first time before you passed it so you didn't see the first flash - therefore it was not photographing you
(3) It's a red-light camera (do they flash just the once?) - are there traffic lights just there?
(4) It's broken
Anyway - if a camera is grey it's typically shooting in the other direction - the camera has to appear yellow to the traffic it will be photographing.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
Additional:
Traffic light cameras may still be grey - as may bus lane cameras. Could have been either of those I guess.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
Are you saying the camera was facing you but on your side of the road?
I agree mostly with E34kid but the following may help.
Red light cameras flash twice. Supposedly, the non standard ones made by Peek only flash when it's dull but they too flash twice ruling that out.
Bus cameras I have never ever seen before so can't offer any advice.
If the camera was facing you, and you're absolutely positive it wasn't a GATSO, then it was a Truvelo and it's your lucky day. A Truvelo mose commonly takes a picture of you and your car as you approach the camera. Because of this it must have a magenta filter over the flash so as not to blind you. It will be obvious if it had the filter over it or not. If it didn't, then as I understand it, you're fine simply because the camera doesn't have "type approval" for taking picture without that filter.
Or of course it could just be broken!
|
Oh, and as AS and E34 have said, regardless of what it is, you'll be fine. It's perfectly obvious from the pictures whether you were speeding or not and if there's only one photo then it'll be binned on the spot.
No points, no way, no worry.
|
|
What's the situation if you're driving along a road and a camera facing you (but on the other side) flashes at night for another car, night blinding you in the process and causing you to crash into a lamppost / tree / car / post box etc.
|
|
|
|
Know it well.
Firstly, coming off A127 onto A132 Wickford bound A132 is 50 limit while dual carriageway, reduces to 40 when becomes single carriageway, returns to 50 after next roundabout passed the Indian.
Cameras are in the 40 limit, one conventional camera for traffic Basildon bound but in the other direction, towards Wickford, there is a Gatso followed by another camera on nearside facing you. The camera facing you is one of several that are being trialled in Essex, they take a photo of the front of the oncoming cars' driver after that car has triggered the Gatso. The idea being that when the driver gets his NIP he can't then pass off the driver at the time as being, say, his wife and her taking the points when he has 9 on his licence and would be facing a ban. As far as I'm aware these cameras only flash once as they only need the one picture for ID purposes.
If you only saw one flash from in front then you have either missed the double flash from behind or, if you were doing 30 as you say, then it has gone off in error and you have nothing to worry about.
Out of interest there is another one of these camera set ups on the A127 as you come into Southend just after the first set of lights, Progress Road, after crossing the Borough boundary. The second Gatso of four between the boundary and the Bell junction, plus, of course, the two red light cameras at Progress Road and Kent Elms lights!
Probably unpopular but I consider this stretch needs the cameras, especially considering that a good friend of mine was killed while crossing the A127 at the second set of lights. She was hit while crossing on the pedestrian phase by a car that jumped the red 25+ secs after it changed and was doing just under 60mph when he hit her, all in a 40.
|
|
it was the camera for traffic towards basildon
|
If it was definitely the one on the Basildon bound side of the road then you're fine. Some of the Gatsos in this neck of the woods are a bit strange, I've been flashed by one on Southend seafront at 25mph driving towards it and the redlight camera at Kent Elms has flashed me on no less than 5 occasions when I've been turning right out of the filter lane towards it, have never heard a whisper from the BIB. Always been 2 flashes though.
Cockle
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know what speed you will get clocked at?
The reason I ask is because there's a camera near where I live, I always make sure i'm dead on 30 (nothing worse that these idiots that do 25mph), but I saw someone who was going about 40 and didn't get flashed.
Is there some le-way, like a threshold of 39mph, before it'll flash you?
Thanks,
Martin
|
Varies from force to force. The guidelines are 10 % plus 2mph but some (North Yorkshire I think) adopt a 10% plus 4 mph tolerance.
Either they weren't really doing 40, the camera was out of film, or you live somewhere with very high guidelines.
|
|
Cameras don't have film any more, they are linked to a computer network.
|
|
Not all of them - many still use film.
|
|
|
Cameras don't have film any more, they are linked to a computer network.
Only digital ones. Many still use film.
ps, this thread will get moved to one of the speed camera related threads later today - and any other similar threads I come across as well.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are going towards the camera (camera generally on the other side of the road) you can go faster than the limit with no flash.
If the camera is on your side of the road and you are going in the direction the camera is facing that is when you have to do the limit or under.
People at Morpheous say that cameras on opposite side of road will not ever result in a ticket even if flashed. I have often been flashed in this scenario but usually always going fast enough that the second flash I would have been out of the picture. There was an occasion a few months ago, 30 zone - the car in front of me triggered the camera (on opposite side) I was only doing 35 - 40 (he was doing 45 - 50), I think it also flashed for me too (but can't remember now) anyway still no ticket came to me. So Morpheous could be right.
Btw, you seem to criticise people who do 25 past a camera, you obviously haven't heard of the guy who has measured the stoboscopic flash timing, and measured the lines on the road, and he found that a huge number of cameras were calibrated incorrectly. You might go past at 30 and get flashed and the ticket will say you were doing 35 How on earth are you going to persuade the court that you were doing 29 - 30? The safest thing to do these days is go slower than the limit past all cameras.
|
Whilst you may get flashed, no ticket *should* appear if you speed past a gatso facing you.
I'm almost sure a Peek Traffimaster can't "do" you from the front.
A Truvelo can get you both from the front and the back.
Specs - front only.
Watchman - both but I don't think they've got type approval yet.
Incidentally, most cameras still have film or hard drives but are not necessarily computer linked. Gatsos, Peek, and Truvelos are not linked by computer network. Watchman are I think, and Specs definitely are.
|
|
I don't see how any of them (save very few) can not be computer linked, otherwise they would need to be 'emptied' manually every 2 - 3 days or so which would be a lot of work and I very rarely almost never see a camera opened up, with a maintenance man.
|
That's as may be but for now, those are not computer linked. Think of all the fibre that'd need to be laid between every single Gatso, red light camera etc to a central station. I suspect more trouble than it'd be worth.
They only need to be emptied every week or so anyway.
Not that I'm complaining. As least now there's a chance you can get away with it.
|
|
|
Horatio - you're assuming they are always live. They aren't. Only something like 1 in 9 of my local cameras used to be live at any one time. Might be different now.
They move the innards around so you're never sure which ones are live.
Also once the film has run out they still flash, if the innards are still there. Hence sometimes being flashed but no summons.
They also use big film, and yes, they do sometimes change the film. Seen it being done a few times. The camera cranks down to ground level to access.
|
|
|
I don't see how any of them (save very few) can not be computer linked, otherwise they would need to be 'emptied' manually every 2 - 3 days or so which would be a lot of work and I very rarely almost never see a camera opened up, with a maintenance man.
A gatso holds 400 films. 2 exposures per speeder, so each gatso is able to catch 200 speeders. Depending on the area where the gatso is, the film does get changed every couple of days. Not always by police, but whoever is changing the film will generally wear high vis yellow jackets whilst doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
If you were doing an indicated 30 you were probably doing about a "real" 27mph. 10%+2 of 30 = 35mph so it's possibly that this guy was doing an 35, (possibly an indicated 38 to him) which was a good 8mph faster than you were going - giving the impression of roughly 40mph.
----
Life is complex; it has real and imaginary parts.
|
|
|
|
