Speed camera

Post by **simon** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:14 pm

Surely if the lines on your side of the road have been positioned to account for that you can be done for it as there will be evidence.

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:16 pm

Yes. No question, they can prove it if they want. They can use anything for distance spacing, kerb stones, lampposts, anything. They just don't seem to bother. Probably as it isn't immediatly obvious or not what the trained monkey processing the pics is trained to act on.

Post by **ironside** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:08 pm

If they do prosecute on forward facing Gatsos then how come the high vis' markings are only on the back of the camera in Scotland? And how come GPS camera detectors do not alarm for forward facing Gatsos?

I've set off two forward facing Gatsos (one of which when I was definitely not speeding and there was no other traffic around) and have never received a NIP.

According to ukspeedtraps.co.uk the Gatso is only type approved for photos of the rear of the vehicle. Who's right? I can't find any official stuff on this accept here:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/about-us/f ... ?version=1

But I don't understand the jargon enough to know if it is relevant or not.

Simon

mckeann · Post by **mckeann** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:16 pm

i'm right of course

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 8:40 pm

In short they can but don't

The FOI question says it is approved for approaching traffic but I have never read of anyone being done for it. Would spread through t'internet like wildfire if anyone did....

Blaque · Post by **Blaque** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:19 pm

It maybe a question of invasion of privacy

I know that the NSW police in Oz had to stop sending out the photographic evidence from forward facing cameras at traffic lights because the amount of blokes photographed with a "mistery blonde" sitting next to them

Rich H · Post by **Rich H** » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:22 pm

Shug is more of a mousey brown than blonde...

jj · Post by jj » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:31 pm

I remeber reading somewhere that the reason they are unable to prosecute people going towards the camera is some old law that prohibits flash photography as it startles the horse you are riding on. No sh*t.

tut · Post by **tut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 12:59 am

Bottom line is that they should not be able to flash at you at all on the other side of the road.

It could be bloody dangerous at night, especially to a nervous or inexperienced driver.

tut

mckeann · Post by **mckeann** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:45 am

if your going fast enough, then you wont be on the lines when the second photo is taken

Sanjøy · Post by **Sanjøy** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:56 am

tut wrote:Bottom line is that they should not be able to flash at you at all on the other side of the road.

It could be bloody dangerous at night, especially to a nervous or inexperienced driver.

tut

Reminds me of Hipperson detailing a drive up the motorway in a group ? rally car with full beams on and blindnig himself on teh first reflective sign

Post by ed » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:11 am

mckeann wrote:if your going fast enough, then you wont be on the lines when the second photo is taken

Yes indeedy! I think you have to be over 70 to 75 before you actually set it off and by the time it flashes you have already passed it. The A1 is quite good for soing this on the dual carriage way as def no chance in getting caught. Got to watch though if you are following another car as he will set it off and then you will have your photo taken. Happened to me loads of times and still, touch wood, am ok!

tut · Post by **tut** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:16 am

Neil

Top Gear did an experiment on this. I think that it was over 168mph to miss the second flash.

tut

mckeann · Post by **mckeann** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:17 am

yeh, if your going with the camera, i mean if your going towards it. Of course, 168 is possible for us

Scotty C · Post by **Scotty C** » Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:25 am

Neil

did we not set off about 5-6 cameras from EDH to the ferry in Newcastle?

Scotty