Speed camera handheld - no tripod
Discussion
justinp1 said:
Yes.
Of course using a tripod would reduce the chance of slip error, but of course they need not be bothered with that as according to the code of practice they *can* be used handheld and *can* be used at up to a kilometre I think...
And the ticket *will* be seen through to the bitter end even if this *does* entail the criminal protection service levering up the pressure in any way they can as they *will* have problems should everybody fight these nonsensical policies through the courts because the readings taken by hand *will* have slip errors of unknown magnitude but nobody *does* give the front line troops a 1000 mm telephoto lens and tells them to take half a dozen photos of a car half a mile away using their roof as these *will* show degrees of slip from almost zero with a pin sharp image by sheer luck *but* others with so much blur it looks like the lens is broken.
I believe the relevant guidelines / code of practice says, under the heading 'motorist with reasonable concerns over aspects of enforcement protocols': "shut up pay up and f
k off" Hope you don't mind me borrowing the asterisk idea it was strangely appealing
turbobloke said:
Yes.
Of course using a tripod would reduce the chance of slip error, but of course they need not be bothered with that as according to the code of practice they *can* be used handheld and *can* be used at up to a kilometre I think...
And the ticket *will* be seen through to the bitter end even if this *does* entail the criminal protection service levering up the pressure in any way they can as they *will* have problems should everybody fight these nonsensical policies through the courts because the readings taken by hand *will* have slip errors of unknown magnitude but nobody *does* give the front line troops a 1000 mm telephoto lens and tells them to take half a dozen photos of a car half a mile away using their roof as these *will* show degrees of slip from almost zero with a pin sharp image by sheer luck *but* others with so much blur it looks like the lens is broken.
I believe the relevant guidelines / code of practice says, under the heading 'motorist with reasonable concerns over aspects of enforcement protocols': "shut up pay up and f
Hope you don't mind me borrowing the asterisk idea it was strangely appealing
Ha ha! No, I dont mind. I tried to push my case as far as it could go without spending more than the £1500 I had already spent...
After all, if the operators think that it is that easy to pick off a target the size of a number plate with a handheld shooter from a quarter of a mile away, it would make our weapons trained boys in Basra look a bit wayward...
HughesieII said:Not the new £8k ProLaserIII I'm afraid...
having experieced both (from the right side of the lens) the LTI is useless, the Pro laser is a different kettle of fish altogether though 
Do a search for Hughesiecop to see what i'm on about.
"Long-range speed cameras unreliable, says Judge
17/02/2005
The Home Office launched an investigation yesterday into the use of a long range speed camera after it emerged that its readings were unreliable.
The decision came after a driver, accused of doing 132mph, was cleared when it was established that his car could not be driven that fast. John MacGregor, 34, had his case dismissed by a judge after it emerged that police recorded him travelling 25mph above his car's top speed.
The ruling has cast doubt on the device and the legality of prosecutions. It could have implications for motorists trapped by the £8,000 ProLaser III gun since it was introduced last year."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff