Anyone know anything about these cameras and how they work ?? The camera is on the pavement on the passenger side of the road, facing the car as it approaches. Got a single flash - clearly visible - definitely not an infra-red flash - and there only appeared to be one or two very closely spaced white lines on the road...not the twenty yards of white lines like the Gatso cameras...

I presume it uses some kind of radar technology to trigger the flash, but if only one flash, how on earth can it measure my speed and show that as evidence on a photo ?? Surely there has to be two photos, showing car position at two different times, after all, speed = distance/time.

No doubt NIP in the post... nervous 14 days...

I believe Truvelo cameras use sensors in the road rather than lines on the road to measure your speed.

The ones at beeston are still gatso's, I think they are talking about the ones a mile north of Biggleswade.

I live in Sandy, if it flashed, it got you, they change the film constantly because they get so many people.

Sorry

To be asking these questions, the OP must be a stranger to the shores of SP&L, despite being a PHer for five years.

Other posters have alluded to it above, but it's worth repeating ... Truvelo scameras do not use infra-red flash, but have a magenta-coloured filter over the lens.

Streaky

See page 4 of this thread



http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

Use of photogrammetry remains an approved method of providing secondary evidence for Gatso.

Are you saying that there are secondary check methods which are approved for front facing Truvelo cameras where there is an absence of any painted timing lines ?

You are getting confused by what is required under S20 RTOA and certification of evidence and what may be given in evidence outside of the S20 certification.
There is no reason why, in the absence of secondary uncheck lines that evidence from a Truvelo could not be taken into account if it is evidenced outside of S20 RTOA.

If the primary speed measurement is not corroborated it wouldn't be possible to make a prosecution; the white lines are not the only means of corroboration. Corroboration can be made without the need for white lines.

As I said above, you are getting bogged down in S20 RTOA, that is only one way of making evidence admissible, there are others; a witness and a section 9 CJA statement for instance?

ETA: Here's more to consider. Let's say a detection is made at 130mph in a 30mph speed limit. I think it fair to say that driver should be considered for prosecution by the justice system. Anyone saying not? Perhaps that's a different issue. The secondary check of the speed is not facilitated by a system of white lines on the road but the vehicle can be seen to be close to where the white lines would be, i.e. between the +/- 10% boundary. The operators of the speed camera, noticing the marks are not present ask someone to come along and establish where in the image the marks would appear on the road surface and hence verifies the accuracy of the speed camera. With the accuracy of the measurement thus established, the speed camera evidence and that of the retrospective proof of the accuracy is tendered in evidence; is that admissible?
I won't set that as a test question; I will provide the answer; yes it is.
It doesn't serve justice to dismiss the evidence because of the lack of a white line that is required for S20 RTOA certification of evidence and hence our 130mph man can be safely prosecuted....or not as the court will decide.

There's also a lot of farming and residential that opens straight onto the A1 in that area. As much as I get annoyed by the constant changing of the speed limits on this stretch of road it has made it easier for industrial and domestic traffic to get onto the A1 from their respective areas.

These are Truvelo types and have strips in the tarmac, to be fair you can see them for quite a distance, it is not like the ones hidden under the footbridge a bit further up the road.