Which way do these cameras work?
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
Thanks for the confirmation Freddy. The vans are obvious from the back and side but not the front. I wanted to rule out the possibility that the van only operated in the 'towards' direction and the reading had been contrived over a sandwich in the cab.
As for disclosing evidence, thanks for the link - it says they have to provide evidence if you choose a court hearing but only if you go that route. If I was entirely confident I'd been travelling at or below the speed limit I would. But it seems you have to take the court route to see the evidence, eg: 'Request that the CPS disclose ALL of the relevant evidence that you require NO LATER than seven working days prior to your trial' - is that right?
If you want to see evidence then elect for court otherwise you can accept an offer of a course or fixed penalty if offered.As for disclosing evidence, thanks for the link - it says they have to provide evidence if you choose a court hearing but only if you go that route. If I was entirely confident I'd been travelling at or below the speed limit I would. But it seems you have to take the court route to see the evidence, eg: 'Request that the CPS disclose ALL of the relevant evidence that you require NO LATER than seven working days prior to your trial' - is that right?
Truvelo cameras used to be able to operate from either front or receding vehicles but only one of those options at a time.
The new Truvelo D-Cam, sometimes placed in the housing shown on the map image or a new housing can operate on approaching AND receding traffic at the same time. In the situation on the map image it would make sense to use one camera in a 2-way mode as it uses one camera to cover what would have taken 2 previously.
Mobile units always operate 2-way.
I have never seen any case where the speed was dreamed up over a sandwich though. That would cause trouble for whomsoever was seen doing that. Perhaps you were not being serious.
FurtiveFreddy said:
Have you only received the NIP so far (and not yet replied)?
Correct; it's waiting to post. You have to admit guilt (by going for the points/course option) before you've seen any evidence against you. That doesn't seem right or fair to me, especially as the evidence, we presume, exists but is deliberately witheld at this stage. The process is so automated and - let's face it - trivial - I guess there's no time for rightness or fairness, just get the cash. Is it because supplying the evidence (photo) is too hard/expensive? It used to be supplied so I wonder why the system changed...tapereel said:
If you want to see evidence then elect for court otherwise you can accept an offer of a course or fixed penalty if offered.
Indeed, but I wonder why it is witheld at the outset...tapereel said:
Truvelo cameras used to be able to operate from either front or receding vehicles but only one of those options at a time.
This was a van - do they have Truvelos in them? I think by saying 'map image' you are replying to the thread crasher not me?tapereel said:
The new Truvelo D-Cam, sometimes placed in the housing shown on the map image or a new housing can operate on approaching AND receding traffic at the same time. In the situation on the map image it would make sense to use one camera in a 2-way mode as it uses one camera to cover what would have taken 2 previously.
Mobile units always operate 2-way.
I have never seen any case where the speed was dreamed up over a sandwich though. That would cause trouble for whomsoever was seen doing that. Perhaps you were not being serious.
I always consider every possibility.Mobile units always operate 2-way.
I have never seen any case where the speed was dreamed up over a sandwich though. That would cause trouble for whomsoever was seen doing that. Perhaps you were not being serious.
Edited by Simpo Two on Tuesday 18th October 16:18
Simpo Two said:
FurtiveFreddy said:
Have you only received the NIP so far (and not yet replied)?
Correct; it's waiting to post. You have to admit guilt (by going for the points/course option) before you've seen any evidence against you. That doesn't seem right or fair to me, especially as the evidence, we presume, exists but is deliberately witheld at this stage. The process is so automated and - let's face it - trivial - I guess there's no time for rightness or fairness, just get the cash. Is it because supplying the evidence (photo) is too hard/expensive? It used to be supplied so I wonder why the system changed...If you want complete fairness, you have to play the system in the same way they do. They will do whatever they can to get a quick resolution at the lowest cost to them. If that means not disclosing certain information until you force their hand, then that's what they'll do.
My advice is not to rush anything, take as much time as you have available to research your rights and exercise them. As has been said, you can see the evidence by going the court route and that may or may not be the best option for you, that's for you to decide. If you know in your heart you were probably doing the speed stated in the NIP, then going for the points/course may be the best option for you.
Not sending you the evidence is a bit off. When I got a NIP from Wiltshire constabulary the letter included the login details for the website to take me to the photo. Seeing the evidence you immediately think it's a fair cop and admit it, I'd have thought not showing the evidence would increase the number of people who take it to court.
That was a chap on foot with a tripod mounted one and he was getting pictures of the back of the car, I'd assume the vans are similar to the tripod jobbies.
That was a chap on foot with a tripod mounted one and he was getting pictures of the back of the car, I'd assume the vans are similar to the tripod jobbies.
RizzoTheRat said:
Not sending you the evidence is a bit off.
I wouldn't have put it in quite such polite terms! Surely the duty to prove what you allege at the earliest possible opportunity would be enshrined in best practice if not actual law itself? But their convenience and admin penny pinching seems to trump that in less ethical counties. It should be one national rule based on fairness and best practice for all UK citizens. This is what happens when unelected local little >what would be an un-emotive term be here< get to call the shots... Disgraceful.
Simpo Two said:
Neither Suffolk or Essex send you any evidence. Essex even say you've committed a criminal offence and are really quite threatening.
Well, speeding is a criminal offence after all, and I'm sure they don't waste money sending out letters to random drivers on the off chance someone is feeling guilty. The stern language is probably done to avoid poeple binning it, or sticking it on the fridge to deal with another time.Sure, the hook they have is that you have to rule out the softer consequence options of points / course if you wish to pour over the evidence.
And there may well be some hypothetical situations where having this evidence would disprove the case agaisnt you at the outset: e.g. if someone else was driving, the car recorded speeding is not yours (mis-read number plate, a cloned car, the camera captured a car over-taking you), and of course the elusive caliberation certificate was not done that day,week,year etc).
But that's just tough: the offer of FPN / points etc is just an offer to get a quicker administrative solution. They're not going to act out the entire Magna Carta.
As Freddie said above: if you feel hard done to, contest it and get the evidence. Otherwise, chalk it up, and get better at looking at the road ahead.
Ian
Ian
Ian Geary said:
Well, speeding is a criminal offence after all
Not civil?The ridiculousless of it is that I was out of the village by several hundred yards and in open country heading away from it. But I appreciate they need the money and a sense of purpose, and it's easier than catching burglars, or telling the difference between child and adult migrants. Hey ho.
Red Devil said:
No you haven't until a court says so (or you make a prior admission). Until then it is merely an unproven allegation.
So we are quite sure that doing, say, 35 in a 30 albeit in open country is a CRIMINAL offence and so when you get your three points you have a criminal record? Even in this control-freak country I find that hard to believe.Simpo Two said:
Red Devil said:
No you haven't until a court says so (or you make a prior admission). Until then it is merely an unproven allegation.
So we are quite sure that doing, say, 35 in a 30 albeit in open country is a CRIMINAL offence and so when you get your three points you have a criminal record? Even in this control-freak country I find that hard to believe.
Simpo Two said:
I know that Gatsos work as you go away and Truvelos work as you go towards them, but which way do mobile camera vans work?
Haven't read all the posts, but being PEDANTIC- Gatso's are only TYPE APPROVED for enforcement with a vehicle moving away from them, BUT Truvelo are type approved for use in either mode . Speaking from bitter experience, I can confirm you can get "done" driving away from a camera van, with the camera pointing out of the back - on the opposite side of the road. To this day I can't recall seeing the van at the time, but have since traveled down the same road (both directions) when one was being used in the only spot available for it.
covboy said:
Speaking from bitter experience, I can confirm you can get "done" driving away from a camera van, with the camera pointing out of the back - on the opposite side of the road. To this day I can't recall seeing the van at the time, but have since traveled down the same road (both directions) when one was being used in the only spot available for it.
We are the low-hanging fruit, to be plucked, and we can only satisfy ourselves that if the law is an ass, then those who enforce it must also be asses. And I suspect that if you took their hats off and gave them a slap to wake them up, they'd agree.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff