Which way do these cameras work?
Discussion
To save me starting another thread, would someone please explain how the ones on the map image below work?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8908711,-1.27847...
I believe it's a "Truvelo" and would capture an oncoming car/bike, though there are calibration marks in the road a few metres after the camera. It's a road I use quite often, and it's pretty difficult to get caught out as not only are the cameras blatantly obvious, the traffic is usually quite bad as well.
It's something I wonder about as the white marks after it seem to be pointless...
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8908711,-1.27847...
I believe it's a "Truvelo" and would capture an oncoming car/bike, though there are calibration marks in the road a few metres after the camera. It's a road I use quite often, and it's pretty difficult to get caught out as not only are the cameras blatantly obvious, the traffic is usually quite bad as well.
It's something I wonder about as the white marks after it seem to be pointless...
daveenty said:
To save me starting another thread, would someone please explain how the ones on the map image below work?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8908711,-1.27847...
I believe it's a "Truvelo" and would capture an oncoming car/bike, though there are calibration marks in the road a few metres after the camera. It's a road I use quite often, and it's pretty difficult to get caught out as not only are the cameras blatantly obvious, the traffic is usually quite bad as well.
It's something I wonder about as the white marks after it seem to be pointless...
Was a Gatso installed there previously? That's the only reason the calibration marks would be on the road in that location. There's a plate on the pavement where a Gatso may have been installed.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8908711,-1.27847...
I believe it's a "Truvelo" and would capture an oncoming car/bike, though there are calibration marks in the road a few metres after the camera. It's a road I use quite often, and it's pretty difficult to get caught out as not only are the cameras blatantly obvious, the traffic is usually quite bad as well.
It's something I wonder about as the white marks after it seem to be pointless...
Simpo Two said:
Haha, the NIP has already arrived but I approached the van head on and they're not obvious that way. I assumed they worked on 'towards' vehicles but either this one worked on 'away' or Plod saw me go past and guessed. After all they are not required to provide any evidence!
always assume anything parked up or suspicious is a cash cow machine FurtiveFreddy said:
daveenty said:
To save me starting another thread, would someone please explain how the ones on the map image below work?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8908711,-1.27847...
I believe it's a "Truvelo" and would capture an oncoming car/bike, though there are calibration marks in the road a few metres after the camera. It's a road I use quite often, and it's pretty difficult to get caught out as not only are the cameras blatantly obvious, the traffic is usually quite bad as well.
It's something I wonder about as the white marks after it seem to be pointless...
Was a Gatso installed there previously? That's the only reason the calibration marks would be on the road in that location. There's a plate on the pavement where a Gatso may have been installed.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8908711,-1.27847...
I believe it's a "Truvelo" and would capture an oncoming car/bike, though there are calibration marks in the road a few metres after the camera. It's a road I use quite often, and it's pretty difficult to get caught out as not only are the cameras blatantly obvious, the traffic is usually quite bad as well.
It's something I wonder about as the white marks after it seem to be pointless...
Dave Hedgehog said:
always assume anything parked up or suspicious is a cash cow machine
No doubt of it, a quiet piece of Suffolk countryside. But I do find it odd that the police are not required to produce any evidence:Q: Can I view a copy of the photographic evidence, and calibration certificate for the camera?'
A: There is no requirement for us to supply any documentary evidence prior to a court hearing.'
It seems Plod have merely changed the law since the original camera-fest of the late 90s to make life easier for themselves and get trouble-free money, I mean convictions. This is quite contrary to how justice works (consider Small Claims where ALL evidence must be produced in advance regardless of whether there's going to be a hearing.
So if you want to see the evidence you have to choose a court hearing, and then there's a 99% chance they will produce the evidence, and you'll get done for court costs on top. So Joe Driver takes the easy route and hands over the cash with no evidence.
Back to the question though - can anyone confirm they work 'away'?
Simpo Two said:
No doubt of it, a quiet piece of Suffolk countryside. But I do find it odd that the police are not required to produce any evidence:
Q: Can I view a copy of the photographic evidence, and calibration certificate for the camera?'
A: There is no requirement for us to supply any documentary evidence prior to a court hearing.'?
They won't send you an image of the (alleged) transgression?Q: Can I view a copy of the photographic evidence, and calibration certificate for the camera?'
A: There is no requirement for us to supply any documentary evidence prior to a court hearing.'?
I thought your question was whether the speed trap can zap you from the back? They can.
The other question was do they have to provide evidence before the hearing? They might try not to, as in your case. Suggest you look here: http://www.pepipoo.com/Disclosure.htm
Or have I misinterpreted something?
The other question was do they have to provide evidence before the hearing? They might try not to, as in your case. Suggest you look here: http://www.pepipoo.com/Disclosure.htm
Or have I misinterpreted something?
No it cannot get you from the rear, they are placed in areas where you get joyriders so the front facing camera can get a picture of the driver as well. It would have once been a standard Gatso and the lines left over on the road are from then. As you can see, the road has been resurfaced at some point hiding over half of the markings, if they were actually needed for operation, they would have been repainted.
HappyMidget said:
No it cannot get you from the rear, they are placed in areas where you get joyriders so the front facing camera can get a picture of the driver as well. It would have once been a standard Gatso and the lines left over on the road are from then. As you can see, the road has been resurfaced at some point hiding over half of the markings, if they were actually needed for operation, they would have been repainted.
I'm not talking about the Truvelo hijack, I'm talking about the OP! 
This is what happens when someone can't be bothered to start a thread of their own
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?
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?
Simpo Two said:
'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?
That's my understanding, yes although I am not a lawyer so you may want to ask about on that site or consult someone like agtlaw on here before going any further.Have you only received the NIP so far (and not yet replied)?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff