Two for the price of one?
Discussion
Wonder if anybody can clear this up for me?
Driving home this evening, went through a Gatso a couple of mph over the limit but well below the trigger (40 limit, 44/45 indicated, so 43mph max). As I went through it, a car in the RH lane (dual carriageway) came past a fair bit faster (est 50mph) and the camera triggered.
Now obviously he set the camera off, but can I expect a NIP in the post too? Would they tend to go for both, or the biggest "offender" - does the camera only work out the speed of the faster car (although I guess my speed could be calculated manually)
Driving home this evening, went through a Gatso a couple of mph over the limit but well below the trigger (40 limit, 44/45 indicated, so 43mph max). As I went through it, a car in the RH lane (dual carriageway) came past a fair bit faster (est 50mph) and the camera triggered.
Now obviously he set the camera off, but can I expect a NIP in the post too? Would they tend to go for both, or the biggest "offender" - does the camera only work out the speed of the faster car (although I guess my speed could be calculated manually)
Did they send it 1st or 2nd Class?
If 2nd class then that is your first get-out...
Secondly if it was served outside the 14 day limit, then it is invalid.
Thirdly, if you have 'forgotten' who was driving the car during that day, then it is the CPS who must prove it was you driving the car. Ask for all the evidence including any photos and the complete video of the set-up.
Chances of them doing this first time of asking is pretty much zero. Chances of them spending ages delaying the case whilst they argue whther they should is great. There is also a reasonable chance they wont be bothered, or the video shows some setting up faults and they will drop the case.
Good luck!
If 2nd class then that is your first get-out...
Secondly if it was served outside the 14 day limit, then it is invalid.
Thirdly, if you have 'forgotten' who was driving the car during that day, then it is the CPS who must prove it was you driving the car. Ask for all the evidence including any photos and the complete video of the set-up.
Chances of them doing this first time of asking is pretty much zero. Chances of them spending ages delaying the case whilst they argue whther they should is great. There is also a reasonable chance they wont be bothered, or the video shows some setting up faults and they will drop the case.
Good luck!
gshughes said:
I imagine (hope) that the person analysing the photos would look at the white lines on the road and work out that you weren't speeding while the perosn overtaking you was.
Yes - if I had been under the limit I would not be worried. However I know how these nazis think and I can see somebody rubbing their hands and hitting me for 2mph over the limit
justinp1 said:
Did they send it 1st or 2nd Class?
If 2nd class then that is your first get-out...
Secondly if it was served outside the 14 day limit, then it is invalid.
Thirdly, if you have 'forgotten' who was driving the car during that day, then it is the CPS who must prove it was you driving the car. Ask for all the evidence including any photos and the complete video of the set-up.
Chances of them doing this first time of asking is pretty much zero. Chances of them spending ages delaying the case whilst they argue whther they should is great. There is also a reasonable chance they wont be bothered, or the video shows some setting up faults and they will drop the case.
Good luck!
Justin - that;s great but I haven't had a NIP. TBH wasn't really expecting one given that it was somebody else triggering it, but hey...
Your advice seems good though, although I was under the impression that you could only ask for evidence by going to court and risking big fine / more points?
Cuppa,
They will look at the 2 pics taken and be able to judge which car was speeding - due to the increased number of lines painted on the road between the 1st and 2nd pic.
Having said that - in this situation - I did not think they chased the speeding driver.
But, as usual, not facts - just my understanding - and I'm sure an expert will be along shortly to confirm/clarify.
K
They will look at the 2 pics taken and be able to judge which car was speeding - due to the increased number of lines painted on the road between the 1st and 2nd pic.
Having said that - in this situation - I did not think they chased the speeding driver.
But, as usual, not facts - just my understanding - and I'm sure an expert will be along shortly to confirm/clarify.
K
Kinky said:
Cuppa,
They will look at the 2 pics taken and be able to judge which car was speeding - due to the increased number of lines painted on the road between the 1st and 2nd pic.
Having said that - in this situation - I did not think they chased the speeding driver.
But, as usual, not facts - just my understanding - and I'm sure an expert will be along shortly to confirm/clarify.
K
You'll both get tickets
I reckon you'll be ok. This happened to me, fortunately I'd slowed to 80 (in a 70) and a car overtook me at prob 85-90, cameras flashed but I never heard anymore. I've got no idea whether the other driver got a certificate for his speed or not. This was a strategegically placed scam (i.e. hidden) but I did wonder how difficult it would be for them to prove a speed when my car was probably obscuring any calc points.
NCOT
There is a good chance that the gatso will be out of film
I’m inclined to agree that your speedo will over-read, but do you know this for sure?
I think you should be safe. However, you may find you’ll be requested to attend a speed awareness course
(assuming you haven’t got points already).
There is a good chance that the gatso will be out of film
I’m inclined to agree that your speedo will over-read, but do you know this for sure?
I think you should be safe. However, you may find you’ll be requested to attend a speed awareness course
(assuming you haven’t got points already). Been flashed in this situation except I was at v<PML and never received a NoiP. but rather like NCoT still wondered and kept an eye on the post for the next few weeks.
Now as a sort of devil's advocate I pose the following observation.
In the Codes of Practice (commonly and incorrectly known as the guidelines
) Richard Brunstrom writes
Then in section 9.4 we get
That section in bold is just as written in the Codes of Practice.
Now one fact not made clear so far is that para 9.4 is on the section related to hand-held speedmeters, but no similar reference is made in the section on automatic devices.
To me that seems to be because on a hand-held the speedmeter reading is intended as corroboration of a prior opinion of excess speed.
On an automatic device the lines on the road are the corroboration for the speedmeter reading, but if two vehicles are in shot the original reading is false for just the same reasons as given in 9.4 for hand helds.
Therefore in my opinion the two vehicles in shot / detection range should apply for all devices.
Thoughts?
[puts wooden spoon away.]
Edited later, just spotted this bit hidden away in section 16 Office procedures
Seems you should be in the clear NCoT, assuming they obey the rules.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 29th November 10:27
Now as a sort of devil's advocate I pose the following observation.
In the Codes of Practice (commonly and incorrectly known as the guidelines
) Richard Brunstrom writes Richard Brunstrom said:
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service. These standards are in your hands.
R Brunstrom
Chief Constable North Wales Police
Head of ACPO Road Policing
Then in section 9.4 we get
para 9.4 said:
9.4 Multiple Vehicles
Radar speedmeters are designed to measure the speed of one vehicle at a time. Should there be more than one vehicle present in the radar field of view, it is possible for the device to detect two different signals, and alternately display different speeds in which case the check must be aborted.
With more than one vehicle (especially when they are of a similar size) within the range of the radar, the meter may read the nearer vehicle, but not necessarily, since the reflected signal from a vehicle is very complex and fluctuates rapidly as the view of the vehicle changes slightly. An operator must not make detections for prosecution when more than one vehicle is within the radar detection range.
It is quite possible for the signal from a large vehicle some distance behind a smaller vehicle to override the signal from the nearer vehicle.
That section in bold is just as written in the Codes of Practice.
Now one fact not made clear so far is that para 9.4 is on the section related to hand-held speedmeters, but no similar reference is made in the section on automatic devices.
To me that seems to be because on a hand-held the speedmeter reading is intended as corroboration of a prior opinion of excess speed.
On an automatic device the lines on the road are the corroboration for the speedmeter reading, but if two vehicles are in shot the original reading is false for just the same reasons as given in 9.4 for hand helds.
Therefore in my opinion the two vehicles in shot / detection range should apply for all devices.
Thoughts?
[puts wooden spoon away.]
Edited later, just spotted this bit hidden away in section 16 Office procedures
Section 16 said:
A close examination should be made of the film by the operator with a view to ensuring it gives:
• Clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence.
• A record of all the information required by type approval.
Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded.
Seems you should be in the clear NCoT, assuming they obey the rules.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 29th November 10:27
See also here:
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf
Section 16 of "ACPO Code of Practice for Operational use of Enforcement Equipment"
Safety Camera Enforcement, Office Procedures
Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded.
So if the scammers are following the code of practice (HA!), the OP is in the clear.
Flat in Fifth said:I’m strongly under impression that adherence to that code of practice is not a legal requirement, imperative yes but not legally binding, ergo they are nothing more than guidelines... ?
In the Codes of Practice (commonly and incorrectly known as the guidelines
Flat in Fifth said:
9.4 Multiple Vehicles
Radar speedmeters are designed to measure the speed of one vehicle at a time. Should there be more than one vehicle present in the radar field of view, it is possible for the device to detect two different signals, and alternately display different speeds in which case the check must be aborted.
Well spotted!
Does this mean that some kind motorist could conveniently ‘break down’ right in-front of a gatso, resulting with speeders being immune from prosecution?
Flat in Fifth said:That would depend on what you define as ‘in shot’. My turn to play devil’s advocate: for Lidar, the beam divergence is small, hence the area that it covers would be relatively small, so only 1 vehicle should be ‘in shot’ as suggested by the crosshairs/red dot (assuming it’s aligned correctly which BTW isn’t a legal requirement).
Therefore in my opinion the two vehicles in shot / detection range should apply for all devices.
Thoughts?
Could this also be why SPECS usually monitor only 1 lane per camera, or does this stem from resolution limitations?
I’m not sure how that would play out for a Truvelo, especially given the following snippet from their website:
Truvelouk.com said:
Where 2 vehicles appear side by side the offending vehicle is the one whose tyres fall within the lines.
>> Edited by smeggy on Tuesday 29th November 13:16
smeggy said:
In the Codes of Practice (commonly and incorrectly known as the guidelines
Well Herr Brunstrop saying "It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously" is good enough for me, but the courts have been misled intonot seeing that way, shame on them!
smeggy said:
I’m not sure how that would play out for a Truvelo, especially given the following snippet from their website:
Truvelouk.com said:
Where 2 vehicles appear side by side the offending vehicle is the one whose tyres fall within the lines.
That photo is another case of, can open, worms ALL over the place.
The lines? Which lines, the painted lines where the Mini front wheels are just about on those lines and the truck almost on.
Or the lines where the detector loops are buried you can see behind the mini? Both vehicles on THOSE lines, and truvelos round here just have those buried loop lines nothing else.
For that statement to be correct, would it not depend on the overhang of each vehicle? What does the induction loop trigger from? The wheel mass right on top of it or the metal of the vehicle? It is also necessary for the time dealy in triggering the camera to be altered by speed read by the loop.
Are trafpol sent for training on the accuracy of their 'shot' similar to the firearms guys? What's to say that they might not be a very good shot and have taken a reading from a car 3 feet to the right or left of their intended target? The deflection on the equipment would only have to be minimal when the target is 500 metres away.
Any thoughts?
Scott
Any thoughts?
Scott
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff