Two for the price of one?
Discussion
outnumbered said:
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.
So... let's all go tag-team and go past as many scameras as we can in one week speeding in parallel.
smeggy said:
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).
I know my speedo overreads, GPS confirmed.
deva link> it was an estimate, I was watching the road at the time, not my speedo. Not "admitting" anything
eliminator said:No!
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?
Truvelos use strips of piezo as a pressure sensor to sense when the wheels crosses certain points; induction loops are not used. The only thing I don’t know is if the trigger threshold for each sensor is a fixed level or when dP/dt = 0 (P is pressure)
eliminator said:That is correct, that is how the corroborative speed reading is done - extrapolation of time over the distance from the last sensor to the white lines, for the given measured speed from the sensors.
It is also necessary for the time dealy in triggering the camera to be altered by speed read by the loop.
Flat in Fifth said:Yes!
The lines? Which lines, the painted lines where the Mini front wheels are just about on those lines and the truck almost on.
Flat in Fifth said:No painted lines? I can’t see how a corroborative confirmation can be done without those three painted lines (considering these units can be fooled). Perhaps they are dummies (Intelligent Flash Simulator) or not yet activated?
……. and truvelos round here just have those buried loop lines nothing else.
Well one I'm specifically thinking of is turned round regularly to get traffic going in each direction face on shots.
In one (the original) direction there are buried loops and then a strip of differently coloured tarmac which is meant to replicate the white lines. In the other direction loops but no such strip or lines.
Maybe the use in other direction is a bluff, but why bury the loops when the extra cost for the lines is a marginal increase.
Edited to add. The strip of differently coloured tarmac is so worn and so mucky that it is difficult to see with naked eye, maybe impregnated with reflecting beads to pick up the flash, but the road is, as I say, covered in carp.
Another thing worries me about that photo from Truvelo.
Let us say that I worked for the scamps...... what am I saying?.... spit spit spit, hush ma mouth.
Anyway I suppose I could convince myself, perhaps, that the Mini is on the painted lines and the truck isn't. But it's a bit flaming close don't you reckon.
So imagine the Mini is a couple of inches further back and the truck a couple of inches further forward. Would that be a file in the round bin for NFA or what. All a bit marginal imho. Not keen when there are two vehicles in shot or within the detection area full stop.
I mean you have all these wheels in two lanes going over detection loops fractions of a second apart, how do you know you're not taking one part of a reading from the truck and part from the Mini? Loops don't look to be split into lanes from my perspective.
All smells a bit like Grimsby docks.
FiF
edited again for typos, the carp was deliberate btw
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 1st December 12:18
In one (the original) direction there are buried loops and then a strip of differently coloured tarmac which is meant to replicate the white lines. In the other direction loops but no such strip or lines.
Maybe the use in other direction is a bluff, but why bury the loops when the extra cost for the lines is a marginal increase.
Edited to add. The strip of differently coloured tarmac is so worn and so mucky that it is difficult to see with naked eye, maybe impregnated with reflecting beads to pick up the flash, but the road is, as I say, covered in carp.
Another thing worries me about that photo from Truvelo.
Let us say that I worked for the scamps...... what am I saying?.... spit spit spit, hush ma mouth.
Anyway I suppose I could convince myself, perhaps, that the Mini is on the painted lines and the truck isn't. But it's a bit flaming close don't you reckon.
So imagine the Mini is a couple of inches further back and the truck a couple of inches further forward. Would that be a file in the round bin for NFA or what. All a bit marginal imho. Not keen when there are two vehicles in shot or within the detection area full stop.
I mean you have all these wheels in two lanes going over detection loops fractions of a second apart, how do you know you're not taking one part of a reading from the truck and part from the Mini? Loops don't look to be split into lanes from my perspective.
All smells a bit like Grimsby docks.
FiF
edited again for typos, the carp was deliberate btw
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 1st December 12:18
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff