Caught by Camera - Alleged moving traffic violation
Discussion
herewego said:
However the prosections are based on the CCTV evidence rather than a couple of photos, so the argument seems a bit pointless.
That is assuming that the driver didn't get the notice and pay immediately as they have seen photographic evidence showing 2 shots where the 2nd is heavily zoomed in giving that person a distorted view of what happened. Then with the threat of going to court and having to pay twice as much plus costs they opt for what looks like the cheaper option. The photographic/CCTV evidence is not the only issue though, as it has already been said, Scambeth first created an artificial pinch point under the bridge and now they have set up a CCTV recording station which then sends out photographs to people who drive through the pinch point using 2 photographs as the supporting evidence when evidence is requested and we already know who those photographs have been selected.
TheKeyboardDemon said:
twister said:
The timestamp you're referring to on those stills is just a basic HH:MM:SS timestamp, but a standard PAL camera will spit out 25 frames every second, and each of those 25 frames will have the same HH:MM:SS timestamp... The figure at the lower-right corner appears to be a framecounter, showing an apparent difference of 9 frames between these two stills. For every 10mph you'd cover 4.47 metres/second, which equates to 1.6 metres over 9 frames. So for zooming alone to be responsible for the apparent motion between the two vehicles, both vehicles would have to be moving really slowly, or stationary.
Ok so over 9 frames at 30mph a car will travel 1.6 metres, assuming 2 cars are driving towards each other at 30mph that means they would close the gap between each other by 3.2 metres.TheKeyboardDemon said:
I'm not sure how it can be argued that the effect of zooming is not distorting the way the facts in these pictures will be read.
I'm not arguing anything of the sort, and I don't see much evidence of that going on elsewhere in the thread - it's clear that zooming/cropping/whatever DOES affect the interpretation of the stills, either through the foreshortening effects of zooming, or the simple elimination of peripheral cues through cropping that would otherwise allow us to build up the bigger picture. What I am arguing against is JGX's assumption that the identical HH:MM:SS timestamp in the two stills is proof that the vehicles cannot have moved between the two stills, and that the change in relative position between the two stills is therefore down to camera trickery.
Frankly, video or still, zoomed or not, that camera position is never going to be anything less than misleading because of parallax errors. As I have shown with the cropped versus zoomed shots earlier, foreshortening is inevitable if you zoom in from a distance OR crop a wider view down. It is simply too far away and too low a point of view to be meaningful. Nothing short of a camera as close as possible to give a full view of the restriction can possibly give evidence enough to truly assess the facts. If there were transverse lines on the road every two metres or so it would be easier to judge, but with an unmarked surface you are forced to try to guess where the cars are with respect to each other.
TheKeyboardDemon said:
herewego said:
However the prosections are based on the CCTV evidence rather than a couple of photos, so the argument seems a bit pointless.
That is assuming that the driver didn't get the notice and pay immediately as they have seen photographic evidence showing 2 shots where the 2nd is heavily zoomed in giving that person a distorted view of what happened. Then with the threat of going to court and having to pay twice as much plus costs they opt for what looks like the cheaper option. The photographic/CCTV evidence is not the only issue though, as it has already been said, Scambeth first created an artificial pinch point under the bridge and now they have set up a CCTV recording station which then sends out photographs to people who drive through the pinch point using 2 photographs as the supporting evidence when evidence is requested and we already know who those photographs have been selected.
fluffnik said:
It's a racket; jail the racketeers!
For sure. I'm not sure if we should be complaining or marvelling at Scambeth for having come up with such a clever 'screw the motorists' scheme, I know I live a long way from there so I don't have to worry.
I'd like to drive there with a passenger and be filmed stopping at the pinch point having my passenger running out into the junction carrying a red flag and then waving me through when the coast is clear, to see what kind of attention my extra care in ensuring that the road is safe would attract from the council.
Rob-C said:
TheKeyboardDemon said:
having my passenger running out into the junction carrying a red flag and then waving me through when the coast is clear, to see what kind of attention my extra care in ensuring that the road is safe would attract from the council.
Obstruction.Hi. As far as the photo with the 2 Minis. The distance between the cars could be worked out by the shadows (time day, month etc) cast on the road by the bridge etc. Under cover of darkness maybe some local driver could accidentaly drop some paint on the road in this area as a measurment marker, or maybe the council should be asked to place markings on the road to stop the arguments in the future. If they are reluctant to comply, you have your answer.
DVD - my reading of the Good Book on this is that if you choose to pass the sign and enter the hazard to which it refers in a way which causes another vehicle to slow or change direction in order to avoid an accident, then (and only then) the offence is complete.
The prosecution need to show that the other vehicle actually slowed or changed direction, in my view.
The prosecution need to show that the other vehicle actually slowed or changed direction, in my view.
There is another fantastic piece of road engineering been implemented in Barrow Gurney south of Bristol, when travelling eastbound there is a pinch point & the signage indicates give way to oncoming traffic. Except some bloody stupid dimwit has installed the signs in such a way that when stopped at the entrance to the pinch you CANT SEE the oncoming traffic so have to make way blindly. What effing morons design this stuff!!!
If someone wants to highlight this sort if idiocy to the press I'll happily show them this one.
If someone wants to highlight this sort if idiocy to the press I'll happily show them this one.
cptsideways said:
There is another fantastic piece of road engineering been implemented in Barrow Gurney south of Bristol, when travelling eastbound there is a pinch point & the signage indicates give way to oncoming traffic. Except some bloody stupid dimwit has installed the signs in such a way that when stopped at the entrance to the pinch you CANT SEE the oncoming traffic so have to make way blindly. What effing morons design this stuff!!!
Probably the same one who designed Scambeth's. Harking back a year or two, I learned that the designer of a proposed CPZ and routeing for large vehicles (a) did not live in the area (actually some 40 miles away); (b) had been to the area once, in the mid-morning; and (c) did not drive! This last is the most telling, albeit she was not wearing sandles and had none of the aroma associated with lentil-eaters. The parking survey they allegedly carried out was flawed (didn't count one of my vehicles that I know was standing outside all day) and by personal observation over many months it understated the position by some 50%, and didn't count vehicles during the busiest times of the day (for parking and traffic movements). From past experience I know that the base data for the computer systems used is out of date and the models are grossly imperfect when it comes to forecasting. Put this all into the sme pot, add a large does of "hate the motorist" and a larger one of "I haven't a clue what I'm doing" and the result is the chaos of which we can each provide at least one example - Streakystreaky said:
Put this all into the sme pot, add a large does of "hate the motorist" and a larger one of "I haven't a clue what I'm doing" and the result is the chaos of which we can each provide at least one example - Streaky
I don't think you need those last two ingredients. Well-meaning competent people could produce the same result with those inputs. Why grope for a conspiracy when it can be explained by a f*ck up?7db said:
streaky said:
Put this all into the sme pot, add a large does of "hate the motorist" and a larger one of "I haven't a clue what I'm doing" and the result is the chaos of which we can each provide at least one example - Streaky
I don't think you need those last two ingredients. Well-meaning competent people could produce the same result with those inputs. Why grope for a conspiracy when it can be explained by a f*ck up?
JGX said:
motco said:
I'm sorry Jonathan, but zooming is exactly the same as cropping in its effect - it does not change the relative position of the camera vis a vis the subject and cannot, therefore, change the apparent postion of the cars in this case. There is not a shadow of doubt that those cars have moved and that the frames were taken at slightly different times. Only by physically tracking the camera towards the scene can the effect shown occur. Where I would agree with you is that the telephoto foreshortening effect is very misleading and parallax errors become significant. Just like with VASCAR you should refer the shadow of the cars to a clear transverse line on the road surface - shadow of the bridge for example.
Sorry motco, but you are completely wrong.From my site. . .
An expert (a television cameraman and expert in this field) contacted me and this is what he said:
The crucial photographic trick Lambeth are playing with is called "depth of field".
Put simply, when a camera zooms in, it compacts the depth of field, ie, the distance between objects, making them look much closer than they really are.
This trick is used all the time in TV, especially when for example, they want to make roads or motorways look heavily congested. Zoom in from a long distance, this reduces the depth of field by a vast amount and makes the traffic look really dense. Cars spaced out over a quarter of a mile can look as if they're all bunched up together.
In the summer it's used to get good pictures of heat rising from the ground. Zoom in from a distance, and instead of just getting the barely noticeable effect of the heatwave rising from one part of the road, you get a heavily multiplied effect.
It's used to show an exaggerated view of pollution on a hazy summer's day too. Zoom in on a hot city skyline from a distance, and several miles worth of haze gets compacted together by the lens to give the impression of smog over the city... handy for all those 'global warming' scare stories.
The same is down to show vast crowds of people.
Lambeth's zoomed in camera reduced the depth of field. Oldest trick in the photographic book.
All the best,
JGX
Personally I think your entire argument is bogus if you're basing it on such things. One could very easily use a fisheye lens to demonstrate that the distance between the vehicles is apparently half a mile.
streaky said:
I have passed this info on to my brother. See if he gets the same result.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff