Which way do these cameras work?
Discussion
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'?
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?
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
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.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