Camera Vans on MW bridges, how are they operated?
Discussion
and I don't mean the tech stuff on radar & dopler shifts, I'm wondering about what the operator has to do catch a speeding motorist.
Typically M4 scenario, camera van on the bridge, fairly heavy traffic, lets say lanes 1 & 2 are chocker but lane 3 is empty, everyone in the middle lane crests a hill top breaking the limit, and 1/2 mile down the road is the van on the next bridge.
How far up the motorway are they focussed, do they digitally enhance the image to get the drivers face, are they detecting all three lanes simultaneously?
Now consider a scenario where the MW is pratically empty, two cars crest same hill and one is breaking the limit, overtaking the other car. Does the operator manually track the one car that is speeding?
thanks
Ex
Typically M4 scenario, camera van on the bridge, fairly heavy traffic, lets say lanes 1 & 2 are chocker but lane 3 is empty, everyone in the middle lane crests a hill top breaking the limit, and 1/2 mile down the road is the van on the next bridge.
How far up the motorway are they focussed, do they digitally enhance the image to get the drivers face, are they detecting all three lanes simultaneously?
Now consider a scenario where the MW is pratically empty, two cars crest same hill and one is breaking the limit, overtaking the other car. Does the operator manually track the one car that is speeding?
thanks
Ex
In theory it works like this:
The camera operator, who should be a police officer (more on that later) looks at the traffic on the MWay and forms an opinion that a specific vehicle is speeding. He points his laser gun camera at the possibly offending vehicle, lines the sight up on the numberplate area and pulls the trigger. 3/10ths of a second later he has a photo of the numberplate with the vehicle speed on it plus a readout on his laser gun and you are nicked if speeding. The range is, I think, up to 1km. Normally they do it at about 200 to 400m range. Photos are not allowed to be digitally enhanced and only a 1st generation photo is acceptable in law.
If it'a civvie operating the laser you may have a total defence in that the Home Office regulations say that a speed camera is to be used by a Police Officer to confirm his prior opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit.
Of course, the real answer is a laser jammer. Then instead of a speed reading they get an error code.
The other type of speed measuring on MWays is the SPECS system which measures your average speed over a distance. They are really nasty and only a broken number plate is any sort of protection.
I think that info is correct, but if it isn't someone will soon say so!
The camera operator, who should be a police officer (more on that later) looks at the traffic on the MWay and forms an opinion that a specific vehicle is speeding. He points his laser gun camera at the possibly offending vehicle, lines the sight up on the numberplate area and pulls the trigger. 3/10ths of a second later he has a photo of the numberplate with the vehicle speed on it plus a readout on his laser gun and you are nicked if speeding. The range is, I think, up to 1km. Normally they do it at about 200 to 400m range. Photos are not allowed to be digitally enhanced and only a 1st generation photo is acceptable in law.
If it'a civvie operating the laser you may have a total defence in that the Home Office regulations say that a speed camera is to be used by a Police Officer to confirm his prior opinion that a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit.
Of course, the real answer is a laser jammer. Then instead of a speed reading they get an error code.
The other type of speed measuring on MWays is the SPECS system which measures your average speed over a distance. They are really nasty and only a broken number plate is any sort of protection.
I think that info is correct, but if it isn't someone will soon say so!
So basically, what we are thinking is that if you are in convey so to speak, they can only pick off one at a time, and even then it could be unlikely that they will get a suitable picture of the driver, say if the vehicle is too far away.
And so, they might have to wait until the car is within range for a good face shot before they pull the trigger and hence assuming you hit the anchors, you might not be braking the limit by then?
best
Ex
And so, they might have to wait until the car is within range for a good face shot before they pull the trigger and hence assuming you hit the anchors, you might not be braking the limit by then?
best
Ex
s normally...Just to add to this from what I've heard. They target a car in the distance (say 700m away) and get a fix on him at say 85mph. But are unable to see the number plate from that distance so track the car till it is within a readable range (say 200m) and take a second photo. Then both are used as evidence so even if you hit the anchors on the first hit, you've already been done as the second one is just to get your number plate on camera.
KITT said:
Just to add to this from what I've heard. They target a car in the distance (say 700m away) and get a fix on him at say 85mph. But are unable to see the number plate from that distance so track the car till it is within a readable range (say 200m) and take a second photo. Then both are used as evidence so even if you hit the anchors on the first hit, you've already been done as the second one is just to get your number plate on camera.
That cant be right ?? can it .. They'd have a picture of 'a car' doing say 85 then another of 'your car' doing 70. Can they legally tie the 2 together ?
>> Edited by moreymach on Tuesday 21st September 09:30
moreymach said:
Just to add to this from what I've heard. They target a car in the distance (say 700m away) and get a fix on him at say 85mph. But are unable to see the number plate from that distance so track the car till it is within a readable range (say 200m) and take a second photo. Then both are used as evidence so even if you hit the anchors on the first hit, you've already been done as the second one is just to get your number plate on camera.
That cant be right ?? can it .. They'd have a picture of 'a car' doing say 85 then another of 'your car' doing 70. Can they legally tie the 2 together ?
>> Edited by moreymach on Tuesday 21st September 09:30
They can tie the two together if they are tracking you with a video camera, which is the kit I believe they normally have these days.
But this of course means that in order for a contested prosecution to stick they have to release the video recording as evidence to support their case. And once they do you can examine it to see whether your vehicle was in view long enough for the officer to form a prior opinion of your speed before he pressed the trigger.
From what I've gleaned they usually won't have done, as the standard tactic is to zap you the instant you come into view at long range, before you've had a chance to see them and slow down. In this situation the video they are obliged to release to you will prove that there was no primary evidence to support the allegation of speeding.
Thus it would seem that there is every chance that if challenged in this way the CTO will quietly drop the case, rather than risk losing a contested court case and opening the flood gates.
TheExcession said:
And so, they might have to wait until the car is within range for a good face shot before they pull the trigger and hence assuming you hit the anchors, you might not be braking the limit by then?
Photos of the driver? So, the evolution of 'white van man' (i.e. sharer of pooled vehicles with tendency to drive too close to others at excessive speeds in all weathers) has created the need for a paparazzi skilled police officer; a sniper who must get an accurate mugshot of a driver in order to prosecute.... Surely the time and date, along with number plate and enquiry of the vehicles' owners regarding whereabouts of a vehicle at a particular time, would be enough? If not, why not all wear false beards and shades?!
shadowfax said:
And so, they might have to wait until the car is within range for a good face shot before they pull the trigger and hence assuming you hit the anchors, you might not be braking the limit by then?
Photos of the driver? So, the evolution of 'white van man' (i.e. sharer of pooled vehicles with tendency to drive too close to others at excessive speeds in all weathers) has created the need for a paparazzi skilled police officer; a sniper who must get an accurate mugshot of a driver in order to prosecute.... Surely the time and date, along with number plate and enquiry of the vehicles' owners regarding whereabouts of a vehicle at a particular time, would be enough? If not, why not all wear false beards and shades?!
What should happen is the vehicle that the officer suspects is speeding is 'hit' by the laser. This confirms the officers suspiciouns and the speed is recorded. The officer should then follow the vehicle as it approaches, through the lens, finally capturing a 'head shot' of the driver at the closest possible place..
Street
BlackStuff said:
[quote=moreymach]
[
They can tie the two together if they are tracking you with a video camera, which is the kit I believe they normally have these days.
But this of course means that in order for a contested prosecution to stick they have to release the video recording as evidence to support their case. And once they do you can examine it to see whether your vehicle was in view long enough for the officer to form a prior opinion of your speed before he pressed the trigger.
From what I've gleaned they usually won't have done, as the standard tactic is to zap you the instant you come into view at long range, before you've had a chance to see them and slow down. In this situation the video they are obliged to release to you will prove that there was no primary evidence to support the allegation of speeding.
Thus it would seem that there is every chance that if challenged in this way the CTO will quietly drop the case, rather than risk losing a contested court case and opening the flood gates.
That figues.. Can certainly vouch for the teh fact they seem to zap indiscriminately. I visit that hot bed of scamming activity known as S.W Wales about once a month and have lost count of how many times Ive had a laser alert from my Snooper, each time Ive been under the limit.
Cooperman said:
In theory it works like this:
The camera operator, who should be a police officer (more on that later) looks at the traffic on the MWay and forms an opinion that a specific vehicle is speeding.
So if you are in a convoy that is speeding, who is the operator going to pick on? Cynical to suggest that if you are in a nice car you are more likely to be picked out perhaps?
When a Talivan operator was interviewed for a speeding programme on the Beeb I seem to remember him using the laser statically and just picking up cars as they went past.
Is this legal then?
(it wasn't a motorway but an urban dual carriageway - probably with a recently dropped speed limit
)
Is this legal then?
(it wasn't a motorway but an urban dual carriageway - probably with a recently dropped speed limit
)Please remember that these scamera vans parked up on the bridges are operating a lti 20-20 camera detection device.
A precidence as been set that this particular device gets the reading wrong in thirty to forty per cent of case readings.
If you are nabbed by such a device then request full disclosure of evidence, i.e. the whole video.
Honestly having viewed a video in a Courtroom it will open your eyes to the incompetent way the operator uses the device wrongly, whilst in the case I witnessed was a serving although aged Police Officer.
A precidence as been set that this particular device gets the reading wrong in thirty to forty per cent of case readings.
If you are nabbed by such a device then request full disclosure of evidence, i.e. the whole video.
Honestly having viewed a video in a Courtroom it will open your eyes to the incompetent way the operator uses the device wrongly, whilst in the case I witnessed was a serving although aged Police Officer.
Excelent information here guy's, guess I'd better keep this thread bookmarked for the next 14 days....
cen, could you point me towards any further info on this?
best
Ex
cen said:
A precidence as been set that this particular device gets the reading wrong in thirty to forty per cent of case readings.
cen, could you point me towards any further info on this?
best
Ex
I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe it has to be a POLICE OFFICER's prior opinion of speeding that is to be the basis of the electronic speed check. Now, if a civilian is operating the scam-van, he ain't a Police Officer, and never can be, as the office of 'Constable' is well established in English law.
So, you could have 2 grounds for resisting the charge;
1. The video shows that no attempt was made to judge your speed before the electronic check was made to confirm the prior opinion.
2. The prior opinion, if there was one, was made by a civilian, and that is not a prior opinion of a Police Officer as required by law.
Please comment on this, anyone.
So, you could have 2 grounds for resisting the charge;
1. The video shows that no attempt was made to judge your speed before the electronic check was made to confirm the prior opinion.
2. The prior opinion, if there was one, was made by a civilian, and that is not a prior opinion of a Police Officer as required by law.
Please comment on this, anyone.
Cooperman, you are very nearly there.
This is a civilian operator argument already prepared for legal argument.
When in receipt of a NIP the question as to whether there was a civilian operator must be asked.
Also available is thr PACE argument copyright with pepipoo.com
Moreover, a european argument
This is a civilian operator argument already prepared for legal argument.
When in receipt of a NIP the question as to whether there was a civilian operator must be asked.
Also available is thr PACE argument copyright with pepipoo.com
Moreover, a european argument
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff