Camera Van Question?
Discussion
The evidence from TV programmes is that the cameras tend to be static and target one set point.
This makes it easier for the scamera operator to just target the outside lane for instance.
Imagine working a shift at a certain spot and moving the device slightly and delicately every few seconds - your hands and arms would soon be in pain!
However, this opens up the defence that the operator was not using the device to confirm his prior judgement (as required by law) and was just picking off drivers...
This makes it easier for the scamera operator to just target the outside lane for instance.
Imagine working a shift at a certain spot and moving the device slightly and delicately every few seconds - your hands and arms would soon be in pain!
However, this opens up the defence that the operator was not using the device to confirm his prior judgement (as required by law) and was just picking off drivers...
puggit said:
Imagine working a shift at a certain spot and moving the device slightly and delicately every few seconds - your hands and arms would soon be in pain!
However, this opens up the defence that the operator was not using the device to confirm his prior judgement (as required by law) and was just picking off drivers...
The camera is on an hydraulic contraption and requires fingertip movement from left to right...very comfortable.
The operator can form the opinion that all 4 vehicles are exceeding the limit and use the camera to confirm his opinion...
Having said that...Mini Gatsos at the side of the road, next to the van, don't need any opinion of speed by the operator and just 'flash' away at speeding cars.
Can I ask a couple of follow-up questions...
I know in theory they are supposed to form a prior opinion of excess speed but this doesn't appear to be happening. How come this never seems to be tested in a court of law?
When the operator checks the speed, does he/she then view the speed and if over the target speed, press a button to actually take the photo? Or, does the system determine the speed and automatically take the picture? I'm trying to wkrk out whether the operator has a degree of discretion (whether or not he/she actually exercises it is another matter).
I know in theory they are supposed to form a prior opinion of excess speed but this doesn't appear to be happening. How come this never seems to be tested in a court of law?
When the operator checks the speed, does he/she then view the speed and if over the target speed, press a button to actually take the photo? Or, does the system determine the speed and automatically take the picture? I'm trying to wkrk out whether the operator has a degree of discretion (whether or not he/she actually exercises it is another matter).
ca;
it's a case of this;
Operator thinks..."That audi is doing about 40mph in this 30mph zone." then presses the trigger on the camera/gun. Camera confirms the speed as 41mph and pictures are taken.
Alternatively, camera puts speed as 34mph and doesn't take picture. Camera operator was wrong.
it's a case of this;
Operator thinks..."That audi is doing about 40mph in this 30mph zone." then presses the trigger on the camera/gun. Camera confirms the speed as 41mph and pictures are taken.
Alternatively, camera puts speed as 34mph and doesn't take picture. Camera operator was wrong.
Sorry Street thats the official line,
I know for a fact this is how it goes.
You are driving along paying attention to safely progressing with your journey, when as you round a corner.. BANG or should I say Bleep,Bleep you just had a laser fired at you.
They are simply fishing, and sadly thats the truth.
Nick
I know for a fact this is how it goes.
You are driving along paying attention to safely progressing with your journey, when as you round a corner.. BANG or should I say Bleep,Bleep you just had a laser fired at you.
They are simply fishing, and sadly thats the truth.
Nick
Nickccc said:
Sorry Street thats the official line,
I know for a fact this is how it goes.
You are driving along paying attention to safely progressing with your journey, when as you round a corner.. BANG or should I say Bleep,Bleep you just had a laser fired at you.
They are simply fishing, and sadly thats the truth.
Nick
I don't work cameravans myself...as i'm busy with other projects and stuff at the moment..
However, come summer and I will be...Boooooo..!
I know... As for fishing; I for one don't see a problem...if someone is exceeding the limit by a big amount and the camera does them...that's the risk we all take...
Streetcop said:
ca;
it's a case of this;
Operator thinks..."That audi is doing about 40mph in this 30mph zone." then presses the trigger on the camera/gun. Camera confirms the speed as 41mph and pictures are taken.
Alternatively, camera puts speed as 34mph and doesn't take picture. Camera operator was wrong.
Now I see... thanks
Nickccc said:
Street, You miss my point.
In my example the car was lasered as soon as it came into view, thus the cam op is simply fishing.
Nick.
I know what you mean Nick..but that's life...
Like when you go to buy a car and the salesman says..the car has only been used by the manager's wife and is in A1 dondition.
EVERYTIME
Street, No I do not accept that. These are rules not guidelines that are being broken.
People are at risk of the loss of their licences, jobs.
It is simply not acceptable.
You expect the motorist to play by the rules so why not the police? Or civ cam op.
that can't be to much to expect can it?
People are at risk of the loss of their licences, jobs.
It is simply not acceptable.
You expect the motorist to play by the rules so why not the police? Or civ cam op.
that can't be to much to expect can it?
Nickccc said:
Street, No I do not accept that. These are rules not guidelines that are being broken.
People are at risk of the loss of their licences, jobs.
It is simply not acceptable.
You expect the motorist to play by the rules so why not the police? Or civ cam op.
that can't be to much to expect can it?
It's true...my Nissan 4x4 was owned by the showroom manager's wife for a month prior to me buying it..
As for your other points...
Risk of loss of licence/job = Don't speed if those things are so important to you...
(I'm not the King you know. If I get done for speeding. I WONT get away with it..I'll lose my licence, and very likely my job...definately my job in the trafpol department)...
As for obeying the rules; I might expect the public to obey them, but they don't. As for the BiB...what rules exactly are you on about?
If a BiB believes the car to be exceeding the limit and the camera proves otherwise. Isn't that a good thing?
The whole arguement is worthless. I'm all for more trafpol, to detect the other offences that cameras can't.
However, as for getting caught...tought titties...I have to run the risk too. As does my wife, my family and friends. It's not different for me.
However, I've never been done for speeding despite owning some tasty cars and some superbikes.
Reason; I use my head..
You could not be further from the truth my friend.
My point Street is not a driver was speeding, gets lasered, caught and fined as you seem to think.
It is the op is not even looking for cars sticking out as speeding,and simply zapping anything in sight. As soon as it comes into sight.
Which as I am sure you will agree is not allowed by law.
Prosecutions have been abondoned based upon this.
If the law only applies when it suits then how can you expect decent people, not scum, to take the law seriously.
I treat people as they treat me, this whole camera farce stinks.
No offence infered.
>> Edited by Nickccc on Tuesday 22 February 15:49
My point Street is not a driver was speeding, gets lasered, caught and fined as you seem to think.
It is the op is not even looking for cars sticking out as speeding,and simply zapping anything in sight. As soon as it comes into sight.
Which as I am sure you will agree is not allowed by law.
Prosecutions have been abondoned based upon this.
If the law only applies when it suits then how can you expect decent people, not scum, to take the law seriously.
I treat people as they treat me, this whole camera farce stinks.
No offence infered.
>> Edited by Nickccc on Tuesday 22 February 15:49
Nickccc said:
You could not be further from the truth my friend.
It's happened before..
Nickccc said:
My point Street is not a driver was speeding, gets lasered, caught and fined as you seem to think.
It is the op is not even looking for cars sticking out as speeding,and simply zapping anything in sight. As soon as it comes into sight.
Which as I am sure you will agree is not allowed by law. Prosecutions have been abondoned based upon this.
But if the BiB, forms the opinion that they were speeding..and is wrong...so be it...it's the opinion of the BiB..and without brain probes..who can prove that wrong...
Nickccc said:
If the law only applies when it suits then how can you expect decent people, not scum, to take the law seriously.
It's just a blip in the legislation that the public is playing on...and will no doubt be removed in the future. After all, no prior opinion is needed for Gatsos, mini-gatsos or Truvelos.
Nickccc said:
As for you being some sort of god head, in your mind maybe, but not for me .
No offence infered.
The point I was making is that if I have managed to keep a clean licence and drive vehicle capable of over 150mph all over the country for the last several years...it's not hard.
To be honest I never saw the point of this "prior opinion" thing.
We've established that even Police Officers (never mind civvy scam operators) receive no training whatsoever in the estimation of speed. They are therefore as "expert" at it as my granny (deceased).
If the car's speeding, it's speeding, and if not, not. Why bother with "prior opinion"?
We've established that even Police Officers (never mind civvy scam operators) receive no training whatsoever in the estimation of speed. They are therefore as "expert" at it as my granny (deceased).
If the car's speeding, it's speeding, and if not, not. Why bother with "prior opinion"?
Nickccc said:
Street, the car you refer to is it a private vehicle?
cos if your on about a jam sandwhich, I will wager you I could also drive one about without fear of any sort of cam based prosecution.
hope you refer to your own sports car.
Cheers.
Absolutely a private car..
That's the point I was making. In addition, if I get pegged by a camera...and phone up SCP..with the "i'm a bobby, let me off" story....i'll be told where to go. I know, as i've known several BiB try it...and fail..
As for jam sandwhiching....same can occur. I know of several BiB in my town alone, who have tripped speed cameras whilst on patrol and have had to accept points/fine. Some have tried the 'I was catching up with a car' excuse and have been told..."What the car that didn't manage to trip the camera"...
Licence, Pleeeese...
Nickccc said:Now you're opening another can of worms...
You expect the motorist to play by the rules so why not the police? Or civ cam op.
that can't be to much to expect can it?
Can a civilian operator form a prior impression of a vehicle's speed and use a tool for backup of that impression?
I think not - but again, not really tested in law AFAIK
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff