Scameras used to gather evidence using phone whilst driving?
Discussion
A work associate reckons the local paper where he lives (South Wales) is publishing photographs of drivers on the M4 using hand held mobile phones. Not sure if these are name and shame type pictures or whether there is some sort of appeal along the lines of "do you know this person" (the latter is I suppose less likley given they would have the registration number) however what I am interested in knowing is, is this use legal. I thought scameras were only licensed or type approved for certain uses. Any of our BiB's know about this or the answer/comment?
BTW I don't approve of hand held phones whilst driving (in fact I am tempted to report a few myself - 3pts). Another interesting fact arising from this was that most of the photos were of young women when if I was going to guess I would have said more middle aged business men types would have been caught.
BTW I don't approve of hand held phones whilst driving (in fact I am tempted to report a few myself - 3pts). Another interesting fact arising from this was that most of the photos were of young women when if I was going to guess I would have said more middle aged business men types would have been caught.
elanfan said:
A work associate reckons the local paper where he lives (South Wales) is publishing photographs of drivers on the M4 using hand held mobile phones. Not sure if these are name and shame type pictures or whether there is some sort of appeal along the lines of "do you know this person" (the latter is I suppose less likley given they would have the registration number) however what I am interested in knowing is, is this use legal. I thought scameras were only licensed or type approved for certain uses. Any of our BiB's know about this or the answer/comment?
BTW I don't approve of hand held phones whilst driving (in fact I am tempted to report a few myself - 3pts). Another interesting fact arising from this was that most of the photos were of young women when if I was going to guess I would have said more middle aged business men types would have been caught.
BTW I don't approve of hand held phones whilst driving (in fact I am tempted to report a few myself - 3pts). Another interesting fact arising from this was that most of the photos were of young women when if I was going to guess I would have said more middle aged business men types would have been caught.
People have been prosecuted for offences other than speeding on the evidence from video.
elanfan said:
Another interesting fact arising from this was that most of the photos were of young women when if I was going to guess I would have said more middle aged business men types would have been caught.
...pretty young women perhaps? Taking up space in a paper? Whatever will they think of next!
I'd expect far more young women on the phone to be honest, businessmen are more likely to have fitted gadgets and be talking when business requires, young women just like to yak.
[ducks under desk]
elanfan said:
Appreciate that but do you know the score as to whether the video cameras in the vans are actually approved for this purpose?
This is an absolutely vital point in terms of what is legally acceptable for prosecution purposes.
These "cameras" are speed detection devices and DO NOT have type approval for any other use.
jith said:
elanfan said:
Appreciate that but do you know the score as to whether the video cameras in the vans are actually approved for this purpose?
This is an absolutely vital point in terms of what is legally acceptable for prosecution purposes.
These "cameras" are speed detection devices and DO NOT have type approval for any other use.
It's a video, I doubt that argument would hold, I aldo doubt they would need to publish the photo's, wouldn't they just send an s172 to the RK, then either way they get their cash.
£60 for not naming or £60 for phone usage.
oogieboogie said:
elanfan said:
Another interesting fact arising from this was that most of the photos were of young women when if I was going to guess I would have said more middle aged business men types would have been caught.
...pretty young women perhaps? Taking up space in a paper? Whatever will they think of next!
I'd expect far more young women on the phone to be honest, businessmen are more likely to have fitted gadgets and be talking when business requires, young women just like to yak.
[ducks under desk]
Agreed. Of the people I usually see, it is young women and 'white van man' types. It is usually the business sector, who indeed may have to have conversations often whilst driving who will have a hands free kit fitted.
I think in this situation that they have not thought of the legal implications, and probably arnt using this for enforcement, but using the photos for the spin value.
The key point that is being missed here is that the correct procedure for prosecution of speeding is that the operator initially forms an opinion of a speeding offence then uses the device (camera) to confirm this opinion. They SHOULD NOT (
yes, I know they do!) simply point the camera at a stretch of road and later review the video to see what the trawl has picked up.
If the cameras are ‘primarily’ used to catch mobile phone usage then the trawl becomes ‘justified’ and thus can not be challenged when it ‘happens’ to catch someone speeding.
It also means that politically the Scamera partnerships can justify:
1) The use of the cameras in all sorts of locations where speeding occurs but where there are no KSI statistics to support high levels of speed enforcement because they are not looking for speeders, there looking for phone users and just happen to catch speeders.
2) The fact that the partnership is not just concentrating on speed enforcement but is also looking at other ‘serious dangers’ on the roads, so more cameras are need!
yes, I know they do!) simply point the camera at a stretch of road and later review the video to see what the trawl has picked up. If the cameras are ‘primarily’ used to catch mobile phone usage then the trawl becomes ‘justified’ and thus can not be challenged when it ‘happens’ to catch someone speeding.
It also means that politically the Scamera partnerships can justify:
1) The use of the cameras in all sorts of locations where speeding occurs but where there are no KSI statistics to support high levels of speed enforcement because they are not looking for speeders, there looking for phone users and just happen to catch speeders.
2) The fact that the partnership is not just concentrating on speed enforcement but is also looking at other ‘serious dangers’ on the roads, so more cameras are need!
black-k1 said:
The key point that is being missed here is that the correct procedure for prosecution of speeding is that the operator initially forms an opinion of a speeding offence then uses the device (camera) to confirm this opinion. They SHOULD NOT ( yes, I know they do!) simply point the camera at a stretch of road and later review the video to see what the trawl has picked up.
yes, I know they do!) simply point the camera at a stretch of road and later review the video to see what the trawl has picked up. So, does this mean they've invented the camera to catch all bad drivers now? (Including the knobhead in the Goldstar minibus this morning that locked up trying to avoid driving straight on the roundabout into me this morning...whilst on his phone, and yes I've got your companies number, and yes I'll be ringing it later today...
jith said:
elanfan said:
Appreciate that but do you know the score as to whether the video cameras in the vans are actually approved for this purpose?
This is an absolutely vital point in terms of what is legally acceptable for prosecution purposes.
These "cameras" are speed detection devices and DO NOT have type approval for any other use.
A woman got banned didn't she for doing her hair up in a bun (no hand on the wheel going in the opposite direction to the camera. Bloody right too.
nobleguy said:
jith said:
elanfan said:
Appreciate that but do you know the score as to whether the video cameras in the vans are actually approved for this purpose?
This is an absolutely vital point in terms of what is legally acceptable for prosecution purposes.
These "cameras" are speed detection devices and DO NOT have type approval for any other use.
A woman got banned didn't she for doing her hair up in a bun (no hand on the wheel going in the opposite direction to the camera. Bloody right too.
my wife used to always wear her hair in a bun - then she got sacked from the bakers
Woman caught by speed camera applying make-up whilst doing 32 in a 40
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 1st February 22:31
I'm sure the scamera partnerships will enjoy catching mobile phone users, for no more reason than an attempt to earn some brownie points as phone use is frowned upon by many, unlike speeding which is frowned upon by few.
The sad thing is, what drivers do with hands within reason is irrelevent, whereas what they do with their brain when driving is vital! Yet again the law is an ass and targets the wrong thing!
Like chatting on my hands free is perfectly safe untill I scratch my ear!!
The sad thing is, what drivers do with hands within reason is irrelevent, whereas what they do with their brain when driving is vital! Yet again the law is an ass and targets the wrong thing!
Like chatting on my hands free is perfectly safe untill I scratch my ear!!
vonhosen said:
Woman caught by speed camera applying make-up whilst doing 32 in a 40
Edited by vonhosen on Thursday 1st February 22:31
BBC said:
Magistrates heard that it was an Arrive Alive mobile anti-speeding van, ..........
Seems that even dear Auntie Beeb is catching on slowly then
BB
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewforum.php?f=13&sid=4e084bba9fb7f398d095c14d726abf69
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12107
My sisters based down in this area found this in a local rag and scanned it for me as of "general interest"
OK .. so it's because some yobs chuck rocks at vehicles
- especially fire engines and ambulances ... but the fact that people are concerned about "ulterior and sinister motives" shows just how far mutual trust appears to have eroded ... as a result of scamerati nit picking..
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12107
My sisters based down in this area found this in a local rag and scanned it for me as of "general interest"
OK .. so it's because some yobs chuck rocks at vehicles
- especially fire engines and ambulances ... but the fact that people are concerned about "ulterior and sinister motives" shows just how far mutual trust appears to have eroded ... as a result of scamerati nit picking.. Edited by Mad Moggie on Friday 2nd February 00:18
Edited by Mad Moggie on Friday 2nd February 00:22
But 
my views on mobile phones or "Handys" as the Wildy Cat calls them .. are well known.
I can probably count on one hand the number of times I actually use mine..
I have never used a hand held one when driving .. and whilst I do have a hands free device.. I can only say that I use it in dire emergency .. such as when delayed in that dreadful storm a fortnight ago ... found Wildy in the same traffic jam .. and we more or less escorted each other home that night.
my views on mobile phones or "Handys" as the Wildy Cat calls them .. are well known. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I actually use mine..
I have never used a hand held one when driving .. and whilst I do have a hands free device.. I can only say that I use it in dire emergency .. such as when delayed in that dreadful storm a fortnight ago ... found Wildy in the same traffic jam .. and we more or less escorted each other home that night.
You know the other segment who are particularly prone to doing this?
People in stupifyingly expensive cars.
The number of Astons and Bentleys I've seen with dipshit at wheel, phone* at ear, mid-overtake, on the A1 and M1...
Look. You just spent a hundred large on a car. Money is clearly not a problem. Spend two hundred sheets on the car kit, eh?
People in stupifyingly expensive cars.
The number of Astons and Bentleys I've seen with dipshit at wheel, phone* at ear, mid-overtake, on the A1 and M1...
Look. You just spent a hundred large on a car. Money is clearly not a problem. Spend two hundred sheets on the car kit, eh?
* And it's always a Motorola RAZR, too. Shit phone.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff