Camera flash question
Discussion
30mph residential area, I'm driving at 30mph. A car overtakes me at great speed, probably 50mph+ and the camera flashes twice.
Obviously, no ticket for me as my speed can theoretically be calculated from the lines on the road, but can the speeding driver's speed still be calculated and ticket issued when there are either no interval lines in the oncoming lane, or my car is obscuring the lines on any still picture the camera did take? I remember we were near enough parallel when the flashes went off.
Obviously, no ticket for me as my speed can theoretically be calculated from the lines on the road, but can the speeding driver's speed still be calculated and ticket issued when there are either no interval lines in the oncoming lane, or my car is obscuring the lines on any still picture the camera did take? I remember we were near enough parallel when the flashes went off.
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
Simpo Two said:
E-bmw said:
As above the lines on the road are a legacy and 100% not needed for any prosecution.
A useful visual warning, though, that the driver is about to enter a zone of excessive road accidents...
fourthpedal said:
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You're right.But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You have no idea.
The classic Gatso uses doppler radar to trigger the camera.
The two photos a known time interval apart are the evidence for the prosecution.
OutInTheShed said:
fourthpedal said:
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You're right.But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You have no idea.
The classic Gatso uses doppler radar to trigger the camera.
The two photos a known time interval apart are the evidence for the prosecution.
fourthpedal said:
OutInTheShed said:
fourthpedal said:
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You're right.But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You have no idea.
The classic Gatso uses doppler radar to trigger the camera.
The two photos a known time interval apart are the evidence for the prosecution.
Koyaanisqatsi said:
30mph residential area, I'm driving at 30mph. A car overtakes me at great speed, probably 50mph+ and the camera flashes twice.
Obviously, no ticket for me as my speed can theoretically be calculated from the lines on the road, but can the speeding driver's speed still be calculated and ticket issued when there are either no interval lines in the oncoming lane, or my car is obscuring the lines on any still picture the camera did take? I remember we were near enough parallel when the flashes went off.
Depends upon the speed camera at the scene.Obviously, no ticket for me as my speed can theoretically be calculated from the lines on the road, but can the speeding driver's speed still be calculated and ticket issued when there are either no interval lines in the oncoming lane, or my car is obscuring the lines on any still picture the camera did take? I remember we were near enough parallel when the flashes went off.
Newer cameras require no lines, others do.
If the camera is one that needs lines and the lines are blocked by your car or the vehicle passes in another lane with no lines, the lines can be extended across the road or can be superimposed from images made by the same camera where the lines are clearly visible.
If the vehicle is driven at 50+ in a 30 mph speed limit, then I would think that a little additional effort to calculate the secondary speed would be justified. Only the primary speed needs to be adduced in evidence after a secondary check is successful. If there are questions about how it has been done then the secondary check can be adduced I am sure.
So the answer to your questions are "Yes", "Yes" and "Yes".
OutInTheShed said:
fourthpedal said:
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You're right.But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You have no idea.
The classic Gatso uses doppler radar to trigger the camera.
The two photos a known time interval apart are the evidence for the prosecution.
E-bmw said:
fourthpedal said:
OutInTheShed said:
fourthpedal said:
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You're right.But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You have no idea.
The classic Gatso uses doppler radar to trigger the camera.
The two photos a known time interval apart are the evidence for the prosecution.
If the camera does depend upon the lines and they are worn, then previous images from the same camera can be used to superimpose the lines upon the images in which they are worn.
2020vision said:
If the camera does depend upon the lines and they are worn, then previous images from the same camera can be used to superimpose the lines upon the images in which they are worn.
So in other words they aren't needed then.If they were NEEDED then superimposing previous images wouldn't be enough.
If they were NEEDED, then artificially putting them back from another image wouldn't be enough.
E-bmw said:
2020vision said:
If the camera does depend upon the lines and they are worn, then previous images from the same camera can be used to superimpose the lines upon the images in which they are worn.
So in other words they aren't needed then.If they were NEEDED then superimposing previous images wouldn't be enough.
If they were NEEDED, then artificially putting them back from another image wouldn't be enough.
Edited by 2020vision on Thursday 5th November 12:50
2020vision said:
E-bmw said:
2020vision said:
If the camera does depend upon the lines and they are worn, then previous images from the same camera can be used to superimpose the lines upon the images in which they are worn.
So in other words they aren't needed then.If they were NEEDED then superimposing previous images wouldn't be enough.
If they were NEEDED, then artificially putting them back from another image wouldn't be enough.
Edited by 2020vision on Thursday 5th November 12:50
E-bmw said:
2020vision said:
E-bmw said:
2020vision said:
If the camera does depend upon the lines and they are worn, then previous images from the same camera can be used to superimpose the lines upon the images in which they are worn.
So in other words they aren't needed then.If they were NEEDED then superimposing previous images wouldn't be enough.
If they were NEEDED, then artificially putting them back from another image wouldn't be enough.
Edited by 2020vision on Thursday 5th November 12:50
You seem to be struggling with this. It is best not to guess when you don't know.
2020vision said:
They would. But that doesn't mean their absence prevents a prosecution.
You seem to be struggling with this. It is best not to guess when you don't know.
If their absence doesn’t prevent a prosecution, then they’re not strictly needed. And…..I know how the English language works.You seem to be struggling with this. It is best not to guess when you don't know.
paul_c123 said:
2020vision said:
They would. But that doesn't mean their absence prevents a prosecution.
You seem to be struggling with this. It is best not to guess when you don't know.
If their absence doesn t prevent a prosecution, then they re not strictly needed. And ..I know how the English language works.You seem to be struggling with this. It is best not to guess when you don't know.
2020vision said:
OutInTheShed said:
fourthpedal said:
The technology that measured the speed clearly isn't relying on the lines, or else the camera wouldn't have flashed. And I assume they must be able to prosecute, or else speeders would just cross to the other side of the road where the cameras are stationed to avoid a fine.
But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You're right.But truth be told, I have no idea what it's like in practice.
You have no idea.
The classic Gatso uses doppler radar to trigger the camera.
The two photos a known time interval apart are the evidence for the prosecution.
Ultima Chat | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff