migth have been doing over 100 when I spotted a van

[danwww]

Saw a van sitting on a bridge above inside the 50mph zone busting people for not slowing down from 70 fast enough. Well I saw him in time for that and stood on the brakes and made it down to around 50mph

I might have been doing about 100 before that and he had line of site on me

whats the range on those things?

my plate might have been only partially readable do they bother investigating when that happens?

[SS2.]

Let me guess, M4 as you approach the toll plaza ?

danwww said:

whats the range on those things?

Chances are he would have seen you long before you had seen him..

LTi20-20 (seems to be the weapon of choice these days) can be used at distances upto 1kM. Whether or not they can form prior opinion at that range is open to debate..

danwww said:

my plate might have been only partially readable

How so, if he had a clear line of sight ?

[danwww]

it wasn't the M4 no it was in kent on an A road at the bottom of a hill


>> my plate might have been only partially readable
How so, if he had a clear line of sight ?

Its in the window till I find the right screws and I noticed when I got out it had fallen down a bit so its sort of half cutoff

[Bing o]

danwww said:

Saw a van sitting on a bridge above inside the 50mph zone busting people for not slowing down from 70 fast enough. Well I saw him in time for that and stood on the brakes and made it down to around 50mph

I might have been doing about 100 before that and he had line of site on me

whats the range on those things?

my plate might have been only partially readable do they bother investigating when that happens?

Dunno, my crystal ball is broken...

[SS2.]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The law dictates that primary and secondary evidence is required to prove a speeding offence.

The LTi20-20 does not (or is not supposed to) 'detect' offences, as such - it is supposed to provide corroboration of an officer's prior opinion of excess speed. The officer's opinion is the primary evidence.

Once the officer is of the opinion that vehicle 'X' is travelling at speed in excess of the posted limit, he is supposed to corroborate that opinion by means of a prescribed device - such as an LTi20-20. Note that it is fitted with a fairly hefty zoom..

The enforcement session would be recorded onto video cassette from which stills showing the vehicle and registration plate can be extracted. These form the secondary evidence.

See this guy's experiences of how it can work in practice (click on 'The Case Against Me - Prior Opinion' - clicky

[Mr Whippy]

SS2. said:

LTi20-20 (seems to be the weapon of choice these days) can be used at distances upto 1kM. Whether or not they can form prior opinion at that range is open to debate..

Oh they can. There was an officer at Harewood Classic car show last year and I asked him about forming prior opinion of speed at 1000m, and he said, 'well I have 15 years experience blah blah blah...'

I did mention I probably couldn't tell anything from 1000m with the un-aided eye. All I could tell is that I was looking a 'thing' the size of a car. At this point he stopped talking to me pretty much.

Not quite sure how you can tell anything at 1000m when a car is coming towards you. Ie, distance travelled vs distance from you ratio is so small, accuracy is going to be huge!

Dave

Edited by Mr Whippy on Wednesday 8th August 16:59

[SS2.]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think that goes for the vast majority of us..

I think it completely unrealistic that anyone would be able to tell whether a vehicle was doing 70 or 79 at distances approaching 1000m - even using a high magnification zoom.

Trouble is, the scam operator would stand up in court and state, under oath, that they are 100% accurate in determining which vehicles were speeding and which were not. More often than not, the Magistrates will believe them, the evidence is regarded as 'sound' and, in the absence of any other defence, the defendant is convicted..

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The speed, distance, date and time are superimposed onto the video.

anonymous said:

[redacted]

They could, but they probably wouldn't need to..

[danwww]

I went back to the spot and he was still there and he couldn't have seen round the corner when I was burning rubber so I reckon he mighta got me at about 10-20 over

I braked when I saw him so it all depends realy I guess they are used to people doing that though

I guess I will be up early the next few weeks checking the mail!

Edited by danwww on Wednesday 8th August 21:08

[danwww]

I don't think he got me nothing in the post

[Jules360]

Seeing as the camera is only supposed to be used to corroberate the user's opinion, can we see the entire video from his shift to see how good his judgement was... or whether he was simply checking everone's speed and nicking those above the limit ??

[7db]

SS2. said:

The law dictates that primary and secondary evidence is required to prove a speeding offence.

The law actually says that no-one shall be convicted of speeding on the evidence of one witness alone. This isn't quite the same thing.

[MilnerR]

danwww said:

I don't think he got me nothing in the post

At that distance I'm not surprised, they can only do 1 car at once and so are more likely to do those that are clearly visible and easy to prosecute.

[Bombjack]

Without the front numberplate in place the effective range of any radar or laser system will be massively reduced. That may have saved you in this case?

[havoc]

Bluebell Hill?!?

That's a favourite haunt of theirs, sorry to say...my brother's had a couple of lucky escapes...