Speed camera vans question

[elise2000]

Can they only target cars travelling towards them, or can the catch cars travelling away from them as well?

Thanks!

[andy_quantum]

Works both ways, and dont think m/bikes get an exemption either

[mr motor]

The LTi 20-20 as used by many mobile speed operators is perfectly capable of recording speeds of vehicles travelling in either direction from some pretty long distances, the differences shown as a + or - on the screen depending upon whether the vehicle was clocked travelling towards or away from the camera.

Having watching this technological wonder in operation it really is no wonder that so many drivers are caught speeding by it.

[andyuk911]

Depends how they are setup ... seems the normal practice is to view a 'spot' and click as they drive through.

I think the pix explains a bit better

[tigger1]

mr motor said:

Having watching this technological wonder in operation it really is a wonder the operators managed to get dressed on their own

Edited for accuracy.

[over_the_hill]

The camera in the picture seems to be fixed on the outside lane. Is this because they expect traffic to be faster in the outside lane ?

[Ade T]

I can only speak for my force but the man in the van on the A & B roads can get you both ways, in any lane.

[blueyes]

I've successfully challenged a ticket from a van that was positioned for catching approaching traffic and tried to nail a vehicle "going away" in the opposite carriageway of a DC.

[EU_Foreigner]

On what ground did you win?

[peteA]

my missus just got done from behind if you know what i mean!

Photos were on the website.

The form actually said she was doing -41 mph in a 30mph zone....technically speaking can you be done for a 'minus' speed...?

What does the RTA state?

Her license has been sent off now but it just got me thinking!

[blueyes]

EU_Foreigner said:

On what ground did you win?

Hit them with three points so I'm not sure:

1. found some legislation about only shooting one way and not over more than two lanes
2. another car was in the photo and found some facts about laser spread at distance
3. asked for a photo with both speed and number plate showing.

[Peter Ward]

blueyes said:

EU_Foreigner said:

On what ground did you win?

Hit them with three points so I'm not sure:

1. found some legislation about only shooting one way and not over more than two lanes
2. another car was in the photo and found some facts about laser spread at distance
3. asked for a photo with both speed and number plate showing.

Let's see if I can help....

1. ???
2. CPS/courts don't care
3. not required by courts.

...so possibly #1, but I think they decided they couldn't be bothered to fight you.

[blueyes]

Peter Ward said:

blueyes said:

EU_Foreigner said:

On what ground did you win?

Hit them with three points so I'm not sure:

1. found some legislation about only shooting one way and not over more than two lanes
2. another car was in the photo and found some facts about laser spread at distance
3. asked for a photo with both speed and number plate showing.

Let's see if I can help....

1. ???
2. CPS/courts don't care
3. not required by courts.

...so possibly #1, but I think they decided they couldn't be bothered to fight you.

as I said... no idea but...

Here's a copy of the letter I sent:

I am in receipt of your letter dated ......... and the accompanying photographs. I can confirm that it is my vehicle but I have some concerns concerning the photographs and the methods used in the alleged offence:
1. The only photograph showing the speed of the vehicle has the registration plate obscured. Could you provide a photograph containing the complete vehicle registration AND speed?
2. There is another vehicle in the crosshairs of the speedmeter and is partially obscuring the vehicle. The ACPO Guidelines state that “The target vehicle must be kept within direct sight of the operator of the device at all times throughout the period of observation and check.” This obviously contravenes the guidelines. The distance shown to the target vehicle is 597 meters. The Home Office Research Dept states that at 531 meters the width of the laser beam will be approximately 160cm. It is therefore possible that the beam has also struck the other oncoming vehicle in the photograph.
3. The photograph clearly shows that operator has used the speedmeter to capture a reading across four lanes of a dual carriageway. The Department for Transport Handbook of Rules for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales for 2006/07 states that:
“3.2.1 Speed camera sites. The following characteristics apply to fixed speed camera, mobile speed camera and time over distance speed camera sites:
a. Sites can be multi-directional and enforcement is permitted in any direction within the site (with the exception of motorways and dual carriageways without junctions in the site,
The reading therefore contravenes this policy and, in my opinion, is invalid.
I am enclosing the completed N.I.P. purely to satisfy your requirements and to avoid being prosecuted for the failure to notify you of the driver in the alleged offence, however I hope you can agree that the evidence and method of collection is fundamentally flawed and will decide not to take any further action.

I await your reply and comments.


And here is the reply:
Had a reply from their "decision maker" today.



"I refer to the matter above and having considered your explanation (eh?) I am able to inform you that there will be no further action taken regarding this matter.

However, I must point out that it is imperative that drivers comply with the speed limit so that accidents are prevented and I trust that you will exercise more care in the future, as this course of action will not be considered again.

The notice of intended prosecution is therefore withdrawn."

[andyuk911]

I think the upshot here is to obtain the evidence they have and if you feel you were not speeding review carefully.

Well done for not just rolling over

[tigger1]

peteA said:

The form actually said she was doing -41 mph in a 30mph zone....technically speaking can you be done for a 'minus' speed...?

minus 41 is less than 30 - and as its a speed limit (not velocity)...

[over_the_hill]

Just asked this on another thread

Do the doors/windows have to be open when in operation or can they "shoot" through the darkened (and presumably one way) glass.

[blueyes]

over_the_hill said:

Just asked this on another thread

Do the doors/windows have to be open when in operation or can they "shoot" through the darkened (and presumably one way) glass.

Acording to the ACPO guidlines/code of practice "they should not be projected through glass or mirrors"

Means feck all in court as the Mags will just say they are "guidelines"... even though in the foreword Brunstrom states:

"It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands."

[DJFish]

[quote="decision maker"]
However, I must point out that it is imperative that drivers comply with the speed limit so that accidents are prevented and I trust that you will exercise more care in the future, as this course of action will not be considered again.

[/quote]

Is it just me or does that reply annoy the sh1t out of anyone else?
They haven't proved you were speeding but still proceed to give you a feckin lecture!

[10 Pence Short]

They wouldn't get away with operating through a closed window. I'd imagine the potential refraction would effect both the laser and the the camera.

[mr motor]

peteA said:

The form actually said she was doing -41 mph in a 30mph zone....technically speaking can you be done for a 'minus' speed...?

-41 means that her car was travelling away from the camera when it was clocked by the speed camera muppet.