Camera van victims - do you get a photo by default?
Discussion
When you get done by a camera van, is it normal practise for them to send a photo with the NIP as evidence in the first instance, or only if you subsequently request it?
Furthermore would any such photo taken by the van reveal with sufficient clarify the occupants of the vehicle to the extent that, for example, a delightful young latino stripper couldn't possibly be mistaken for a typical hitch hiker?
Furthermore would any such photo taken by the van reveal with sufficient clarify the occupants of the vehicle to the extent that, for example, a delightful young latino stripper couldn't possibly be mistaken for a typical hitch hiker?
Edited by anon643735 on Wednesday 7th November 11:06
Is there a Divorce lawyer handy?!?!?
I don't think they tend to send a front shot of the car at all, simply a "we've got you, pay the tax man now please" as it is the path of least resistance (read, it costs them less, thus keeps their profits up). But hopefully someone who has had a ticket or two will clarify.
I don't think they tend to send a front shot of the car at all, simply a "we've got you, pay the tax man now please" as it is the path of least resistance (read, it costs them less, thus keeps their profits up). But hopefully someone who has had a ticket or two will clarify.
At the risk of this thread not being too serious and me getting laughed at again I will answer from my experience.
79 in 70 on A46. I got the typical blackmail letter offering to do me a favour and let me buy 2 points for £30 each and get a third free.
No evidence or picture. The letter implied that the only way to see the evidence involved a court appearance and a potential award of 6 bonus points for just £1000.
It was a company car and it took so long to get to me that I was a bit tight on their time limit and was basically weak and took the 3 point enema.
Having seen photos the resolution is really shit but probably good enough for a keen eyed lady to spot the claw in the spare seat.
79 in 70 on A46. I got the typical blackmail letter offering to do me a favour and let me buy 2 points for £30 each and get a third free.
No evidence or picture. The letter implied that the only way to see the evidence involved a court appearance and a potential award of 6 bonus points for just £1000.
It was a company car and it took so long to get to me that I was a bit tight on their time limit and was basically weak and took the 3 point enema.
Having seen photos the resolution is really shit but probably good enough for a keen eyed lady to spot the claw in the spare seat.
Neil_Sc said:
bigTee said:
i got one with first letter.
Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
Worst, I've got an expensive car plug ever!Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
ed mate" post...BigTee how long did it take to arrive? Long enough to establish a postal redirection beforehand? (IIRC circa 5 days)
Edited by anon643735 on Wednesday 7th November 11:27
[quote=anon643735
Don't you mean worst "Hate to say it, but you're royallyed mate" post...
BigTee how long did it take to arrive? Long enough to establish a postal redirection beforehand? (IIRC circa 5 days)
[/quote]
about a week!
it put me up to 13 points too!!!!! Didn’t receive a ban though – went to court and got off with a 70 fine!!!!
Don't you mean worst "Hate to say it, but you're royally
ed mate" post...BigTee how long did it take to arrive? Long enough to establish a postal redirection beforehand? (IIRC circa 5 days)
Edited by anon643735 on Wednesday 7th November 11:27
[/quote]
about a week!
it put me up to 13 points too!!!!! Didn’t receive a ban though – went to court and got off with a 70 fine!!!!
bigTee said:
i got one with first letter.
Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
If you were to allow an expert cast an eye of that picture there are some alarming errors if thats what they supplied you with as evidence for a speeding conviction!. Based on few supposisions.....Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
cptsideways said:
bigTee said:
i got one with first letter.
Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
If you were to allow an expert cast an eye of that picture there are some alarming errors if thats what they supplied you with as evidence for a speeding conviction!. Based on few supposisions.....Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
cptsideways said:
If you were to allow an expert cast an eye of that picture there are some alarming errors if thats what they supplied you with as evidence for a speeding conviction!. Based on few supposisions.....
1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
CPTS - I am impressed. If that arrived with me, I'd probably have shrugged and coughed up, not having the skill you have in seeing the problems. 1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
If I ever doreceive such a bit of post, I'll be sure to send you a copy ... do you do this professionally, or are you just more aware of the ins-and-outs than most?
Oli.
cptsideways said:
bigTee said:
i got one with first letter.
Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
If you were to allow an expert cast an eye of that picture there are some alarming errors if thats what they supplied you with as evidence for a speeding conviction!. Based on few supposisions.....Couldn't really get away with it either as i was smiling for the camera!!!!
1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
zcacogp said:
cptsideways said:
If you were to allow an expert cast an eye of that picture there are some alarming errors if thats what they supplied you with as evidence for a speeding conviction!. Based on few supposisions.....
1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
CPTS - I am impressed. If that arrived with me, I'd probably have shrugged and coughed up, not having the skill you have in seeing the problems. 1) Other car is clearly visible in the camera shot, the laser beam divergance at distance can be far wider than the crosshair in the photo/video screenshot. Hence the laser beam could have been targetting the other car especially when you consider from further away that lead car will be further into shot.
2) That video shot does NOT show any evidence of speed of any sorts on the camera log, there is no time out log either suggesting when the last speed reading was.
3) Dependent on what the distance that the actual speed reading was taken at (if any!!) & the assuming you are in roadworks, were there reflective cones in the shot at the time. Traffic cones are one the easiest things to get misreads from if they are within the beam divergence.
4) The car in front of you could easily have given a false reading, if the laser was targetted at your front plate or forward facing reflective surface it can bounce off any reflective surface including the rear of the Picasso in front. See some of Dr Clarkes TV work to demonstrate this.
There are several alarming errors just from that one photo, some would be against APCO guidelines too. If thats what they supplied me they would have had it thrown back at them!
If I ever doreceive such a bit of post, I'll be sure to send you a copy ... do you do this professionally, or are you just more aware of the ins-and-outs than most?
Oli.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff