Discussion
Absolute scammers, can't say I am at all surprised, this is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
Make sure to challenge your tickets !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973309/B...
Make sure to challenge your tickets !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973309/B...
newton474 said:
Absolute scammers, can't say I am at all surprised, this is probably only the tip of the iceberg.
Make sure to challenge your tickets !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973309/B...
Challenge on what grounds? You have the temerity to suggest eh device is wrong, you get to play games in court where they will throw expert witnesses at your bill, ignore everything, and find you guilty with much higher costs.Make sure to challenge your tickets !
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9973309/B...
randlemarcus said:
Challenge on what grounds? You have the temerity to suggest eh device is wrong, you get to play games in court where they will throw expert witnesses at your bill, ignore everything, and find you guilty with much higher costs.
If photographs exist and are available then it's usually worth looking at them. Some forces publish them on a website. Others, refuse to disclose anything before proceedings are commenced. E.g. North Yorkshire.A blanket policy of 'challenging' every speeding allegation would be foolish, of course.
matchmaker said:
Fastdruid said:
martinbiz said:
Must have an strange IT job where a FP ticket and 3 points makes him unemployable
If it's doubling the speed then a perfectly legal 30 could be 60 which is 4-6 points and a 7-90 day ban. agtlaw said:
If photographs exist and are available then it's usually worth looking at them. Some forces publish them on a website. Others, refuse to disclose anything before proceedings are commenced. E.g. North Yorkshire.
A blanket policy of 'challenging' every speeding allegation would be foolish, of course.
Absolutely agree, but two pixelly photos don't make it easy for me to argue against the 79mph they say I was doing A blanket policy of 'challenging' every speeding allegation would be foolish, of course.
Fastdruid said:
If it's doubling the speed then a perfectly legal 30 could be 60 which is 4-6 points or a 7-90 day ban.
90 days? There isn’t a maximum ban for speeding and the minimum is 1 day. The MCSG refers to 7-56 days, but that’s only advisory and there’s a note about 56+ day bans for driving an undefined “grossly in excess of the speed limit.”
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
There are a few things that don't make sense here.
If the camera was doubling the speed, then you would expect it to flash pretty much every single car that went through it,with many of them being registered at over 70mph! (if they were doing anything over 35mph which is not unusual). 70 in a 30 has serious implications.
Surely something would have been flagged up around the number of tickets coming from 1 camera. It would have been orders of magnitude higher than any other camera out there.
As for the IT guy could have lost his job, maybe he already has 9-10 points on his licence, in which case if he got 3 more he deserve to lose his licence.
If the camera was doubling the speed, then you would expect it to flash pretty much every single car that went through it,with many of them being registered at over 70mph! (if they were doing anything over 35mph which is not unusual). 70 in a 30 has serious implications.
Surely something would have been flagged up around the number of tickets coming from 1 camera. It would have been orders of magnitude higher than any other camera out there.
As for the IT guy could have lost his job, maybe he already has 9-10 points on his licence, in which case if he got 3 more he deserve to lose his licence.
Olivergt said:
There are a few things that don't make sense here.
If the camera was doubling the speed, then you would expect it to flash pretty much every single car that went through it,with many of them being registered at over 70mph! (if they were doing anything over 35mph which is not unusual). 70 in a 30 has serious implications.
Surely something would have been flagged up around the number of tickets coming from 1 camera. It would have been orders of magnitude higher than any other camera out there.
As for the IT guy could have lost his job, maybe he already has 9-10 points on his licence, in which case if he got 3 more he deserve to lose his licence.
The camera is a couple of miles from my house. Big wide dual carriageway road with a big barrier both in the middle and along the edges of the road for most of it in a built up area - 40mph road all day long. Nope 30. They also often have camera vans parked in front of that particular camera to catch motorists coming round the corner who speed up to the camera.If the camera was doubling the speed, then you would expect it to flash pretty much every single car that went through it,with many of them being registered at over 70mph! (if they were doing anything over 35mph which is not unusual). 70 in a 30 has serious implications.
Surely something would have been flagged up around the number of tickets coming from 1 camera. It would have been orders of magnitude higher than any other camera out there.
As for the IT guy could have lost his job, maybe he already has 9-10 points on his licence, in which case if he got 3 more he deserve to lose his licence.
As for the issue I've not read the daily fail article but I have read the daily echo one where it states that the camera is known to give false readings when flat backed vehicles pass hence why the guy who highlighted it was caught in his camper.
Olivergt said:
There are a few things that don't make sense here.
If the camera was doubling the speed, then you would expect it to flash pretty much every single car that went through it,with many of them being registered at over 70mph! (if they were doing anything over 35mph which is not unusual). 70 in a 30 has serious implications.
It wasn't doubling every speed, it was getting reflections in certain circumstances which confused the speed sensor (presumably radar reflections which stretched the signal to make it appear like the vehicle was further away?)If the camera was doubling the speed, then you would expect it to flash pretty much every single car that went through it,with many of them being registered at over 70mph! (if they were doing anything over 35mph which is not unusual). 70 in a 30 has serious implications.
The other issue is that the camera takes two photos, and the police are supposed to check that the vehicle is beyond a certain mark on the second photo, which confirms that it was exceeding the limit. I assume they were not bothering to do that.
If it was triggering incorrectly why didn't they get it repaired as it was broken or did they leave it operating in the full knowledge of the fault while coining it in and letting off anyone who complained?
Something does stink with this.
Not to mention the daily wail photographer took a picture of the camera for the traffic on the other side of the road....
Something does stink with this.
Not to mention the daily wail photographer took a picture of the camera for the traffic on the other side of the road....
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 9th September 19:43
gottans said:
If it was triggering incorrectly why didn't they get it repaired as it was broken or did they leave it operating in the full knowledge of the fault while coining it in and letting off anyone who complained?
Something does stink with this.
1. Because it is an unavoidable possibility with the tech (signal reflections resulting in bad values for some of the measurements).Something does stink with this.
2. To deal with it they have markings on the road and take photos at a fixed interval (to allow an alternative means of showing speed)
3. AFAIK most failures of this nature result in values that are blatently wrong so are thrown out fairly quickly.
4. The requirement to issue a NIP to be delivered within 14 days means the NIP will (and should) be issued automatically, potentially before any review.
5. The rate of failure is tiny (Especially once you include cases where they determined it had failed prior to any penalty being issued...) Chances are that most of the people proclaiming this happened to them and they were convicted were actually speeding.
The comments on the DM article have several people complaining that they were ticketed for doing 90-100 in vans that won't get close to that speed.
So the misread is by 2-5x which normally is fairly obvious (so are either automatically discarded as misreads, or put through additional manual checks). From previous cases of this where it goes far enough to be tested, the appeals for this situation invariably don't make it to court because they check the photos which give a rough estimate that is significantly different to the speed the camera reported.
I do think we should now supply both photos taken and some basic guidance as to how you do the calculation from the road markings as modern tech makes it relatively easy to make them available on the internet...
(There are newer cameras that are rated to work without road markings, presumably because they have other means to avoid this issue).
TBH one of the big issues is that the NIP should be replaced with a Notice of Investigation; I.e it shouldn't imply a prosecution will always follow and should be issued far more readily (have had at least one case of reporting blatently dangerous driving with camera footage where the police didn't issue the NIP quickly enough because they were 'investigating' and undermanned; Given the vehicle was identified clearly, it should be issued regardless, as a case can always be dropped afterwards. Of course we also should be allowing the RK to submit an email address or smilar to the DVLA so at the first stage it can be done by email/online rather than needing to do everything by letter...
qwerty360 said:
(There are newer cameras that are rated to work without road markings, presumably because they have other means to avoid this issue).
I think they are calibrated on install, and because they are digital it can be overlaid on screen per-site. The other method is to simply measure the size of the vehicle in each photo!Never just roll over and pay the tax...
I love it. Brakists will be frothing...
Utterly outrageous.
Mail said:
How many MORE of Britain's speed cameras are faulty? Experts blame police for setting up faulty Southampton camera incorrectly - and there could be at least another six cameras with the same problem
Thousands of motorists who have been caught 'speeding' may have been snapped on a faulty camera
MailOnline reveals six other cameras, from Somerset to Cumbria, that have been caught up in controversy
Drivers caught speeding face years of higher insurance premiums, even if prosecution was false, AA explain
30mph camera in Maybray King Way, Southampton, triggered approximately 70 times a day at its peak
Minimum fine for exceeding speed limit in area is £100 as it generated revenue of £5m between 2015 to 2017
But Hampshire Police now admits the camera has recorded 'incorrect readings' amid furious driver backlash
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9976991/B...Thousands of motorists who have been caught 'speeding' may have been snapped on a faulty camera
MailOnline reveals six other cameras, from Somerset to Cumbria, that have been caught up in controversy
Drivers caught speeding face years of higher insurance premiums, even if prosecution was false, AA explain
30mph camera in Maybray King Way, Southampton, triggered approximately 70 times a day at its peak
Minimum fine for exceeding speed limit in area is £100 as it generated revenue of £5m between 2015 to 2017
But Hampshire Police now admits the camera has recorded 'incorrect readings' amid furious driver backlash
- * Have you been caught by a faulty camera? Please email tips@mailonline.co.uk ***
I love it. Brakists will be frothing...
Utterly outrageous.
......and that 'failsafe' markings on the road that are used to measure a driver's speed were 'clearly not working as they should'.
The times that happens when they wonder off for a tea break, shirkers. Mind there are reports of recruitment problems.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff