Scamera partnership messes up
'I knew it wasn't me caught on camera'
'We rarely mess up'
Donna Frampton was driving on a dual carriageway -- Wessex Way in Bournemouth -- and passed a speed camera she knew about, ensuring that she was driving at no more than the 50mph limit. Despite this, she got a ticket accusing her of driving at 58mph.
She called the central ticket office to complain, said it wasn't her, that there was a car in the other lane, and demanded to see the photo taken by the scamera. Two hours later, she got a call to say that the system had messed up, and that she was in the clear. The ticket should have gone to an overtaking car, according to the story in the Dorset Echo (link below).
The scamera partnership said that it had made a mistake, that an investigation would be held, and that it was normally very very accurate, honest.
Naturally, this begs the question as to whether the scamera should have been there in the first place, and how many people just pay up without checking that the photo is actually of them at all. There's a moral there for us all.
These Scameras just try it on sometimes, if they get away with it more money, if they don't, tax payers foot the bill for the paperwork.
The whole thing is a joke, (not that I'm pi$$ed off with being caught or anything), I'm willing to bet that in the next ten years there will be franchises for vans/static cameras for sale by local authorities.I also didn't realise, that GSM phones interfere at different levels with nearly all the approved devices, and the guidelines state that the digital TETRA radios must be either switched off or set to 'transmit inhibit'.
1) If you get NIPped, it is in your best interest to demand photographic evidence.
2) If it was you, and you think there was something wrong, let the Police know in your statement and take the case to court.
I am myself fighting my case and as all people with some brain, I can't wait to see the day when speed cameras will be banned forever.
That's only partly right. It should be clear from the first photo which vehicle has triggered the shot. In that case it's OK. Where two vehicles are in the shot, *and* level with each other in the first photo, then the ACPO say the evidence should be discarded. But even so, the guidlines are as the name suggests, purely 'guidelines', which can be ignored or altered by local policy!
Ultimately, the offending vehicle can be identified on a time distance calculation using the second photo.
That's only partly right. It should be clear from the first photo which vehicle has triggered the shot. In that case it's OK. Where two vehicles are in the shot, *and* level with each other in the first photo, then the ACPO say the evidence should be discarded. But even so, the guidlines are as the name suggests, purely 'guidelines', which can be ignored or altered by local policy!
Ultimately, the offending vehicle can be identified on a time distance calculation using the second photo.
I thought you needed primary evidence, the triggering of the camera, and secondary evidence, the photos, to get a conviction? If there are 2 vehicles in the first shot how can you prove which one triggered the camera? That leaves you with secondary evidence only.
These Scameras just try it on sometimes, if they get away with it more money, if they don't, tax payers foot the bill for the paperwork.
I doubt they deliberately "try it on"; they're not that clever! It's probably more as you say where anything with a readable plate gets a NIP. If a stolen number plate was left in the road it would probably receive a ticket too....
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff