Forward Flashing Gatso's & Type Approval
Discussion
Couple of questions for those in the know
1) Can you be done by a Gatso flashing you as you approach it ie from the front. I know technically the device can work that way just don't know if in the UK they use them like that at the cash machine
2) Can you be done if there are no lines on the road, particular again by a forward flashing camera.
I have a sneeking suspicion the answer is no in both cases as I think the use of the Gatso in that way would be in breach of its Home Office Type Approval.
Does anyone have access to the details of the Type Approvals?
1) Can you be done by a Gatso flashing you as you approach it ie from the front. I know technically the device can work that way just don't know if in the UK they use them like that at the cash machine
2) Can you be done if there are no lines on the road, particular again by a forward flashing camera.
I have a sneeking suspicion the answer is no in both cases as I think the use of the Gatso in that way would be in breach of its Home Office Type Approval.
Does anyone have access to the details of the Type Approvals?
Bearing in mind that my experience with the systems is now 9 years out of date, the Gatso camera is capable in both hardware and software terms of taking a double photo on a receding car and a single photo on an approaching car. However, the single photo from an approaching car is not admissable and therefore you cannot be prosecuted by it in the UK. However, I believe that in other countries you can so beware when driving on the continent.
The lines on the road are to help someone examining the two photos to more accurately determine your speed (since speed is distance over time and the time is known and the distance can be measured). This is used to corroborate the speed recorded by the radar (for a radar Gatso). The lines are not a legal requirement - or certainly weren't 9 years ago although I guess that could have changed - since the size and scale of the photo is known so distance can be just as easily calculated without the lines. The lines just make it quicker and easier for the person examining the photo. They also serve to extend the perceived enforcement zone to motorists as they are painted well beyond the field of vision of the camera. Sneaky.
Sorry if that hasn't told you much more than you knew already.
>> Edited by JonRB on Monday 24th November 23:31
The lines on the road are to help someone examining the two photos to more accurately determine your speed (since speed is distance over time and the time is known and the distance can be measured). This is used to corroborate the speed recorded by the radar (for a radar Gatso). The lines are not a legal requirement - or certainly weren't 9 years ago although I guess that could have changed - since the size and scale of the photo is known so distance can be just as easily calculated without the lines. The lines just make it quicker and easier for the person examining the photo. They also serve to extend the perceived enforcement zone to motorists as they are painted well beyond the field of vision of the camera. Sneaky.
Sorry if that hasn't told you much more than you knew already.
>> Edited by JonRB on Monday 24th November 23:31
What is the field of vision of a Gatso, then? I've wondered before how many lanes they can cover eg. in roadworks where there's 4 lanes of traffic and it's on the verge beyond the hardshoulder.
Of course there are some very sneaky councils who put their road markings on both sides of the road even though they know the Gatso can only be used in 1 direction. The road into Altrincham from the M6 is one that springs to mind.
Of course there are some very sneaky councils who put their road markings on both sides of the road even though they know the Gatso can only be used in 1 direction. The road into Altrincham from the M6 is one that springs to mind.
Yes you can be done by a Gatso flashing you from the front. Admittedly it's rare, but it happened to my girlfriend while I was a passenger. It was at night, and the flash was blinding. The camera was on the opposite side of a single carriageway. Don't know if there were any lines on the road because we forgot to check.
A colleague was also 'done' recently in a similar way.
A colleague was also 'done' recently in a similar way.
bluepolarbear said:
Rollocks then. No lines but guess I'll have to sit out the next 14days.
No-one got access to the type approvals? Sure I can remember seeing something that the type approval states the radar is only used to trigger the device and its the photo that provides the actual speed
No lines on your side means no backup evidence of the speed, so the radar unit COULD be faulty/miscalibrated, rendering any possible prosecution on shaky ground.
Go home, get a big drink, and put your feet up. Youll hear nothing.
Oh btw, 1 flash or 2?
If 1 then definitely in the clear. If 2 still most probable in the clear.
Relax.
Spoonman said:You obviously didn't read what I wrote then. As I said, the camera is CAPABLE of flashing oncoming traffic, you just can't be prosecuted for it.
Yes you can be done by a Gatso flashing you from the front. Admittedly it's rare, but it happened to my girlfriend while I was a passenger. It was at night, and the flash was blinding. The camera was on the opposite side of a single carriageway.
What I did forget to mention is that cameras are often set up to enforce both approaching and receding vehicles. The enforcement threshold for receding is set at the speed they want to prosecute people at, and the receding enforcement threshold is often set at something higher so it isn't tripped so often. The point of the latter is to worry motorists who do not know their traffic law well enough into thinking they have been done.
deltaf said:
No lines on your side means no backup evidence of the speed, so the radar unit COULD be faulty/miscalibrated, rendering any possible prosecution on shaky ground.
Not so. As I said in my post yesterday, the lines are simply there to make it easier for the operator to do their job. They can still manually calculate your speeed by using a ruler on the photographs, it's just more time consuming. It is just as legally admissible as the lines painted on the road though. Sorry.
>> Edited by JonRB on Tuesday 25th November 23:54
JonRB said:
You obviously didn't read what I wrote then. As I said, the camera is CAPABLE of flashing oncoming traffic, you just can't be prosecuted for it.
And you didn't read what I wrote.
"Yes you can be done by a Gatso flashing you from the front." My girlfriend has three points on her licence to prove it. My colleague – the editor of a very high profile motoring magazine – now has points to prove it too.
I'm getting increasingly fed up with people lulling other motorists into a false sense of security on this issue. The fact is this: if a Gasto – yes, Gatso – is set up to catch oncoming vehicles then you will receive two flashes in the face and a big, fat NIP. Simple as that.
Don't be fooled by the doubters.
>> Edited by Spoonman on Wednesday 26th November 08:37
Spoonman said:Hmmm. I guess I stand corrected then.
My girlfriend has three points on her licence to prove it. My colleague – the editor of a very high profile motoring magazine – now has points to prove it too.
Spoonman said:Well, I did say my information was 9 years out of date. However, when I was working with interfacing to the Gatso camera system, the camera control software was written to take two photos receding and one approaching. Two photos approaching was not a configuation you could select. Of course, there is no reason why the control software couldn't be rewritten, but I was told at the time that the camera only took one shot approaching for technical reasons - something about the car approaching meaning the second photo was next to useless. I can't really remember to be honest.
I'm getting increasingly fed up with people lulling other motorists into a false sense of security on this issue. The fact is this: if a Gasto – yes, Gatso – is set up to catch oncoming vehicles then you will receive two flashes in the face and a big, fat NIP. Simple as that.
Sorry to sound stroppy – it's just a common myth that I think needs correcting.
Having said that, I'm not convinced the operators are legally allowed to use the cameras in this way. At the time of my girlfriend's incident, she just accepted the points; that was well over a year ago, so I assume it's too late to challenge. Now, I'll certainly be talking to my colleague about investigating these scameras.
I'm also currently contesting a talivan NIP, again for my girlfriend. I do kinda feel guilty 'cos it was me who persuaded her to swap her bike (only a Bandit) for the MX-5. If she'd still been on the bike, her licence would be clean.
As for removing your front plate, I tried that a few years ago while running a played-with Cosworth as my everyday car. After getting pulled three times in one week, I decided to stick it back on. It did lead to some rather interesting chats with BiBs, mind you...
Having said that, I'm not convinced the operators are legally allowed to use the cameras in this way. At the time of my girlfriend's incident, she just accepted the points; that was well over a year ago, so I assume it's too late to challenge. Now, I'll certainly be talking to my colleague about investigating these scameras.
I'm also currently contesting a talivan NIP, again for my girlfriend. I do kinda feel guilty 'cos it was me who persuaded her to swap her bike (only a Bandit) for the MX-5. If she'd still been on the bike, her licence would be clean.
As for removing your front plate, I tried that a few years ago while running a played-with Cosworth as my everyday car. After getting pulled three times in one week, I decided to stick it back on. It did lead to some rather interesting chats with BiBs, mind you...
deltaf said:
Oh btw, 1 flash or 2?
Split jury - 1 vote for once and one for twice.
www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/gatso.htm
gives some technical details on Gatso operation including field width etc but says nothing about type approval. Can you ring up the home office and just ask for this?
Bluepolarbear - thanks for that link. There's interesting info there, such as laser LTI 20-20 range up to 300 meters, and not 15 miles (slight exaggeration) as some suggest. The penalties table is quite interesting, especially for cyclists;
Offence and Maximum Fine
Dangerous cycling £2,500
Careless cycling £1,000
Cycling on pavement £500
Offence and Maximum Fine
Dangerous cycling £2,500
Careless cycling £1,000
Cycling on pavement £500
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff