Speed Cameras (NB)

[Matthewb]

I know this is a bit non-boaty, but I was on my way down to the boat at the time so it's kind of relevant.........

Gatso camera, facing towards me but on the other side of the road, white distance markings on that side but not mine. Camera flashes twice in my face as I went past. Question is, can I be nicked?

Web research has conflicting opinion - anyone know for sure?

Matt

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Mike21]

As far as I know if it's a gatso, then I would have thought no, as they are designed to take picture of car as it goes passed. Are you sure there wasn't car going other way?
If it was one of these Tuvelo camera,s then yes as they are designed to take pictures as car approaches

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Matthewb]

Unfortunately the road was empty so I know it was me it flashed.

And definately a Gatso, I went back yesterday to have a look.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Agree with Mike21. I dont think the Gatso's (are you sure it was'nt a Truvelo?) can get you front on especially since there were no distance markings on your side of the road

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[jfm]

If a normal Gatso as you say, and not a Truvelo, they will trigger if you speed when driving towards them but you will not hear anymore from the rozzers, they will not send you a ticket if you were driving towards the camera.

This is based on general web folklore plus I have done it myself a couple of times.

Anyway, if they do send a ticket, you can use the forum dont-sign-the-document gambit so you wont be "done" anyway

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Cheeky Girl]

Does that actually still work? Not signing the document or does it depend whether it is a company car or not?

Graham

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Planty]

Don't know, but can relate: "Someone" was driving my car just past A34/M4 Junc Roadworks, recently, Truvelo in Cop Van on Bridge got "someone" at 47 in a 40 (usual dubious 40 in "Roadworks" when the "RoadWorks" stopped a mile back!!).

They sent letter saying who was "someone", sent it back saying yes it was my Car used by company all the time didn't know who "someone" was on that day as up & down A34 all the time that car is!! They then sent photo, (inconclusive who driving, nice angle though, F stops not quite set right IMHO, Lexus looked good though, nice private plate came up a treat, I was proud of it) with a letter, "It is your Duty, possibly criminal if you do not tell us who this naughty "someone" is!!! "
I replied " Just as naughty, poss criminal to finger "someone" if it was "someone else", don't argue about car, speed etc, thanks for such a nice photo, could I have an enlargement for the Office Wall??". Received letter Tuesday "Let off this time, keep better records!!!" Result!!!! No enlargement enclosed, shame.
Paul

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sunnyseeker]

They keep going off in my face but my bike has no number plate on the front so cant help with that one!
A traffic seargant told me they can be set up to work in eiter or both directions...
Good luck, its only points

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[dralex]

Any forward facing speed cameras are not allowed to flash- can you imagine the trouble if it caused an accident. They are triggered by sensor strips in the road and have infrared for night time piccies. I must say I have never had a Gatso flash me from the other side. Also did some research after getting 3 points 4 years ago. I also bought a radar detector as was doing 2000 miles/month at the time. Interestingly, only about 1 in 4 gatsos had a super strong signal. I've heard that a lot have the radar switched on and trigger the flash but have no camera. May be folklore, but the detector seemed to support this.

I am a raggy and was just browsing the " other side" Saw the thread and thought it may be discussing maritime speed cameras /forums/images/icons/blush.gif



<hr width=100% size=1>Life's too short- do it now./forums/images/icons/wink.gif<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by dralex on 23/07/2004 11:08 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[Alpha22]

I was flashed bt a Truvue, it gave me quite a start.
It was triggered bt a motorbike overtaking.
I thought at the time, that cant be right, flash gun in the face!! Ouch!
But it seems that it is the norm.

This was during the day...... not sure what happens at night.

D.

<hr width=100% size=1>Last weekend was shopping darling........ so this weekend is boating. (Duck!)

 

[dralex]

Similar thing happened to me on aFreanch Autoroute, Flash in the face at night and I was going a little bit faster than the posted speed limit! Spent the whole time away totally paranoid that I was going to be blasted, then realsied on the way back that they are warning strobes if there is an accident up ahead.

<hr width=100% size=1>Life's too short- do it now./forums/images/icons/wink.gif

 

[britemp]

They've closed the old section 172 'refuse to name the driver loophole now' - if you don't name you will be prosecuted now unless you have a very good excuse!

My personal score is now 3 camera tickets received, 3 camera tickets beaten. My process for beating them is very simple - when the NIP arrives, name the driver and then ignore all further correspondence completely. That's it, job done!

This method works because the unelected, unaccountable, self-righteous quangos that are the Safety Camera Partnerships are under strict orders that only large transgressions of the speed limit (ie +20mph) can be taken to court or the strain on the law courts will destroy them. Thus by insisting that your prosecution goes to court, you invariably cause it to be dropped.

In the unlikely event it does go to court you still have the usual defence of requiring the evidence that you are being prosecuted by, ie the photo and of course Mr Plod must provide a certificate of calibration for the device used to produce the photo dated within the 14 days prior to the offence and only during that period. As there are thousands of cameras and a handful of calibration units, expect a camera to have the correct calibration certificate about 20% of the time at best.

Add all this to the fact that the good old camera partnerships and police have been lying to us all for years when they say that speed is the biggest cause of accidents when in actual fact speed is only number seven cause and i think we all have some very good reasons for doing our best to avoid getting points and fines from these arbitrary revenue gathering devices!

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3597917.stm>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3597917.stm</A>

Oh, errrr, rant off now by the way! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

Mr Clean Licence. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[jfm]

the section 172 point

Brtemp, re the 172 loophole, you might be more up to date than me but there there has been no new legislation. All that's happened is that the plods etc have worked out a line of argument under PACE that not signing doesn't avoid prosecution. but it's untested and uncertain whether that line of argument is correct. Certainly various of my colleagues are not signing currently and not being attacked for it. Thus the loophole closure is more propaganda than substance I think

All AFAIK. you might have better info than me

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sunnyseeker]

In Devon they have more Gatsos installed than cameras to put in them so they move the cameras around, the detector and flash is still there though. The blue ones up Northanmpton way definately flash in your face and so do the Gatsos if set up to...from a reliable source, and my names not Tony

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[britemp]

Re: the section 172 point

JFM - you are correct that there has been no actual change in legislation but caselaw has effectively closed this loophole vis Idris Richard Francis vs DPP 23rd March 2004.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/dorset/3516612.stm

You may still try it, but I suspect your lawyer would advise you against it on the basis of the above precedent.

Quote: 'The law is an ass' Unquote /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Just to clarify, do you mean name the driver but dont give any address and dont sign the form? Or have I misunderstood?
What about if you are stopped by Plod with a mobile gun? They ask foe your name and some form of identification. How do you handle that?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[britemp]

The key thing is the signature. If you want to take the stance that any of several people could have been driving that's one thing, but if you can't blame it on someone else many people named themselves but failed to sign it making it inadmissable in court. The other option of course is to name the driver as a friend of yours who lives in a non-EU country as they are highly unlikely to chase them up. I personally have a chum in Mexico who is ideal for this purpose. I suppose ultimately they could check with immigration to see if he was in the country at the time of the offence, but I doubt they ever will!

If I am stopped by plod with a mobile camera I play it completely straight - my argument is with arbitrary cameras replacing experienced police officers, not with coppers and speeding per se. In my experience honesty usually results in the best deal from a policeman - I have been stopped for speeding a couple of times and never charged because I don't treat the police like idiots. Touch wood, I have driven fast cars for 18 years averaging 40k per annum and only one prosecution for failure to comply with white lines in 1991 - £40 and 3 points from a Plod on a motorbike.


<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[Jim44]

Appartently this works, I must admit that I have not tried it, but all you do is say that you were selling your car and you met a man in the pub.

This way you know who was driving your car, you just dont know his name or any other information about him. Apart from he was called Fred average hieght and had black hair.

You do have to get the picture first just to make sure you cant be indetified in the photo, if it is from behind there is no problem.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[britemp]

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

You do have to get the picture first just to make sure you cant be indetified in the photo, if it is from behind there is no problem.

<hr></blockquote>

Fatal flaw in your plan I'm afraid - mr Plod will not provide you with the evidence, ie the photo, until it goes to court. You have no entitlement to see it prior to that. /forums/images/icons/frown.gif



<hr width=100% size=1><< Sig removed at request from Kim Hollamby - he thought it might scare forumites! >>

 

[jfm]

Re: the section 172 point

Thanks Britemp for that link. Yes, I see that the "not-signing" gambit no longer works

<hr width=100% size=1>