Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue Jun 16, 2026 04:47

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 14:28 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
New speed camera puts more drivers in the frame

The Times, Wednesday 24 May 2006.

By Ben Webster, transport correspondent

Technology will stop motorists claiming someone else was at the wheel, police say DRIVERS who try to evade speeding penalties by claiming that someone else was at the wheel will be the target of a new camera that captures a clear image of the driver's face.

Police are investing in the new technology because of the growing problem of drivers "passing off" penalty points to relatives and friends in order to avoid an automatic six-month ban for accumulating twelve points within three years.

A study last year estimated that more than 700,000 drivers had passed off points in the past decade. Police issued 1.9 million camera penalties in 2004 and there are currently 160,000 drivers with a strong incentive to pass off points because they have nine points on their licences, one offence away from a ban.

The digital photographs taken by the new camera will be studied in any case that arouses suspicion, including when the registered keeper of a vehicle claims that a partner was driving or tries to blame someone who was visiting from overseas. In disputed cases investigators employed by police and local authority camera partnerships will visit people's homes and show them the photographs.

Drivers who have falsely given another person's name will be told to reconsider or face prosecution for perverting the course of justice.

The new forward-facing camera has been developed by Gatso, the biggest speed camera supplier, to work in conjunction with traditional rear-facing cameras. The flash of the first camera triggers the second, which takes a digital image of the front of the vehicle, using an infra-red filter to prevent the driver from being dazzled and to ensure clarity in darkness.

The Essex speed camera partnership has had trials with ten of the cameras and used them to identity the driver in more than 1,000 cases in which the culprits were either trying to pass off points or claiming they did not know who was driving.

Neil Hamilton, the disgraced former Tory MP, and his wife Christine escaped a penalty for doing 63mph in a 50mph limit in 2003 after claiming that they could not remember who had been at the wheel. The new device would have identified which of them was responsible.

The London partnership has bought five of the cameras, which cost £10,000 each, and is installing two on Lower Thames Street in the City next week. Several other partnerships, including Derbyshire, have expressed interest and hundreds of the cameras are expected to be installed across Britain.

Trevor Hall, operations manager of the Essex partnership, said: "The cameras have been highly successful in cases where the driver claims it was his wife but the image clearly shows it was a man driving. When people see the images it helps to change their minds."

Tom Duckham, manager of the London partnership, said: "We have 30 enforcement officers who will be paying visits to drivers and presenting them with the pictures."

He said that the images would also help to catch drivers who falsely claimed that their number plates had been copied and fitted to another car.

Police will also no longer have to drop cases involving pool cars shared by several people, none of whom will admit to the offence. A Hampshire police officer escaped prosecution for speeding in 2002 because the force was unable to prove which of the 100 people authorised to use the unmarked car had been driving.

In Essex, four men who committed a series of street robberies were caught after an officer found a picture of them that night speeding past a camera in a stolen Ford Fiesta.

The time-consuming process of comparing the camera image with the suspected offender will be streamlined from 2012, when police will be able to compare instantly on screen the camera image and the driving licence photograph of the registered keeper.

Some drivers caught passing off speeding penalties are being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and jailed or fined several thousand pounds.

This month, a nurse was imprisoned for six months for trying to blame a speeding offence on her former sister-in-law, who lives in America. Joy Rees, 39, was caught at 51mph in a 40mph limit in Plymouth last July. She already had nine points on her licence and, to avoid a ban, twice forged signatures on forms sent by police. She was caught after the DVLA contacted the woman in America.

Stewart and Cathryn Bromley, of Hyde, near Stockport, invented a Bulgarian employee who they said was driving their car when they got two speeding penalties. Mrs Bromley, 42, travelled to Bulgaria to send a postcard from him. They were fined £11,000 last October.

David Simmonite, 60, of Bradford, was jailed for four months in January last year after claiming that a French friend was responsible for a speeding offence committed by his daughter. Police found that the Frenchman had been at home with a kidney complaint at the time.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 15:22 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 08:22
Posts: 2618
Do you ever get the feeling that someone is getting a little bit obcessed?

_________________
Science won over religion when they started installing lightning rods on churches.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 16:37 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 15:14
Posts: 420
Location: Aberdeenshire
I think so.

The fact that they are:

a) Wasting public money having some wanker sat comparing photographs all day.

b) Wasting more public money paying some other tosser to travel around showing people photographs

c) Jailing people for what's probably the most trivial criminal offence ever

d) Fining people more than criminals who deliberately damage or injure for trying to retain mobility (and hence their job/home/etc).

By banning/jailing working people this cuntry simply adds to the public tax burden by removing someone from the tax-payer bracket and inserting them into the "completely penniless and sponging off the tax-payer bracket".

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 16:58 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Quote:
Tom Duckham, manager of the London partnership, said: "We have 30 enforcement officers who will be paying visits to drivers and presenting them with the pictures."


I wonder what credentials these enforcement officers have? Are they police or just jumped up bullies. Are these people paid by the partnerships or out of tax payer’s money? It really must be big business to put so much effort into persuading people to pay up and all in the name of safety.

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 17:52 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
I'd imagine Balaclava and comedy mask sales are going to rocket :twisted:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 18:59 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 00:11
Posts: 764
Location: Sofa
Dr L wrote:
The Times, Wednesday 24 May 2006.

By Ben Webster, transport correspondent

The digital photographs taken by the new camera will be studied in any case that arouses suspicion, including when the registered keeper of a vehicle claims that a partner was driving or tries to blame someone who was visiting from overseas.

I can just see it now.

Cop 1: the person named as the driver is Mr Smith
Cop 2: Hold on, the driver looks a bit black...Lets go kick his door down.

FFS, next thing you know they'll make it illegal to have a name that's not sufficiently ethnic enough if you aren't white, and vice versa. :roll:

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 19:13 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 12:01
Posts: 4815
Location: Essex
MrsMiggins wrote:
Dr L wrote:
The Times, Wednesday 24 May 2006.

By Ben Webster, transport correspondent

The digital photographs taken by the new camera will be studied in any case that arouses suspicion, including when the registered keeper of a vehicle claims that a partner was driving or tries to blame someone who was visiting from overseas.

I can just see it now.

Cop 1: the person named as the driver is Mr Smith
Cop 2: Hold on, the driver looks a bit black...Lets go kick his door down.

FFS, next thing you know they'll make it illegal to have a name that's not sufficiently ethnic enough if you aren't white, and vice versa. :roll:


Nah - they wouldn't dare. However, if it was a white person called Patel... ;-)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 19:56 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 00:11
Posts: 764
Location: Sofa
Taking it further, if the overseas visitor named as the driver was from somewhere in the USA will they assume you are lying unless the driver was also at least 4 stone overweight and badly dressed?

_________________
Less Kodak, more Kojak.
In times of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 24, 2006 20:17 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 00:42
Posts: 832
Also online at;

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/articl ... 94624.html
.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 17:22 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 19:19
Posts: 1050
I wonder if these guys do self adhesive film version?

http://www.advanced-technology-coatings ... oad/uv.pdf

If you can reflect or block the infrared light with some sort of coating, will the photo still be visable?

of course they haven't mentioned that the photo would not be admissable as evidence, so its bluff and bluster tactics again :roll:


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 25, 2006 17:58 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
Roger wrote:
Nah - they wouldn't dare. However, if it was a white person called Patel... ;-)


Actually, I do know one. Patel is her married name.

But I do get your point ;-)

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 26, 2006 01:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 09:44
Posts: 516
Location: Swindon, the home of the Magic Roundabout and no traffic planning
Dr L wrote:
The time-consuming process of comparing the camera image with the suspected offender will be streamlined from 2012, when police will be able to compare instantly on screen the camera image and the driving licence photograph of the registered keeper.

Did I miss something here - as far as I am aware, my licence expires in 2044. I will not be replacing it before then unless forced

I know the europrats are going on about a wonderful new license, so of course we will have to blindly accept into law whatever they say

_________________
"Are you sh**ing me?"
"John Spartan, you are fined one credit for a violation of the verbal morality statute."


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2006 21:29 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 15:49
Posts: 393
If the Road Safety Bill becomes law, the government will then have the power to require everyone to replace their paper licenses with photocard versions...


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2006 04:51 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 01:42
Posts: 686
But if the photographs DON'T match, they STILL prosecute the registered keeper for the offence.

Heads they win, tails you lose.

_________________
“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.” - H. L. Mencken


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 14 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.032s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]