Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:05

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 20:54 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 20:46
Posts: 2
I was driving on a main highway entering a 30mph zone from a 40mph zone when I saw two men working on a gatso that was lowered, the rear door open and being worked on. I passed the camera and it flashed at me. I turned around and took a photo of the camera in the down position anticipating problems at a later date.

Hey Presto, this morning an NIP arrived stating that I was photographed at 38mph in a 30mph zone.

How can this be a legal prosecution if the camera was being worked on?

comments welcome.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 01:27 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 04:58
Posts: 45
Please upload the photo you took along with the NIP and experienced contributions will comment.
You may also want to present this info to http://www.pepipoo.co.uk


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 01:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
That would be unusual but the accuracy would not be unduly affected by the height of the camera.

You should write to the ticket office with your observations but unless you have admitted to being the driver they do not have to provide you with any more information they have.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 15:32 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 20:46
Posts: 2
the image is on my iphone so i will download it tonight and post it for you to see. I have not sent any info back to CTO yet as I only got the paperwork yesterday.

I cannot see how they cna proceed with this as they surely cannot be certain that the workers did not interfer with the workings of the camera..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 15:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
jawje wrote:
the image is on my iphone so i will download it tonight and post it for you to see. I have not sent any info back to CTO yet as I only got the paperwork yesterday.

I cannot see how they cna proceed with this as they surely cannot be certain that the workers did not interfer with the workings of the camera..

If they could do so, then it would also call into question all evidence from Gatsos. Don't forget that the workers have to regularly return and change the films. Fiddling with such critical settings would invariably void the calibration of the sensor - which would be needlessly naughty. I suspect those operators don't have access to such critical components.

Also, there are two measurement systems within a Gatso. Both processes would have to be fiddled with, by the same amount, for the prosecution to be enabled. Have you checked the photos and the data contained within?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 17:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 04:58
Posts: 45
I doubt you would have received the gatso photographs.Would suggest writing to the SCP requesting copies of the gatso photographs to assist you to identify the driver.A polite telephone call might also do the trick.

Do not use the word evidence nor raise the issue of the gatso height at this stage.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 21:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
GreenShed wrote:
That would be unusual but the accuracy would not be unduly affected by the height of the camera.


So the camera is type approved at any height . :twisted: Would the calibration marks be visible with camera set low ??,and is the calibration of the calibration marks accurate with the camera in its non calibrated position .
Then we've got the fact that it's being worked on -and could have been set off by an operative .We all know how well some SCP check photos for accuracy . :wink:

Just mere technicalities - ( or in the view of SCP - things that can & will be ignored) ( Shakespeare said "the plays the thing -fast forward to 2010 - and SCP s just state it as "cash is the objective, truth justice and safety are secondary" )

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 23:14 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
botach wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
That would be unusual but the accuracy would not be unduly affected by the height of the camera.


So the camera is type approved at any height . :twisted:

It isn't restricted in height, in fact the mobile version works at just a metre off the ground.

botach wrote:
Would the calibration marks be visible with camera set low ??,

Probably yes. If not then a secondary check couldn't be performed. If they are visible then it can be.
botach wrote:
and is the calibration of the calibration marks accurate with the camera in its non calibrated position .

Well the marks are painted on the ground. They don't move in and out like a concertina bellows when you raise and lower the camera. If they are 2 metres apart with the camera down they are 2 metres apart with the camera up.
botach wrote:
Then we've got the fact that it's being worked on -and could have been set off by an operative .We all know how well some SCP check photos for accuracy . :wink:

If the camera was set off by the operative then there would be a difference in the record and the secondary check speed.

botach wrote:
Just mere technicalities - ( or in the view of SCP - things that can & will be ignored) ( Shakespeare said "the plays the thing -fast forward to 2010 - and SCP s just state it as "cash is the objective, truth justice and safety are secondary" )

Mere technicalities indeed and hardly likely to affect the speed unfortunately for the chap driving through.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 01:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
GreenShed wrote:
botach wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
That would be unusual but the accuracy would not be unduly affected by the height of the camera.


So the camera is type approved at any height . :twisted:

It isn't restricted in height, in fact the mobile version works at just a metre off the ground.

botach wrote:
Would the calibration marks be visible with camera set low ??,

Probably yes. If not then a secondary check couldn't be performed. If they are visible then it can be.
botach wrote:
and is the calibration of the calibration marks accurate with the camera in its non calibrated position .

Well the marks are painted on the ground. They don't move in and out like a concertina bellows when you raise and lower the camera. If they are 2 metres apart with the camera down they are 2 metres apart with the camera up.
botach wrote:
Then we've got the fact that it's being worked on -and could have been set off by an operative .We all know how well some SCP check photos for accuracy . :wink:

If the camera was set off by the operative then there would be a difference in the record and the secondary check speed.

botach wrote:
Just mere technicalities - ( or in the view of SCP - things that can & will be ignored) ( Shakespeare said "the plays the thing -fast forward to 2010 - and SCP s just state it as "cash is the objective, truth justice and safety are secondary" )

Mere technicalities indeed and hardly likely to affect the speed unfortunately for the chap driving through.



All I see from this is a lot of smoke ( something the surface version of the RN is known to use when on difficult circumstances - but wonder of a submarine commander cant submerge , he might use )

Come one , GS- you KNOW that TYPE APPROVAL depends on the camera being at the approved height etc- it wasn't , and that's the thing being disputed - so as said on PH " PUF - BE A DECENT CHAP AND GO AWAY " - please oblige .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 02:25 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Please be aware that Greenshed has been established as a liar, and has failed to show either any understanding of legal or technical matters, or claimed any credentials to suggest that he ought to have such an understanding. All his posts should be read with this caveat borne well in mind.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 03:26 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
In this instance I think greenshed and I might agree :boxedin:

Technically:
The Gatso camera being lowered won't affect the radar sensor reading providing it remains at the same vertical and horizontal angle (15-25 degrees) to the road; I believe this is the case when the casing is lowered.

This also assumes the operator examines the photos correctly (there is a wrong way of doing it).
Provided they do it the right way: the only difficulty the operator will face is the corroborating lines being slightly closer together in the photos, hence affording slightly less precision of the corroborating deduction; there will be no additional issues with [url]accuracy[/url].

Legally .. ?
The Speedmeter Handbook (Fourth Edition) wrote:
The camera shall be fixed so that its optical axis cannot be changed from the manufacturer’s setting without inhibiting the speed measurement.

I don't know if this could be interpreted to be a stipulation of height. If the manufacturer's setting has allowed for a suitable tolerance of the height setting then there's no opportunity for dispute here anyway.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.428s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]