Safe Speed Forums

This morning's read from The Metro

Whenever I see the word, or variation on the word, "tru/true" it sends a cold shiver up my spine.

"irrefutable proof" I'm sure I've heard that somewhere before.


"Police forces across Britain are set to trial a new video speed gun that not only records a vehicle’s speed but captures the driver on film.

It means officers will have irrefutable proof of speeding by motorists who won’t learn of their offence until a fine lands on their doorsteps.

The new TruCam speed trap is packed with new technology, yet small enough for traffic officers to carry on patrol. It could soon find its way into every police station in Britain, according to Tele-Traffic, Britain’s biggest supplier of law enforcement equipment.

The company claims the device could save police time and money.

‘This new device collects more data simultaneously than traditional cameras and all that evidence gives the police much more chance of getting a conviction,’ Mike Ricketts, head of sales at Tele-Traffic, told Auto Express magazine.

‘Without video footage, police have to pull motorists over at the side of the road to show them the radar reading.

The data can be stored on a memory stick meaning footage could be emailed to motorists so they can see it on their home computer.

Currently two police officers need to be present to verify a speeding radar reading."

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Apart from the obvious "never makes mistakes" (which will come back to haunt them) there are a lot of holes in this.

Firstly, the statements are made by the head of marketing for Teletraffic who is hardly independent. Secondly, don't the current mobile units have video capture as well as speed recording? Thirdly, "more chance of getting a conviction"? I should have thought the conviction rate for speeding using the current cameras was very high and that very few bother to challenge a "ping".

Is RSS sponsored by Teletraffic? This type of wording is reminiscent of the level of certainty expounded by them.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

The words Titanic and unsinkable come to mind & statements like "the science is settled" .... nuf said.

How is that going to make our roads any safer?


How is saving the police time and money going to make our roads any safer?


So its all about securing convictions, how is that going to make our roads any safer?


Well IMO pulling motorists right there and then and explaining what they've done and why it is dangerous is absolutely the way to go & just might improve road safety!!

More self righteous hypocritical nonsense from the greedy money grabbers, never mind improving road safety, they don't seem to really give a stuff about that, just another geez the cash ya bass scheme.

Edited to remove Tone from the quotes .... sorry Tone didn't mean to infer in any way they were your quotes

_________________
You only need two tools - WD40 and duct tape. If it doesn't move and it should, use WD40. If it moves and it shouldn't, use duct tape. :0)

I think that is wrong - only ONE officer required - secondary evidence is the radar reading.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Exactly what I understood to be the case too. You can alternativley have two officers AFAIU, but that's not much good if they're both bent. Something about in their opinion I think.

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Manufacturer's link.

Teletraffic are having an open day. I wonder if they'll let me attend so I can show how stationary objects are seemingly anything but

PS: this is laser, not radar.

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

Steve,

Unless you are really Dr Who, you will not be attending!

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

You can bet there’s some irony, in that the people who design and build these things will doubles get caught themselves sooner or later if they haven't already. (I wonder if they realise they are all turkeys voting for Christmas?).

The bottom line is the company are simply out to make huge profits with no interest in real safety, much like the people who buy them. (That’s not libel I hope).

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/869577-poli ... s-mistakes

Seems to be the first report of this new "video nasty". The camera may have a more limited range than the laser (probably 750 metres)due to the difficulty in keeping the image steady, but the device doesn't yet appear on the Tele-Traffic web page, so no official information available. The photo in the news article shows a car at a distance of 76.5 metres @ 80kph, but I wouldn't take that as representative until I had seen more details.

Beware!


Post merged into ongoing thread. Admin

Automated enforcement?

"John Spartan, you are fined five credits for repeated violations of the verbal morality statute. "

_________________
Driving fast is for a particular time and place, I can do it I just only do it occasionally because I am a gentleman.
- James May

we argee on something, although one operator is the correct term



all you have to do is ask, take your own coffee though

_________________
now retired