Safe Speed Forums

Hello ladies and gents. I'm a bit worried/angry here.

I was in a hire car (brand new Vectra) in Portsmouth and I noticed the speed limit go to 40mph, so I accelerated up to about 42 (well the speedo said that), lifted off and set the cruise control to hold it (was 40mph for a fair stretch and I knew there was cameras on the road).
To my horror a camera immediately flashed me (I was still decelerating from 42). Maybe it picked up the momentary bump of the cruise-control engaging?

It was a Truvelo, so I got a flash in my face?

Am I potentially in trouble? I was rather suprised as I thought points for 42-44 would be extrodinarily tight. Seemed to make more sense to do about the limit rather than slow down to 35 for the camera.

Thing is, if I get a NIP, ask for evidence and it says 46+, even though I KNOW this was not the case, it's ajust my word against their machine.

Do they ever flash just to scare drivers?

Thing is, the rest of the road was doing the same speed behind me and then blasted past after the camera

My friend who's had past experiences with fighting speed-charges told me not to worry until I get a NIP and I know he's right but I'm paranoid of losing my clean licence (insurance is already £600 on my car and working on it is my hobby).

That's sounds very odd. I though all Truvelos were infrared, so no flash should be visible. I've never heard of a visible light flash on one before. I'd always assumed they used IR to avoid the possiblity of dazzling drivers since you'd be much closer than anyone would normally get to a Gatso when it goes off. Something new perhaps? There was a weird looking camera on the A30 near Heathrow for a few years that I'd never seen anywhere else, now disappeared. I reckon it was something new being tested for Home Office approval or something. Maybe yours was too. And your indicated speed sounds too low to have set it off. Most speedos over read slightly, so you might well have been doing less than you thought. Are you certain it was you that set it off?
Edit: I doubt that 3 points, annoying as it is after a clean license, will damage your premium much. When my last lot expired my premium went up anyway. There's so many drivers about now with 3-6 points I don't think insurers make a big deal out of it so much. 9 or more may be another matter.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

A few people I've spoken too have queried how it could flash, but there was definitely a bright white flash from it. Not exactly what you want in your face on a dark night while trying to drive.

Almost certain it's a Truvelo. There's 2 in Portsmouth and I saw another one South of Oxford on an A-road. Blue casing, orange front and 2 circular lenses.

There were other cars on the road (most faster ), but I was the only one near it and when I went back to look the next day I noticed the 3 stripes on the road exactly where it had flashed at me.

Who knows, maybe the flash could be a deterrent feature after all (might
explain why the level was set so low in this case)?

Thanks for your reply

_________________
Every car needs a H.U.D. (especially now).

Just to be sure, did it look like this?

That's from the Truvelo UK website (Twister provided the links in this thread which you might want to read as well).
The Truvelo site mentions that front facing cameras are fitted with a magenta filter, but doesn't say that rear facing cameras are. That suggests the filter is removable, and if some clown has taken it off that would explain why you got a visible flash. Still leaves the question of what speed it was set for though. If it was you that it got, you must have been unlucky and only just over the threshold.
You may still have a slim chance though. I found this picture on the Truvelo site as well:

Now that funny purply colour cast on the bumber, grill and door mirrors of the lorry, and on the borders of the speed limit sign and the Mini's number plate, make me suspect it is infra red film being used. I could be wrong about that, as I've never used colour IR film, and only just recently started playing with b&w IR.
Your slim chance, if it is IR film, is that the exposure might have been screwed up as a result of the wrong flash. The instructions on the IR film that I've been trying says that it can be quite hit and miss, and that you have to bracket a lot. If (and it's a big if) that applies to colour IR as well, and if (also big if) that's what your piccie is on, they may not be able to read your number. It all depends on the sensitivity of the film and whether they suss the missing flash filter and adjust for it in developing. It may be that they end up with a more or less normal photo without the funny colours. Or it may be that the colours are a result of playing with the image before putting it on the web. I don't know enough to say for sure so this is all ifs and maybes. I'll do some reading about IR film and maybe post a question on a photography forum about it to see if I can be more definite.

If you do get a NIP try and get hold of a copy of the photo and ask if you can see the neg/trannie. You may have something if the original is illegible but you've got a print out of a computer. I think enhancing images in developing or photographic printing is allowed, but in the computer it's a no-no. Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, or you could go over to the Pepipoo forums and ask there.

Edit: Oh yeah, and if they make waves about shwoing you the photo and orginal you might want to prod 'em by complaining about being flashed in the face at close range while you're driving. Defintely ask on the Pepipoo forums about it before doing that though. It's probably a good idea to aske 'em anyway if you do want to see the photo. http://www.pepipoo.com

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

That's definitely the style of camera.
Apparently someone had been working on it the day before according to a guy who lived nearby (perhaps they removed the filter).


Are there no grounds to complain about unreasonable tolerance bands? There's NO WAY I was 10% +2 over the limit. If anything happens I'll certainly ask for evidence, as I'm fascinated to know.

Also, if I ask for evidence, shouldn't there be 2 photos. If I just get sent one with my 'speed' on it, then is that proof? It can't be verified by anyone else in the way the old Gatso count-the-lines-crossed could.

_________________
Every car needs a H.U.D. (especially now).

I think the old ACPO 10% + 2 margin is voluntary now. IIRC the speed kills mob badgered the government for zero tolerance and more or less got it, though most forces stuck to the old margins anyway. But recently there have been lots of stories of people being done for below that margin in certain areas. Lancs is one, just ask Mad Moggie. Thames Valley is another, at least in 30 zones, which I've pretty much confirmed with them via e-mail. Maybe Hants is going that way too. Still, AFAIK no one's ever proved it with a copy of a NIP, so if you get one that says 41-42 in a 40 zone Paul and/or the ABD might like a scan. BTW, since it was a hire car the NIP might take a while as it'll go to the hire company first. Don't breathe a sigh of relief if it doesn't show in a fortnight, as you might not yet be in the clear.

As far as the two photo thing is concerned, Truvleos work slightly differently. The thread I linked to in my last post explains it, but the short version is that the white lines are the check. If your tyres are on or over those three white lines then you were speeding. That second photo shows that the mini is speeding but the truck is not.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Where abouts was this camera? Was it on the Mile End road on the way out of the City? As you go onto the M275?

A couple of months back I was approaching that camera at 40 when white van man behind me decided he wanted to undertake me, pulled out and accelerated past.

As we both reached the line it flashed, just like a normal gatso even thought it is a forward facing camera. This was at night too so it was pretty bright.

I was in the outside lane at the time so was a bit concerend that I would get the NIP, but nothing ever happened.

The only other TruVelos I know about are on the Eastern Road and St Michaels Road (although that's a 30 limit)

Not sure the lines thing is quite correct.
As even if the lorry was in the same place as the mini, it could be doing 5mh and just happen to be on the lines when the mini was caught.

I could be wrong but isnt it something to do with, being able to confirm that the camera detected the correct speed but knowing exactly when to take the picture to get the target on the lines. Which in the picture, shows that the mini was the target, not the lorry.
Although as I said, if the lorry was on the line aswell, what happen then?
Does the camera know which lane is the target.?

The road was on the way out towards the M27 on the West side exit - a 3/4-lane road. It's definitely a 40 (I went back to check) and there's a Shell garage to the left of the road.

Gatsobait, I figured it would be a while before I'd hear anything for that very reason .
Just hope I got through the M25 without any points too (did my very best to stick to the limits, but when they change at every gantry and there's a camera there too, I imagine I was probably 1mph over on the odd one of those too ).

I'm not a speeder either - usually take the slow lane as it's safer (usually empty).

Next visit to the South, I'm posting my equipment and flying down...

_________________
Every car needs a H.U.D. (especially now).

As far as I'm concerned, that photo should be completely inadmissable in court.
Two vehicles crossed the lines at more-or-less the same time.
AFAIK, the time taken between an axle crossing the first and second lines should be similar to the time between that axle crossing the second and third lines for the reading to be valid. With a second vehicle crossing the lines the apparatus has no way of distinguishing between which vehicle's axle crossed the lines at what time and, with the small chance that another vehicle's axle may have - together with the first vehicle's axles, created an apparently valid reading, the fact that there were two vehicles in the photo should have rendered it inadmissable.

Julesm and Pete317, I'm only repeating what was said on the Truvelo site.
http://www.truvelouk.com/secondaryspeedchecks.phtml That page is where I got the mini + truck photo from. It says:

Admissable or inadmissable... no idea. But you'd have to worry about the government goons that gave the bloody things type approval if the photos were usuless in court. Hmmm. Mind you, I do worry about the government goons almost every day.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

The M25 scameras are run by the Highways Agency, not by a Scamera Partnership (this is why they're allowed to be there when the road doesn't have the safety record to justify them). They also have a higher tolerance than you'd normally find (because it is a motorway, so a child is hardly likely to run out in front of you) -- I believe the M25 cameras are set to Limit + 10mph when a limit is showing, and 94 mph when NSL applies.

JohnWB, my guess at IR film is starting to look very shaky. The colours should have gone very weird (like pink grass), and that example from the Truvelo site looks fairly normal. Better cross your fingers.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Oh well... think there's no chance it could flash just to scare?

I've heard that all pictures have to be checked by an officer, so maybe there's a chance it'll get rejected at this next stage for being unreasonable....

Fingers crossed tightly

Looking ahead, if I took this to court, would there be any chance of having the 'sentence' reduced (and if not, what would the typical costs be?).

_________________
Every car needs a H.U.D. (especially now).

Well, if you get a NIP, assuming your license is clean it's pretty certain you'll get a fixed penalty of £60 and 3 points. I doubt the magistrtaes would let you off with anything less than that and you'd have to pay costs, unless of course you've got grounds for it to be chucked altogether. You really need to post that question on the Pepipoo forums. There are people there who've been to court, some won and some lost. http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/index.php

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

If you take it to court, the worst they can give you (if they play by the guidelines) is three points.

They do have the power to increase your fine (from £60) up to £1000. It is highly unlikely they'll go this high for such a small offence.

Court costs usually £30.

Yeah that's the Mile End Road. Same camera I went past that flashed. I reckon it's a scare tactic. Especially at 42. I've went past that camera at a smidge over the 40 limit before and nothing happened.

You were near to or even over the absolute top limit and you knew there were cameras on the road. You have guts, I have to say. How did it turn out in the end? Did you get a letter from the cops?

_________________
I stole this .sig

Naively perhaps, I thought it made more road sense to hold at the limit than brake down to 35 for the camera (annoys me when people slam on the anchors to virtually half the limit for a camera). I thought the people setting the cameras would allow/expect this.
I was aiming to hold it at 40, just the camera was a lot nearer than I thought so I must have been a smidgen over.

I haven't heard anything yet. The problem is that any 14-day letter will go to the hire-firm first (and they may not contact me, although all they know is my name and workplace).
I'll ring them tomorrow as it's the 14th day.

_________________
Every car needs a H.U.D. (especially now).

35 seems a reasonable speed in a 40 zone, almost 90% of the absolute top limit. Trouble is, the many drive at or over the limit, as if the speed limit is just a 'suggested' top speed.



Sounds like you were trying to hold it down to the absolute top limit, when you should have been under the limit to start with.

_________________
I stole this .sig