I was filtering through some slow moving traffic yesterday, probably doing about 15mph. slow moving traffic doing about 5mph when I was flashed several times by a speed camera.
I was wondering if it was possible that the car I was passing went past the camera, then as I went past it fooled the camera into thinking that the speed limit had been exceeded.
Has anyone had this before and if so what was the outcome?
If I get a fixed penalty notice what would be my next step?
Speed Cameras
Moderators: trixynut, Mincehead, dicky, phuk72, Jak, Kevtrx849
-
Gix
- TRX-Enthusiast
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2011 5:40 pm
- Location: Preston, north west UK
Re: Speed Cameras
always always always..argue a camera penalty. They have to prove it's you
I have never paid one in my life, but had plenty
I have never paid one in my life, but had plenty
-
Mincehead
- TRX-Enthusiast
- Posts: 6345
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 1:40 pm
- Location: West Sussex
Re: Speed Cameras
Yep good advice, I even requested calibration certificates for the unit that last snapped me and guess what...................
A ONE TIME calibration certificate from Gatso B.V. (Holland) when the unit is first supplied. So, the muppets connect and disconnect these camera internals many times over, from enclosure to enclosure, never once are they recalibrated so I used that in my argument against paying.
As well as that it was a shot of the rear of my car, the back of the drivers head and I wasn`t going to admit I was driving nor give them details of anyone else that might have been in my car at the time.
Begrudgingly and after lots of correspondence over a couple of months, maybe more, they dropped the charge.
From the Greater Manchester `Casualty Reduction Partnership` (pffft):
http://www.drivesafe.org.uk/index.php/h ... work/gatso
A VERY useful site
:
http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm
Sneaky barstewards are full of underhand tricks:
Speed camera rules change as quick as a flash
A high number of motorists have no idea that the rules regarding the positioning and colour of speed cameras changed in April 2007.
Speed, or "safety" cameras, as the Government calls them, no longer have to be painted yellow, or be visible from 60m (200ft), and no longer have to be sited only where there is a history of road accidents. The regulations were relaxed in April after the Government had announced in December that camera partnerships would no longer be able to keep the money generated by speeding fines to pay for more cameras; instead, they'll get grants from a yearly, central road-safety fund of £110million.
As part of the new autonomy for the local partnerships, the Department for Transport handed over the regulation of the cameras, saying "the Department does not want to be prescriptive about the conditions to be met for the use of safety cameras." It now merely issues guidelines as to how the cameras should be operated. The guidelines still state that cameras should be painted yellow or covered with "retro-reflective" sheeting, and that they should be visible at up to 60m where the speed limit is 40mph or below, and 100m at all other speed limits. They also still recommend siting the cameras where at least three people were killed or seriously injured in the 36 months prior to the camera proposal being submitted, although the guidelines now state: "While the primary objective for camera deployment is to reduce KSIs [collisions where the person was killed or seriously injured] at known collision locations, cameras can also be beneficial where there is community concern - ie the local community requests enforcement at a particular site because traffic speed is causing concern for road safety, or where there are engineering factors that cannot be implemented in the short term and enforcement is being used as an interim measure."
But all the DfT stipulations are guidelines only, and some local partnerships have already said that they find the DfT regulations too restrictive. Meredydd Hughes, head of Roads Policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (who appeared in court this week after being flashed by a speed camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone), told a national newspaper in June that covert speed cameras would help cut road casualties, and when the proposal to deregulate speed cameras was first aired, Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: "If the rules weren't compulsory, we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions." Road safety charities, including Brake, also welcomed the possibility of more covert enforcement.
The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.
Source: Telegraph.co.uk - 03/11/2007
A ONE TIME calibration certificate from Gatso B.V. (Holland) when the unit is first supplied. So, the muppets connect and disconnect these camera internals many times over, from enclosure to enclosure, never once are they recalibrated so I used that in my argument against paying.
As well as that it was a shot of the rear of my car, the back of the drivers head and I wasn`t going to admit I was driving nor give them details of anyone else that might have been in my car at the time.
Begrudgingly and after lots of correspondence over a couple of months, maybe more, they dropped the charge.
From the Greater Manchester `Casualty Reduction Partnership` (pffft):
http://www.drivesafe.org.uk/index.php/h ... work/gatso
A VERY useful site
:http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm
Sneaky barstewards are full of underhand tricks:
Speed camera rules change as quick as a flash
A high number of motorists have no idea that the rules regarding the positioning and colour of speed cameras changed in April 2007.
Speed, or "safety" cameras, as the Government calls them, no longer have to be painted yellow, or be visible from 60m (200ft), and no longer have to be sited only where there is a history of road accidents. The regulations were relaxed in April after the Government had announced in December that camera partnerships would no longer be able to keep the money generated by speeding fines to pay for more cameras; instead, they'll get grants from a yearly, central road-safety fund of £110million.
As part of the new autonomy for the local partnerships, the Department for Transport handed over the regulation of the cameras, saying "the Department does not want to be prescriptive about the conditions to be met for the use of safety cameras." It now merely issues guidelines as to how the cameras should be operated. The guidelines still state that cameras should be painted yellow or covered with "retro-reflective" sheeting, and that they should be visible at up to 60m where the speed limit is 40mph or below, and 100m at all other speed limits. They also still recommend siting the cameras where at least three people were killed or seriously injured in the 36 months prior to the camera proposal being submitted, although the guidelines now state: "While the primary objective for camera deployment is to reduce KSIs [collisions where the person was killed or seriously injured] at known collision locations, cameras can also be beneficial where there is community concern - ie the local community requests enforcement at a particular site because traffic speed is causing concern for road safety, or where there are engineering factors that cannot be implemented in the short term and enforcement is being used as an interim measure."
But all the DfT stipulations are guidelines only, and some local partnerships have already said that they find the DfT regulations too restrictive. Meredydd Hughes, head of Roads Policing for the Association of Chief Police Officers (who appeared in court this week after being flashed by a speed camera doing 90mph in a 60mph zone), told a national newspaper in June that covert speed cameras would help cut road casualties, and when the proposal to deregulate speed cameras was first aired, Lee Murphy, speed camera manager for Cheshire, said: "If the rules weren't compulsory, we could use cameras to tackle emerging trends rather than waiting for the minimum number of collisions." Road safety charities, including Brake, also welcomed the possibility of more covert enforcement.
The DfT meanwhile says that if local partnerships are found to be abusing their autonomy, it will consider bringing back enforced regulation.
Source: Telegraph.co.uk - 03/11/2007
LOUD PIPES SAVE LIVES