Guest Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/ This is a good site for all the latest information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick M Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Also if the reg cant be read by the computer in processing stage then yes its passed on to a human to "enhance" the photo to gain the reg number from it! Which I believe makes the photograph inadmissable as evidence - if you get flashed you need to request a copy of the photograph and I believe you are entitled to get a "first generation" copy, i.e. one which hasn't been enhanced in any way. If the number cannot be clearly read then I would say you have a healthy defence. This is based on comments / advice on the old speed-trap bible site but I'm sure it's still valid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ight Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 using reg plates like this is also a criminal offence not a motoring offence. they dont work, if you can see it when you look at it then it will show up in a picture. if you do manage to diffuse the picture slightly all they do is look at the pisture in negative. also from what i can remember all pictures are examined by a person. look at it from their point of view, 'normal' plate..."ah, hes only speeding a little bit, i'll let it go" 'silly waste of money plate'...."ah, he does this all the time, i'm going to go out of my way to make sure we nail this b******d" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Green Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 3 vodka’s later but if I may just make a comment here about breaking the law. We are all responsible people here but some are looking for ways to fool the law of the land in an effort to get away with some thing that is, by law, unacceptable; speeding. Do we feel that by owning a fast car we are almost “entitled” to go quicker than Mr Average in his Morris Marina if we can get away with it? I suspect not. Take a scenario of your parents/loved one/friend who’s house has just been turned over; you know the usual things such as the TV, video and Hi-Fi has been stolen. You want the villain’s b*****k* on a Silva salve. Heaven forbid if your parents/loved one/friend have been maimed or killed by a speeding motorist; you want to take out their family as well! I sometimes speed on the road (but try not to) but if I am caught on a speed camera, I have nobody else to blame except myself and will take the fine and points that go with it. I am sorry for being a boring old fart but this subject is something I can relate to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick M Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Bob, That argument is perfectly valid if you accept that a) all posted speed limits are appropriate and consistently applied and b) that all speed cameras are located in accident black spots rather than in revenue generating locations. Sadly I don't. I have seen too many speed limits being reduced only for them to be "policed" by cameras / mobile vans. The truly unfortunate thing about all of this is that pedestrians are most likely to come into conflict in a built up area, say around a school or shopping arcade, and these are areas where cameras are very rarely seen and where there are often limited attempts made to separate cars from pedestrians. Pedestrians are always considered to be the "victims" but if a child runs into the road chasing their ball, or a drunk wanders into the path of an oncoming car then is it truly the driver's fault ?? It is not, therefore, about anyones' "right" to break the speed limit, it is merely an attempt to avoid being criminalised for something which is purely a cynical attempt at stealth taxation. *gets off soapbox* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Green Posted September 4, 2003 Share Posted September 4, 2003 Hi Nick Good to talk to you again. 4 vodka’s on. I guess the point I am making here is we cannot be judge and jury as to where the cameras should or should not be. It is not our decision as motorist; and that’s what we are, therefore we have to abide by the law. It really doesn’t matter who walks in front of you, if you were speeding; and this is my thrust of my discussion, you (the motorist) are in the wrong if you are found to be breaking the law. Kind regards Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick M Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I am not necessarily advocating that we should all be breaking the speeding laws left, right and centre, but I do feel that where a speed limit has been imposed in a covert manner and is then followed up with a "safety" camera then this transcends the boundaries of policing by consent. I actually have *some* sympathy for the police because they do not always have control over the siting of cameras - that is often down to the local or county councils. To simply say that the motorist has no control over speed limits or the location of cameras is simply admitting defeat, and will possibly help pave the way to ever more draconian measures against drivers who dare to exceed the speed limit. And I don't disagree that if someone is exceeding the speed limit and hits a pedestrian then they are accountable for their actions. BUT, and this is a big but, I also feel that if the pedestrian did something stupid like not looking before stepping out into the road then they should be held equally accountable. Who would you consider to be at fault if the driver was driving at 29mph in a 30 limit and a person stepped out 10 feet in front of them without looking ? And what if the driver was doing 35mph ? Now, you might argue that if a speeding driver hits the pedestrian and breaks both their legs then the injuries could have been reduced if they hadn't been speeding. But I would argue that the accident could have been avoided entirely if the pedestrian hadn't been so stupid. Speed plays no part in the way the accident happened, merely in the consequences. I fear we are destined to agree to disagree on this one. I have a fundamental problem with the way speed is portrayed as being the root cause of all out accidents and problems on the road. Better driver training would reduce the number of accidents but would not bring in any revenue.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CharliePsycho Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 I saw a very interesting site once that had an LCD cover for the plate that went opaque at the flick of a 'switch' or was that a radar detector... Unlike the reflective plates (which all can be seen if you invert the image) this is completely blank.... Provided the Gatso's keep using radar then I see no reason why it should not work... won't stop the odd copper with a laser speed gun, but would stop an un-expected Gatso... Personally I thought the ultimate solution - used extensively around here - was the chain and landrover leaving the Gatso in a nearby ditch... also quite efective was the flaming tyre... ...© Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blatman Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Stealth plates..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ight Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 tuf tuf club Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterrosey Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 Nottingham's ring road and A610 were fitted with 24hr average-speed measuring digital laser cameras about 2 years ago. They've raised over 60 million in fines (!!! and, surprise surprise are popping up on all sorts of other roads. I can't ever recall having seen a crash on the roads they're on, either... Personally I think speed cameras miss the point - most accidents are caused by poor driving. Trouble is 'bad driving' is difficult to quantify, while speed is an easy target. Bin the cameras and get more policemen. 60 million would pay a good few salaries... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S8ight Posted September 5, 2003 Share Posted September 5, 2003 they wont put speed cameras on roads where you get lots of crashes though, after all if theres a crash ahead of you you have to slow down on the subject of camera placements on the way out of Zurich is a stretch of dual carriageway with a 30mph limit. you pass a speed camera. about 1/4 mile along you then pass another speed camera. and about another 1/4 of a mile you pass anither speed camera. and you think its bad over here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.