Scamera Van question

[Scubini]

Was out in Wales today having fun (safely) and came round a corner slightly over the 60 limit to be faced with 1 of those horrible camera vans with its camera pointing in my direction.

Having no plate on the front does anyone know if I'm safe or could they of taken my number when I drove past to be used against me?

Thanks

[fizzwheel]

Most cases a forward facing camera will not get a bike, however sometimes the camera operator will note down the number plate of an offending vehicle.

Best place to look for advice is http://www.pepipoo.com/

HTH

[Davido]

Mte of mine had the same happen to him. They sent him a letter through the post, based on the fact they they knew his bike. They 'apparantly' noted down his plate, but have no evidence of this. Ask for a photo if you get sent anything.

[Baph]

As above, ask for proof of an offence.

Some (perhaps) local knowledge may help too. Living in N. Wales there's a few types of van I see quite often. If it was the standard scamera van, with bright yellow markings on the back and two places for a camera on the back - opening hatches, you should be safe. Unless like has been said, the operator took your details.

If it was a more plain white van, and had the blue 'crime prevention' sign, it's the ANPR van. Whilst they don't always record speed, they do look for excessive speed & will photograph front & back. You should be lucky with that if you were just above 60mph in a 60 zone.

Being in N. Wales, you learn quickly what the types of vehicles are & what they do. Usually the hardway :(

[Scubini]

Thanks for the advice guys! I will definitely not be taking it lying down if I get an NIP.

I got done by 1 of these things when they 1st came out, 90 in a 60, empty straight road, 6 points £200 fine so I think they've had enough of my money. Wasn't going that fast this time tho 70-80 approx.

Davido do you know if your mate get off the hook?

Cheers

[BILLY]

They got me twice with a forward facing cammera the opperator is sat on a swivel chair and can spin around and take your number down!!!! The *******S!!!!!!

[Scubini]

They got me twice with a forward facing cammera the opperator is sat on a swivel chair and can spin around and take your number down!!!! The b*stards!!!!!!

NOT GOOD! :(

[Davido]

He's still deciding whether or not to try and fool them.

He rang them up and complained and they asked him to send them a pic of his bike and his gear. So he's contemplating wearing different gear and removing some panels, so they don't catch him riding as the picture shows.

Hopefully he'll be safe. He goes to uni in a week and will be giving up his bike for three years.

Good luck with the camera situation. Hope it all works out. :)

[Baph]

...contemplating wearing different gear and removing some panels, so they don't catch him riding as the picture shows.


I assume you haven't seen the news story about the North Wales biker who was given a NIP, and re-sprayed his bike a different colour in the hope of getting out of it. They still gave him points regardless of the colour.

I think I saw the news story on here, but can't remember where.

[mpaton2006]

...contemplating wearing different gear and removing some panels, so they don't catch him riding as the picture shows.


I assume you haven't seen the news story about the North Wales biker who was given a NIP, and re-sprayed his bike a different colour in the hope of getting out of it. They still gave him points regardless of the colour.

I think I saw the news story on here, but can't remember where.

Re-spraying the bike to avoid a FPN for speeding equates to Perverting the Course of Justice, which is a criminal offence of far more serious penalties - i.e you are very likely to go to jail. IIRC, most of the idiots who've tried this (other examples included making up false relatives in foreign countries who were "driving" at the time, removing speed limit signs and replacing them with higher ones)

Links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/5145368.stm, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5041914.stm


If you did the crime, do the time, there's no point trying to get out of it if you know you were guilty.

[Baph]

I knew someone would be along soon with a better memory than me. :)

Hate working on-call & being woken up an unearthly hours to sort client issues out when I'm technically day off :(

[kwak zzr]

MCN said " ask for proof that the camera was calibrated that day"

[Bluepete]

It is also worth reading the ACPO guidelines for speed enforcement, it gives all sorts of interesting facts and rules which have to be complied with.
If MCN say aske for proof of daily calibration, the law is as follows.

The laser has to be calibrated once a year by the manufacturer or recognised repairer. They generate a certificate and stiker for the laser giving the relevent dates. The operator should check the laser is in date before use. They will also HAVE to produce the certificate if required at court (not at the roadside)
Each time the laser is taken out for a day the operator has to perform certain checks to ensure the calibration is correct. These ensure correct operation of the laser as it runs a self check on switch-on. The targeting system needs checking for correct allignment and the range and speed device needs checking against a pre measured distance (ie, fire the laser at a wall a known distance away and see a 0 mph reading...the wall is not moving!) at the correct distance. This distance has to have been measured by a calibrated steel tape measure and the person responsible will have produced a statement recording this fact.
If the calibration, accuracy and range checks have not been recorded before and after the day of use in a statement or pocket note book, there is no proof they were carried out and therefore no evidence that the laser was operating correctly....... guess what, no conviction. :D

[Scubini]

Blimey!

I will certainly check that, thanks

Scubini

[tomjones2]

You might get away with it, i recently passed a van going well over the posted limit but I think the operator was having lunch because he was sitting in the front. 8)

[Scubini]

LOL lucky man!

[chunkytfg]

Thanks for the advice guys! I will definitely not be taking it lying down if I get an NIP.

I got done by 1 of these things when they 1st came out, 90 in a 60, empty straight road, 6 points £200 fine so I think they've had enough of my money. Wasn't going that fast this time tho 70-80 approx.

Davido do you know if your mate get off the hook?

Cheers

Why would you fight it? If you do get a NIP it just means you got caught doing something which you quite openly admit to doing? Stop trying to dodge out of somthing you had admitted guilt to and accept your punishment like a man.

If you dont want to get caught speeding then you know full well how to avoid it.

:roll:

[Scubini]

Why would you fight it? If you do get a NIP it just means you got caught doing something which you quite openly admit to doing? Stop trying to dodge out of somthing you had admitted guilt to and accept your punishment like a man.

If you dont want to get caught speeding then you know full well how to avoid it.


OK yes I did break the 'law' but I did not compromise my safety or anyone else's doing it.

I'm guessing that you are one the few people left who don't see these 'safety' camera vans as revenue makers?

[mpaton2006]

Stop trying to get out of it, like it or lump it you KNEW prior to exceeding the limit the possible repercussions, however much you disagree with it or however "safe" it was.

You may still be lucky, but then again you may not be - who ultimately is to blame?

[Scubini]

Stop trying to get out of it No

like it or lump it you KNEW prior to exceeding the limit the possible repercussions, however much you disagree with it or however "safe" it was.


Stop being pompous

[Flamin_Squirrel]

There is such thing as bad law, or badly enforced law. This is such a case, and I suspect all Scubini is trying to 'get out of' is having his money stolen by greedy ********s with no real regard for safety as they claim.

The police wouldn't have given him a ticket, so an money grabbing untrained civvy shouldnt either.

[chunkytfg]

Why would you fight it? If you do get a NIP it just means you got caught doing something which you quite openly admit to doing? Stop trying to dodge out of somthing you had admitted guilt to and accept your punishment like a man.

If you dont want to get caught speeding then you know full well how to avoid it.


OK yes I did break the 'law' but I did not compromise my safety or anyone else's doing it.

I'm guessing that you are one the few people left who don't see these 'safety' camera vans as revenue makers?

No far from it i hate them as much as you obviously do.

I wasnt aware i had said you did anything dangerous only that you did something illegal.

[chunkytfg]

There is such thing as bad law, or badly enforced law. This is such a case, and I suspect all Scubini is trying to 'get out of' is having his money stolen by greedy ********s with no real regard for safety as they claim.

The police wouldn't have given him a ticket, so an money grabbing untrained civvy shouldnt either.

Correct b but however bad a law is it is still the law and the police have a right to enforce it.

And how do you know a copper wouldnt have given him a ticket? Just because they occasionally let you off it doesnt mean they will everytime. especially when he gets his identity checked and it allready shows 6 points for speeding

[Scubini]

There is such thing as bad law, or badly enforced law. This is such a case, and I suspect all Scubini is trying to 'get out of' is having his money stolen by greedy ********s with no real regard for safety as they claim.

The police wouldn't have given him a ticket, so an money grabbing untrained civvy shouldnt either.


Well said that man!

No far from it i hate them as much as you obviously do.


If you disagree with their existence why not join the fight?

[chunkytfg]

If you disagree with their existence why not join the fight?

I never said i disagree with there existance did I?

In the right place they have a perfectly justifiable role to play. It's just that they chose to use them in unjustifiable places.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Correct b but however bad a law is it is still the law and the police have a right to enforce it.

Yes, but they often make decisions on what's the most appropriate way to do this. In this case it might well have just been a telling off, if they'd even bothered to pull him over that is.

And how do you know a copper wouldnt have given him a ticket? Just because they occasionally let you off it doesnt mean they will everytime. especially when he gets his identity checked and it allready shows 6 points for speeding

As I said above, even if it was the police who chose to pull him over (which isnt garunteed) they may just tell him off, and not even check his details.

[Scubini]

Correct b but however bad a law is it is still the law and the police have a right to enforce it.


So if there was a law to say round up and kill Jewish people you would support their right to enforce that law?
(OK not the same ball park but you see my point?)

I never said i disagree with there existance did I?

In the right place they have a perfectly justifiable role to play. It's just that they chose to use them in unjustifiable places.


So you do disagree with their existence in 'unjustifiable places'?

[chunkytfg]

So if there was a law to say round up and kill Jewish people you would support their right to enforce that law?


I never said i have to agree with the laws only that the police have a right to enforce them


So you do disagree with their existence in 'unjustifiable places'?

Yes but define an unjustifiable place?

[Scubini]

Yes but define an unjustifiable place?

Its your statement you define it.

[Jabba]

So if there was a law to say round up and kill Jewish people you would support their right to enforce that law?


I never said i have to agree with the laws only that the police have a right to enforce them

More than that, other law requires them to enforce it. They have no choice about doing it, but they do have some discretion as to how they do it in some circumstances.

However, the scamera vans are not generally operated by the police, and this will have been the case here. Let's leave the coppers (and talk of irrelevant other laws) out of this particular debate and keep it to scameras, eh? :wink:



So you do disagree with their existence in 'unjustifiable places'?

Yes but define an unjustifiable place?

That could be a big job.... easier to define what is justifiable.

I offer "outside school entrances".

[Baph]

That could be a big job.... easier to define what is justifiable.

I offer "outside school entrances".

I'll amend that to say "in the general area of schools and housing estates". I'll also throw in "Town centre's, expecially on all traffic lights (except pelican/toucan crossings)." The latter isn't really regarding speed as such, but is still a 'valid' position for a camera IMO.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

More than that, other law requires them to enforce it. They have no choice about doing it, but they do have some discretion as to how they do it in some circumstances.

They excersise discression because they understand, as do most people with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, that the rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules is, always has and always will be a stupid idea. This is why most people hold cameras in such contempt, far more so than they do the police.

[Jabba]

They excersise discression because they understand, as do most people with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, that the rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules is, always has and always will be a stupid idea.

Would you consider the setting of cameras to trigger at 39mph in a 30mph limit to be "rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules"? :wink:

I suspect that most people can see the need for cameras and the debate is more about appropriate siting.

This is why most people hold cameras in such contempt, far more so than they do the police.

Those that hold them in total contempt probably resent them because they have been negligent enough to get caught due to poor observation or poor concentration. It's not as if we don't get fair warning of the big luminous beasties :wink:

[Flamin_Squirrel]

They excersise discression because they understand, as do most people with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, that the rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules is, always has and always will be a stupid idea.

Would you consider the setting of cameras to trigger at 39mph in a 30mph limit to be "rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules"? :wink:

I suspect that most people can see the need for cameras and the debate is more about appropriate siting.

Yes, because if a camera is there it's there for a reason (well, so we're told) so 39mph maybe too fast. Or, it maybe not. Only a person can make that decision.

Siting isn't the issue, the issue is that cameras serve no purpose other than to raise money. Therefore, they should be gotten rid off.

This is why most people hold cameras in such contempt, far more so than they do the police.

Those that hold them in total contempt probably resent them because they have been negligent enough to get caught due to poor observation or poor concentration. It's not as if we don't get fair warning of the big luminous beasties :wink:

Fixed cameras yes. Forward facing camera vans, perhaps not.

[Baph]

Would you consider the setting of cameras to trigger at 39mph in a 30mph limit to be "rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules"? :wink:
...stuff...
Those that hold them in total contempt probably resent them because they have been negligent enough to get caught due to poor observation or poor concentration. It's not as if we don't get fair warning of the big luminous beasties :wink:

Personally I've been caught only once, and I was doing 46mph in a 40mph zone. Chances are that if the camera wasn't there, but a road traffic officer was, I'd of been stopped for it anyway.

The van in question looked to be a normal 'works' van with flurescent strips on the back and a small black window. No warning, no nothing. It was only when I was too close to it that I realised what it actually was (I was also new to the area then).

Does this mean I resent them? Yes I do, when they're not clearly marked for what they are, or when they're in a 'wrong' position. However, I felt this way before I'd been caught speeding.

IMO, a speed camera makes the driver/rider concentrate more on their speed than on what's going on around them.

I have found though, that the signs that light up to show you what the speed limit is as you ride past them, above that posted limit, are pretty reliant on your position on the road. I don't think I'll be trying the same with a laser or a fixed camera though.

[Jabba]

They excersise discression because they understand, as do most people with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, that the rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules is, always has and always will be a stupid idea.

Would you consider the setting of cameras to trigger at 39mph in a 30mph limit to be "rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules"? :wink:

I suspect that most people can see the need for cameras and the debate is more about appropriate siting.

Yes, because if a camera is there it's there for a reason (well, so we're told) so 39mph maybe too fast. Or, it maybe not. Only a person can make that decision.

Most people slow down when they see a fixed camera, so job done. Those that don't slow down get caught. They are the ones that should be caught.

I'm happy with the above provided that the site of the camera is justifiable, e.g. outside a school.

Siting isn't the issue, the issue is that cameras serve no purpose other than to raise money.

With respect, it is the issue. And they do serve a useful purpose in the right place.

Therefore, they should be gotten rid off.

Easy. No-one speeds, no income, bye-bye cameras.



I have an issue with some camera sites where I do agree with FS - they appear to be there for revenue-raising. Those are the ones that should go - and will when I'm in charge. Vote for me!!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Siting isn't the issue, the issue is that cameras serve no purpose other than to raise money.

With respect, it is the issue. And they do serve a useful purpose in the right place.

Therefore, they should be gotten rid off.

Easy. No-one speeds, no income, bye-bye cameras.



I have an issue with some camera sites where I do agree with FS - they appear to be there for revenue-raising. Those are the ones that should go - and will when I'm in charge. Vote for me!!

No, they really are only there to raise money. They are...

a) Not sited at the main accident black spots, only where they'll catch the most people.
b) Installed with the pretence that speeding is a significant cause of accidents when they're fully aware that it isn't.

[mpaton2006]

Cameras aren't installed deliberately for revenue raising. They are installed in such places due to a serious error in the placement guidelines.

For example, if only two KSI level accidents are attributed to speed, then a mobile camera van can be used. If four happen, then a fixed camera can go up. The reason they have generally failed is that:

a) They have to be in areas where the majority of road users are exceeding the limit.
b) Accidents are generally random. If there is a genuine blackspot, then it should be engineered out.

As most people exceed the limit on wide, straight roads - the 85th percentile speed is high and therefore when there are accidents this is where safety cameras tend to get deployed, which is illogical.

To be most effective, they need to be in areas which have generally high hazard densities and where the 85th percentile speed is underneath the speed limit.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Right, so the fact that they end up being sited in places that end up earning them the most money is just an unfortunate consequence?

[mpaton2006]

Yeah, the initial research focused on clusters of collisions which was a mistake. It's only recently they've woken up to the regression to the mean phenomenon accounting for ~60% of the benefit reduction at sites.

I think this is (partly) why they're taking cameras back from the Partnerships as of 2007-08 and including them in a general "road safety fund" which is not paid for through fine revenue. From 2007 all fine revenue will go to HM Treasury and not to the Partnerships.

(I don't even know if the Partnerships will continue to exist at all, maybe someone else does)

[Flamin_Squirrel]

From 2007 all fine revenue will go to HM Treasury and not to the Partnerships.

Forgive me if this dose nothing to quell my cynicism :lol:

[Ceri JC]

There is such thing as bad law, or badly enforced law. This is such a case, and I suspect all Scubini is trying to 'get out of' is having his money stolen by greedy ********s with no real regard for safety as they claim.

The police wouldn't have given him a ticket, so an money grabbing untrained civvy shouldnt either.

What he said. Part of people's hatred of camera vans and cameras (and consequently trying to get out of paying the fine/getting the points) stems from the fact that they often get caught doing speeds that, unless they were doing something dangerous at the same time, the vast majority of traffic police would turn a blind eye to.

Why did I not grumble when I got caught at 100mph? Because if a traffic cop had seen me, he'd of pulled me too and I'd get the same treatment*. I'd resent being caught doing 70 on a single lane NSL country lane by a camera though.

*(unless I was Big "Mr. Lucky" Ape) :D

[Ceri JC]

From 2007 all fine revenue will go to HM Treasury and not to the Partnerships.

Forgive me if this dose nothing to quell my cynicism :lol:

Same here.

This doesn't stop the "Safety" Camera partnership from:

a) Existing in the first place
and
b) Being guaranteed (perhaps even moreso than under the current system) a continued existance.

and consequently, still having an incentive to bust people for marginal offences, which were not remotely dangerous.

It doesn't matter who the money goes to; if it results in fines, it's still revenue collection. :lol:

[Ceri JC]

They excersise discression because they understand, as do most people with more than 2 brain cells to rub together, that the rigid enforcement of arbitrary rules is, always has and always will be a stupid idea.

Would you consider the setting of cameras to trigger at 39mph in a 30mph limit to be "rigid

Yes, if it was in a place where the 30 limit was completely inappropriate. For example, on top of the Gabalfa flyover, or the road connecting Cardiff town (from by the Prison) to Cardiff Bay, etc.

I think most police officers would be more lenient of breaking the 30 limit in places such as those, rather than in a 30 limit outside a school. It's precisely for that reason I have a lot of time for traffic coppers and very little for cameras. By "lenient" I don't necessarily mean "they'd ignore it completely, whatever you were up to", but they would, generally speaking, have a different threshold at which they'd pull you/how they would deal with you, for the 2 locations. A camera, or for that matter, a camera van, would not.

[mpaton2006]

Everyone goes on about traffic police being the utopia, but when traffic police ruled the roost, KSIs were about twice as bad as they are now :D

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Everyone goes on about traffic police being the utopia, but when traffic police ruled the roost, KSIs were about twice as bad as they are now :D

Drink driving being made sociably unacceptable, better handling and safer cars, improved driver training...

A complex issue and I'm sure there are many other potential reasons for KSI figures falling, but I would bet my life cameras have absolutely nothing to do with it.

[Jabba]

Would you consider the setting of cameras to trigger at 39mph in a 30mph limit to be "rigid

Yes, if it was in a place where the 30 limit was completely inappropriate. For example, on top of the Gabalfa flyover...

There isn't a fixed camera on the flyover and they stopped using the mobile one several years ago for the reason you state. However, the 30mph limit is there because of the blind crest and queuing during the morning peak period. Much quicker on a bike :D

I was rear-ended by a speeding Merc in 1997 whilst at the back of a queue on the down-side of the flyover. My wife was with me at the time and suffered a miscarriage a week later (hence I remember the date). The driver couldn't see the queue until it was too late. Ironically, he was speeding because he was late for Court to answer a speeding charge :roll:

However, the camera after the flyover, on a downhill section of road outside a school and where those queues form in rush hour was going to be my example of a perfectly correct place for a camera. There used to be regular tail-end collisions there, now there are hardly any and traffic actually flows more smoothly these days.

...... or the road connecting Cardiff town (from by the Prison) to Cardiff Bay, etc.

Most of that road (it's called Central Link, btw) is a 50mph limit. It's 30mph at the prison end because there are lengthy queues there during the moring and evening peak periods and because the queues form in a blind "dip" as you approach. There were a lot of serious accidents there, hence the limit. Despite all the accidents, there's no camera because they have engineered out the problem with the lower limit.

I think most police officers would be more lenient of breaking the 30 limit in places such as those, rather than in a 30 limit outside a school. It's precisely for that reason I have a lot of time for traffic coppers and very little for cameras. By "lenient" I don't necessarily mean "they'd ignore it completely, whatever you were up to", but they would, generally speaking, have a different threshold at which they'd pull you/how they would deal with you, for the 2 locations. A camera, or for that matter, a camera van, would not.

Certainly agree with that.

[mpaton2006]

Everyone goes on about traffic police being the utopia, but when traffic police ruled the roost, KSIs were about twice as bad as they are now :D

Drink driving being made sociably unacceptable, better handling and safer cars, improved driver training...

A complex issue and I'm sure there are many other potential reasons for KSI figures falling, but I would bet my life cameras have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The effect is probably < 10%

I don't mind cameras because they are a deterrent. Driving standards are atrocious. I live in a semi-rural area, which has several NSL limits and several (justified) 30's. One in particular which at first glance would appear to be suitable for about 40-50, until you realise there's about 10 concealed farm entrances, a stables and riding school there! Tonight there were 6 horses on the road when I came past, and still there were people overtaking me and then the horses at about 60 towards a sharp, chevroned blind bend where there is regular debris from farm vehicles!

People say education is key, but like the horses, you can only lead them to the water. Cameras are there because ALL road users refused to take heed of the highway code and the education they were provided.

[Jabba]

Cameras are there because ALL road users refused to take heed of the highway code and the education they were provided.......

.....and the common sense they were born with :lol: