Speed camera loophole

We could put them in brightly coloured cars and call them traffic patrols.
Perhaps they could even be given an element of discretion and judgement.

Silly me, what am I thinking... that wouldn't make any money.

 

Westy said:

Kent & Medway Cash Scamera Partnership staff continue to break the law.
Increasing amounts of video evidence confirming what one of there
civilian members once claimed, that there are no laws affecting them,
they can do what they want. Six vans have been caught speeding by
members of the public armed with home video cameras. Using emergency
exits on motorways seems widespread and distracting motorway drivers by
driving along the hard shoulder of a motorway when they have no
business to be there is cause for concern. In spite of instruction from
their head, it seems they still hide their camera warning signs on
occasions.

 

To a point. Most hazards aren't going to be directly in front of you.

 

If they're not, what's the hazard?

 

Vehicles entering from a side road. Pedestrians.

 

"Fresh meat"

 

"The Quick and the Dead"

 

I agree. However, do you think it is safe that people have to drive
along with one eye on the speedometer and constantly on the lookout for
said yellow reflective boxes, rather than watching the road and what's
going on around them?

Steve.

 

Were you taught to drive constantly looking at the speedo your test?
Would you have failed your test for speeding?

So what you are telling me is that a learner with bugger all experience
can do a better job than someone who has been driving for years?

 

Would you have failed your test for speeding?
During tests it was keeping about the limit which was important, not keeping
to 29.5 mph

So if you reached 32mph no problem - if you did 20mph failure for failing to
make progress

 

The calibration marks on the road are broad and the camera shoots at
an angle. In practise they are useful in determining which of the cars
in the picture is going fastest but not in making a precise
measurement of speed with a % or so. In that respect they are just a
sop to the law that says 2 measurements of speed are required.

Obviously IGWS within the limits of their measurement.

You could have challenged that or asked for explanation of the
accuracy of their measurement. It could simply be that the accuracy of
the system under test was much greater than the accuracy specified in
their calibration.

If, say, the camera is accurate to 0.1%, the calibration is done to
1%, and motorists are not prosecuted unless they exceed the limit by
3mph +2% then their convictions will be safe.

Nothing necessarily wrong about that. If I get my oscilloscope
calibrated by Tektronix, or my PAT tester by AVO it does not mean it
of necessity cannot be trusted. It is routine for big fleet operators
such as gas companies, bus companies, local councils etc to carry out
their own MOT testing.

Ditto: Electronic equipment is routinely calibrated with a precise
signal generator which generates the signals with which the system
would have to process whilst in service. It can be more convenient
when calibrating a 7"x 5" printed circuit board than having to use a 2
ton lump of metal travelling at 88 feet/second.

Let's face it electronic equipment can be calibrated to a defined
level of accuracy.

You haven't shown us why.

DG