Speeding fine

LandyAndy

Hintza wrote: »

Delegated that one to Conor

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment.;)

LandyAndy

David_D wrote: »

I accept I may not be reading the information supplied as correct.

My initial thread was with regard to the photographic 'evidence' that was supplied and appears to confuse rather than clarify. The hope was that someone with experience here could make sense of what the two photos confirm.

Perhaps I am being stupid, but to me it looks like that within ONE second:
• I had increased my speed by 5mph
• Travelled 70.7 metres with is equal to 158-202mph depending on your mathmatics
• Driving in reverse, according to the log.

Yes, I probably will attend the course, I was just hoping to get answers from this forum

You did. If you want to fight ask on pepipoo. If you don't, take the course.

davetrousers

David_D wrote: »

Perhaps I am being stupid, but to me it looks like that within ONE second:
• I had increased my speed by 5mph
• Travelled 70.7 metres with is equal to 158-202mph depending on your mathmatics
• Driving in reverse, according to the log.

Just because you do not necessarily understand what the images show, it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Why don't you take the pictures to your Police Station and ask for clarification of what the various fields of data mean.

Hintza

davetrousers wrote: »

Just because you do not necessarily understand what the images show, it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Why don't you take the pictures to your Police Station and ask for clarification of what the various fields of data mean.

That would be the last place I would take it.

I think I'd fight it!! But then again I fight them all nowdays.

LandyAndy

davetrousers wrote: »

Just because you do not necessarily understand what the images show, it doesn't mean it is wrong.

Why don't you take the pictures to your Police Station and ask for clarification of what the various fields of data mean.

:T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T :T

But surely that would be the easy and common sense thing to do?:rolleyes:

David_D_2

I have received a reply from the Safecam operators:

Your alleged speeding offence was recorded by a mobile LTI2020 camera.
This type of camera records the entire speed check session performed by
the camera operator onto a VHS tape. The 2 images that were sent to you
were captured from the video to our computer systems.

The first image shows the point at which the camera displayed the result
of the speed check. The check is initiated by the camera operator who
aims the camera at the selected vehicle and pulls a trigger. The check
takes less than a second to complete, and the result is displayed in the
datapanel at the top of the screen. Going from left to right, the top
line shows the time code (hour, minute, second and frame number) of the
frame shown, the middle numbers show the check number (first 4 digits)
and the site code (last 4 digits). The recorded speed is shown on the
right with a - sign to indicate that the vehicle was travelling away
from the camera and a * to show it was travelling faster than the
camera's preset threshold. The bottom line shows the date and the
distance in meters between the camera and the vehicle when the check was
done.

The second image has been captured from an earlier point in the video to
give a cleared view of the vehicle's registration plate. The word
TIMEOUT in the datapanel indicates that the speed shown is from a
previous speed check that does not relate to your vehicle.

So there you have it, the lower figures in the first photo have nothing whatsoever to do with my car.... so why put them on the photo? Seems it serves no purpose other than to confuse :eek:

alastairq

as per my posting on a similar thread , I suggest having a thorough look at

http://www.5ive-o.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=12

feel free to ask questions on that forum.......it is awash with expert advice, on all matters to do with driving, and many other topics.

As a forum, I find it totally unbiased,ie not in any way supporting the establishment, if the establishment is seen to be in error.

However, urban myth is roundly exposed for what it is.

try it, you'll like it

Keith

David_D wrote: »

So there you have it, the lower figures in the first photo have nothing whatsoever to do with my car.... so why put them on the photo? Seems it serves no purpose other than to confuse :eek:

Am I reading that right the car before you was 139m from the camera doing 33mph?