Speeding? Manned equipment.

Iceweasel

Froggitt wrote: »

From memory didn't they have to "unhide" all the fixed cameras? Why the discrepancy?


37 in a 30

This was so well hidden it wouldn't have resembled anything to do with the Police.

It's not actually the Police who run these things - at least not where I live - it's a 'Safety Camera Partnership'.

From a distance they are painted to look like highway maintenence.

Froggitt

Iceweasel wrote: »

It's not actually the Police who run these things - at least not where I live - it's a 'Safety Camera Partnership'.

From a distance they are painted to look like highway maintenence.

I suspect it was painted to look like a bush.....

spacey2012

They have Amber lights because they are manned by civilian staff, they don't need to pay an officer £40 k a year to press a button.

AdrianC

Froggitt wrote: »

NIP says manned equipment...

Probably a camera van, then.

Is hiding behind a bush OK?

Yes. IIRC, the only difference between high-visibility marked and "unmarked" is how the fines can be distributed.

Also, I don't think there are speed camera signs there. Is that OK?

Yes.

They say they have photographic or video evidence......will they send this to me?

If you ask to go to court, then your defence solicitor will be provided with a copy as per normal rules of evidence.

Is it possible they got the person in front of or behind me?

It's incredibly unlikely.

Aretnap

Froggitt wrote: »

From memory didn't they have to "unhide" all the fixed cameras? Why the discrepancy?

They didn't "have" to as such, they chose to do it for various reasons including a desire to increase public support for the system, and road safety concerns about people braking suddenly when they saw the cameras at the last moment. Many years ago camera partnerships were funded by a netting off arrangement by which they'd keep the money from fixed penalties they issued, and a condition of being part of the scheme was that they had to adhere to some guidelines about the positioning and visibility of fixed cameras. But even then if they didn't follow the guidelines it didn't mean that you couldn't be convicted of speeding, it just meant that the camera partnership was (in theory) not eligible for that particular type of funding. And in any event the netting off arrangement was scrapped years ago - about 2008 IIRC. Nowadays speed awareness courses are the main source of funding, and most forces do continue to follow something like the old guidelines when it comes to placing their fixed cameras - but they don't have to.

Froggitt

But don't drivers slam on the anchors when they see a camera van? Isnt that dangerous? Also, doesn't the public support angle also apply to camera vans?


Also, aren't the roads more dangerous if drivers are looking out for hidden camera vans, rather than looking out for kids playing on the pavements next to busy roads?

Iceweasel

Froggitt wrote: »

But don't drivers slam on the anchors when they see a camera van? Isnt that dangerous? Also, doesn't the public support angle also apply to camera vans?


Also, aren't the roads more dangerous if drivers are looking out for hidden camera vans, rather than looking out for kids playing on the pavements next to busy roads?

Don't forget about nuns carrying baskets of kittens.

Andyt1981

I was able to obtain pictures within a few days. The trick is to say it's to confirm the driver, not for any other reason. It's likely to be a forward facing camera if manned, so you'll get a nice picture of yourself (mine shows myself slamming on the brakes had the hazard lights going on a deserted dual carriageway at 6am on a Sunday!).

Happychappy

Amazing how speeding offences are generally 6am on a deserted dual carriageway, deserted except for the camera or camera van.......observation 0 ; )

DigForVictory

By all means ask for the photo but not if it costs you the driving course.

They are fascinating (say she who's been on two, ahem, but learned almost as much again new on the second as I did on the first) and the odds of it all being a mistake etc are painfully small.