Gatso Experts Please!!

lister

Stooby2 wrote: »

If the OP was not on the white lines, being on the opposite side of the road, then the second check hasn't been completed and the offence can't be enforced.

The lines do not have to be used for the secondary check (good job as in many cases they are largely worn away). Photogrammetry is used instead.

If the camera has activated and the OP is on or above the threshold used by the local force to determine whether further action is taken (probably 35mph and above) then they can expect to be receiving some correspondance (unless they are really lucky and the number plate was illegible).

The OP hasn't said if they have done a speed awareness course already recently (highly likely they have if the 9 points are speed related, but there are plenty of other ways for the careless/naive/oblivious/incompetent to rack up points) - which could be important in terms of whether a fixed penalty or course is offered in the event further action is taken.

Given that the OP seems to have taken off like Sebastian Vettel from my reading of the event (the camera seems to be at their end of the roadworks they are just pulling away into, so must have seriously ragged it - in a crowded, dark situation with poor visilbility), they may have previous speeding form

Rodney_Trotter

Stooby2 wrote: »

No, not always, some cameras only work in one direction and only have lines on that side of the road. If you were to be speeding on the wrong side of the road and not on the lines, then the offence can't be enforced.

Gatsos only work in one direction. I've not seen a site without two sets of lines though.

Cuddlybearman

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

Is this site wrong then?

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm

Yeh I read this too - its still not 100% clear though. The are definitely NOT two sets of white lines at the same point on both lanes so the picture would show (i'm guessing) me on the right hand lane, the lines on the left hand lane (partially covered in road work barriers,etc), and then I guess some part of my car would probably be behind roadwork bollards etc

But then I've read onine that the white lines are for manual measurements only - the radar on the camera is always correct (according to the police)

Cuddlybearman

lister wrote: »

The lines do not have to be used for the secondary check (good job as in many cases they are largely worn away). Photogrammetry is used instead.

If the camera has activated and the OP is on or above the threshold used by the local force to determine whether further action is taken (probably 35mph and above) then they can expect to be receiving some correspondance (unless they are really lucky and the number plate was illegible).

The OP hasn't said if they have done a speed awareness course already recently (highly likely they have if the 9 points are speed related, but there are plenty of other ways for the careless/naive/oblivious/incompetent to rack up points) - which could be important in terms of whether a fixed penalty or course is offered in the event further action is taken.

Given that the OP seems to have taken off like Sebastian Vettel from my reading of the event (the camera seems to be at their end of the roadworks they are just pulling away into, so must have seriously ragged it - in a crowded, dark situation with poor visilbility), they may have previous speeding form

Well thanks for your comments, but the camera was at the beginning of the roadworks - which had no working lights - where I was being flashed to come forward but also had a guy behind me beeping and flashing to hurry up - so sorry that my mind was concentrating on not having a crash instead of wandering 4 miles an hour over the speed limit

TonyMMM

Rodney_Trotter wrote: »

Is this site wrong then?

http://www.speedcamerasuk.com/gatso.htm

It isn't wrong - but it leaves out important information.

There needs to be a secondary check which is within 10% of the measured radar reading and this is usually done using the white lines BUT other methods are available and just as valid if the white lines are not present/worn away.

Stooby2

From that GATSO website...

It is a legal requirement to have a secondary measurement for speed. This is why at every Gatso speed camera location there are white lines painted on the road. The distance between each line represents 5mph so there can be no dispute over how fast you were driving. If there is any dispute over whether the radar technology captured the correct speed of the vehicle that was speeding the white lines are there as a secondary measurement.

If white lines aren't present, everyday speeding offences won't get enforced. However in a serious incident (or if someone kept driving on the wrong side to avoid the lines) then the force might go down lines of employing an expert to confirm the speed as TonyMM states - but it's not cheap and wouldn't be done routinely.

Rodney_Trotter

TonyMMM wrote: »

It isn't wrong - but it leaves out important information.

There needs to be a secondary check which is within 10% of the measured radar reading and this is usually done using the white lines BUT other methods are available and just as valid if the white lines are not present/worn away.

Without white lines what other secondary checks can be done?

lister

Cuddlybearman wrote: »

Well thanks for your comments, but the camera was at the beginning of the roadworks - which had no working lights - where I was being flashed to come forward but also had a guy behind me beeping and flashing to hurry up - so sorry that my mind was concentrating on not having a crash instead of wandering 4 miles an hour over the speed limit

Don't worry about what I think - away from the forum take the time to have a little think about what you have just written.

You firstly state that it was dark and you couldn't see much of the situation ahead. Then you go on to say that despite this, you respond to pressure from behind by driving with some degree of rapidity into this dark, confused situation. Does that sound like the best way of avoiding a crash to you? Obviously we can't see the situation you were faced with, but from what you have said I would have thought proceeding with caution was the only sensible thing to do.

As a driving instructor who does a lot of work with full licence holders on driver improvement, I hear these kind of justifications for incidents all the time, and they are in my experience never valid.

Rodney_Trotter

lister wrote: »

The lines do not have to be used for the secondary check (good job as in many cases they are largely worn away). Photogrammetry is used instead.

If the camera has activated and the OP is on or above the threshold used by the local force to determine whether further action is taken (probably 35mph and above) then they can expect to be receiving some correspondance (unless they are really lucky and the number plate was illegible).

The OP hasn't said if they have done a speed awareness course already recently (highly likely they have if the 9 points are speed related, but there are plenty of other ways for the careless/naive/oblivious/incompetent to rack up points) - which could be important in terms of whether a fixed penalty or course is offered in the event further action is taken.

Given that the OP seems to have taken off like Sebastian Vettel from my reading of the event (the camera seems to be at their end of the roadworks they are just pulling away into, so must have seriously ragged it - in a crowded, dark situation with poor visilbility), they may have previous speeding form

I didn't realise they were recognised offences.

Rodney_Trotter

lister wrote: »

Don't worry about what I think - away from the forum take the time to have a little think about what you have just written.

You firstly state that it was dark and you couldn't see much of the situation ahead. Then you go on to say that despite this, you respond to pressure from behind by driving with some degree of rapidity into this dark, confused situation. Does that sound like the best way of avoiding a crash to you? Obviously we can't see the situation you were faced with, but from what you have said I would have thought proceeding with caution was the only sensible thing to do.

As a driving instructor who does a lot of work with full licence holders on driver improvement, I hear these kind of justifications for incidents all the time, and they are in my experience never valid.

Where did they say that?