How will this speed camera catch you?

Conrad3000

Hi all. There's a long stretch of road that's been tarmacked about 18 months ago. Before that, it had some lines on it so the speed cameras at either end could calculate and capture speeding drivers.

Now ever since the road's been 'cleaned over', it's just all plain black. The cameras are still there, so I'm wondering how they'll be able to catch those going over the limit without the necessary markings on the road.

Thanks.

DUTR

They will catch them if the driver is operating the car in excess of the posted speed limit.
I won't bang on on adhering to the posted limits as I'm sure many including myself have on occasion drifted over.
However getting off on a technicality, that's out of fashion now.

Car_54

The cameras measure speed using laser, or radar on older designs. The lines are not needed, and are there only as a secondary check. Whether they are required by law, I don't know.

Carrot007

Car_54 said:

The cameras measure speed using laser, or radar on older designs. The lines are not needed, and are there only as a secondary check. Whether they are required by law, I don't know.

They are not.

Only proof of the cameras calibartion within a certain time period. (often not done if you feel lucky challenging a ticket and going to court ;-) )

The lines were to calibrate older cameras easier. Ones you know with film and all that. They are not used anymore. Some places like to keep the lines as a "deterrant" though.

Mercdriver

Carrot007 said:

Car_54 said:

The cameras measure speed using laser, or radar on older designs. The lines are not needed, and are there only as a secondary check. Whether they are required by law, I don't know.

They are not.

Only proof of the cameras calibartion within a certain time period. (often not done if you feel lucky challenging a ticket and going to court ;-) )

The lines were to calibrate older cameras easier. Ones you know with film and all that. They are not used anymore. Some places like to keep the lines as a "deterrant" though.

The calibration loophole had sailed some time ago.  You have to refute the type approval in a way that shows it didn't read correctly in your own case.

Carrot007

Mercdriver said:

The calibration loophole had sailed some time ago.  You have to refute the type approval in a way that shows it didn't read correctly in your own case.

Interesting but seems sort of the same I guess?

(Not that I know enough since there are nothing but mobile ones anywhere I am likely to go! (and they mostly palce them in places only idiots would be speeding, at least around here, I mean unless you want to run into a horse or something at some random point (just the bikers (yes not all of them), and a few random car idiots overtaking on blind corners around here though that would do that))).

Hopefully one day cameras will be able to catch those driving dangerously, not those speeding. Might make the roads a better place. Speed may be dangerous at times, however the bad things are least face it 80% other things. And no as I say I don't really "speed", not really viable around here. The problem is more mr/mrs/whatever I drive at 45 everywhere around here!

I shall stop my rant now!

Mercdriver

Carrot007 said:

Mercdriver said:

The calibration loophole had sailed some time ago.  You have to refute the type approval in a way that shows it didn't read correctly in your own case.

Interesting but seems sort of the same I guess?

(Not that I know enough since there are nothing but mobile ones anywhere I am likely to go! (and they mostly palce them in places only idiots would be speeding, at least around here, I mean unless you want to run into a horse or something at some random point (just the bikers (yes not all of them), and a few random car idiots overtaking on blind corners around here though that would do that))).

Hopefully one day cameras will be able to catch those driving dangerously, not those speeding. Might make the roads a better place. Speed may be dangerous at times, however the bad things are least face it 80% other things. And no as I say I don't really "speed", not really viable around here. The problem is more mr/mrs/whatever I drive at 45 everywhere around here!

I shall stop my rant now!

Basically it not being calibrated is not enough to give a valid defence.  You have to demonstrate that the specific camera specifically did not accurately capture the speed of the vehicle.  It has been found in law that lack of calibration does not in and of itself make it inaccurate.  It is accepted as accurate it is up to a defendant to refute it, and that involves scientists being in attendance.  If the defendant has their own scientist you can bet the prosecution will produce their own, and when the defendant loses, they have to pay all the costs.  There was a case in Bristol where a man fought it on principle and ended up down by 6 figures

Car_54

Mercdriver said:

Carrot007 said:

Mercdriver said:

The calibration loophole had sailed some time ago.  You have to refute the type approval in a way that shows it didn't read correctly in your own case.

Interesting but seems sort of the same I guess?

(Not that I know enough since there are nothing but mobile ones anywhere I am likely to go! (and they mostly palce them in places only idiots would be speeding, at least around here, I mean unless you want to run into a horse or something at some random point (just the bikers (yes not all of them), and a few random car idiots overtaking on blind corners around here though that would do that))).

Hopefully one day cameras will be able to catch those driving dangerously, not those speeding. Might make the roads a better place. Speed may be dangerous at times, however the bad things are least face it 80% other things. And no as I say I don't really "speed", not really viable around here. The problem is more mr/mrs/whatever I drive at 45 everywhere around here!

I shall stop my rant now!

  There was a case in Bristol where a man fought it on principle and ended up down by 6 figures

Which principle was that?

[Deleted User]

Car_54 said:

Mercdriver said:

Carrot007 said:

Mercdriver said:

The calibration loophole had sailed some time ago.  You have to refute the type approval in a way that shows it didn't read correctly in your own case.

Interesting but seems sort of the same I guess?

(Not that I know enough since there are nothing but mobile ones anywhere I am likely to go! (and they mostly palce them in places only idiots would be speeding, at least around here, I mean unless you want to run into a horse or something at some random point (just the bikers (yes not all of them), and a few random car idiots overtaking on blind corners around here though that would do that))).

Hopefully one day cameras will be able to catch those driving dangerously, not those speeding. Might make the roads a better place. Speed may be dangerous at times, however the bad things are least face it 80% other things. And no as I say I don't really "speed", not really viable around here. The problem is more mr/mrs/whatever I drive at 45 everywhere around here!

I shall stop my rant now!

  There was a case in Bristol where a man fought it on principle and ended up down by 6 figures

Which principle was that?

He didn't think it was fair prosecuting h breaking the law.
Guy was in his 50s or 60s and should have known better.

Edit to add

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-49641063

71