Gatso said to be inaccurate...

[AndrewJ]

A likely outcome will be to "modernise" the speed cameras with new models. As it likely would be cheaper to just replace them all with new models, then to payout and deal with thousands of incoming letters over past speeding tickets.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andygrif

But the point is that he was still speeding, so of course he will not succeed.



I'm in favour of those speed sensitive signs that light up if you're going too fast either in 30 zones or at accident black spots. They have been shown to be more effective at reducing speed and accidents.

Everyone slips over the speed limit from time to time, these signs are a gentle reality check that most people will respond to.



This is a separate issue to the guy who's trying it on. You're saying that the trigger is set too low or inaccurate. He's saying that the gap between photos is too long, which would exaggerate the offender's speed on the pictures.

Of course it might well be your speedo that's wrong, but you should let your local police service know that you have a concern about a specific camera.



I've heard that some people are using these to 'blind' Gatsos. As an part-time photographer I have a couple of these little units for fill-in flash, the sense when your main flashgun fires. Apparently some people are using them in the back window of their cars so that when the Gatso flashes them, this gizmo flashes back.

I don't know if it works, I'd be surprised given the distance, but I would say that anyone doing so needs beating - I wouldn't want to be driving behind a car that was setting off flashes in my face.

Yes they are using them for that reason, I know someone who has designed one doing exactly that. He showed me a photo of the back of a car and the numberplate could not be read because the flash was located just above the numberplate, and had reacted quick enough to the flash from a normal camera flash.

I have played about with photo detectors, to detect the mobile speed cameras. It's just for a bit of fun to see how far away I could detect them, they have a mobile unit placed on a dual carraigeway on my way to work quite often. I can honestly say I am never above the 70MPh speed limit as I tend to doodle along about 65 these days, I was just playing around to see how effective I could be. I have been unable to any lasers of a suitable wavelength as yet at a reasonable cost to have some further fun with though!

(Note these would not be dangerous to other drivers as they would be unseen by the naked eye, but the mobile speed unit would not be happy)

ok im confused. The photos have nothing to do with the device detecting your speed. Agreed if the timing of the flashes was incorrect then the visual evidence would be wrong. However its the radar within the device that detects the speed at which the vehicle is travelling.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by gary_580

ok im confused. The photos have nothing to do with the device detecting your speed. Agreed if the timing of the flashes was incorrect then the visual evidence would be wrong. However its the radar within the device that detects the speed at which the vehicle is travelling.

I think it's because the radar detects the speed of the vehicle and triggers the flash devices to provide the photographic evidence, because the flashes are longer apart in duration that they should be. It shows the offender to appear to of travelled further in a set time than they actually have. ie: because the set time between the flashes are wrong.

If this error is correct it does have a massive implication, and really shows the police up to be very amateurish!

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

A likely outcome will be to "modernise" the speed cameras with new models. As it likely would be cheaper to just replace them all with new models, then to payout and deal with thousands of incoming letters over past speeding tickets.

why not just do away with them altogether,cheaper still.after all everybody knows these devices are to raise income for the police and the government.

if the gatso's are about safety as people say why are the police and the government trying to get gatso detectors banned in cars.

try this link about the accuracy of hand held devices.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...de/3605446.stm

regards
andy

[AndrewJ]

I agree ban then already then, but sadly the average motorist is that stupid they will do 90 in a built up area, which is begging for a kid or old person to get hurt, I know and fully understand there are drivers with a brain who watch how they drive all time and just want to get where they are going and drive proffesionally and maturely. But sadly the average motorist needs some form of way to keep them under control.

How many times have I seen grannys in there Ford Fiesta 1.2 come hurtling down a road near where I live at over 60mph, then hit brakes for the well known gatso.

What method of control would there be if gatso's went?? what would there be to stop the youth in his financed Ford Focus Vtec flooring it everywhere??

Cars are faster. more affordable... we have finance...kids are stupid and accidents will happen if we dont limit people and enforce them limits..only other option away from the camera in my view, is to link all cars electronically to a gps system, which then limits the car to the designated speed limit of that area.

Sadly there is more stupidity then intelligence on the road these days.

as you say andrewjames people slow down for the gatso's.so surely that shows that gatso's should be done away with and more mobile speed camera's should be used.

where i live the coppers use a big white van with two small camera's in the back,you don't even know its a speed trap until you've passed it.its much more effective than a gatso.
i myself tend not to speed now i'm getting older,but everytime i look down the road and see a white van parked at the side of the road i automatically check my speed and adjust it if necessary.and there are more white vans about than gatso's.

regards
andy

[AndrewJ]

A machine can do the job of 100coppers, I personally rather the cops was on patrol awaiting any 999 calls, rather then in a ditch in a white van booking people, when machines could do it.


I remember seeing it on telly once the car which could not speed because a satellite limited it to the speed limit of the zone it was in.

edit: 800th post

yes but what i'm trying to say is people slow for gatso's then speed up.

on the other hand if the police used unmarked white van speed traps for a while,then perhaps other drivers like me would think that the white van they see parked up the road could be a speed trap and slow down accordingly.after all it could be a police speed trap or it could just be an innocent white van parked at the side of the road.
i myself won't take the chance that its not a speed trap so i slow down.

and i thought these camera vans have civilian operators in them not coppers.

andy

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andy 1

yes but what i'm trying to say is people slow for gatso's then speed up.

They indeed do that but people cannot complain about it because it's doing what speed cameras are supposed to do ie make an accident blackspot safer by attempting to control the drivers' speed. Once the driver has passed that spot, a speed camera is no longer required right? Because that's what they're for, right?

</sarcasm>

The only people who object to drivers speeding up afterward tend to be the rabid anti-car brigade and those who want to make money from the Gatsos.

We all know how essential it is to keep up the flow of traffic on the roads so the other main problem of these machines are those irritating people who, upon spotting a camera (or what they THINK is a camera) drop about 5mph under the limit "just to be sure".....

Originally Posted by Russ D

We all know how essential it is to keep up the flow of traffic on the roads so the other main problem of these machines are those irritating people who, upon spotting a camera (or what they THINK is a camera) drop about 5mph under the limit "just to be sure".....

you wouldn't like me then russ d,because i am one of those that drop about 5mph under the limit when i see a gatso because i don't trust there accuracy.

i'd sooner be irritating than 60 quid poorer with another 3 penalty points on my licence.

andy

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by andy 1

yes but what i'm trying to say is people slow for gatso's then speed up.

on the other hand if the police used unmarked white van speed traps for a while,then perhaps other drivers like me would think that the white van they see parked up the road could be a speed trap and slow down accordingly.after all it could be a police speed trap or it could just be an innocent white van parked at the side of the road.
i myself won't take the chance that its not a speed trap so i slow down.

andy

If the police did that, a lot of people would ask "Why aren't you catching real criminals instead of hassling the innocent motorist".

In an ideal world, we would not need any kind of speed enforcement, but we are not in an ideal world. People do think they do not have to take account of others.

I personally believe speed cameras (properly used) are probably the best solution. Even if people just slam the anchors on before the camera (sometimes it seems like the best way to see how well the brakes of a car work is watch somebody slow down as they approach a camera) then speed up just out of range. What other solutions are there? Speed bumps? Narrow roads/chicanes? These both work, but have drawbacks: People who have had back operations often cannot drive over speed bumps at any speed without pain. As discussed earlier, the problem with Chicanes is that the real speed freaks/chavs will have small cars and be able to negotiate these at speed easily. Even if they can't, they may take it as a challenge.

I realise most drivers probably stick within the limit, and only creep over infrequently, but until people (thinking mainly of bad drivers and habitual speeders here) learn to respect other road users I think we will have to have some sort of enforcement. I think speed cameras are probably the most efficient means.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by andy 1

you wouldn't like me then russ d,because i am one of those that drop about 5mph under the limit when i see a gatso because i don't trust there accuracy.

i'd sooner be irritating than 60 quid poorer with another 3 penalty points on my licence.

andy

Well I'm not going to judge you on that alone because I don't know you but I have to that is one of the most irritating habits on the road today. Speed cameras are set to allow you a margin of error of 3mph plus 10%, so if someone wanted to push it to an extreme, they could technically get away with 36mph in a 30 zone, 57mph in a 50 zone and 77mph in a 70, not that I would advise that because the speed limits are obviously there for a reason. So you see, dropping to below the limit is pointless and only serves to cause frustration amongst the rest of us drivers. I'm not saying we all need to go over the limit, far from it. But deliberately going slower for this reason is, IMO very selfish. There's a speed camera on the M4 going through Port Talbot in a 50mph zone and last year South Wales Police admitted that 86% of rear-end shunts on that stretch of road were caused by drivers suddenly dropping to around 40mph as they noticed the camera.

[AndrewJ]

Soon with drivers like that the car will drive you, not the other way around.

Just so long as it dont run on windows we will be okay.

"windows powered car"

About to crash it would pop up on center console..

"are you sure you wish to deploy airbag"

Originally Posted by scastle

If the police did that, a lot of people would ask "Why aren't you catching real criminals instead of hassling the innocent motorist".

i thought people where saying this already even if they where caught by a gatso and not a copper.

andy

ps if you read this russ d i hope you get over your chest infection soon.