| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
b33jay
Lifetime Member
Joined: Apr 05, 2012
Posts: 255
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:59 pm Post subject: Re: Gatso markings |
 |
|
| sussamb wrote: | | Duddy wrote: | | Sorry Sussamb, where did you obtain the information that the Gatso markings aren't required. |
From this:
The accuracy of the second method shall be within 10%
of the speed recorded by the primary measurement.
|
So, is this how the 10% + 2 tolerance derived? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sussamb
Pocket GPS Verifier
![]()
Joined: Mar 18, 2011
Posts: 4456
Location: West Sussex
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't think so, that's ACPO guidance ...
_________________
Where there's a will ... there's a way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And I suspect that the 10% +2 is a numeric representation of "Give them a bit of leeway as we don't want to look really stupid by fining people for exceeding the speed limit by one mile per hour." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kremmen
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Posts: 7040
Location: Reading
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I find it sad when some drivers try to work out and put into practice how fast can they go and avoid prosecution.
_________________
Satnav:
Garmin 2599 LMT-D (Indoor test rig)
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3
Car Average MPG :
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You mean probably avoid prosecution. 10% + 2 is only a guideline. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjmurphy
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 23, 2009
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kremmen wrote: | Are you sure they are Gatso type cameras and not Specs average speed cameras that are now appearing ?
The latest 2017 Siemens Safezone cameras for example, whilst aimed in one direction are actually trapping speeding in both directions. They don't use road marks afaik.
Similarly mobile cameras obviously can't use non existent marks. |
OK, here are three cameras, all on the A12 in East London, a dual-carriageway. The cameras are in 40 mph limits. Two are 'traditional' Gatso, i.e. the square box type, camera numbers 3519 and 13782. Neither have lines on the road surface.
The third camera, 483, is actually a pair of cameras facing the same direction and are of the newer Monitron type, again, no road markings. One is pointing towards lane 1 which goes off into a slip-road and one points towards lanes 2 and 3.
So, will these cameras be active? I pass them often and have never seen them flash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a remove request for 3519, possibly somebody 'knows' it's just there for show. The policy, as I understand it, is to leave a defunct camera in the database as this avoids getting multiple re-submissions for it.
Presumably the boxes for 3519 and 13782 are still there?
Try a drive past 483 at about 60, and if you get a NIP, please let us know that it is live. (Do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya)
@ MaFt. If jjmurphy confirms 3519 box is still there, that would make pRemove 188372 redundant? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kremmen
Pocket GPS Verifier
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Posts: 7040
Location: Reading
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The later Monitron cameras are all active as far as I know. No reason for them not to be. Whether they need to flash in daylight I have no idea.
I've also no idea whether they need white lines to prove speeding.
_________________
Satnav:
Garmin 2599 LMT-D (Indoor test rig)
DashCam:
Viofo A119 V3
Car Average MPG :
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15137
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: |
@ MaFt. If jjmurphy confirms 3519 box is still there, that would make pRemove 188372 redundant? |
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjmurphy
Occasional Visitor
Joined: Sep 23, 2009
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MaFt wrote: | | M8TJT wrote: |
@ MaFt. If jjmurphy confirms 3519 box is still there, that would make pRemove 188372 redundant? |
Yes. |
Yes, the boxes for 3519 and 13782 are still in situ. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
M8TJT
The Other Tired Old Man
Joined: Apr 04, 2006
Posts: 10118
Location: Bexhill, South Sussex, UK
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks. Hopefully MaFt will pick this up |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MaFt
Pocket GPS Staff
Joined: Aug 31, 2005
Posts: 15137
Location: Bradford, West Yorkshire
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| M8TJT wrote: | | Thanks. Hopefully MaFt will pick this up |
pRemove 188372 now removed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
![]() Posted: Today Post subject: Pocket GPS Advertising |
|
|
We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?. Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in for private messages
Log in
