Speed cameras and Surveilance laws Options

[Talion]

not sure where I read it, but forward facing cameras need to be covered by surveilance laws is this true ?

if so how would you go about getting the information on if this permission had been granted ??

[Advertisement]

[Mika]

Hi Talion,

This is an interesting one, and I have been informed that the police may not be able to use the photographic evidence gathered by forward facing cameras, to “identify the driver”. Some Constabularies actually acknowledge this fact, by saying:

"the photographic evidence is not intended to identify the driver, it is simply a means of identifying the offending vehicle".

The driver is identified by means of the NIP – but only if it has been signed of course.

The legislation, which refers to the "covert use of photography" by the authorities, and that may prevent the use of photographic evidence for the purpose of "identifying the driver", is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000:

http://www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/ac...00/20000023.htm

If you would like more “interesting bedtime reading” please get back to me.

[Talion]

Hi Mika,

yes very interested.

sad I know but the more that popup

[Mika]

Hi Talion,

Have you seen the latest form those “crack” troops at Gwent Police?

Police payout for secret filming

This may be a real example of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 in “action”.

[Mika]

[X-treem]

I just received a NIP today in the post from a forward-facing camera. It's the 17th day for a start, so VERY borderline.

Problem is, I'm on 10 points. So I'm thinking, instead of battling it out in court, just get my mum to say she was the driver and take 3 points on the head.

What do you think to this???

[The Rookie]

If the NIP wasn't posted until the 14th day (they could argue that first post should be next day, so the 13th day would be OK), then tell them to stuff it!

Simon

[Roger]

I would personally ignore it rather than tell them to stuff it.

The form has a date on it - if that date is more than 14 days after the offence, when your lack of reply to this - or the follow-up - goes up their food chain, the higher grade scamera employee will spot the error and toss it in the bin their end.

[X-treem]

Nope, it was 11 days after the offence. Bugger! Went to see a solicitor about it earlier today - I've talked about it all here:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=253

[kaydee]

Sorry to be late in on this one , but only just discovered site!
Are front facing cameras legal - wasn' there something about them being unlawful as they discriminate against road users - motorcyclists don't have front numberplates and can't be identified by them?
Any news please!!

[The Rookie]

Not illegal, yes discriminate against cars, but tough seems to be the answer, also the mobiles write down reg no's from the bikers (continuity of evidence anyone?), so its only static cameras that let hooligan, murdering, child killing bikers off (sarcasm before I get death threats!)

Simon

[firefly]

Hi KayDee

Front facing cameras (Truvelos) are indeed legal and can record your car's details.

However, a camera (forward or rear) picture cannot be used by the Police to identify the driver or passenger of a vehicle. It can only be used to identify the vehicle registration number.

I assume you have been "zapped" by one recently?

[kaydee]

FF,
Touching wood as I type - I don't think I have! but a few friends were having a very lively debate about the issue!
It still is discrimination if they use the photo to identify the vehicle - i.e. number plate 'cos our biker friends get away scot free - no racial slur intended!

[firefly]

Hi Kaydee

At present, Gatso (grey) cameras do flash occasionally from the front and sometimes for no apparent reason.

I was flashed by one on a national speed limit road (60mph) just the other day and I was doing around 51mph.

As it stands, front facing Gatso camera pictures are not routinely used to catch alleged offenders even though they sometimes are accused of doing so.

The "flashing" effect of the camera with regards to oncoming traffic seems to be a bit of a glitch as far as I can tell.

That being said, if the camera was a Truvelo (blue) type then there is a good chance that (speed permitting) you may well receive the dreaded brown envelope through the post.

Do you know what type it was?

[kaydee]

FF,

Sorry, but you've grabbed the wrong end of that one. The lively debate was whether the Truvelo front facing cameras are truly legal as they discriminate between different types of roadusers in their inability to equally identify all speeding vehicles - cars/vans/motorbikes. The key matter is their inability to treat speeding motorbikes in exactly the same way as speeding cars, as bikes have no identifying numberplate visible to a front facing camera.
It is this issue, not random flashing of Gatsos on opposite sides, that was being hotly discussed.
My fingers were crossed in the hope that I have not unknowingly been randomly victimised by the anti car fundraisers!

[The Rookie]

Just because it doesn't catch bikes, doesn't make it illegal for it to catch cars! So no, that defence wouldn't work!

Simon

[kaydee]

Yes I can understand that, but I'm sure that I remember a TV or Radio report last year or even 2002, that someone was planning to take the issue to the European Court, as it was discrimination, pure and simple! and we all know that the Eurocrats can get their unmentionables in a twist over a thing like that!

[firefly]

Hi KayDee

Humblest apologies,

I was under the impression that the discussion was to whether or not a Truvelo could be used to identify a driver as opposed to a car ?? :?

Anyway, I fear a court will tell you that just because some folk (bikers) get off with an offence then everyone should on the grounds of discrimination.

I would be very surprised if the chap who is taking it to court comes out at the other end with a smile upon his face!!