Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Understanding photo evidence
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
David D
After 32 years of driving with a clean licence, I have been informed I was speeding (38mph in a 30mph zone) along the dual carriageway that runs outside my home.

Knowing the area well I was surprised to receive a notification, so asked for photo evidence. I have received two photos with readout info at the top. The first photo taken at a time of 12.09 and 59 seconds shows my car travelling at 33mph. There is also a figure of 69.2m, which I assume is the distance to the radar gun (?).

The second photo shows my car again at 12.10 and 0 seconds now travelling at a speed of 38mph and a distance of 139.9m.

So in the space of ONE second I have increased my speed by 5 miles an hour, and it appears travelled 70.7 metres? Or 158mph!!!

I can estimate the distance travelled by the parked cars and fixed post box, also shown in the photos, as being only a few metres, I really do not understand the evidence supplied.



I have been informed I can attend a Safe Driving course for three hours and pay the £60, but this would be admitting the evidence supplied is correct.

I was not driving a supercar, but an 11 year old Saab.!

Advice is duly sought please.

Many thanks

David
Quattro
QUOTE (David D @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 - 13:50) *
After 32 years of driving with a clean licence, I have been informed I was speeding (38mph in a 30mph zone) along the dual carriageway that runs outside my home.

Knowing the area well I was surprised to receive a notification, so asked for photo evidence. I have received two photos with readout info at the top. The first photo taken at a time of 12.09 and 59 seconds shows my car travelling at 33mph. There is also a figure of 69.2m, which I assume is the distance to the radar gun (?).

The second photo shows my car again at 12.10 and 0 seconds now travelling at a speed of 38mph and a distance of 139.9m.

So in the space of ONE second I have increased my speed by 5 miles an hour, and it appears travelled 70.7 metres? Or 158mph!!!

I can estimate the distance travelled by the parked cars and fixed post box, also shown in the photos, as being only a few metres, I really do not understand the evidence supplied.

I have been informed I can attend a Safe Driving course for three hours and pay the £60, but this would be admitting the evidence supplied is correct.

I was not driving a supercar, but an 11 year old Saab.!

Advice is duly sought please.

Many thanks

David


Looks like you have travelled 70.7 metres in 0.74 seconds, i.e 213.72 mph.

Something rather amiss with the equipment methinks.

Personally I would let them take me to court and then tear them to peices on the stand, but for an easier time, just write to them and ask them if they can explain this somewhat baffling picture.

They should drop the case and say no more.

I certainly wouldn't pay them anything.

This is a genuine picture - yes?


David D
Yes this is genuine. I heve far better things to do than try and wind-up people who give freely of their advice.

To add even more confusion, if you look at the timeframe and order of photos, it would appear I was driving in reverse at the time.

A few people have contacted me saying I am only trying to get out of it. This cannot be further from the truth. Having four children of my own and a grandchild, road safety is very important - having no speeding or driving offences in 32 years must go some way to show I am not your boy racer type.

I contacted the police to simply clarify if I was in the wrong - the photos only appear to complicate the matter.
Gaza
Very weird. Log 29 shows 139.9m. Log 30 shows 69.2m which means that you were closer to the camera in the second photo than the first! So not only were you doing 213mph you were doing it in reverse!!!! Clearly all that is a nonsense as the photo shows that you are indeed moving forward.

I agree with Quattro. Taking at SAC is the easy way out but clearly there is something wrong with the photos. I would be interested to see how they could defend this in court. Realistically the full session video would be needed to see what really went on. You could make an appointment with the scammers to view the video and ask them to explain it to you. Go armed with the calucations and points above and ask them to comment.
Quattro
QUOTE (David D @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 - 15:19) *
Yes this is genuine. I heve far better things to do than try and wind-up people who give freely of their advice.

To add even more confusion, if you look at the timeframe and order of photos, it would appear I was driving in reverse at the time.

A few people have contacted me saying I am only trying to get out of it. This cannot be further from the truth. Having four children of my own and a grandchild, road safety is very important - having no speeding or driving offences in 32 years must go some way to show I am not your boy racer type.

I contacted the police to simply clarify if I was in the wrong - the photos only appear to complicate the matter.


The LTI 20-20 can make mistakes, but the Police and everyone else who makes money out of it will deny this.

It had mis-read the distance on one of the photos (stills from a video) and this is making this look so silly.

It would be very interesting to fight the case and demand the video.

Would make them look very silly.
Gaza
QUOTE
Yes this is genuine. I heve far better things to do than try and wind-up people who give freely of their advice.


But it has happened before. Some halfwit thought it funny to use Photoshop to have us believe he was zapped doing 100mph+ in a narrow street. It was a very poor attempt and was easily spotted.
evenitout
absolutely astonishing rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif rolleyes.gif
Fredd
I don't know why you're getting so excited about the "Log 29" image. The "Timeout" message shows the speed & distance were from a previous ping. In fact the Timeout is specifically to prevent a reading from another vehicle being attributed to the one in the frame. Have a read of this page: http://www.pepipoo.com/LTi2020_screen.htm
andy_foster
Before everyone has an accident in their underpants, it should be noted that the "LOG 29" still bears the "TIMEOUT" message - which means that the data cannot be assumed refer to the vehicle currently in the crosshairs. The time and date are "live", but the speed and distance persist from the previous ping.

edit: oops Fredd beat me to it
evenitout
QUOTE (andy_foster @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 - 20:08) *
Before everyone has an accident in their underpants, it should be noted that the "LOG 29" still bears the "TIMEOUT" message - which means that the data cannot be assumed refer to the vehicle currently in the crosshairs. The time and date are "live", but the speed and distance persist from the previous ping.



ahh someone with sense, but dont you think it amazing that experienced posters are willing to give such advice as above
ict_guy
Why was this image sent at all? I personally would pay the £60 and do the speed awareness course. You more than 20% over the limit so were very lucky to escape the 3 points. If this goes to court, only one picture will be presented by the prosecution - that's all they need. Like the previous poster stated, the 'Timeout' means that that is not an accurate reading.
Quattro
QUOTE (Fredd @ Fri, 13 Jun 2008 - 19:55) *
I don't know why you're getting so excited about the "Log 29" image. The "Timeout" message shows the speed & distance were from a previous ping. In fact the Timeout is specifically to prevent a reading from another vehicle being attributed to the one in the frame. Have a read of this page: http://www.pepipoo.com/LTi2020_screen.htm



blush.gif

How embarassing - then I have been away for a while.

However, before our resident camera operator gets all excited, it does show that this operator has captured one vehicle at 33mph then made his prior opinion that the Saab was speeding, aimed at it and fired all in 0.74 seconds.

He will of course sign an S9 statement to state that he did of course make such an opinion, and will repeat this under oath. He will also probably state that the device was used in accordance with its type approval, yet without the aforesaid Prior Opinion, it wasn't.

I, personally, would still fight it as it looks as if the operator was 'fishing.'

They will put up a fight though David and you might be better off doing the course.
SMURF POWER
QUOTE (Quattro @ Mon, 16 Jun 2008 - 15:53) *
However, before our resident camera operator gets all excited, it does show that this operator has captured one vehicle at 33mph then made his prior opinion that the Saab was speeding, aimed at it and fired all in 0.74 seconds.


Wrong

how do you know it was 0.74 sec ?
time out can be up for how long?
The Rookie
Timout sits their for 3 seconds give or take....

Common sense 2 Quattro nil!

Prior opinion shown on both (well both were shown exceeding the 30 limit)...

Your ping is at a range of 69.2m and going away (minus sign) as well as over the threshold (asterix), angle of cars line of travel to the line of the laser looks ouitside manufacturers instructions, and also the sighting of the device looks more than 10' from the edge of the carriageway you were on so outside of ACPO code of practice.

Simon
David D
First can I say thanks for everyone who has taken the time to reply to my intitial question. I will be taking the course and paying my £60.

In light of the comments raised can I make a few points.

• If the authorities do send out photos, please include a brief leaflet describing what the figures mean - I was totally confuse with a set of numbers that are nothing to do with my car.
• When the authorities removed the 30mph signs from the lamp posts on the dual carriageway outside my home some years ago, why did they not reinstate them? Other than a single automated 30mph flashing sign on each side of the dual carriageway, though not at the beginning, there is no road speed sign along it entire length of approx 2 miles.
• The smaller side road that filters on to the dual carriageway is signed for 40mph throughout its entire length.
• Putting a radar van on the incoming side of a dual carriageway, when travelling on the outgoing side does not mean you will not be targetted.
• I am now doublechecking my speed continually, which may make me a slower driver, but not a safer one.
• I accept I was travelling at more than 30mph and the fine. Being self employed the financial implications are far greater than £60.

Safe driving everyone and remember, protect your windscreen - wear a seatbelt!

nemo
QUOTE (David D @ Tue, 17 Jun 2008 - 11:16) *
• If the authorities do send out photos, please include a brief leaflet describing what the figures mean..

They will maintain that the photos are not to enable you to prove the speed alleged; they are provided solely to assist with identification of the driver (and, in some cases, the vehicle).

QUOTE (David D @ Tue, 17 Jun 2008 - 11:16) *
• When the authorities removed the 30mph signs from the lamp posts on the dual carriageway outside my home some years ago, why did they not reinstate them? Other than a single automated 30mph flashing sign on each side of the dual carriageway, though not at the beginning, there is no road speed sign along it entire length of approx 2 miles.

Repeater roundels are specifically prohibited from being placed along a road which is subject to a 30mph limit and where there is a system of street lighting placed not more than 200 yards apart.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.