got caught by a gatso on the other side of the road. Is that possible?
 

A few weeks back a friend was driving home at 2am and a gatso on the other side of the road flashed twice at him. Now I know this happens if your speeding but didn't think you could get done. He got the NIP so asked for proof, and sure enough a front pic of his car with a recorded speed of 39 in a 30.

So 1st question : should they send both photo's as he was probably out of the picture in the second one.

and 2nd does anyone know of anyone else being prosecuted for speeding towards a traditional grey box gatso, as I was under the impression you could only get done from the rear on these types of cameras.

gatso's take a pic of the car's behind ;) truvello's take a full frontal :) if it was a gatso it was probably one of those times it just flashes for no reason seen it happen loads

yes I know some people find it fun making them go off (would never condone such a thing) but he has been sent a photo and he's definate it's a gatso not truvelo. Obviously you would be on the first photo and it would know what speed you were doing (as it's radar) but you would be out of shot in the second picture which is why they have only sent him the one photo. They want to give him 3 points and £60 fine but can they if there is no second photo? He dosn't know if it's worth contesting or not (dosn't want to go to court and find they keep the second photo to prove speed using the distance traveld between the white lines)

best bet mate is if you can't actually see him driving the car then tell him to say that he's not sure who was driving it at that time cos there was a few people in the car at the time, i done that on last years rally GB and got a letter saying they wasn't taking it any further.

You need two photos to check the speed of the car by measuring how far you've travelled in the time it takes to take two photos, so one photo by default means that you can't check the speed of the vehicle. I thought gatsos, although they use a primitive radar mechanism, require that second photo to be conclusive proof of law breaking.


Dave
http://www.scoobyphotos.com
dave@scoobyphotos.com

Best to take it on the chin and get the SP30. Insurance co's don't really care about these. If you contest and lose I think you get the SP30 and an SP90. The SP90 is a 'decietfull' penalty and the Insurance co's are far less tollerant of these.

I am not 100% sure on my info - I'm sure I read it somewhere when research my SP30.
Check it out first.

I believe Dave A is correct, two photo's required to corroborate the "evidence" of the notoriously dodgy gatso.

Definately take some advice on this one I'd say. I'd start with www.pepipoo.com who've given me free advice before now, and have lots of information on the site. I've always been under the impression this wasn't possible head on also.

i've been told by a copper they cant prosecute with a gatso the other side of the road? if the white lines arent necesary why spend all that time and money putting them down???

you CANNOT get caught by a gatso on the opposite side of the road , this i was told by a mate ,who sells and fits radar detectors, and by a mate who is a copper , so there you are as was said by others :D

Tell him to kleave trhe country and come back as an immigrant.

He wont get prosecuted for anything :rolleyes:

And they will probably pay his next years insurance for waking him up :)

gatso's are not suppossed to catch you heading toward them because at night even the goverment (or whoever is in charge) agree that the double flash is dangerous and being a safety camera an all! and not a revenue raiser

You say that he was allegedly caught at 2am. Did he not have his headlights on or something? As far as i know, if you take a photo of the front of someones car with their lights on, all you will get is two bright white blurs! If he has the photo, then it sounds like I am wrong, but what has been said previously is correct-you cannot be prosecuted by a camera flashing towards you (unless is a truvelo of course). I think that if he had the inclination, he could lodge a complaint that he was dazzled and nearly crashed. I have been flashed coming towards thousands of gatsos-never heard a thing, chill...

definatly you cannot get done for getting flashed heading towards a gatso the picture would need the lines showing so that they have proof because it is calculated from how far youve travelled between the two white lines, tell them to shove it and goto to court, because unless they have two pics with the white lines your gonna win this case easy!

Some of the Gatso's (one being in South Ockendon) now have a second box fitted in front of them. This will obvoiously take a photo of the front of the car and possibly the driver. Was he caught by one of these?

Also look carefully at the truvello camera's. Some of the ones around Portsmouth have now been adgusted to take your pic after you have passed it. They can only do this if there are white lines either side of the camera. 3 white lines leading up to the camera and a series of white lines after the camera.

If it is a traditional Gatso then it may take pictures of the front of your car but you CAN NOT be prosecuted using these as evidence. However, there is some panic in the establishment at present and they are working hard to put in cameras that take pictures of the front of the car in the hope of also capturing a good image of the driver. It may have been one of these he was done by.

Your mate should DEMAND both pictures so he can determine his speed using the white lines on the road. One chap did this recently and found that his speed was actually 13mph and not the 54mph the scamers had claimed. However, even before he gets to that stage:

My advice is that, in the mean time, your mate should do nothing and should not return the NIP until the 28 days are up, as he might hear some good news in the mean time. There have been some developments recently relating to European case law. Sending you an NIP and demanding you say who was driving goes against all the long term principals of law and the fundamental rights to silence and to not incriminate yourself. Many people are, therefore, of the view that this is illegal and some are taking cases to the European Court of Human Rights. However, an expert in EU law has decided that the ECHR have already ruled on the matter and so the NIP my be illegal under EU law. This was to be tested in open court last week but, for some strange reason they were reluctant to go ahead with the case. However, it will be tested on 21st.

Mika over on pepipoo has an interesting draft letter which your mate could send to the CC to see what reaction he gets. My guess is they would just withdraw the case.

http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic.php?t=1968

The interesting outcome of this is that it will soon be illegal to use your sun visor or wear sunglasses when driving your car. This will be sold as for road safety reasons and we will all know that this is true and that it's nothing to do with making more money to pay for donuts.

What Huw says about the penalty increasing if you plead not guilty is basically untrue. If you failed to sign the NIP and went the unsigned route then, assuiming you were also done for the s172 offence, you could have gained an endorsment other than SP30 and insurance companies would not be keen on that. If all you do is go not guilty to the speeding then you will not get a more severe endorsment and you can change your plea at any time.

My dad is super dead clever and he has been telling me for the last 12 months that more and more3 Gatso's are dual facing - ie they can do you going towards or away from it...
I believe he read it in his IAM magazine - but I'm sure someone on here know's otherwise???

Anyway all that aside I like hallibut

Yep - I've had a look through the links I stored when I got my SP30, and I can find nothing in writting about what happens if you contest and lose other than you still get the SP30 - and some court fees. I was probably told about the SP90 thing by someone, in which case it is probably rubbish.

Good luck.

I now that some forces have introduced Gatso's with two 'fronts', one being a dummy, so you think it's pointing at you when actually it's not. Could this be what your Dad mentioned?

Maybe the reason there are lines on both side of the road at a gatso camera is probably so they can determine the speed of someone overtaking. Or possibly having two sets of lines can determing the speed more acurately (paralax error?).

I know of a driver that was sent a nip by being photographed from the front by a Gatso. they were just trying it on. Some people are gullible and will just pay up because it's an official letter. It amazes the the number of people that slow to under 30 when approaching the gatso from the front. The ones around my area are triggered at 40mph. (none are live though)
By the way, Truvelo camera's don't flash, they use infrared.

i heard that the reason the lines are on both sides of the road for old cameras is so people dont think that they can avoid it if they drive on the other side of the road (driving away from the gatso not toward). a taxi driver told me that once

You could be the saviour of Scoobynet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


just think,,,

in 14 days time you will either get a NIP or not

if you do you, all of scoobynet will know the answer.

then it will end this type of post....................


The Mods can lock it into a sticky at the top and the world will become a safer place!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LOL


Mart ;)

Wrong....Trust me...I have points to prove it :(

There are plenty of informative websites detailing how these cameras work etc and what you could if you wish to contest a NIP. ukspeedtraps are one of the sites.

Bob

There are usually two reasons why there are lines on both sides of the road. One, as has already been stated, is to stop drivers taking to the other side of the road upon spotting a Gatso. The scamers realised that encouraging people to drive on the wrong side of the road might somewhat undermine their "road safety" claims.

The other reason is that in some places they use the camera in both directions moving it between one side of the road and the other at will. Clearly it is easier to paint both sides of the road than to have to come back and close the road at some point to do the other side. Such a move might impact upon their revenue stream.

As I pointed out earlier traditional Gatsos may flash in your face but such photos are not admissable and so will not be acted upon. However, the scamers are working hard to get photos of your face and so are looking more and more towards forward facing cameras. We will, therefore, be getting more and more cameras flashing in our faces and there will be legislation about it being illegal to wear a Tony Blair disguise while driving.

The theory is that forward facing cameras should not flash in your face for safety reasons, though the irony is that many camera sites are actually becoming accident blackspots! However, it is not uncommon for hear people say that they have seen a Truvelo flash and that they got an NIP as a result. I don't have a good explaination for this other than perhaps some people have eyes that are sensitive to infra red light.

Either way anyone who gets an NIP in the near future should hold out as long as possible before returning it as the whole system might be about to turn on its head due to some developments in Europe. You have 28 days to return the NIP and that might just be enough, take a look at the link I posted earlier in this thread.

I think it's just a filter to avoid the possibility of distracting the driver with a white flash, it's not infrared.


Matt.

I've been done by a Truvelo recently and saw a flash. It was dark, but the flash wasn't dazzling at all, so maybe it is filtered, as I keep being told that our eyes can't see IR.

FYI guys - i was on my bike driving home "recently" when i drove by a gatso facing towards me (on the other side of the road)... i thought it only flashed if you were on the other side of the road....so bugger me if it didnt flash me as i went by...... good job theres no numberplates on the front of my bike ;)

Jza

Discrimination
 

[QUOTE=Jza]FYI guys - i was on my bike driving home "recently" when i drove by a gatso facing towards me (on the other side of the road)... i thought it only flashed if you were on the other side of the road....so bugger me if it didnt flash me as i went by...... good job theres no numberplates on the front of my bike ;)

I always find this a little unfair though (no dig intended) as all of the truvelos face forward, and can therefore not catch bikers. It is the same with speed bumps around my way, where bikers rip between them whilst i have to crawl over at 3-5 MPH. I guess I need to buy a bike!!

ha ha ha! only if you're the predetor from the Arnold Swachneeger(or however you spell it!) film! humans can only see electro-magnetic waves in the 'visable spectrum' ...hence the name ... ;)