On the way home this evening on the Victoria Embankment, I followed a silver Smart Car with a roof-mounted camera. The sides were decorated with TFL and speed-camera logos. The roof camera was about the size of an old stubby Fairy Liquid bottle. It had two guys in. One to drive, the other to point and operate the camera. It was being followed by another car with a bloke hanging out the side window taking photographs of it. My guess is that this was publicity photos being taken for a new mobile speed camera. Anyone know anything about it? I don't know much about Smart cars but they look small and cramped. I can imagine that driving around in one all day in the summer heat with another bloke almost in your lap can't be much fun. It's going to get hot. But you can't have the windows open because passing bikers would tend you punch you in the ear for doing cuntish work, I would have thought. -- The Judge. FJR1300 - Transalp Gone: K1200RS ZZR1200 VL1500LC ZZR1100 GS1000G GSX250 "What's the point of testing anything on an American unless it's a new type of cattle-prod or the Ebola virus?" Jon Holmes.
IMHO, I doubt a "mobile" camera (as in moving along!) would be able to hold up in court. If the vehicle is moving then calibrating the vehicles collective speed with the offending vehicle would be a very difficult task. You would without doubt, need some form of fixed reference point so as to take out calibration errors? Or as I really feel, they won't give a **** about ackshewaly nicking a speeding vehicle, as you would have to prove you _weren't_ speeding. I mean, the law is after all, you are guilty until proven innocent ;o) -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
Why? They've been doing speeding tickets from moving cars in Oz and the US and Canada, at least, for the last several decades -- I've got at least one in at least two of the aforementioned jurisdictions... The cop's speedo's calibrated, the radar gets your relative velocity, simple vector addition and bingo! "Biker, trois points!" ...or $120, whichever comes first. At least you can pay by credit card in Oz now. -- Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration, Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005 WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon) KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Would be a bit stupid to punch someone when you're benig photographed wouldn't you think? Also, I'm ..fairly.. sure aircon was an option on Smarts. <checks> yup - an option on all models but the 50bhp ones.
Owen said... You can recover the seats without even removing them from the car. That badly trimmed that the seat covers almost fall off. I'm not a huge fan of them, but can see why they have a cult following.
Could be, but, there _may_ still be a calculable <sp> margin of error. The only true way to _guarantee_ no error would be to have a stationary reference point, shirley? Someone who knows will along shortly ;o) -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
Absolute bollox. 2 chances of errors there to start with. The math is simple enuff, but you have 2 moving vehicles. Which one is actually going at precisely 'x' speed at that moment in time? and how can you _prove_ it without doubt? Blimey I'm confused! ;o/ -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
Greybeard wrote and thick, or is that just ill informed? They only have to prove it to within a degree of certainty, one which modern technology is more than capable of doing.
When stopped 2 years ago in Texas, I was a little over the limit! and got a caution, because the ranger said I wasn't going over the limit enough to make a case. Maybe they need you to be to over by about a million MPH so as there is no argument. My interpretation of the law here, is that precision is the name of the game. I appreciate that calibration of the equipment _can_ be nigh on exact, but, it's not an exact science measuring speed from a moving vehicle. You technically have 2 different speed errors to consider. Not saying it can't be done, just wondering how it would stand up in court if contested? -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
That really is the point of it anyway. Guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent and then convince the myopic court that you are correct! Case lost before it's started normally. <opens wallet and pays up!> -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
You said magic words, fixed point. Also there is a good range of margin using vascar. When I was pulled up back in the 70's with this technology (on my Suzuki GT750 Kettle) the plod did nick me for doing 97.3 on the A12. He said had I been under the 90 he wouldn't have bothered as it would have been difficult to prove exactly. Big margin of error built in, in them days ;o) -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
I know how it works. I also happen to know, that the calibration is not as accurate as you'd like to believe. Hence, if you are stopped for speeding by a plod car or hand held device it's always worth asking when it was last checked for calibration. You'd be amazed at the number of cases that don't go to court, if it's marginal. Bottom line is, if the law want's to use mobile camera's in this way then they will. They'll come up with some magic to liberate a few more quid from our wallets. -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
With my experience a couple of years ago. I got off a fixed camera offence because there where no lines on the road. Therefore according to the court, there was no fixed point of reference to calculate the precision of the speed measuring equipment. I appreciate things have moved on a tad since the early days of Gatso's, but I'd still think you'd have a solid case in court if you couldn't prove a static point. As has been proved many times, the calibration of the speed measuring equipment used by HM Death squads, leaves a lot to be desired. Also, the 'official' word now is, that these hand held guns and most van based mobile camera's have not been tested or reliably proved in the case of checking Motorcycles. But then again, I could be talking complete bollox now that we have moved into the 21st Century ;o) Best I go make a cup of cocoa ;o)) -- Greybeard FLHRCI -01 UK ( 95 cu-in Stg 2. Big Boy!) Trumpet Trophy 1200 -96, (The Barge) for rainy days ukrm@foxtails[dot]co[dot]uk
Hmmm.... Four manual entries into the system = four sources of potential error. Assume a single error of 0.1s for each measurement, the worst case = 0.4s error. Vehicle speed is 100 mph. The timing and distance errors add up to 0.2 seconds each. At 100 mph (147 ft/sec) the 0.2 seconds represent 30 ft of travel. For the timing error to be 1% of the overall error, the timing should not be less than 20 seconds. In that time the vehicle has covered 20 x 147 = 2940 ft. But if the distance measurement is in error by 30 ft, then we have another 100 x 30 / 2940 = 1 percent error. So, for a cumulative timing error of 0.4s for a vehicle travelling at 100 mph, an overall time of 20 seconds can result in an overall error of 1 +1 = 2 percent. For those whose speed is estimated to be just over 100 mph, it might be worth asking some pertinent questions. Once upon a time a favourite figure was 101.6 mph. Note that the distance error is fixed at 30ft irrespective of the overall length of the timing, but the percentage represented by the timing error decreases the longer the timing period. For a timing period of 60 seconds, the potential overall error can be calculated to be 0.63 percent (at 100 mph).
And in the UK as well. Quite so. Why the OP doubts that they'd be accepted in court I can't imagine. -- _______ ..'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom) \`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3 `\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10 `\|/` `
