Very annoyed wrote:

MDP wrote:

£1 it is then

I was only thinking in the terms of pence :

Hey............... never under sell yourself

If only I could see from the photo who exactly was driving ?

Guess I'll have to wait now and see what other evidence they come up with If any 
" WITH MORE EXTRAS THAN A HOLLYWOOD EPIC "

Do those of you in the UK have a way of importing this product?

http://www.phantomplate.com/

Bish '06 RRS S/C Bonatti Grey/Ebony/Cherry with RSE; PTI; Electronic Rear Diff and Sirius Sat Radio.

thebishman wrote:

Do those of you in the UK have a way of importing this product?

http://www.phantomplate.com/

Bish

I've been told about this but I think it's legality in the UK is in question, besides I've also been told that a little tweeking using photo editing software shows the number plate. 2005 Zambezi TDV6 - Gone but not forgotten
2009 Alaska TDV8 - Gone and much missed.



WINNER - 2009 �Idler Of The Year� Award
Runner Up - 2009 �Just Doing What It�s Designed To Do� Award


DO NOT CLICK HERE!

Here's a link to a company selling in the UK

http://www.gadgetsuk.com/Photo-blocker-num...16685.html

This link is far more useful http://www.gadgetsuk.com/product.php?produ...amp;page=1 2005 Zambezi TDV6 - Gone but not forgotten
2009 Alaska TDV8 - Gone and much missed.



WINNER - 2009 �Idler Of The Year� Award
Runner Up - 2009 �Just Doing What It�s Designed To Do� Award


DO NOT CLICK HERE!

No help to me then - doesnt stop the little Bugg**s laser from the back of a van

As for the bottle opener - I'm a draught man & her in doors seems to quantify my tally via a simple phone call  
" WITH MORE EXTRAS THAN A HOLLYWOOD EPIC "

MDP wrote:

No help to me then - doesnt stop the little Bugg**s laser from the back of a van

As for the bottle opener - I'm a draught man & her in doors seems to quantify my tally via a simple phone call

I got the advice I gave from a man who sits in a van with a laser and I quote what he said today "keep on speeding folks because you are paying my wages". He's a civilian funded by the revenue from speed cameras.
Perhaps its different in other areas. TDV6 - gone
TDV8 - gone
Audi Q5 3.0 Tdi Sline wef 6/11/10

Josh wrote:

I got the advice I gave from a man who sits in a van with a laser and I quote what he said today "keep on speeding folks because you are paying my wages". He's a civilian funded by the revenue from speed cameras.
Perhaps its different in other areas.

How can he sleep at night ............ such a heinous crime  
" WITH MORE EXTRAS THAN A HOLLYWOOD EPIC "

A reply from Leicestershire Constabulary reiterates that these are the only 2 photos/evidence they hold.



I have deleted the reference number & the registration plate. I wrote back asking for all the photographic evidence to support the NIP including any video ( which I am entitled to ) the reply was to send out the same 2 photos to me clearly stating that this is all they have?
There is no way I could challenge the said speed ( 37 ) from the one photo. Although they tag each photo LOG 031 & LOG 032 you will notice that the frame/count numbers from each photo differ considerably ie. NR37 and NR25 .....so where are the frames in between?

Is this correct.. or.. should there be other evidence to support the top photo which indicates the said speed time and distance.

It certainly doesnt look conclusive to me.

In both replies what you see here is as good / clear as the photos get.

What are your thoughts

Remember this was from a mobile van using the LTI 20 - 20 speedscope & not a gatso etc 
" WITH MORE EXTRAS THAN A HOLLYWOOD EPIC "

Last edited by MDP on Mon Jan 16 2006 12:07pm. Edited 1 time in total

If you look at the photo can you see the 3 second time difference in the top right hand corner  Its out there somewhere. Second V10 Treg on the drive at the moment.

Martin, I think you are taking a hell of a financial risk challenging this in Court, unless you are loaded.
I went to the gym with my mate with the laser this pm and told him off for pointing his laser at me yesterday on a dual carriage near Bicester. Didn't get me!
We were chatting about all thats been discussed in the forum. The magistrates will look at the numbers and the reg. If you appeal their decision it will go to Crown Court. The financial implications are harsh for what this is and paying the costs of the court if they uphold the sentence.
Though if I was about to lose my licence through totting up points, I would be going to Court to fight it and begging mercy. TDV6 - gone
TDV8 - gone
Audi Q5 3.0 Tdi Sline wef 6/11/10

These pics just seem odd to me. In 3 seconds you can travel a long way, what I would like to know is what length the camera lens is. If they shot these about 50 metres away on a 100mm lens it could be right but a car traveling at 37mph over 50 metres in 3 seconds would mean the car would be level with or past the camera.

37mph = 59.5kmph 1 km per minute. 16.66 metres a second. 3 secs at 16.66 = 50 metres.

MDP this is only me playing with figures but you know the situation better. 2005 Zambezi TDV6 - Gone but not forgotten
2009 Alaska TDV8 - Gone and much missed.



WINNER - 2009 �Idler Of The Year� Award
Runner Up - 2009 �Just Doing What It�s Designed To Do� Award


DO NOT CLICK HERE!

Martin,

How long have you got to respond to this?
If it can wait till next week i will print the pics off and enquire with my source. Hopefully If I catch him (that would make a change) I could have an answer Monday or latest Wed pm.
Though he may have a biased opinion, I am willing to try. TDV6 - gone
TDV8 - gone
Audi Q5 3.0 Tdi Sline wef 6/11/10

I'm in no rush  
" WITH MORE EXTRAS THAN A HOLLYWOOD EPIC "

Have you signed anything confirming you were the driver at the time of the alleged offence?

If not you may have 2 defences;

1) You were not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged ofence

and/or

2) The equipement recording the vehicle's speed was not calibrated nor used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions.

If the camera partnership were using video and then 'extracted' photographic stills from the video tape you are entitled to see a copy of the original video footage and not just stills are they have given you. You are aso entitled see a written statement from the 'processing' officer or authorised person who views the tape etc.

Really push for the video...if they dont wish to provide it then either use the defences above or go to court and insist on the video footage not the still photographs so the court can be absolutely sure of continuity  Chips with everything