View Single Post
  #254   Report Post  
Posted to uk.d-i-y
Lieutenant Scott Lieutenant Scott is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,918
Default And now I've seen it all ...

On Tue, 27 Nov 2012 17:49:33 -0000, ARW wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 23:31:39 -0000, Jules Richardson
wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 20:22:28 +0000, dennis@home wrote:

On 26/11/2012 18:23, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 18:18:26 -0000, ARW
wrote:

Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2012 07:57:58 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:
On 26/11/2012 00:10, Lieutenant Scott wrote:
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 20:23:20 -0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 25/11/2012 13:54, Bill wrote:
In message , fred
writes

Static ones are certainly illuminated with IR
floods and you get the plate lighting up with the
on axis reflection, just like cats eyes. Don't
know about the mobile ones but it would be a bit
of an omission if they didn't have them too.


I recently fitted an ANPR camera for a customer,
attached to their CCTV system. They are amazing,
even in bright sunlight there is next to no image. As
you say they have IR illumination and this is
reflected back from the number plate. The effect
is outstanding, the filter in front of the camera
basically only allows the IR frequency of light
through and the number plate shows perfectly, day
or night. The mobile ones do appear to have IR
illuminators too.

Its done to make sure the idiots that fit reflective
coatings on plates and other such junk get caught.

What's idiotic about avoiding the ****ing GATSOs?

Being idiotic enough to think they work! Looks like you
do.

How would people know they don't work?

And for your information I don't. I use a satnav so I slow
down before the gatso.

dennis will soon tell you that you should not have to slow
down for a GATSO
and that he believes that ALL vehicles should be linked via
GPS to limit their top speed to exactly the maximum allowed.

George Orwell, 1984.


He is talking crap.
I said it would record the event so the speeder could be fined and
disqualified.
There is no need for it to limit.

What if they exceeded the limit to avoid an accident due to no
fault of their own?


Considering an old woman got done for speeding while being scared of
a lorry tailgating her, yes they probably would.


Might as well throw an old joke into the thread.

An elderly lady was clocked at 95 mph in a 70 mph zone. The Highway Patrol
pulled her over.

Officer: "Good day are your aware you were doing 95 in a 70 mph zone?

Old lady: "OH I WAS NOT!".

Officer: "Madamn may I see your drivers license please?"

Old lady: "YOU KNOW I DON"T HAVE A LICENSE YOU TOOK THAT FROM ME LAST YEAR!"

Officer: " Mamm may I see your registration please?"

Old lady: "I CAN"T DO THAT OFFICER I JUST STOLE THIS CAR!"

Officer: Mamm you will have to step out of the car and open the trunk".

Old lady: "I CANT DO THAT EITHER OFFICER you see I just killed my husband
and he is in the trunk of the car".

At this point the officer reaches for his gun and calls for backup.

After the entire highway patrol reinforcements gathered around this vehicle
the Captain approches the car

Captain: " Good Afternoon mamm the officer that stoped you says you have no
licence.

Old lady: " OHHHH I DOOO TO!" and shows him her license all is in order.

Captain: " He also says you have no registration and that you stole this
car."

Old lady: " OHHHH I DOO TO HAVE REGISTRATION!" and produces a complete
registration all in order.

Captain: "Ahhh mamm he also says you have a dead body in the trunk".

Old lady: "AND I SUPPOSE HE SAYS I WAS SPEEDING TOO!"


Long drawn out joke with a not very interesting punchline. 2/10.

--
http://petersparrots.com
http://petersphotos.com

A great way to lose weight is to eat naked in front of a mirror. Restaurants will almost always throw you out before you can eat too much.