"ARW" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
geoff wrote:
In message , Arfa Daily
writes


"ARW" wrote in message
...
tony sayer wrote:
In article , Pete
scribeth thus
Arfa Daily formulated on Thursday :
Does anyone know for sure whether getting flashed three times on
the same stretch of motorway within minutes, constitutes three
offences for 180 quid fine and 9 points ?

Daughter reckons that she might have got had more than once this
morning in her company car on a section of the M1 at the south
end, where the back-facing gantry cameras have not been on for
a couple of years. She reckons that she was not much over the
top - for a change - but probably enough to have tripped them.
I've not been able to find much info on multiple instances on
the same stretch. Lots of barrack room lawyers huffing and
puffing and giving opinions based on nothing, but no definitive
answer.

Anyone on here suffered this and knows for sure, or who has a
link to somewhere on t' interweb that details exactly what the
situation is ?

Arfa

I have to ask, in a light-hearted way of course, is your daughter
blonde by any chance?

To notice the first flash would make me think '****, the fekkin'
cameras are working and I've just been caught - suppose I'd
better slow down for the next camera'.

To go on and be flashed a further TWO times is just beyond belief
8-o



Well that does beg a question of where are three speed cameras on
the same stretch of motorway surely they aren't that close
together?.

Sure they were speed cams and not something else?..

Even when I had a speed camera detector I never came across 3
gantry
cameras within a couple of miles of each other. Of couse if you
can
repeat the journey in the other direction and you can remember
where you were flashed than you can actually have a look up
at the gantry to see if there is a camera on there.


-- Adam

They're pretty close together on the variable speed sections of the
M25, as I recall ... ?

SPECS cameras work in pairs on one lane IIRC - they shouldn't detect
you
if you move from one lane to another BICBW !

Your wrong on that, as were the newspapers that made the same claim.
There was a technical problem with early implementations of SPECS
that meant that a driver changing lanes at some locations (usually at
a point where coned sections diverged) would not be detected. That
was fixed a long time ago.

Was there actually a problem with the detection of speeding motorists
switching lanes but instead a loop hole in the law that said the camera had
to record you in the same lame for both "photos"?

It was a problem with buffering the images that meant that only three
cameras could be used at each site. Where there was a diverge you got 2+2
cameras and that meant a lane change would mean that the speed couldn't be
measured. As I say, fixed long ago - about the time the Mail published
their article.

--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/