Proof that traffic cameras aren't accurate: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../uspeed120.xml

 

Great post! More proof that they cost more money and cause more hassle than solve.

When I was in DC a few months back for MTTS I was pulled over just outside of Columbus Circle for not having a front plate. The officer informed me how important the plate is since the traffic cameras use it to identify me. I explained to the officer that in Indiana (where I am from) we don't have front plates. Confused, he sent me on my way, but still insisted that I "work something out" while I was in DC. Makes me wonder how much time is wasted by traffic camera operators looking at pictures of cars with no front plate.

 

Confirms to me that busses, taxis and the like (any non-personal vehicle) can get away with breaking the laws all over the world but private citizens are the scapegoats :P Seriously though, the busses and commercial vehicles around here drive horribly, dangerously and speed/run lights and are never corrected either until the driver actually hurts someone.

Thanks for the post though, its nice to hear of someone simply and logically proving his innocence

 

What they do solve though is having cops setting on their butts wasting tax payer money to run radar when you can just use a camera to do it. That then leaves the cops free to do other things that are needed. Being in Germany for 3 years I got caught 2 or 3 times by speed cameras and still think they are good ideas. Once most people got flashed the first time they didn't speed in those areas again becuase even though you knew that the camera was there, you never knew when it would be turned on.

 

In the UK. US doesnt use the same cameras, Hehe

 

Speed cameras are hooked to a radar unit. A radar sends out a wide beam and will get a larger radar return off a larger vehicle, as it did in this instance(the bus), which will activate the camera. The camera was probably aimed at his lane, so he got the ticket.

He did a good job of proving his innocence. I'm wondering if the bus driver got a ticket. (Wouldn't bet on it.)

 

Hmm, I dunno if that is how the ones in SF work - I don't recall my V1 going off even when I've seen people go through...

 

The ones I saw worked off radar, but these days could also be laser(it's been 9 years since I was in law enforcement). One thing about them is that they may be working off different frequencies(bands) than what radar detectors are designed to register.

 

The V1 catches laser too, but you know what, nevermind about my comment - I probably do not recall it going off as we often drive in within the city sans V1, so there is a good chance I am just not remembering the instances I've had it on when the cams went off

 

I know that road very well! From the days of it's construction (and the way that the mountain sides had to be shored up because they kept collapsing) through to the last time I drove that stretch back in November of 2003. All I can say is if he was going at that speed, along that stretch, he deserved a ticket for "impeding the traffic flow!" I don't think I've ever dropped speed down below 75mph on the M4! --- oh how things have changed!

 

Slightly off-topic, but I actually got pulled over by a cop with a radar on the A1(M) back in 2003!! I thought I was safe cuz I knew where all of the cameras were on that road. Not so much! I ended up getting caught driving... well, just to stay within site regs, lets just say VERY spiritedly!! Ended up costing me about $600 (usd) when it was all over though.

Even the Brits I worked with were astounded that I got pulled over on the A1(M) though!

Ah well. It didn't make it onto me US driving record!


-Paul!

 

I guess DC uses cameras that take pictures of the front, but in MD, they use the back license plate for pictures. I know this because I got a ticket sent to me in the mail of the back of my car.

 

I have received a photo radar ticket in DC before... taken of the back of my car. It's possible they sometimes use the front, but not always.