Photographic evidence of speeding: IS THIS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE????

[Ripper]

A friend of mine has just received photographic evidence (camera van) of alleged speeding as follows:

Photo 1 (long-distance shot): Car shown at (time) 20:38:35 at 164.4m

Photo 2 (zoomed-in picture): Car shown at (time) 20:38:41 at 164.4m....

Surely this is not possible; same distance, 5 seconds apart! :confused:

[Draven]

that would seem to suggest he was parked :confused:

[Ripper]

that would seem to suggest he was parked :confused:

Precisely.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick, here?

It says 54mph (in a 40mph zone) on both pictures......

[Draven]

unless ones from in front and one is from behind :confused:

that would be 328 metres in 6 seconds
which would be 54 metres per second
which would be 120 miles per hour

[Ripper]

unless ones from in front and one is from behind :confused:

that would be 328 metres in 6 seconds
which would be 54 metres per second
which would be 120 miles per hour

Both photos from the front, same position - zoom is the only difference.

Unless the "164.4m" in the bottom RHSide of the picture doesn't mean anything.....?

[StuyMac]

Photo 2 (zoomed-in picture): Car shown at (time) 20:38:41 at 164.4m....



Im sure "enhanced" pictures are not submissable as evidence :)

[Ripper]

Im sure "enhanced" pictures are not submissable as evidence :)

So you reckon that they've sent it just to put the frighteners on?

[Johnny]

Perhaps the 1st picture is the origional one at 164.4m

and the second picture was the reprocessed zoom of the 1st picture that was reprocessed six seconds later ????

It would explain the time difference

[ade200]

Perhaps the 1st picture is the origional one at 164.4m

and the second picture was the reprocessed zoom of the 1st picture that was reprocessed six seconds later ????

It would explain the time difference

I've seen these photos and the second picture has the car on a different section of the road, so the car has been moving for 6 seconds.

[aaronm]

Could the photos be from two different cameras, i.e. the first one takes the photo at approx 160 meters, then the second one 6 seconds later at approx 160 meters. It could then work out the average speed, eg 54mph.

So the cameras would be approx 25 meters apart???

[JB]

Sounds like enough material to muddy the waters and get let off, given a good enough brief :thumbs:

[Ripper]

There is only one camera. And both photos say "54mph" on them.

In this instance the brief will not be employed - it's a DIY cheapy special.

Still, I'd like to know if someone in 'the know' knows what the f*ck all this is about!

A car cannot be the same distance from a camera for 5 seconds unless it has not moved!

Has anyone else had experience of this or is this a 'groundbreaking' :rolleyes: occurence?

[YorkshireRam]

Both photos from the front, same position - zoom is the only difference.

Unless the "164.4m" in the bottom RHSide of the picture doesn't mean anything.....?

think thats it, its probably just a confirmatory photo showing the number plate more clearly - they may take two photographs to avoid losing valuable revenue if one camera fails.

either way, i don't think its supposed to be two separate photos showing time elapsed between two points (like gatsos)

[Morf]

http://www.5ive-0.com/web/index.php
Ask on there, sure they will be able to help

[TurboTony]

if you look at the bottom of the photo there should be a black strip with all the data in. In the middle does it say anything about 'error' or 'timeout'? If so this would not be admissable as evidence. Also is there a star next to the recorded speed? This means the operator has set a limit in the device and the recorded speed has exceeded it, not sure if that means an inaccurate reading but maybe worth checking out.

[Ripper]

I am sure there is a star.