Sparrows are a protected species

On 28/07/2017 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

Try to imagine trying to defend yourself in court when faced by a
po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 29mph (or some simnilar speed), with
the bench (some of whose members may be local councillors) siding with
the bureaucracy as a matter of misplaced principle.

The answer is to adjust the cameras so that they may not "flash" unless
the speed limit had been breached (and by more than the locally-decided
tolerance level at that).

On my planet it is perfectly acceptable (to me at least) to cause no
anxiety to people obeying the law while causing all sorts of negative
emotions in those that are disregarding it.

At a guess, your vehicle has never been "flashed" by a malfunctioning
Gatso whilst you were proceeding lawfully, so you have never had to
spend the next two weeks or so wondering whether the loonies in charge
of the place are going to try to fleece you out of money and get your
licence endorsed.

ERRATUM:

The paragraph which starts "Try to imagine" contains a typo and should
have read:

"...a po-faced apparatchik who insists that the details within the image
"prove" that your vehicle was doing 39mph (or some simnilar speed)...".

On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by a
suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially in
an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as much
harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised by
a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what the
local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image, especially
in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined to do as
much harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso flashing
a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed limit (if you
can, which you can't).

On 29/07/17 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised
by a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what
the local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image,
especially in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined
to do as much harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso flashing
a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed limit (if you
can, which you can't).

Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit. Trigger (radar) sensitivity and enforcement threshold are not the
same thing just as they are not the same as the posted limit. The matter
at the top was about the possibility of reducing the trigger point when
the camera is taken out of the box. You would do yourself a lot of
favours if you made a better effort with your reading and comprehension
ability.

Even when a camera is active, if the authorities desire to catch on
film, say 95% (*), of drivers exceeding 36mph, it must result in 5% of
drivers doing less than 36mph getting flashed. If the human at the far
end is having a bad day, some of them get a letter. So what? They're
still breaking the law.

(*) 95% is just a suggestion, it could be 99% or 90% but I have no idea
of the true figure. If the spread is too wide and falses too often the
camera will run out of film more quickly.

On 29/07/2017 15:33, TMS320 wrote:

On 29/07/17 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised
by a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know what
the local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image,
especially in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics determined
to do as much harm to visiting drivers as they can get away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso
flashing a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed
limit (if you can, which you can't).

Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit.

Er... yes, it was.

It is the central point.

See the bit above where it says: "...you drive along a road at 29 or
30mph. A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you
are travelling within the 30mph speed limit".

Trigger (radar) sensitivity and enforcement threshold are not the
same thing just as they are not the same as the posted limit. The matter
at the top was about the possibility of reducing the trigger point when
the camera is taken out of the box. You would do yourself a lot of
favours if you made a better effort with your reading and comprehension
ability.

The failure to comprehend is all yours.

Someone wrote:

"I have seen boxes fitted with flash but no camera. No harm if the
threshold is lowered...".

I then explained the harm which is done when a speed camera is triggered
(and flashes) by a vehicle driven at the speed limit or less.

Even when a camera is active, if the authorities desire to catch on
film, say 95% (*), of drivers exceeding 36mph, it must result in 5% of
drivers doing less than 36mph getting flashed. If the human at the far
end is having a bad day, some of them get a letter. So what? They're
still breaking the law.

You seem to have a screw loose about that, even though it is 100% not
the subject under discussion. Both I, and the poster who wrote "I have
seen boxes fitted with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is
lowered...", were talking about vehicles being flashed at less than the
limit. It happens.

(*) 95% is just a suggestion, it could be 99% or 90% but I have no idea
of the true figure. If the spread is too wide and falses too often the
camera will run out of film more quickly.

I think you're probably right to a limited extent, in that you have no idea.

On 29/07/17 16:06, JNugent wrote:
On 29/07/2017 15:33, TMS320 wrote:
On 29/07/17 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 28/07/2017 20:31, TMS320 wrote:
On 28/07/17 16:37, JNugent wrote:
On 14/07/2017 12:04, Ian Smith wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 13/07/2017 19:33, TMS320 wrote:

That is assuming a camera is fitted - I have seen boxes fitted
with flash but no camera. No harm if the threshold is lowered,
should they do that.

Causing unnecessary anxiety to people obeying the law is acceptable
on your planet, is it?

What possible anxiety would be caused to someone obeying the law?

That's easy to understand if you are in "understand" mode.

It goes like this... you drive along a road at 29 or 30mph.

A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you are
travelling within the 30mph speed limit.

Even bearing in mind that the photographs are allegedly scrutinised
by a suppposed human before decisions are taken, you don't know
what the local authority staff will try to "prove" with the image,
especially in an area (eg, Brighton) run by half-lunatics
determined to do as much harm to visiting drivers as they can get
away with.

You have moved from getting flashed by a box to being incorrectly
charged. It would be much easier if you moved to understand mode.

Please explain what purpose there can possibly be in the Gatso
flashing a vehicle which is not being driven in excess of the speed
limit (if you can, which you can't).

Nothing was said about the person(s) involved being below the posted
limit.

Er... yes, it was.

It is the central point.

See the bit above where it says: "...you drive along a road at 29 or
30mph. A Gatso camera flashes the rear of your vehicle even though you
are travelling within the 30mph speed limit".

Your words only. After your failed comprehension of anything that went
before.