|
Complete rubbish, no-one can tell who or what is going on on the far away picture,
|
And to prove their point the Mail show a video of someone filmed from about 3 metres.
"Martin Surl, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gloucestershire where the kit is being tested, said he hoped that it would catch people using their mobile phones"
Note the use of the word "hoped".
Standard Mail reporting.
|
It's not just the Mail, it's been well reported in the HGV Commercial press today too.
Pat
|
>> Complete rubbish, no-one can tell who or what is going on on the far away
>> picture,
>>
Really, even Google maps / earth can get reasonable quality photos from a satellite. Try Google for military drone footage, even though they only release a fraction of their capabilities. These days you only have to have a device in your hand while driving.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 17:12
|
When our telematics in Cambs can report that a driver isn't wearing his seatbelt in Dundee, I'm happy to believe it's possible!
Pat
|
>> When our telematics in Cambs can report that a driver isn't wearing his seatbelt in
>> Dundee, I'm happy to believe it's possible!
>>
>> Pat
>
Completely different technology to a video.
|
>> Really, even Google maps / earth can get reasonable quality photos from a satellite. Try
>> Google for military drone footage, even though they only release a fraction of their capabilities.
>> These days you only have to have a device in your hand while driving.
I am only going by the photos provided in the link YOU posted. Now you tell me, on the far away photo in the link YOU provided if you can recognise who is driving, let alone if they have a phone on their hand.
And I have seen military drone footage this is not a military drone, far from it
|
Even the paparazzi have decent lenses these days, ask the Duchess of Cambridge.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/05/topless-photos-of-duchess-of-cambridge-were-invasion-of-privacy
I assume you don't need them for train videos.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 17:29
|
>> I assume you don't need them for train videos.
No I can spot a smart alec matelot at a million miles.
The duchess of Cambridge was not photographed at a mile through an oblique windscreen at speed.
Now then answer the perfectly factual question I posed in response to your link. Would you be able to identify a person and a phone in the far picture in the link you posted.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 5 Sep 19 at 10:36
|
|
It read the number plate, after that it is the registered keepers problem unless they identify the driver.
|
....and don't forget, it is now up to you to prove you weren't on the phone as many lorry drivers have found out to their cost.
Long may it continue too.
Pat
|
>> ....and don't forget, it is now up to you to prove you weren't on the
>> phone as many lorry drivers have found out to their cost.
Is that when prosecuted or when caught out by their employer's technology?
|
When prosecuted, and the Employer simply doesn't want to get involved.
...and before the TC, you forget we have two layers of reprimand and fines.
They just give the name and address of the driver of the vehicle at the time.
Pat
|
>> When prosecuted, and the Employer simply doesn't want to get involved.
>>
>> ...and before the TC, you forget we have two layers of reprimand and fines.
>>
>> They just give the name and address of the driver of the vehicle at the
>> time.
>>
>> Pat
Thats all different to the registered keeper and car world, tho there is a parallel to that in the company car world, in that the registered keeper is the company, and they will provide the name of the assigned driver to the police. The police will then contact that driver. - The driver could then say he lent the car to his wife, and she gets nicked, or try to claim it was being driven by some unknown bloke you lent it to, in which case you get prosecuted and sacked.
|
>> When prosecuted, and the Employer simply doesn't want to get involved.
>>
>> ...and before the TC, you forget we have two layers of reprimand and fines.
Surely if driver is pursued in Magistrates Ct in style of R v Pat it's up to prosecutor to prove Pat was on phone and not scratching her ear?
I don't have the knowledge to comment if use of mobile is a Traffic Commissioner fitness/license etc issue.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 21:49
|
Sadly not Bromp, it seems to work on the balance of probability now and how can you prove you were scratching your ear.
It's got to the point now that it's just easier and cheaper to pay the GFP and hope you stay under the radar with the TC.
Pat
|
>> It read the number plate, after that it is the registered keepers problem unless they
>> identify the driver.
Is it? It is for speeding, but is it for phone use? Oh and you STILL didn't answer the question about Identifying the phone in hand.
Oh and you are incorrect, all the number plates have been pasted out.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 15 Nov 18 at 18:13
|
>> Oh and you are incorrect, all the number plates have been pasted out.
>>
I am sure all enforcement cameras do that. Your lastworditis is showing.
|
|
I am never sure how one can accuse somebody else of trying to have the last word by trying to have the last word.
|
>> >> Oh and you are incorrect, all the number plates have been pasted out.
>> >>
>>
>> I am sure all enforcement cameras do that. Your lastworditis is showing.
I'll take that as an admission you were wrong.
|
|
You can take that as whatever you like, just as long as you feel superior.
|
|
With you as my role model? thats a given.
|
Here we go again!
Kids anyone?
Pat
|
|
It's OK Pat, I'm off to let him bask in in his superiority complex.
|
>> It's OK Pat, I'm off to let him bask in in his superiority complex.
And you cant even get the last word in.
|
Oh joy! - Zero
