Evidence of Traffic Dept tampering with laser trap images

[Hogrod]

Below I have possible proof that the traffic dept in Cape Town are tampering with fines in order to make the fine legal in court.
The modification you'll see below has probably been done because the guidelines for processing fines require a targetting cross hair on the image between the two rear lights, to prove that the car has been properly captured in the trap.

We received the following photo for one of our vehicles 3 months ago.

The following image shows an updated version of the same photo modified during the past week.

Can you believe this? Is this not tampering with evidence? These images are from the traffic department. It's clear to see they hired someone with photoshopping skills!

The police are welcome to catch people speeding but if you're going to do it, do it within the laws and guidelines. Tampering like this can't be admissable in any court!

 

[Gomario]

Is this a new regulation in your municipality? None of the pics we get have the 'targeting lines'. And the photos is more of a evidence to you 'hey there you are', then to the courts. I write fines to people who remove the front nr. plate and most of the time I don't even take a picture. No court ever asked me for one Of course, if presented with a photo, the culprits tend to argue less and pay more Never mind the fine - why on earth were you endangering our lifes as road users, in the first place. My advice - do the right thing - STOP arguing, pay for your crime/offence and don't do it again. Oh bleksem, what am I saying

 

[Hogrod]

Is this a new regulation in your municipality? None of the pics we get have the 'targeting lines'. And the photos is more of a evidence to you 'hey there you are', then to the courts. I write fines to people who remove the front nr. plate and most of the time I don't even take a picture. No court ever asked me for one Of course, if presented with a photo, the culprits tend to argue less and pay more Never mind the fine - why on earth were you endangering our lifes as road users, in the first place. My advice - do the right thing - STOP arguing, pay for your crime/offence and don't do it again. Oh bleksem, what am I saying

I missed the part where I said I was speeding? I like how you accuse people of endangering lives when the fact is, how do you know this is the case? How do you know if the fine is legit or not? Are you an expert?

There are NCA guidelines that dictate the cross hairs must be on the photo between the two rear light clusters, and not for example, missing or on the rear window. You can find the NCA guidelines on arrivealive.co.za. I recommend you read the guidelines, you might learn something.

I suppose you think that just because a person recieved a picture in the post they must pay it and accept the verdict without fair trial? Did you consider the fact that perhaps the person was not speeding and the fine is not valid due to improper setup or improper use of a laser trap, or tampering with photos? Since when are the police always right?

Clearly you're a sheep that just does what he is told without questioning the accuracy of the evidence in hand. Someone like me will fight for a proper investigation, and for my rights. Whether proven guilty or innocent I don't mind as long as the proper process has been followed.

 

[Park@82]

Can you believe this? Is this not tampering with evidence? These images are from the traffic department. It's clear to see they hired someone with photoshopping skills!

nah, more like microsoft paint skills.

 

[Gomario]

Rules or guidelines?!? Oh gosh . . . Never mind bud. Definitely speeding . No wait. Speeeeeeding

 

[Hogrod]

Rules or guidelines?!? Oh gosh . . . Never mind bud. Definitely speeding . No wait. Speeeeeeding

Is that the best you could do. Shame...next!

 

[Hogrod]

nah, more like microsoft paint skills.

Lol, of course, silly me!

 

[LancelotSA]

Some of these rules make for interesting reading.... unfortunately they are smart enough to add this part at the beginning....

1.1. The provisions in this document are operational guidelines only and non-compliance does not influence the accuracy or reliability of measurement results. The decisions whether or not to prosecute remains in the discretion of the prosecutor.

And I always wonder how the person who has been fined checks all of this when the find while travelling through Harrismith is received 3 weeks after the event!

An accredited laboratory shall calibrate -

1.5.1 All speed measuring equipment;
1.5.2 All distance measuring equipment; and
1.5.3 All time or time interval measuring equipment,

at least once every six months and issues a calibration certificate. Equipment that is outside the six months calibration period must be recalibrated before it may be used for prosecution purposes.

1.6 All distance checking markers for validation of SME's shall be checked and validated by a Professional Land Surveyor, registered with the S A Council for Professional and Technical Land Surveyors or an accredited laboratory at least once every twelve months. A certificate of the validation shall be issued.

1.7. No prosecution may be instituted where the speed measurement was taken within 300 metres of the commencement of the speed limit zone, except with permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Now if they catch me on camera and then send the fine to me through the mail and they don't pull me over then how do I check this :

1.10. A copy of the following must be available at all times at attended sites where SME's are being operated:

1.10.1 A valid calibration certificate; and
1.10.2 The operator's certificate.

Then reading this makes me think that most cameras I have spotted on the freeways while travelling are illegal as they are often set up in the bushes or next to crash barriers which seem to imply that the bold points will not be complied with!

2.1 SITE SELECTION

When selecting a site for a speed measurement exercise, the following must be adhered to:

2.1.1 Site selection must be done during daytime for day and night-time operation.

2.1.2 There shall be no large, stationary, or metal objects (e.g. patrol vehicle, bus shelter) within a radius of 50 metres in front of the radar SME.

2.1.3 There shall be no metal road signs or vertical flat surfaces within 15 (fifteen) degrees on either side of the aiming direction, within a distance of 200 metres of the antenna.

2.1.4 The equipment may only be used where there is a clear view, any obstruction taken into account, within 45 degrees of the direction of aim over a distance of 600 metres.

2.1.5 There shall be no high-tension cables within a radius of 100 metres of the antenna.

2.1.6 There shall be no discharge type lamps (e.g. sodium or neon) in operation within 45 degrees of the direction of aim within 100 metres of the antenna.

Then this is very very very interesting when it comes to "GENERAL REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO BOTH UNATTENDED AND ATTENDED OPERATIONS." I have received a fair few fines on a particular road that makes absolutely no mention of speed cameras!

6.1.2 An information sign with regard to speed prosecution by camera must be displayed as required by the Director of Public Prosecutions, if the offender is not immediately stopped and informed of the offence.

 

[Frankie]

That might be a case of one printed with the captured data, and the other printed without the data.

Stop by and see the public prosecutor, they are far more reasonable than the cops - he will tell you if it's acceptable or should be thrown out.

 

[Hogrod]

That might be a case of one printed with the captured data, and the other printed without the data.

Stop by and see the public prosecutor, they are far more reasonable than the cops - he will tell you if it's acceptable or should be thrown out.

Thanks, certainly will try that.
The big issue is it just looks like the cross has been added on as an after thought. I mean surely if the pic was taken on the ecamera the cross already be on the pic and would be in the dead centre of the photo, not just placed where it's convenient on the photo as an after thought. I can't see how this can be allowed.

 

[Hogrod]

Some of these rules make for interesting reading....
...
...

Thanks, Yes I've read the guideline and just imagine if I was to take up the prosecuter/judges time reading through all this and asking for evidence on each point. At the end of the day, they must prove your guilt and I don't have to prove my innocence (I beleive).

There are so many guidelines I can't imagine they are all followed.
At the end of the day it's all about if you have the time to fight it. That's just not fair, particular if the fines are found to not be accurate and are the result of bad training.
All I want is for the police to follow their own laws, not waste my time by them taking a chance that I'll cough up out of fear.
That's not right.

 

[LancelotSA]

To add to this thread, and apologies to the OP if he is opposed to me doing this, here is a photo I just received. This is my first one as in Durban they do not send the photos. This was from a recent trip to Joburg - 92 in an 80 zone again! On a dual carriageway that is clearly not in a built up area as you can see from the photo!

Now after reading some of the rules I have to question whether this photo of mine meets this regulation :

3.4.3 When viewed from the SME there must be a clear, visible separation between the vehicle target and any other visible vehicle.

 

[Frankie]

Thanks, certainly will try that.
The big issue is it just looks like the cross has been added on as an after thought. I mean surely if the pic was taken on the ecamera the cross already be on the pic and would be in the dead centre of the photo, not just placed where it's convenient on the photo as an after thought. I can't see how this can be allowed.

The prosecutor will tell you what to expect, and if you intend contesting it in court you should tell him and they will then ensure that the cop is present and possibly their expert witness for the equipment used on the court date.

 

[Hogrod]

The prosecutor will tell you what to expect, and if you intend contesting it in court you should tell him and they will then ensure that the cop is present and possibly their expert witness for the equipment used on the court date.

So I have to write a letter to them before the court date? What if I don't and tell them on the day?

Edit: And where do I find the prosecutor? I assume I can't just rock up and ask to see him/her?

 

[Hogrod]

To add to this thread, and apologies to the OP if he is opposed to me doing this, here is a photo I just received. This is my first one as in Durban they do not send the photos. This was from a recent trip to Joburg - 92 in an 80 zone again! On a dual carriageway that is clearly not in a built up area as you can see from the photo!

Now after reading some of the rules I have to question whether this photo of mine meets this regulation :

Is this a fixed camera, the photo looks like it was taken from a high up position? If it is then don't fixed camera use sensors in the road?

 

[Frankie]

So I have to write a letter to them before the court date? What if I don't and tell them on the day?

Then if you start presenting an argument that requires comment from the cop or their equipment expert witness, the hearing with be set for a later date.

Edit: And where do I find the prosecutor? I assume I can't just rock up and ask to see him/her?

Best to go to the one at the court identified on the fine, and I have just rocked up and waited to see him.

 

[Gomario]

You chaps are confusing a few things here. For radar the guidelines are relevant. For laser mostly not. Radar is old, difficult to setup and monitor by today standards. Laser is a child's play.If properly used, I even can check the speed of a flying bird (ok must be a fairly big and near me, but it works) I am happy to see, at your location the cops are also snapping from behind. Whoever reads this - please DON'T remove the front nr. plate to evade the law. With laser I can turn around in no time. Also, a 45deg open field of view is not necessary anymore. Laser does not spread like radar (is a much shorter and better focused wave). I expect most of the people in here to hate the cops. However, with RPM's permission, I can post a few pics of mutilated body parts which I took with my cellphone after hi speed accidents. If I save a single life by doing that, (and it works with most people) then I am prepared to take all your punches/criticism One thing you should NEVER forget: Kinetic energy = mass x speed squared ! ! !

 

[Hogrod]

You chaps are confusing a few things here. For radar the guidelines are relevant. For laser mostly not. Radar is old, difficult to setup and monitor by today standards. Laser is a child's play.If properly used, I even can check the speed of a flying bird (ok must be a fairly big and near me, but it works) I am happy to see, at your location the cops are also snapping from behind. Whoever reads this - please DON'T remove the front nr. plate to evade the law. With laser I can turn around in no time. Also, a 45deg open field of view is not necessary anymore. Laser does not spread like radar (is a much shorter and better focused wave). I expect most of the people in here to hate the cops. However, with RPM's permission, I can post a few pics of mutilated body parts which I took with my cellphone after hi speed accidents. If I save a single life by doing that, (and it works with most people) then I am prepared to take all your punches/criticism One thing you should NEVER forget: Kinetic energy = mass x speed squared ! ! !

Actually you can't swing around without recalibrating the trap for the new position, and have done the required tests and recorded the tests for a laser. E.g. calibration. Read the guidelines.
You can go on about speeding and death, but as you've yet to realise this topic is NOT about speeding, it's about demonstrating an example where we the public don't know what the regulations for traps are and nor do the people who are operating the devices.
I don't hate cops, but cops are not above the law, they must set an example and follow the regulations we are all under. But if a cop wants to be arrogant, think they can do what they like without an ambition to be the best at what they do, or educate themselves to be better, then expect to be judged as a nuisance.

 

[Frankie]

You chaps are confusing a few things here. For radar the guidelines are relevant. For laser mostly not. Radar is old, difficult to setup and monitor by today standards. Laser is a child's play.If properly used, I even can check the speed of a flying bird (ok must be a fairly big and near me, but it works) I am happy to see, at your location the cops are also snapping from behind. Whoever reads this - please DON'T remove the front nr. plate to evade the law. With laser I can turn around in no time. Also, a 45deg open field of view is not necessary anymore. Laser does not spread like radar (is a much shorter and better focused wave). I expect most of the people in here to hate the cops. However, with RPM's permission, I can post a few pics of mutilated body parts which I took with my cellphone after hi speed accidents. If I save a single life by doing that, (and it works with most people) then I am prepared to take all your punches/criticism One thing you should NEVER forget: Kinetic energy = mass x speed squared ! ! !

Gomario, the people don't necessarily hate all cops, but in general the cops have earned themselves a bad rap with the public, because the public see the cops focusing on revenue income rather than promoting road safety.

You may argue that the person you caught may not speed in the future, but take for example South Korea, there the cops are very visible and always have the top lights flashing when just patrolling, why, because it's called visible policing.
Concealing yourself trapping motorists is more likely to generate income and have zero effect on improving road safety, and the time could be better spent countering the real threats to road safety, the taxis for one, but it appears most cops don't have the balls, or they're owned by the taxis companies.

 

[ColinR]

Snap!