http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

--
message by Robin May, consumer of liquids
Hello. I'm one of those "roaring fascists of the left wing".

Hacker is to computer as boy racer is to Ford Escort.

"Robin May" wrote in message
...
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

Probably - if they're not aware of it already.

The web site says that the device is not illegal. That's probably one of
these grey areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I notice also a statement to the effect that because the device
is manufactured in the US, the UK importer doesn't need to charge VAT. I
have a nasty feeling that this is not true: the device should probably have
some form of import tax or VAT paid on it as it comes into the country which
the importer can then choose whether or not to pass onto the customer. But
if the importer isn't paying import tax, that's his worry, not the
customer's.

I'm curious to know how it works - but the web site explains why it has to
be vague about the specifics! I remember seeing number plates on sale at the
Birmingham Motor Show a few years ago which had a highly-relective
background that reproduced as plain yellow if illuminated by a flash gun.
They were aimed at celebrities who didn't want their number plates to
reproduce in paparazzi photos. I wondered at the time about the legality of
them given the introduction of speed cameras at about the same time.

I wouldn't condone the use of anything that allows you to evade the law
(whether speed cameras or congestion charege cameras) but I've got to admit
to a grudging respect for anything that allows you to avoid the congestion
charge.

By the way, what's the rule about the congestion charge? Are you only
charged as you enter the zone, or are you charged also for every day that
you're inside? Suppose you drive in (maybe even with your number plate
masked!) and then never leave again because you only use the car within the
zone - are you still charged?

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:23:50 +0000, Martin Underwood wrote:
By the way, what's the rule about the congestion charge? Are you only
charged as you enter the zone, or are you charged also for every day that
you're inside? Suppose you drive in (maybe even with your number plate
masked!) and then never leave again because you only use the car within the
zone - are you still charged?

Yes, there are fixed and mobile cameras in teh zone.

Mind you anyone driving in the zone is a stupid idiot anyway.

On Sat, 18 Oct 2003 10:23:50 GMT, "Martin Underwood" wrote:


"Robin May" wrote in message
...
http://www.chargenomore.com/index.shtml

Should this be reported to someone?

Probably - if they're not aware of it already.

The web site says that the device is not illegal. That's probably one of
these grey areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I notice also a statement to the effect that because the device
is manufactured in the US, the UK importer doesn't need to charge VAT. I
have a nasty feeling that this is not true: the device should probably have
some form of import tax or VAT paid on it as it comes into the country which
the importer can then choose whether or not to pass onto the customer. But
if the importer isn't paying import tax, that's his worry, not the
customer's.

I'm curious to know how it works - but the web site explains why it has to
be vague about the specifics! I remember seeing number plates on sale at the
Birmingham Motor Show a few years ago which had a highly-relective
background that reproduced as plain yellow if illuminated by a flash gun.
They were aimed at celebrities who didn't want their number plates to
reproduce in paparazzi photos. I wondered at the time about the legality of
them given the introduction of speed cameras at about the same time.

I wouldn't condone the use of anything that allows you to evade the law
(whether speed cameras or congestion charege cameras) but I've got to admit
to a grudging respect for anything that allows you to avoid the congestion
charge.

By the way, what's the rule about the congestion charge? Are you only
charged as you enter the zone, or are you charged also for every day that
you're inside? Suppose you drive in (maybe even with your number plate
masked!) and then never leave again because you only use the car within the
zone - are you still charged?


I would imagine a few suitably placed infra-red LEDs would make a plate much harder to read, and 200
quid would buy an awful lot of ( or a few awfully powerful) IR LEDs!!!
I think the CC systems uses high res, limited field-of-view mono cameras for recognition and a
colour camera to capture the overall scene. I would think only the colour one would have an IR cut
filter, and it may be possible for them to manually get reg details from this.
I would imagine the mono cameras have good IR response to help extract details in low light (maybe
the cameras even have IR lights ?)

Now if you want to do it properly.....
Make up a plate where the black areas are actually cutouts with an IR pass filter behind, with a
pattern of IR LEDs behind them. This type of filter looks jet black to the eye but like clear glass
at IR.

Anything that stuffs up Mad Kenny's Con tax has to be a good thing, but I think these people are
rip-off merchants. Everything is far too vague to be trusted. .
And I've also heard reports of Kenny's people going round on foot writing numbers down, although
this may have only been before they got their mobile snoop-wagons running.

"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
s.com...


By the way, what's the rule about the congestion charge? Are you only
charged as you enter the zone, or are you charged also for every day that
you're inside?

the charge is for "driving in the zone or being parked on road other than
in a resident's parking place".

The charge is mainly enforced by taking the number of all cars that enter
or exit the zone (as this is the easiest thing to do, but this is not what the
charge is for) and by a gang of people who wander around randomly
taking the details of cars moving/parked in the zone. I suspect that
whatever this 'magic' box is it does little to stop a traffic warden writing
your number down in his notebook

Of course the chances of being spotted just by the latter is somewhat
small and you will likely get away with it most days, hence the 'fine' for
not making a payment voluntarily.

tim


Suppose you drive in (maybe even with your number plate
masked!) and then never leave again because you only use the car within the
zone - are you still charged?

In article m, Martin
Underwood writes
areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I

The law was tested on this point a couple of years ago and the Police
and CPS lost. The radar detector is used to detect the signal is there,
not to listen to the contents of that signal. There was a landmark
ruling on this and the judge rules that is was legal to use one of these
detectors.
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Andrew P Smith" wrote in message
...
In article m, Martin
Underwood writes
areas like radar speed-trap detectors, which are not (as far as I
know) illegal to fit but are illegal if you actually use them to detect
speed traps. I

The law was tested on this point a couple of years ago and the Police
and CPS lost. The radar detector is used to detect the signal is there,
not to listen to the contents of that signal. There was a landmark
ruling on this and the judge rules that is was legal to use one of these
detectors.

I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

Colin McKenzie

In article , Colin McKenzie
writes
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

Colin McKenzie

Oh dear. Colin, are you one of these 'speed kills' and 'speeders are as
bad as child molesters' idiots?
--
Andrew
Electronic communications can be altered and therefore the integrity of this
communication can not be guaranteed.
Views expressed in this communication are those of the author and not
associations or companies I am involved with.

"Colin McKenzie" wrote in message
...
Martin Underwood wrote:
I didn't know this. I suppose it fits in with the modern ruling that speed
cameras should be made highly visible so they act as a deterrent, on the
lines that it's better to slow cars down than simply to penalise the drivers
after the event for speeding.

An argument which is of course complete drivel.

eh? surely this is always the case. Lets replace speed with murder.

Do you think that it is drivel to say:

It is better to discourage murder than to simply peanilise the murderer?

I would hope not, now why does the statement become , not just
less reasonable but completely untrue if I change the crime?

tim



Colin McKenzie