FAQs are broken into the following two sections
Does SAFEPLATE Really Work?
Does SAFEPLATE Only
Work With 'The Gatso'?
Is SAFEPLATE Guaranteed?
Is It Legal to Apply SAFEPLATE?
Is the Law Likely to Change?
My digital camera does not produce the
effect of refraction on the treated plate, why not?
Your Digital Camera v The Gatso Camera
What About 'Reverse' Images?
How Long Does The Application of SAFEPLATE Last?
Does SAFEPLATE Work On Other Number Plate Types?
Is there a Correct Procedure to Apply SAFEPLATE?
Is SAFEPLATE Available in Other Countries?
The following information comes from the
Association of British Drivers website.
The aim of the ABD is to provide an active, responsible voice to lobby
for Britain's beleaguered drivers & motorcyclists.
They call for the use of sensible speed limits based upon well
established road safety principles, not political correctness.
They demand an end to the abuse of speed cameras for extorting money from
drivers; and a return to the 3 E's of road safety.
As you take the time to visit them by clicking
here (opens in a new window) you can see all the excellent work they are
doing for the rights of the driver.
Government's Empty Promises
Rigging The Evidence
The ABD's Response
Strategy Against Gatso cameras
Speed Cameras — Questions & Answers
Back to the Top
| SAFEPLATE — The Product
We do not condone speeding on our roads but need protection from money making devices. |
Q. Does SAFEPLATE Really Work? Do My Number-plates Become Invisible? A. SAFEPLATE works with a Crystallite Technology and when applied to your number-plates, they will be converted to reflect the photo flash of Speed Cameras. The flash power of the cameras used to take the two separate images at half second intervals in the Gatso Cameras is around 300 watts. We have some examples for you to see in our Retail Sales picture gallery that are taken with digital cameras with around 20% of this flash-power. (NB. These pictures have not been tampered with) The effect is very clear ..... The number plate becomes invisible. It really works with the Gatso Camera! IMPORTANT NOTE. |
| Q. Does
SAFEPLATE Only Work With 'The Gatso'? A. The application of SAFEPLATE has no effect against any other type of speed camera operating without the use of flash technology. Most other speed cameras work with infra red and/or OCR digital technology. If you are not sure what a Gatso Camera is, then go to our Links page and read some of the information available. |
Q. Is SAFEPLATE guaranteed? A. We guarantee that with application of SAFEPLATE to your number plate it will have protection from the flash of Gatso cameras for a mimimum period of six months or we will refund the original purchase price of the product. (Subject to terms and conditions) |
Q. Is It Legal to Apply SAFEPLATE? A. All number plates in the UK must meet British Standard requirements. Their is nothing in the legislation that state your number-plate has to be flash friendly. It does not contravene the law because the plate is still clearly readable with the naked eye. Application of SAFEPLATE gives a clear visually undetectable protective finish to number-plates. The opinion of a member of staff at the RAC Foundation, (quoted in the Daily Mail) said he thinks users of number-plate sprays might find themselves charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice. Recent press stories indicate that the Police have wrongfully and unlawfully pressed charges or alternatives to users of Radar Detection Equipment. Statute in the UK is clear and changes would require an Act of Parliament. At this moment in time we still live in a democracy and this should remain the same unless all our greatest fears are realised and the United Kingdom evolves into a police state. |
Q. Is the Law Likely to Change? A. Legislation is always changing, though the process is usually fairly longwinded and complicated. A good example is the legislation for the use of radar detectors which has been revised many times over the last 25 years. The government and Ministry of Transport are constantly issuing press releases and information about the effectiveness of speed cameras and accident figures. One thing is clear from many recent press articles (available at our news page), the camera partnership appears to be able to position cameras as and where they wish, regardless of legislation or regulations. We will constantly monitor any shift in legislation or test cases and should you wish send we will send you regular monthly updates in our Newsletter. To sign up for our free monthly newsletter please click here |
Q. What About 'Reverse' Images? Can the 'negative' images from a Gatso read number-plates? A. We understand there are certain other number-plate sprays imported from places like the US of A, that allow reverse images obtained from Gatso camera shots to be used to successfully identify number-plate details. Although we are aware of this glitch with other products, we have clear knowledge that due to the Crystallite Technology this does not apply to number-plates treated with SAFEPLATE. Should you have any concerns about this please visit our Retail Sales picture gallery and check out 'reverse images' (NB. None of these images are tampered with). Any further discussions on this matter must be limited to the SAFEPLATE product. |
Q. How Long Does The Application of SAFEPLATE Last? A. The answer to this has many variations. The worst possible scenario we'd suggest an extra application every six months and certainly at least once per year. Although in many cases this may be deemed as overkill, the effectiveness of the SAFEPLATE product will be maintained to keep you protected from the flash of speed cameras. Different people live and drive in different rural, coastal and city locations. The air pollutants both natural and man-made may have an impact, together with the number of times number-plates are washed and more importantly the strength of the solution of any TFR (Traffic Film Remover) used in the washing process. |
Q. Does SAFEPLATE Work On Other Number-Plate Types? A. SAFEPLATE has been successfully tested on many types of number-plates from the UK, USA, and Europe. The results obtained are all conclusive... SAFEPLATE really works. |
Q. Is there a Correct Procedure to Apply SAFEPLATE? A. Yes the number plate surface has to be clean and dry. Shake the can well for at least one minute. (In cold weather ensure the can is heated to room temperature before application.) The optimum method is to apply three light even coats on this clean surface. SAFEPLATE can be applied directly to a vehicle number plate as long as the area behind the plate is masked from overspray. To obtain an even application it's always better to remove a number-plate and lay down on a flat surface. (Avoid wet or windy locations, although the area should be well ventilated and a spray mask should be worn) Spray with light even strokes over the entire surface of the plate. Leave a few minutes to dry. Apply a further two coats (using the same method) NB In cold temperatures the application is touch dry in about twenty minutes but it does take up to four hours to "cure or harden" |
Q. Is SAFEPLATE Available in Other Countries? A. SAFEPLATE is being distributed to many other countries through a growing network of wholesalers and is also available from our web site. A list of P&P rates is available on our Retail Sales Page. Successful distributors are being sought to expand our national and international network. Should you wish to obtain further information on our Trade Sales or Wholesaler requirements please click the specific links. |
|
Your Digital Camera V Gatso Camera |
Gatso Cameras — The Truth
| "The speed camera issue is not a point of principle, it is a fact they are pointless" |
| Paul Garvin - Chief Constable of Durham Constabulary The Journal 16th April 2004 |
Speed cameras — a betrayal of public trust
The 1991 Road Traffic Act allowed the use of Speed Cameras to gain prosecutions
in the UK for the first time. Their introduction was underpinned by extensive
and ongoing publicity to link speed with accidents regardless of circumstance
based on the simplistic and selective use of available evidence. When assurances
were added that they would be sited only at accident blackspots, motoring
organisations, the press and much of the motoring public put aside their
apprehensions and acquiesced to the increasing use of these devices on the
grounds that they would save lives.
Some cameras, sited as promised at junction or traffic light locations, have
indeed resulted in localised falls in serious accidents. Taking this together
with continued advances in both active and passive vehicle safety, improved
vehicle security reducing 'joyriding' by unqualified drivers, continuing road
improvements and little increase in road traffic, one would have expected an
acceleration in the long term trend towards fewer deaths on the roads.
However, in 1995 UK road deaths and serious injuries fell only marginally.
Hampshire, with no speed cameras, mirrored the national trend whereas speed
camera laden Oxfordshire suffered a 30% increase in deaths.
How the Home Office rigged the results of the 1999-2000 Speed Camera Revenue Hypothecation Trials
In 1999 and 2000, six English police forces (Cleveland, Essex, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, & Thames Valley) participated in a Home Office pilot scheme whereby a surcharge was added to speeding fines to fund the introduction and administration of more speed cameras.
An ABD analysis of accident figures in these six forces shows that to ensure the hypothecation "trials" produced the desired result for the Home Office, the odds were deliberately skewed by carefully selection of the trial areas.
The ABD has always maintained that, despite
the assurances, speed cameras would be placed in open road locations enforcing
often inappropriate speed limits and serving little purpose other than to move
the whole enforcement system away from the education of dangerous drivers and
towards the arbitrary penalisation of safe and responsible citizens. These fears
have been realised and the consequential undermining of driving skills has, the
ABD believes, been a significant factor in this failure to improve Britain's
road safety record.
Restrictions on this irresponsible abuse of Speed Cameras are now essential in
order to ensure they are used in the manner originally promised and can thus
make a positive rather than a negative contribution to road safety.
The ABD is campaigning for an amendment to the 1991 Act which would require
clear labelling of all speed cameras with a sign 200yds in advance showing a
valid justification for the camera placement and reminding drivers of the speed
limit. An example would be — "Dangerous junction — Camera 200yds — 40mph".
Cameras where no such justification exists should be removed.
A summary of our supporting arguments is contained in the attached question and
answer sheet. We are sure that if these arguments are placed before Britain's
motorists, a significant proportion will be justifyably angry that their trust
in the authorities has been betrayed by the blatant misuse of speed cameras to
the detriment of road safety.
To make members aware of Trunk Road camera
locations by compiling maps.
To highlight to the authorities and the general public specific examples where
cameras have been placed in open road locations with no safety justification in
direct contravention of the promises made on their introduction.
To highlight the failure of cameras to significantly reduce overall National
accident, injury or death rates.
To demonstrate the negative impact on driver skills derived from an unreasonable
enforcement policy perpetrated by whatever means.
To specifically campaign against enforcement of the 70mph motorway limit by
cameras.
To campaign for the restriction of cameras to clearly labelled accident black
spots.
Q. Is the ABD against Speed Cameras
altogether?
A. No. The ABD accepts the argument used to justify speed cameras on their
introduction — that they can cut accidents by making reckless or incompetent
drivers slow down for specific hazards which generate 'accident black spots'.
Q. How can you say that the authorities have 'abused' Speed Cameras?
Instead of being located in blackspots, the majority of cameras have been placed
in open road locations where they serve no purpose other than to catch out
drivers who are travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions. A
particularly worrying trend is the recent placement of cameras on the motorway
network, currently Britain's safest roads despite almost universal disregard for
the 70mph speed limit.
Q. How can you accuse the authorities of irresponsibility when they are
just doing their job?
Even those cameras sited correctly are often not clearly labelled, thus denying
the target group of drivers the opportunity to be educated into slowing down for
hazards. This clearly demonstrates an irresponsible attitude on the part of the
authorities - prosecutions are more important than road safety.
Q. But surely a safe driver never exceeds the speed limit?
A. The speed limit is supposed to be the maximum safe speed on that road and it
is up to the driver to use his skill and judgement to set his speed
appropriately to the conditions within it. On country lanes, shopping streets
and housing estates this is usually the case, but on the open road and on many
clear urban through roads, limits exist which bring this statement into
disrepute. There are several reasons for this:
Open road limits have not been adjusted to take account of the modern car's
vastly superior brakes, tyres and suspensions which have reduced stopping
distances by up to 50% from those stated in the Highway Code.
Similar stretches of urban dual carriageway have limits varying from 30mph to
70mph, sometimes without logic at all but often because the limit is set for the
worst rush hour conditions rather than light traffic.
Semi-urban clear road limits are reduced to or maintained at unrealistic levels
for political reasons to allow decision makers to cover themselves against any
blame for potential accidents.
Safe drivers who give the road conditions their full attention will inevitably
break such arbitrary and inconsistent limits.
Q. We hear that 'speed kills', and so
why isn't a general slowdown a good thing?
A. The authorities state that 'excessive speed is a contributory factor in a
third of accidents'. But what about the other two thirds, and what is the main
factor in this minority if speed is only 'contributory'? This missing factor,
the real cause of most accidents, is failure by drivers to respond to hazards:
They fail to see them because they aren't looking.
They see the hazard but do not recognise it as such, and so fail to act.
They recognise the hazard but do not know how to respond in line with their own
and their vehicle's ability.
Driving at an inappropriate speed for the conditions is simply one consequence
of these fundamental failings. To separate it out as a root cause in its own
right is meaningless and dangerous.
Q How does this alleged camera abuse translate into more dangerous roads?
A1. Most obviously by distracting drivers' attention from the road. Since
a driver cannot rely on keeping her licence by driving sensibly and
appropriately, the first use of her senses must always be to locate the camera
and then to ensure she passes it at the correct speed. Whilst doing this, she
cannot give her full attention to other potential hazards, and may take
unpredictable evasive action such as braking which creates a hazard for other
road users.
A2 Perhaps more importantly by undermining his skills. A safe driver is
one able to judge road conditions for himself. But sensible and necessary speed
limits are rarely enforced, presumably because it is more cost effective to
collect tickets from safe drivers on roads where the limit is inappropriately
low. Such circumstances reward drivers for travelling at the speed they can get
away with rather than what is safe, and even the most skilled driver will find
himself losing his ability to judge road conditions properly. New drivers stand
little chance of developing their skills to a level where they can cope with
normal day to day hazards safely and intelligently.
Q. Isn't it wrong to break the law, and shouldn't those who do so be
punished?
A. The ABD believes that laws are necessary but that they should be fair
to all and serve a clear purpose. Enforcement to the letter of regulations which
large numbers of responsible citizens regard as unreasonable and pointless can
only lead to widespread disregard for the whole system of law and is a
significant factor in the breakdown in standards of honesty in the Western
world.
Q. Who are the ABD and why should their views be publicised?
A.The ABD is made up of responsible drivers who believe the rights of the
motorist are being undermined to an unacceptable degree. We all hold down full
time jobs in the community and mostly have growing families, and so the time
freely given to campaigning on behalf of ourselves and millions of other
motorists is both limited and precious. Unlike some of our opponents, we are not
inclined to climb trees, storm security offices or paint slogans on our naked
bodies.
The published arguments in support of this erosion of rights have, in our
opinion, been ill thought out and one sided at best, and have all too often been
presented as fact and have gone unchallenged. Whilst we respect the rights of
others to promote their views, we believe it is time to redress the balance.
The British public has a right to know
that they have been conned into accepting Speed Cameras under false pretences.
Join the ABD.
Special Note.
The ABD is aware of a number of serving police traffic officers amongst it's
members. Every one of them has asked to remain incognitio for fear of
repercussions from their force. What does that tell you about what is happening
in this country?
The government condemns bullying in schools, yet it actively incites local authorities and the police to bully drivers. They get away with it because the government has also spent millions of pounds of public money on propaganda campaigns to brainwash the public into believing that all drivers are evil, child-killing, planet-destroying ogres who deserve all they get.
Help us fight this tyranny — Join the ABD now
Speed cameras have been the source of a great deal of argument about whether
their true role is to generate revenue or save lives. On this page, we examine
the actual data.
The government tell us that "speed kills". They use this claim to justify more
speed cameras. In recent years, the number of speed cameras in England & Wales
has increased massively, to at least 4500, with some reports stating as many as
6300.
As a result, the number of fixed penalty notices issued, and prosecutions
carried out, has increased dramatically to well over a million per year.
'Safety' Camera Partnerships repeatedly claim that their speed cameras are
successful in slowing vehicles down.
If speed cameras are genuinely effective in saving lives, we would expect to see
a strong correlation between speeding convictions and deaths.
Go to the ABD site statistics and check for yourself
click here
The figures prove beyond doubt that speed cameras do not save lives. Speed
cameras merely generate a huge number of fixed penalty notices and prosections
that produced an income for the government of over £84,000,000 per year in 2002.
Speed cameras are nothing but ...
WEAPONS of MASS PROSECUTION