warning this item contains some flash photography.

[Tweed]

Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

[williamwright]

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

Liability issues if they accidentally leave a flash in.

Bill

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

I think when they cover the party political conferences they should say,
Warning this may contain lies.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by williamwright

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can't modern processing drop the frames that contain the
offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

Liability issues if they accidentally leave a flash in.
Bill

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 02:35:56 +0100, williamwright

Post by williamwright

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

Liability issues if they accidentally leave a flash in.
Bill

Dishonesty in the depiction of the news.

Once you start manipulating the photography to reject certain things
according to somebody's choice, when you're supposed to be showing
something real as it actually happened, how far do you go and when do
you stop?

Rod.

[Brian Gaff (Sofa)]

I'm sure given time it could but the fact is news becomes old very quickly
and its not worth the hassle. Besides it does look artificial if the flashes
are missing. I remember back in the black and white days too many flashes
could disrupt the picture momentarily, and in black and white sets with no
DC clamping you could hardly tell there had been a flash as the overall
picture brightness remained the same, as the blacks just got momentarily
blacker.
Brian
--
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can't modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

[Mark Carver]

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.

The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV

Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

[Tweed]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.

Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !

[Mark Carver]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.

Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !

For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively
preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?

Live or 'near live' light entertainment contains it, notably rock and
pop concerts.

[Tweed]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.

Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !

For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively
preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?

Live or 'near live' light entertainment contains it, notably rock and
pop concerts.

Ok, I guess I could forgive that. But I’m not sure that suppressing the
flash from a news item of a minister turning up at a party conference
changes the substance of the item. The strange thing is, the last item that
contained such a verbal warning (that prompted me to raise this issue) on
the news didn’t seem to have any discernible flash photography at all. It
did have the photographers, and they did have flash guns. Perhaps it had
been suppressed after all?

[Roderick Stewart]

On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:04:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.

Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !

For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively
preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?

A function or adaptor for the TV sets of those who consider themselves
troubled by this would be a more appropriate place to implement any
deliberate distortion of news footage. Then those who were watching
the distorted footage would know they were, because they'd chosen to
do it themselves. This would be much better than having your view
distorted by someone else, perhaps without your knowledge.

If you're concerned about discriminating against those with "flash
photography issues", what about the routine attempts to "protect"
those with "word issues" or "idea issues" by preventing the use of
particular words or expressions, or the inclusion of particular ideas?
Do you think it's more discriminatory to do this, or not to do it?

Rod.

[Tweed]

Post by Roderick Stewart
On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:04:32 -0000 (UTC), Tweed

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Thanks. I’ve had a look through that site, but unless I’ve missed
something, it doesn’t answer my question as to why flash photography can’t
be electronically eliminated from news video.

Well there's no technical reason why it can't be, there's just the
matter mentioned by others that on news footage you risk 'influencing'
what's being reported, and on light entertainment shows, you're
tampering with someone's artistic masterpiece !

For light entertainment it is surely banned anyway, as programmes have to
be certified free of such effect? For news footage you are effectively
preventing those who are prone to flash photography issues from watching
that segment, which is a tad discriminatory?

A function or adaptor for the TV sets of those who consider themselves
troubled by this would be a more appropriate place to implement any
deliberate distortion of news footage. Then those who were watching
the distorted footage would know they were, because they'd chosen to
do it themselves. This would be much better than having your view
distorted by someone else, perhaps without your knowledge.
If you're concerned about discriminating against those with "flash
photography issues", what about the routine attempts to "protect"
those with "word issues" or "idea issues" by preventing the use of
particular words or expressions, or the inclusion of particular ideas?
Do you think it's more discriminatory to do this, or not to do it?
Rod.

Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact. The
other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly think that
suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the meaning in any
significant way. It’s orders of magnitude below how the meaning is altered
(for good or ill) by the editing process and the journalistic voice over.
(Please don’t start another BBC bashing or Brexit thread, they are getting
tedious….). Pre preprepared programmes have to be certified free of these
issues, so for example, a week old news documentary couldn’t carry flash
photography (if I understand the rules correctly). It’s only near real time
stuff that escapes this process.

[MB]

Post by Tweed
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact. The
other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly think that
suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the meaning in any
significant way. It’s orders of magnitude below how the meaning is altered
(for good or ill) by the editing process and the journalistic voice over.
(Please don’t start another BBC bashing or Brexit thread, they are getting
tedious….). Pre preprepared programmes have to be certified free of these
issues, so for example, a week old news documentary couldn’t carry flash
photography (if I understand the rules correctly). It’s only near real time
stuff that escapes this process.

It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The
continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of
photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of
course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent
with their very powerful flashguns.

With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without flash.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by MB

Post by Tweed
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact. The
other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly think that
suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the meaning in any
significant way. It’s orders of magnitude below how the meaning is altered
(for good or ill) by the editing process and the journalistic voice over.
(Please don’t start another BBC bashing or Brexit thread, they are getting
tedious….). Pre preprepared programmes have to be certified free of these
issues, so for example, a week old news documentary couldn’t carry flash
photography (if I understand the rules correctly). It’s only near real time
stuff that escapes this process.

It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The
continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of
photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of
course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent
with their very powerful flashguns.
With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without flash.

Pictures are usually much more natural looking without flash. I've had
it switched off by default on every camera or phone I've ever owned,
and rarely had a need to use it at all.

In answer to the main point, I still maintain, a few individuals'
medical or psychological conditions notwithstanding, that to depict a
news or current afairs event otherwise than how it really happened, is
a distortion of the truth. If a lot of people were taking flash
pictures at some event, then to depict it as though this were not
happening (whatever the practicalities of how this might be done) is
to show something that didn't really happen. This might be acceptable
in a fictional drama, but is not what is required of a news broadcast.

Rod.

[Sysadmin]

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by MB

Post by Tweed
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact.
The other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly
think that suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the
meaning in any significant way. It’s orders of magnitude below how the
meaning is altered (for good or ill) by the editing process and the
journalistic voice over. (Please don’t start another BBC bashing or
Brexit thread, they are getting tedious….). Pre preprepared programmes
have to be certified free of these issues, so for example, a week old
news documentary couldn’t carry flash photography (if I understand the
rules correctly). It’s only near real time stuff that escapes this
process.

It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The
continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of
photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of
course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent
with their very powerful flashguns.
With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without flash.

Pictures are usually much more natural looking without flash. I've had
it switched off by default on every camera or phone I've ever owned, and
rarely had a need to use it at all.
In answer to the main point, I still maintain, a few individuals'
medical or psychological conditions notwithstanding, that to depict a
news or current afairs event otherwise than how it really happened, is a
distortion of the truth. If a lot of people were taking flash pictures
at some event, then to depict it as though this were not happening
(whatever the practicalities of how this might be done) is to show
something that didn't really happen. This might be acceptable in a
fictional drama, but is not what is required of a news broadcast.
Rod.

There should be a peanut warning when watching food programs as well.

[Roderick Stewart]

Post by Sysadmin

Post by Roderick Stewart

Post by MB

Post by Tweed
Photosensitive reaction is a well documented condition, ie hard fact.
The other issues you raise boil down to matters of opinion. I hardly
think that suppressing flash photography in a news report alters the
meaning in any significant way. It?s orders of magnitude below how the
meaning is altered (for good or ill) by the editing process and the
journalistic voice over. (Please don?t start another BBC bashing or
Brexit thread, they are getting tedious?.). Pre preprepared programmes
have to be certified free of these issues, so for example, a week old
news documentary couldn?t carry flash photography (if I understand the
rules correctly). It?s only near real time stuff that escapes this
process.

It would be a good thing if the use of flash was restricted. The
continuous stream of flashes during a news event as dozens of
photographers all take identical pictures, is very annoying. And of
course the ones hoping to make some female celebrity's dress transparent
with their very powerful flashguns.
With modern cameras it is quite possible to get good pictures without flash.

Pictures are usually much more natural looking without flash. I've had
it switched off by default on every camera or phone I've ever owned, and
rarely had a need to use it at all.
In answer to the main point, I still maintain, a few individuals'
medical or psychological conditions notwithstanding, that to depict a
news or current afairs event otherwise than how it really happened, is a
distortion of the truth. If a lot of people were taking flash pictures
at some event, then to depict it as though this were not happening
(whatever the practicalities of how this might be done) is to show
something that didn't really happen. This might be acceptable in a
fictional drama, but is not what is required of a news broadcast.
Rod.

There should be a peanut warning when watching food programs as well.

It wouln't surprise me if somewhere there already is. Every other
programme nowadays seems to be preceeded by a warning about scenes of
violence, sexual activity, drug use, or things that might upset me. It
would be more practical to warn us about the programmes that *don't*
contain anything that might upset us (so we could avoid watching them)
because if television is too upsetting for anyone, how on earth will
they cope with real life? Maybe it would be simpler if there was a
warning about the possibility of being upset by the ensuing threescore
and ten (if you're lucky) printed on every birth certificate.

Rod.

[Woody]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Tweed
Often a verbal warning is given in the news that the next item contains
some flash photography. Now I understand why the warning needs to be given.
But why can’t modern processing drop the frames that contain the offending
flash (and perhaps interpolate the missing frames from the neighbours)?

There's an awful lot of bedtime reading and internet 'rabbit holes' on
this topic.
The UK has the world's strictest measures regarding flashing images on TV
Start here
https://www.hardingtest.com/index.php?page=pse

Why do they warn about flash as in photography but they NEVER give any
warning in respect of blues on emergency vehicles?

[MB]

Post by Woody
Why do they warn about flash as in photography but they NEVER give any
warning in respect of blues on emergency vehicles?

Not just blues, I have seen some areas using very bright forward
pointing flashing white lights on ambulances.

[Andy Burns]

I have seen some areas using very bright forward pointing
flashing white lights on ambulances.

Too bright IME, they blind you to the ambulance's indicators, so you can't see
which way is best for you to get out of its way ...

[Woody]

Post by Andy Burns

I have seen some areas using very bright forward pointing flashing
white lights on ambulances.

Too bright IME, they blind you to the ambulance's indicators, so you
can't see which way is best for you to get out of its way ...

If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles you
will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle that are
steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities over whether
or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got flashed by a
speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken during the
very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a steady light
makes the situation clear.

[Mark Carver]

Post by Woody
If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles
you will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle
that are steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities
over whether or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got
flashed by a speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken
during the very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a
steady light makes the situation clear.

Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?

[Chris J Dixon]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Woody
If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles
you will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle
that are steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities
over whether or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got
flashed by a speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken
during the very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a
steady light makes the situation clear.

Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?

On a documentary series about police vehicles, they showed a new
fleet being specified, and this particular issue was mentioned
and addressed, much as described.

It is clearly important that emergency vehicles stick to normal
traffic rules, except when operationally necessary.

Chris

[MB]

Post by Chris J Dixon
It is clearly important that emergency vehicles stick to normal
traffic rules, except when operationally necessary.

I have heard traffic police officers, oops sorry, members of the "road
policing department" say on TV police reality programmes that they are
not allowed to cross double white lines. Rubbish because everyone can
cross them in certain circumstances and they are frequently seen in
these programmes crossing them.

[John Williamson]

Post by Mark Carver

Post by Woody
If you look at the rear light bar on ambulances and police vehicles
you will see that there are (usually) two blue lights in the middle
that are steady lit. Why? Because of disputes with local authorities
over whether or not the vehicle was on an emergency run when it got
flashed by a speed camera. It is possible that the picture could taken
during the very short time when both flashing blues are off, so a
steady light makes the situation clear.

Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?

That would require someone to actually make the entries, and cuold give
rise to problems if rules are broken when the vehicle is on a routine
movement. It's easier, as a real person has to check the pictures from
the scameras anyway, to tell them "If the blue lights are on, ignore the
vehicle"

They are actually breaking the law, even on an emergency run, but there
is a convention that speeding and other traffic offences be ignored, but
only when they are "on a shout". If the lights are not on, then normal
rules are enforced.

[MB]

Post by John Williamson
If the lights are not on, then normal
rules are enforced.

I remember on one of these TV programmes a detective in an unmarked
police car chasing (we are told that only done in marked vehicles)
whilst using TWO mobile phones - one in each hand and they very
definitely were not police radios.

A large proportion of police traffic cars seem to now be unmarked,
usually black, with just a couple of blue lights in the windscreen and
possibly radiator grill but don't remember a light at the back but
perhaps a recent addition.

There was the case years ago of someone being booked by a "Red Light
Camera". He said the moved forward to allow an unmarked police car
through. He was charged and convicted but fortunately it was found that
it was a car from another police force so the local one knew nothing
about it.

[Mark Carver]

Post by MB
There was the case years ago of someone being booked by a "Red Light
Camera".  He said the moved forward to allow an unmarked police car
through.  He was charged and convicted but fortunately it was found
that it was a car from another police force so the local one knew
nothing about it.

There's been similar cases of people crossing into bus lanes etc, to get
out of the way of emergency vehicles, then having a fine arrive a couple
of weeks later.

Seems to be only a limited level of scrutiny on the photographs then ?

[MB]

Post by Mark Carver
There's been similar cases of people crossing into bus lanes etc, to get
out of the way of emergency vehicles, then having a fine arrive a couple
of weeks later.
Seems to be only a limited level of scrutiny on the photographs then ?

I was told the fire brigade and probably ambulances are told not to use
their sirens to persuade a drive to cross the white line to allow them
through. And when the authorities have been asked whether you should
let a fire engine or ambulance pass by crossing the white line, they say
you should not.

Of course the police driver waving for you to get out of ###### way is
considered crossing the white line on the orders of a police officer.

An ex-police friend worked "on the dark side", they were in a covert car
and asked to get ahead of a car that was being followed by turning left
and getting onto another road running parallel. The lights turned to
red but the pavement was very wide so went around the corner on the
pavement.

There was police motorbike across the road so he must have thought it
was his lucky day!

[Andy Burns]

I was told the fire brigade and probably ambulances are told not to use their
sirens to persuade a drive to cross the white line to allow them through.  And
when the authorities have been asked whether you should let a fire engine or
ambulance pass by crossing the white line, they say you should not.

They do seem much better in the lasty few years at turning off the sirens when
they can see a driver would have to pass a red traffic light to let them pass.

[Woody]

Post by MB

Post by Mark Carver
There's been similar cases of people crossing into bus lanes etc, to get
out of the way of emergency vehicles, then having a fine arrive a couple
of weeks later.
Seems to be only a limited level of scrutiny on the photographs then ?

I was told the fire brigade and probably ambulances are told not to use
their sirens to persuade a drive to cross the white line to allow them
through.  And when the authorities have been asked whether you should
let a fire engine or ambulance pass by crossing the white line, they say
you should not.
Of course the police driver waving for you to get out of ###### way is
considered crossing the white line on the orders of a police officer.
An ex-police friend worked "on the dark side", they were in a covert car
and asked to get ahead of a car that was being followed by turning left
and getting onto another road running parallel.  The lights turned to
red but the pavement was very wide so went around the corner on the
pavement.
There was police motorbike across the road so he must have thought it
was his lucky day!

The considerable benefit in this case of having a working dashcam!!

[Woody]

Post by MB

Post by John Williamson
If the lights are not on, then normal
rules are enforced.

I remember on one of these TV programmes a detective in an unmarked
police car chasing (we are told that only done in marked vehicles)
whilst using TWO mobile phones - one in each hand and they very
definitely were not police radios.
A large proportion of police traffic cars seem to now be unmarked,
usually black, with just a couple of blue lights in the windscreen and
possibly radiator grill but don't remember a light at the back but
perhaps a recent addition.
There was the case years ago of someone being booked by a "Red Light
Camera".  He said the moved forward to allow an unmarked police car
through.  He was charged and convicted but fortunately it was found that
it was a car from another police force so the local one knew nothing
about it.

I knew about this status from working on comms for a police force. To
get from one police station to another they had to go through the area
of the neighbouring force and there was a fixed camera on that road.
Every time the neighbouring force got a picture delivered they sent to
it to my force and it was stuck on the station notice board - dozens of 'em!

[MB]

Post by Mark Carver
Do they really go to such trouble for emergency service vehicles ? I'd
have thought their registration plates are appropriately flagged as
'don't worry' on the database, and that's it ?

Not so sure. In some area, there seemed to be almost a vendetta with
the police (or perhaps the organisation running speed cameras) issuing
speeding penalties to ambulances, paramedics, blood and various other
vehicles.

I was told by someone in the ambulance service that they were not
allowed to drive on blues if not on an emergency call (unlike the police
who can drive around like lunatics when 'practising', frequently killing
others).

So when ambulance crews were being trained, they would respond to an
emergency call some distance away on blues. It meant they were covered
if a speed camera caught them.

[Laurence Taylor]

Post by Woody
Why do they warn about flash as in photography but they NEVER give any
warning in respect of blues on emergency vehicles?

Some years ago, I saw a news item about the Ambulance Service (or
possibly Fire, I forget). The on-site reporter was standing in front of
one of the vehicles with its blue strobes running and facing straight
into the camera.

I found it impossible to watch. I wonder how many people complained?