Photgraphic Evidence.

When you receive an AARTO "infringement notice" in the post (by registered mail I might add), it's charge says "The infringer, as identified...", presumably referring to the registered owner of the vehicle as those are the details which appear in the addressing section of the notice. But the fact is that the “infringer” may well not be the owner but the person who was driving at that time.

Take a look at the pictures below. These are from actual speeding fines.

The distinct differences between the two pieces of photographic evidence are so marked that this cannot go unchallenged.

1. The UK photograph is taken from the front where the SA one is taken from the rear.
   
   
2. The details of speed, date, etc. appear in a translucent box in the body of the photograph on the UK photograph. In stark contrast, the South African one has a nice solid box at the top where this information appears.
   
   
3. There is no marketing material (logo of the camera manufacturer) in the UK photograph, but the logo of Safe-T-Cam is proudly emblazoned on the South African one. This is also true of the other camera manufacturer in South Africa – MobiLaw.
   

So, what about it? Well here’s our stance on this.

1. The driver (and passenger) are clearly visible in the UK photograph. Whilst they cannot be identified in the example used because of the size of the photograph (this is intentional), we assure you that the full size image can easily be used to identify the driver. Depending on the range from which the photo was taken, the road tax disc (license disc in South Africa) can also be zoomed in on.
   
   
   The South African photograph is taken from the rear. How, pray tell can the driver be identified? Is the “infringer” not the driver of the vehicle and not necessarily the owner?
   
   The vast majority of South African Infringement Notices that have come to our attention have photographs taken of the rear of the vehicle. It is not surprising as hiding away and taking a photo of an oncomming vehicle is significantly more difficult.
   
   
2. Placing the details of speed, date etc. in a translucent (semi-see through) box makes the UK photographic evidence unalterable in that modification of the data would be immediately evident.
   
   By stark contrast, all South African photographic evidence captured using the Safe-T-Cam or the MobiLaw equipment has a solid blue or black (respectively) box at the top of the photograph where the data is displayed. Editing this can be done in as simple a graphics package as Microsoft Paint. The explanation of the JMPD of how this is impossible is unfortunately flawed since there are too many steps between the recording of data and the final “product”.
   
   
3. Whilst the fact that logos appear in the South African photographic evidence is not a huge issue, one has to ask why the manufacturers feel it necessary to use as distasteful a practice of photographic speeding fines to strengthen their market branding. Having said this, it is probably just as well that they have chosen to do so since it does make it easier to see the obvious partnership between big business and the JMPD.

So what happens once the photo has been captured? The next section deals with this aspect.