No its still active see the article belwo or
http://www.minbu.freeuk.com/spcam.htm

Taken from the western mail:
Magistrates' courts could grind to a halt if thousands of motorists exploit
a legal loophole unwittingly exposed by a Welsh driver.
Magistrates had no choice but to find Phillip Dennis, of Whitford,
Flintshire, not guilty of speeding when his case was heard on Thursday.

He had omitted to sign the standard form which is sent to the owner of each
vehicle caught by a speed camera - and Mold magistrates said they couldn't
accept the form as evidence.

Police have no power to compel car owners to sign the form and have been
expecting someone to spot the loophole.

Yesterday the Association of British Drivers, representing about 2,500
motorists, predicted drivers would soon get wind of the court case.

"Motorists are always very quick to seek any way to avoid paying for their
speeding ticket, particularly when they've been caught by cameras because
they resent very much the way the cameras operate," said spokesman Tony
Vickers.

"The cameras have very much reduced public respect for the police and local
authorities.

"People are only too glad to find a way to beat the system."

He said motorists who receive a speeding ticket after being caught on camera
could opt to have their case heard in court, rather than pay the fine
without quibble.

"If a lot of people take up this option it will have another side-effect,
which will be to clog up the magistrates' courts with hundreds or thousands
of motorists all trying to avoid paying the fine.

"The implications for the legal system are interesting, to say the least."

Although the ABD did not condone breaking the highway laws, it said it would
place details of the loophole on its own website for other drivers to read.

"I'm sure a lot of people will try it on and see whether it gets them
anywhere."

The prospect of using the loophole could look especially appealing to people
who already had endorsements on their licences, said Mr Vickers.

"They should bear in mind that if they fail, they will end up paying the
full fine rather than the 50% they would pay if they put their hand up."

When a police camera takes a photograph of a speeding vehicle, the vehicle's
registered owner is sent a form asking who the driver was at the time.

It is an offence not to complete the form and name the driver - but the
owner does not have to sign it.

If the form has not been signed, the courts cannot take any notice of it.

Magistrates in Mold were asked to prove a case of speeding against Phillip
Dennis, 34, of Gwibnant Farm, Downing Road, Whitford, near Holywell.

But clerk Paul Conlon pointed out that the form naming the defendant as the
driver was unsigned.

The driver had provided the information required of him but there was no
requirement under that section of the law for the form to be signed.

Magistrates said they were not happy but had to find the defendant not
guilty in his absence.

Chairman John Beard suggested the police should go back to defendants and
ask them to sign the form.

But he was advised that as the law now stood the only requirement was to
stipulate the name of the driver, and that there was no legal requirement to
sign it even if police did go back and request a signature.

Nobody was available from North Wales Police to comment yesterday.

But one police source said there had been concern that once the loophole was
spotted "it could open the flood gates."

He said, "The police generally have been waiting for someone to appeal
against a conviction on this point but no one has yet.

"We have basically been keeping our heads down.

"Some of my colleagues say we should just make sure people sign the forms
but others are a bit concerned that to do that is tricking people into
something they do not have to do.

"The trouble is when this is highlighted they will all be sending the forms
back unsigned."

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 18:15:31 -0000, a particular chimpanzee named
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

It looked like a normal Gatso.  It was on the grass verge on the
opposite side of a dual carriageway, and there were no road markings
on my side of the road.

Wrong, Truvelo cameras don't flash at all, but they do take a picture
of the car before it passes rather than after. However, the original
poster said it flashed, so it must have been a gatso.

I used to live near a gatso camera which you could set off by going in
the wrong direction too fast, I used to do it all the time and never
got done, dunno about the poor folk who were travelling in the
opposite direction to me at the time though....

I very much doubt it, my mate got hounded for ages about going through
a Gatso in his green Mondeo at the other end of the country, it took
several months before the police sent him a copy of the photo showing
a silver Porsche 911 wearing his Mondeo number plates and agreed they
had made a mistake. If they can't tell a Porsche from a Ford then it's
a miracle they manage to address the envelope properly to send you the
fine!

you can't get 'done' driving towards a n old type GATSO. it works on a
spring that compresses (sort of).
BTW you can't get away with not signing/overpaying/ignoring etc the penalty
notice. you just incur court costs for wasting time. If you don't name the
driver the registered keeper gets the fine by default.
was all covered on sky TV programme 5th gear a few weeks ago.

Simon