what happened in Court today WRT accuracy of Gatso's ??
18 January 2005, 12:47 PM
#121
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Far Corfe
Posts: 3,618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But did you see that thing about the Bill on BBC1 last night? They had a unit which is hand held records your speed very nicely on a very good quality photograph. The officer did mention that the driver would get a shock when it dropped through his letter box. So it would seem that they dont have to stop you at the time?
19 January 2005, 10:06 PM
#124
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to get back to the actual gatso topic but could somebody explain....
Firstly let me say I am in support of proving gatsos are inaccurate.
I fully understand the argument and reasoning behind measuring the timings of the two photo flashes but the distance you have travelled in the 500ms is not measured by the two flashes - it is measured by the two releases of the shutter.
What is the duration of each flash?
Surely he needs to measure the timings of the shutter release which I am guessing is hard without access to the inside of a gatso.
Steve
Firstly let me say I am in support of proving gatsos are inaccurate.
I fully understand the argument and reasoning behind measuring the timings of the two photo flashes but the distance you have travelled in the 500ms is not measured by the two flashes - it is measured by the two releases of the shutter.
What is the duration of each flash?
Surely he needs to measure the timings of the shutter release which I am guessing is hard without access to the inside of a gatso.
Steve
19 January 2005, 10:28 PM
#125
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would expect that if the flash didn't correspond exactly with the shutter, the exposure would suffer somewhat!
But technical arguments aside - THE WHOLE THING STINKS!!!!!
The authorities should be, and be seen to be, whiter than white when it comes to enforcing the law.
Sadly - THEY DON'T
mb
But technical arguments aside - THE WHOLE THING STINKS!!!!!
The authorities should be, and be seen to be, whiter than white when it comes to enforcing the law.
Sadly - THEY DON'T
mb
20 January 2005, 12:12 AM
#126
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,830
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by beensoldaduffscooby
Sorry to get back to the actual gatso topic but could somebody explain....
Firstly let me say I am in support of proving gatsos are inaccurate.
I fully understand the argument and reasoning behind measuring the timings of the two photo flashes but the distance you have travelled in the 500ms is not measured by the two flashes - it is measured by the two releases of the shutter.
What is the duration of each flash?
Surely he needs to measure the timings of the shutter release which I am guessing is hard without access to the inside of a gatso.
Steve
Firstly let me say I am in support of proving gatsos are inaccurate.
I fully understand the argument and reasoning behind measuring the timings of the two photo flashes but the distance you have travelled in the 500ms is not measured by the two flashes - it is measured by the two releases of the shutter.
What is the duration of each flash?
Surely he needs to measure the timings of the shutter release which I am guessing is hard without access to the inside of a gatso.
Steve
The flash is used to freeze the action, i.e. the movement of the car. The power output of the flash is upped so that it overwhelms the ambient light level and becomes the dominant light source otherwise the shutter would be trying to work on varying ambient light levels and maybe give varying exposure times which are useless for accuracy.
In photographic flash units (e.g. on domestic cameras) the flash duration is in the region of 1/10,000th second so this is what takes the picture. As mentioned previously the shutter only has to be open fully when the flash fires and then can close "sometime" afterwards. The shutter won't be open too long to let ambient light affect the exposure.
This is my take on how the flash system works based on photographic principles...
Secondly, if the lines on the road are used for collaborating evidence, in theory they can only give a consistent calculation if the point where the tyre touches the road can be seen in both pictures. Otherwise the angle of view in the picture relative to the position of the car changes (gets shallower as the car moves forward) and gives an exaggerated distance travelled
For example, stand closely behind your rear bumper and look down to the road and note the cutoff where you can see the road under the car. Now take a few steps back away from the car and look again - the cutoff point on the road has moved to under the rear of the car due to the angle of view being shallower - this is what the lens sees and also gives a "false" reading to make it lok like you are moving faster...
20 January 2005, 11:23 AM
#127
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In that case Apple, and what you say is wholly reasonable, then if they cannot get an accurate confirmation of the radar speed with the photograph, then the case should be thrown out.
Les
Les
20 January 2005, 02:15 PM
#128
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to keep this thread upto date this message from David Edgar has been posted on a few other forums, I have copied it here for people how do not follow lots of forums.
“Since a small minority of people have posted some less than helpful comments that I apparently know nothing about the law and I have allegedly ignored dealing with an NIP I would be obliged if I could be allowed set the record straight.
I have been a litigant (unpaid) for almost 11 years in both civil and criminal law, this also includes intellectual property law with respect to inventions and designs, in that time I have successfully represented myself in many Courts winning 80% of my cases, the other 20% would have been won if I were not up against an old boy network that is both bent and incompetent.
I have won (and lost), in many Courts where I have appeared alone with no support or funding including the County Courts, Magistrate’s Courts, High Courts, Appeal Courts including the High Court which is regularly seen on TV and is otherwise known as the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
Currently I have three cases on going in the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, I have had numerous complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and received compensation, I have also received compensation from the Law Society as result of bent and incompetent solicitors and this does not include the countless cases I have won for my self and others at many tribunals.
I successfully saved my elderly mother’s life last year when the NHS tried to kill her by way of involuntary euthanasia (caught on camera doing it), sadly I was less successful with my elderly father who was neglected to death last by the local authority, needless to say those responsible for his death will be introduced to an out of court settlement in due course.
Whilst the satisfaction of restoring some justice is very rewarding it has badly affected my health, last year I had a heart attach as a result of the relentless pressure.
So for those of you out there who think I know nothing of the law I would respectfully ask you to revise your statements as I feel I have earned my law degree the hard way.
With respect to the current RTA Section 172 (3) case it should be noted that I do not have to prove that the Gatso’s are failing to meet Type Approval as I already have a robust defence to that charge. So I do not have to crusade for anyone and can abandon it at any time but I choose to do so because I know from bitter experience that the only way to change things is to fight it and keep fighting it until they listen.
I have used this Court case as a platform to expose the scam that we all know is criminalizing millions of innocent motorist but very few of us are willing to fight the bent establishment for the greater good of the motorist.
To correct the obvious legal misunderstanding with respect to my case please see an extract from my formal defence statement:
The police served an NIP stating that pursuant to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit, this being 41mph in a 30mph zone [The allegation]. They then stated on the same NIP that pursuant to Section 81 RTRA 1984 they had photographic evidence in support. [The material evidence] in addition pursuant Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I was obliged to identify the driver. Since it is well know that "he who alleges must prove" I then continued....
I then responded to the NIP by stating on the form that the driver was unknown to me and in a covering letter I had no recollection of the alleged incident and make no admission of guilt, I then asked for sight of the photographic evidence the police claimed they had in their possession thus complying with the statutory defence of using reasonable diligence as in Section 172 (3) to identify the driver.
Having received the photographic evidence from the police I then responded by letter and stated that inter alia, the photographic evidence failed to identify the driver and it was my contention that the evidence was inconclusive and therefore would not support a successful conviction, furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time of the alleged offence and could not reasonably identify the driver as their identity was unknown to me.
The police then sent another identical NIP to complete however I returned the same stating that I was not aware of any requirement in the RTA 1988 which compels me to duplicate the same statement of facts which I had previously made, I therefore returned the form and asked the officer to identify which section of which Act requires me to do so, strangely enough he never did!
I then stated that should the police commence a prosecution I would defend the same and apply for a Defendant's Costs Order I also stated that I would be relying upon material evidence in support including the case: Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, Head Middlesborough CID 2001 whereby he was not charged following an alleged speeding charge because he couldn't remember who was driving his car due to the photographic evidence conveniently being "inconclusive".
The police then commenced the prosecution and I received a Magistrates' Summons which was subsequently dealt with by entering a plea of NOT GUILTY. I would point out that at this time I was not aware of the serious inaccuracies of the Gatsometers.
Whilst I am reasonably confident that I can defeat the Section 172 (3) charge I am also confident that I can rely upon the Crown's documentary evidence which they have already filed and served, this being a witness statement by a member of the West Midlands Police Camera Enforcement Unit who has stated that pursuant to Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Gatsometer BV Type 24 AUS was Type Approved and was working correctly at the material time since I am of course permitted under Human Rights law to question any Witnesses the prosecution bring against me therefore I will be exploiting the failures of that particular Gatsometer to comply with the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook the likes of which I now have in my possession and the same being relied upon when the Calibration Certificate is signed, this also being disclosed as evidence for the Crown.
Allow me to quote from the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook, in particular section 3.4 under "Terminology" A speedmeter will be considered to fail a type approval test if it displays an incorrect reading of speed outside the tolerance range of error" The "Measuring Accuracy" being a positive error no larger than 3mph (or +3% above 100mph) and since my evidence will prove a wapping 26% error I rest my case!
There are also a number of other serious matters which the PSBD Speedmeter Handbook has identified.
I would also agree with Paul Smith's (Safe Speed) argument that this case is very much in the public interest with regards to speedmeter accuracy so I will be inviting the Crown to reintroduce the speeding charge in order that I can deal with it legally and technically.
David Edgar”
“Since a small minority of people have posted some less than helpful comments that I apparently know nothing about the law and I have allegedly ignored dealing with an NIP I would be obliged if I could be allowed set the record straight.
I have been a litigant (unpaid) for almost 11 years in both civil and criminal law, this also includes intellectual property law with respect to inventions and designs, in that time I have successfully represented myself in many Courts winning 80% of my cases, the other 20% would have been won if I were not up against an old boy network that is both bent and incompetent.
I have won (and lost), in many Courts where I have appeared alone with no support or funding including the County Courts, Magistrate’s Courts, High Courts, Appeal Courts including the High Court which is regularly seen on TV and is otherwise known as the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
Currently I have three cases on going in the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, I have had numerous complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and received compensation, I have also received compensation from the Law Society as result of bent and incompetent solicitors and this does not include the countless cases I have won for my self and others at many tribunals.
I successfully saved my elderly mother’s life last year when the NHS tried to kill her by way of involuntary euthanasia (caught on camera doing it), sadly I was less successful with my elderly father who was neglected to death last by the local authority, needless to say those responsible for his death will be introduced to an out of court settlement in due course.
Whilst the satisfaction of restoring some justice is very rewarding it has badly affected my health, last year I had a heart attach as a result of the relentless pressure.
So for those of you out there who think I know nothing of the law I would respectfully ask you to revise your statements as I feel I have earned my law degree the hard way.
With respect to the current RTA Section 172 (3) case it should be noted that I do not have to prove that the Gatso’s are failing to meet Type Approval as I already have a robust defence to that charge. So I do not have to crusade for anyone and can abandon it at any time but I choose to do so because I know from bitter experience that the only way to change things is to fight it and keep fighting it until they listen.
I have used this Court case as a platform to expose the scam that we all know is criminalizing millions of innocent motorist but very few of us are willing to fight the bent establishment for the greater good of the motorist.
To correct the obvious legal misunderstanding with respect to my case please see an extract from my formal defence statement:
The police served an NIP stating that pursuant to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit, this being 41mph in a 30mph zone [The allegation]. They then stated on the same NIP that pursuant to Section 81 RTRA 1984 they had photographic evidence in support. [The material evidence] in addition pursuant Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I was obliged to identify the driver. Since it is well know that "he who alleges must prove" I then continued....
I then responded to the NIP by stating on the form that the driver was unknown to me and in a covering letter I had no recollection of the alleged incident and make no admission of guilt, I then asked for sight of the photographic evidence the police claimed they had in their possession thus complying with the statutory defence of using reasonable diligence as in Section 172 (3) to identify the driver.
Having received the photographic evidence from the police I then responded by letter and stated that inter alia, the photographic evidence failed to identify the driver and it was my contention that the evidence was inconclusive and therefore would not support a successful conviction, furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time of the alleged offence and could not reasonably identify the driver as their identity was unknown to me.
The police then sent another identical NIP to complete however I returned the same stating that I was not aware of any requirement in the RTA 1988 which compels me to duplicate the same statement of facts which I had previously made, I therefore returned the form and asked the officer to identify which section of which Act requires me to do so, strangely enough he never did!
I then stated that should the police commence a prosecution I would defend the same and apply for a Defendant's Costs Order I also stated that I would be relying upon material evidence in support including the case: Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, Head Middlesborough CID 2001 whereby he was not charged following an alleged speeding charge because he couldn't remember who was driving his car due to the photographic evidence conveniently being "inconclusive".
The police then commenced the prosecution and I received a Magistrates' Summons which was subsequently dealt with by entering a plea of NOT GUILTY. I would point out that at this time I was not aware of the serious inaccuracies of the Gatsometers.
Whilst I am reasonably confident that I can defeat the Section 172 (3) charge I am also confident that I can rely upon the Crown's documentary evidence which they have already filed and served, this being a witness statement by a member of the West Midlands Police Camera Enforcement Unit who has stated that pursuant to Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Gatsometer BV Type 24 AUS was Type Approved and was working correctly at the material time since I am of course permitted under Human Rights law to question any Witnesses the prosecution bring against me therefore I will be exploiting the failures of that particular Gatsometer to comply with the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook the likes of which I now have in my possession and the same being relied upon when the Calibration Certificate is signed, this also being disclosed as evidence for the Crown.
Allow me to quote from the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook, in particular section 3.4 under "Terminology" A speedmeter will be considered to fail a type approval test if it displays an incorrect reading of speed outside the tolerance range of error" The "Measuring Accuracy" being a positive error no larger than 3mph (or +3% above 100mph) and since my evidence will prove a wapping 26% error I rest my case!
There are also a number of other serious matters which the PSBD Speedmeter Handbook has identified.
I would also agree with Paul Smith's (Safe Speed) argument that this case is very much in the public interest with regards to speedmeter accuracy so I will be inviting the Crown to reintroduce the speeding charge in order that I can deal with it legally and technically.
David Edgar”
20 January 2005, 06:44 PM
#130
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can just hear >>Senior Specialist Nuclear Physics<< (PMSL @ that unscientific 'made up by a teenager' job title) shouting 'loser' like some mall brat at the fine Mr Edgar right now. Wait till he starts stereotyping you next - oops you mean he already has??? Game over...
P Bee where did you find that post? I'm looking to find where those of us left that havent rolled over and taken it as 'the new way' can send a gesture of appreciation to this chap!
Game over...P Bee where did you find that post? I'm looking to find where those of us left that havent rolled over and taken it as 'the new way' can send a gesture of appreciation to this chap!
21 January 2005, 10:26 AM
#133
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Best of luck to Mr Edgar I say. If they are going to prosecute people for speeding they are entitled to do so, however the equipment they use must be totally accurate because the law and its administration has got to be seen to be absolutely fair.
Les
Les
21 January 2005, 10:28 AM
#134
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
21 January 2005, 09:02 PM
#136
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having trawled through this thread, I'd just like to add my comments.
Whilst I'd love this chap to get off, I don't think he has a cat in hell's chance. If he does get to produce his evidence about the cameras at court, the one thing he cannot prove is that the camera was inaccurate at the time of the offence. Maybe I have missed something in amongst all the slanging matches, but do the two prosecution photographs show a different speed than what the radar is alleging he travelled at?
Also am I the only one, who having read his previous case history's, thinks that he's a bit of a crackpot!!
Whilst I'd love this chap to get off, I don't think he has a cat in hell's chance. If he does get to produce his evidence about the cameras at court, the one thing he cannot prove is that the camera was inaccurate at the time of the offence. Maybe I have missed something in amongst all the slanging matches, but do the two prosecution photographs show a different speed than what the radar is alleging he travelled at?
Also am I the only one, who having read his previous case history's, thinks that he's a bit of a crackpot!!
21 January 2005, 09:58 PM
#137
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by lmsbman
... the one thing he cannot prove is that the camera was inaccurate at the time of the offence.
mb
21 January 2005, 11:18 PM
#138
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that his aim will be to introduce reasonable doubt. While the Magistrates Court will probably still convict him even with lots of doubt he seems keen to go to the Crown Court on appeal and that would set precedent etc. The Crown Court is also somewhere that such a case stands a chance of a fair hearing.
22 January 2005, 02:48 PM
#142
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: From Kent to Gloucestershire to Berkshire
Posts: 2,905
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the idea was to just bias the media enough that no-one could possibly consider anyone else?
To answer imbsman - doesn't really matter whether Mr Edgar is a "crackpot" or not. It's not his sanity that is in question, it is whether GATSO evidence is unreliable. If is isn't; how can it possibly be justice to secure a conviction based solely on evidence that has been proved to be completely innaccurate on many occassions?
To answer imbsman - doesn't really matter whether Mr Edgar is a "crackpot" or not. It's not his sanity that is in question, it is whether GATSO evidence is unreliable. If is isn't; how can it possibly be justice to secure a conviction based solely on evidence that has been proved to be completely innaccurate on many occassions?
24 January 2005, 06:04 PM
#143
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,985
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else find it frightening that there are people on this forum, presumably motorists themselves, who are happy to see fellow motorists convicted by a device which has been shown to be inaccurate?
Is it not equally alarming that their support for this device is, in some cases, based upon it fitting in with the political aims of people they support and that this support is offered without questioning the actual device itself, despite substantial evidence to show that it is causing an increase in deaths on our roads?
What happens when the device becomes the elimination of Jews or Ukranians? Will the same people sign up for that as well?
Is it not equally alarming that their support for this device is, in some cases, based upon it fitting in with the political aims of people they support and that this support is offered without questioning the actual device itself, despite substantial evidence to show that it is causing an increase in deaths on our roads?
What happens when the device becomes the elimination of Jews or Ukranians? Will the same people sign up for that as well?
24 January 2005, 06:37 PM
#145
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other thing that I've just noticed that will get him shot down in flames at court.
Mr Edgar is going not guilty on the failure to provide name and address and not being convicted of speeding. The first thing that the CPS will ask him, is why is he making such a song and dance about the cameras, if it wasn't him driving? He'll then have to admit to being the driver and then might get to put his evidence forward. If he insists that he is not the driver then he will just get done for failing to provide the details. If that is the case, he then cannot introduce his evidence on gatso's if he appeals against conviction.
Mr Edgar is going not guilty on the failure to provide name and address and not being convicted of speeding. The first thing that the CPS will ask him, is why is he making such a song and dance about the cameras, if it wasn't him driving? He'll then have to admit to being the driver and then might get to put his evidence forward. If he insists that he is not the driver then he will just get done for failing to provide the details. If that is the case, he then cannot introduce his evidence on gatso's if he appeals against conviction.
24 January 2005, 08:05 PM
#148
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StickyMicky
mate, sum people just like to argue
24 January 2005, 08:10 PM
#149
A very informative and intereting post from Apple and many good points and observations made in the most recent posts by Leslie, Boomer Hedgehog Adrian, and Hades to name a few.
Good luck to David Edgar is what I say and I look forward to updates. I do admire his tenacity and stamina.
Motorists are easy meat and the punishment of them is often disproportionate (IMHO) to the treatment of burglars, those guilty of anti-social disorder and even assaults on the police.
Society needs to get back to common sense and basic values or it will only get worse.
Good luck to David Edgar is what I say and I look forward to updates. I do admire his tenacity and stamina.
Motorists are easy meat and the punishment of them is often disproportionate (IMHO) to the treatment of burglars, those guilty of anti-social disorder and even assaults on the police.
Society needs to get back to common sense and basic values or it will only get worse.
