Mark_S

Just read this, excellent thread.

I see PSL has (thankfully) gone very quiet on this subject. What a hypocrite!!

GCollier

Hedgehog, I have to say I find your views on this matter extreme, and in comparing speed cameras to devices of genocide bordering on psychosis.

I really don't buy your big-brother conspiracy-theory, government out to get motorists for political reasons and revenue generation arguments. Much of the detail of government policy is formed by civil servants anyway. Yes the treatment of motorists often seems harsh, but the people forming policy have more factors to consider than simply people who enjoy driving (fast) - e.g. cost of road building and maintenance, congestion, pollution, cutting down on the cost of road deaths in both lives and medical bills. No, the policies which are dreamt up don't always get things right, but I think in general some people are looking at the bigger picture and are not simply obsessed (as you seem to think) with fitting a speed limiter and tracking device to your car so they can go on a personal power-trip measuring how long it takes you to drive down to tescos.

Some speed cameras have been shown to be cynically positioned at spots which were not accident black spots in order to generate revenue for local police forces. But to use them as a strategic revenue generating device fro government makes little sense. Even if every driver on the road got 3 points and a £60 fine per year, thus milking them as much as possible and keeping everyone on the verge of being banned from driving, the revenue generated after costs would be a fraction of percent of total taxes raised, and probably generate far more anti-government sentiment amongst the people thus fined than a 1p hike in income tax.

With regard to some speed cameras over-reading, well that's surely a possibility, they're complex devices after all, subject to the levels of tolerance in their components and calibration errors. But over-reading by an average of 26%??? I've driven past hundreds of speed cameras at and above the speed limit and never received a single ticket for doing so. If they really do over-read by 26% on average I would be banned from driving within a week.

As a final thought, if someone was using similar arguments to try to get off some charge other than speeding (e.g. "The driver of my car when it collided with and wrote off that subaru impreza is unknown to me and I have no recollection of the event") there would be a general uproar on this board that some "******" could get off on a "tehnicality". Seems many people are just blinded by what they think is a basic right to drive fast (and I have points on my license awarded at the local magistrates court for speeding at somewhat above the cut-off for a fixed penalty before anyone starts that I am some self-righteous **** who never speeds).

Gary.

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

I understand that Mr Edgar's assertion is that it's the photos that would demonstrate a speed that's grossly inaccurate, not the radar. So, if you're travelling under the limit, it's unlikely that you'd get flashed.

If, however, you DID get flashed - either because you're travelling slightly over the limit or someone else in the camera's range is, then the photos would make your alleged crime appear worse than it actually was. If they are indeed showing a 26% error, then you'd only have to be doing 24.6mph to show as having been speeding (31mph) - and that would get you convicted if the camera had been triggered anyway.

I think the origin of the 500ms figure needs clarifying; if it's not the case that cameras are legally required to take the pictures 500ms apart, then Mr Edgar's evidence becomes an interesting observation and nothing more. It needs to be shown that the photos will always be interpreted as though they were taken exactly 500ms apart.

It's also worth re-iterating again, that any error greater than 1ms or so in the time between the two photos, really cannot be a result of normal manufacturing or measurement tolerances. It HAS to be deliberate. To me, that's the most sinister thing of all about this case.

Apple

That's the first time I've heard that one

Andy_C - without starting an argument, I guess it comes down to accuracy and repeatability - both would be ideal but I think the measurements taken may show a repeatable reading per camera but not very accurate e.g. 650ms gap ±1ms as opposed to a spec of 500ms ± 0.5ms etc

I don't know how "manual" the shutters are in Gatsos but each one could wear which would affect it's repeatability over time and then its accuracy would also drift - just like camera lenses if which I suppose you've had tested - especially LF lenses...

Apple

Could it be that they assume nobody can think anything through like this and people should just bend over for the shafting / wallet lightening session...?

At a guess, the photo is used as a visual check to see that there's only one car in the frame and that the equipment is nominally functioning "correctly" as I think they'd have a problem calculating your speed to x decimal places from a photo - just think how much fun could be had if there's any distortion on the lens to add into the equation

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

Apple,

That's why I think it's important to establish exactly what the time difference between the photos is supposed to be. I've yet to see anyone justify why they believe 500ms is the requirement in all cases; to get the best accuracy it would arguably make more sense to take the pictures further apart in a 30mph zone than a 70mph zone.

With regard to accuracy and repeatability, my point is that measuring time with an electronic device can be done very accurately indeed with almost zero drift over the life of the equipment. A digital watch manages it for pennies - and all watches do at least agree on how long a second is. The accuracy of the quartz crystal used is typically +/- 5 parts per million, so the error in the electronics should not be measurable, unless perhaps you work at the National Physical Laboratory.

In a typical SLR camera, the shutter mechanism is triggered electronically; at the instant the shutter is fully open, it trips a mechanical switch which fires the flash. Because it's mechanical, this is where any significant error (and I still mean 1ms or less) might be introduced - but if a £1000 professional SLR can last for a quarter of a million photos without the shutter failing, there's no reason why a £30,000 Gatso shouldn't be able to do the same.

johnfelstead

How much of that £30K is spent on the internal systems though? I bet its not as much as you would think. Isnt there someone on scoobynet who used to make these things? Pretty sure there was.

Apple

Andy,

I agree on both counts - it should be that if any calculations are carried out from the photo then the gap time data should be known and used (rather than assuming it is 500ms)

As for different gaps depending upon road speed, they might only have one stencil to paint the lines and it would confuse the Hell out of the bod working out the speeds without some kind of look-up table..

Thankfully, a lot of modern SLR lenses are very accurate and repeatable (or within specification tolerance for a long time)- I'm just knowledgeable that some LF lenses, particularly their shutters may not be...

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

There was - he resigned, then his company went bust

TBH I've no idea about the exact costs involved. My point is really that camera technology is advanced, cheap, proven and reliable - so there's no reason to allow more than a millisecond or so of error because of manufacturing tolerances, wear or any other variable.

If the Gatso really is that inaccurate by virtue of its design (rather than deliberate configuration), then I'd like to meet the engineer involved and give him a smack in the face - not for designing speed cameras per se, but for doing his profession such a public disservice by doing it so badly.

(For those that don't know, I'm a professional electronic engineer and keen amateur photographer. I could design a device to take two photos 500ms +/- 1ms apart easily - and no, Mr Brunstrom, that's not an offer!)

OllyK

Since when has your legal right to silence been "getting off on a technicality". Speeding is the only offence where you no longer have that right, do you not think that anti-terrorism or such would have been a higher priority if you are erroding basic human rights? Or perhaps we should not be erroding them at all?!

Leslie

GCollier,

The detail of these laws may well be put together by the Civil Service, but it is the Government which forms the policy and is responsible for the total detail of the laws which are produced.

Your political opinions are down to you of course but they should not blind you to the possibility of errors or of bad laws passed by any Government in power.

The weight of evidence shows beyond doubt that motorists are being used as a milch cow to swell the coffers and the concern here is that unsafe measuring equipment is being used to convict us. That is a situation that must not be allowed to continue if it is true.

Les

hades

Couple of points there. Firstly, your speedo is probably over-reading by several percent, plus gatso's will be set with a significant margin, so that might explain why you haven't been nicked.

Secondly, whilst Mr Edgar's case may have clouded it, I don't believe the issue is whether the "can't remember who was driving" defence is fair or otherwise. The issue IMHO is whether the cameras are providing false/innacurate evidence to secure convictions, which is the case IF Mr Edgar's evidence is correct and based on valid assumptions (which I don't believe anyone here has proved or disproved at the moment).

It is not a case of a right to drive fast; no-one is debating that exceding the speed limit is breaking the law (even if people may disagree with that law). However, remember the British CRIMINAL justice system is based on the premise of "innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt". If the evidence is unreliable/false, there is no proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In the same way, you couldn't secure a conviction for assault/murder/whatever with the only evidence being one digital picture of the scene provided by a photoshop expert.

CIVIL law is based on the premise of "balance of probabilities", but speeding is not prosecuted by civil action. Hence some situations where someone has avoided a criminal prosecution, but been successfully sued.

P.S. happy for any lawyers to put me right on terminology!

Adrian F

Gcollier I take it you don’t work with the Civil service etc. I work as a manager for contractors working with Local Government and as part of my job I meet the council departments who draw up plans for the practical implication of political will e.g. the politician says make motorists not drive by grid locking the roads these people use their training to achieve this. Now the thing is years ago they use to make the roads flow now in London they are instructed to use their skills to reduce traffic flow by redesigning junctions and retiming traffic lights etc. This is policy and the idea behind it reaches down from the top of Government. If you can’t see the Labour Government policy is to price you out of your car (any Car) then you amaze me.

One local authority I work for has a "Blue Sky Thinking" department! One of them has a print out from the ABD web site with know your enemy written across it and it is on his wall next to his desk. He believes strongly that people should be forced to leave cars at home and cycle or use public transport his is the common philosophy in this department and they put forward policy suggestions to the Council to be voted on, yet this is one of the least Anti-Car authorities! He conceded to me in a discussion that pollution is not a long term problem but is being used as an excuse to force people out of their cars before zero emission vehicles are on the roads.

Also once a practical non oil burning vehicle is available where will the Government get the 30+ Billion pounds in Fuel Tax? Hence the rush to road charging it must be on line before we move away from petrol vehicles or the Government will suffer a massive drop in Tax income. So much is so obvious yet people blindly Vote for the same party time after time with out asking any questions.

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Has this been posted yet?.....

"PRESS RELEASE 4


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"

Jiggerypokery

RTFT!
http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showpost....&postcount=128

Aztec Performance Ltd

iTrader: (234)

Cool. I saw it posted on "SafeSpeed" and wasnt sure as it was the first I had read of it

Bob

Diesel

Gary Collier - great sensible post mate, and I agree with you on much of it; unfortunately you are NOT IN the great sensible world...

Motorists are in many cases being unfairly persecuted and often by devious punitive means. Such treatment deserve equal but opposite over-reactions as a counter-measure.

Please dont assume you are dealing with fair decent people in these matters and feel free to froth at the mouth at them as a balancing counter-measure. If we dont it will all get SO much worse - sheep to the slaughter as someone said here...

Leslie

Since PSL has already demonstrated that he is incapable of understanding the basic principals at stake here, I am surprised he has decided to post yet again on this thread!

Les

unclebuck

A very interesting post this, and one that everybody should read and remember.

I'm sure hedgehog will be along shortly to comment on the content. It sadly confirms my worse suspicions and beliefs about the future for motoring in this country.

UB

hawkthescoobslayer

hmmmm makes you think doesn't it. BLIAR here we go again.

hedgehog

Unfortunately this hasn't been a secret for quite some time. I have had contact with a civil engineer who designs roads for shopping centres and the like and he was instructed to design congestion into one recent development. I think he was annoyed because people would have thought that it was he who was stupid for building it that way.

There is some similar discussion going on here:

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403085

Also I believe it possible that someone might be going to use Mr Edgar's "GATSO error" evidence in court this week. Now, I have no other information and am not even sure that this will happen but will post if I find any further info.

It is amazing just how many fronts they are attacking us on and you can see that, currently, this is all focused upon the motorist. Anyone who thinks it will not bother them would be very stupid indeed, once the persecution of the motorist has stopped someone else will find themselves in the frame.