Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Wed Oct 24, 2018 02:36

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 19:26 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
timtjf wrote:
Having been involved in hundreds of real criminal cases the defence do not have to prove innocence, however the prosecution have to prove their case so that the court (aka Jury) are SURE of guilt, anything else the court must find the defendant not guilty.

The defence do not have top produce any evidence whatsoever however they can challenge to prosecution evidence, just saying the defendant is guilty is not good enough.

However i did say in REAL CRIMINAL CASES motorist are in that catagorie in theory and law, but not in practice.

If the equipment is so good why is all the relevant information, that would prove its accuracy, CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, any reasonable and intelligent person will know the answer

So what does that say about those who dont know

The prosecution do bring evidence to prove guilt. Witness, evidence from corroborating device, sufficient.

Where is the difference in a speeding offence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 19:37 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Self-calibration is not traceable to National Standards and is thus useless.

I can't be bothered taking the argument about calibration through back and forth posts so here it is in the style of a barrister. You will note that no knowledge of how a particular piece of equipment operates is required, just a logical mind.

- Do you think that measuring instruments (used to secure convictions) need to be calibrated?
- Do you think that these instruments vary in their accuracy over time or with use?
- Do you think that the equipment should be calibrated periodically in accordance with the recommendations of its manufacturer?
- Do you think that such recalibration is proof that the equipment is working to specification?
- Do you think that the absence of evidence of calibration at the recommended intervals means that there is no proof that the equipment is accurate?
- Do you think that conviction of citizens should be by the evidence of equipment which cannot be proved to be accurate?

I repeat my earlier opinion that inability of the prosecution to prove that the equipment is accurate amounts to reasonable doubt.

I also repeat, why is it that the prosecution do not appear in court with these calibration certificates as a matter of course?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 19:51 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
Do you think that equipment that can and is accurate without the need for calibration because it uses an external physical constant as a reference in every measurement should have it's readings questioned by persons who can't understand how it works and that unqualified questioning should constitute a reasonable doubt?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 19:59 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Is the equipment to which you refer supplied with a calibration certificate traceable to National Standards?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 20:07 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
Do you think that equipment that can and is accurate without the need for calibration because it uses an external physical constant as a reference in every measurement should have it's readings questioned by persons who can't understand how it works and that unqualified questioning should constitute a reasonable doubt?

That's assuming it does what it says on the tin.

Was PKB's guess (Pepipoo) right or wrong: do you really know?

Why do you believe you "know"? Have you actually tested for it?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 20:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
The point I am trying to make is that it doesn't matter that I don't know how the equipment is supposed to work and, in fact I am not actually querying this. All I am interested in is that an independent third party has certified that it is accurate for the intended purpose at the time it was being used.

It's not good enough for the prosecution to say "believe me" just like it isn't good enough for the defendant to say "I didn't do it"! as you noted earlier.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 20:44 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
GreenShed wrote:
The presumption of the evidence is that the witness opinion and the corroborating evidence of a measuring instrument is evidence enough. When the point is thus proven the defence are entirely at liberty to bring EVIDENCE that the prosecution evidence is incorrect or inaccurate. No evidence to the contrary and the prosecution evidence stands and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" is maintained. The courts don't tend to work in favour of a defendant with no better defence than "I didn't do it"!


OK, let's put it another way.

Let's say that you were accused of speeding, and you know for a fact that you weren't, although you have no way of proving it.

What would you do? How would you defend yourself?

Or would you just meekly pay up?

And don't say that it couldn't happen.

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 13:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
malcolmw wrote:
Let's take this one step at a time.

Do you think that measuring instruments need to be calibrated?

Not only do measuring instruments need to be calibrated, but the instruments used to calibrate should also be checked and calibrated on a regular basis, and the calibration measurments recorded to a nationally acceptable standard - ISO/UKAS in the UK.

UKAS lay down strict conditions to which calibration tests must adhere to - there is a requirement that NQA certificated entities do not use either the NQA certification or registration marks, on certificates of calibration. Use of the logo is a mandatory element of all NQA ISO 9001 audits and following my notice of a departure from this rule by REDSPEED, a reminder was issued to all assessment staff stressing the importance of this aspect of the visit and reinforcing the associated regulations.

Steven Callaghan endorses the products of REDSPEED on their website, despite their clear departure from the regulations governing calibration certificates - sort of guilty by association don't you think!? :judge: :stop:

Would YOU trust the word of a person known to lie, and associate himself with a company which disregards the strict rules governing calibration paperwork? :o

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 15:57 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Ernest Marsh wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
Let's take this one step at a time.

Do you think that measuring instruments need to be calibrated?

Not only do measuring instruments need to be calibrated, but the instruments used to calibrate should also be checked and calibrated on a regular basis, and the calibration measurments recorded to a nationally acceptable standard - ISO/UKAS in the UK.

I hope I can provide some clarity.

It is possible for the Lidar type speed cameras can give a correct and valid speed reading even if the internal clock rate (one of the 'calibrated' parameters) is wrong.
The clock being wrong means the distance deduction will likely be wrong, but that does not mean the speed deduction will be wrong; that does not mean the speed deduction will be right either.

Some people will say the device "self-calibrates", that is sort of true, but that applies to a specific part of the circuit that's not being discussed.

What greenshed will never address (he never has) is:
Quote:
If the distance reading was proven wrong, but the clock was right (by inference from the distance check), then it follows the LTI could not have measured the intended target, or there was a serious malfunction of the equipment. Either way, the speed reading cannot be trusted - it risks an unsafe conviction.

If the distance reading can be proven wrong (and the clock rate appears to be correct) then a temporary, gradual degradation of the oscillator module must be considered and tested for...

... I have since tested for 'gradual degradation' ... :)
So is it possible for the (applied) speed to be wrong if the deduced distance is wrong?

Greenshed, this is the part where you resume your nominal pattern of ceasing to post!

I know that for a fact that you do not have enough knowledge to continue with the debate anyway.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 16:46 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
GreenShed wrote:
timtjf wrote:
Having been involved in hundreds of real criminal cases the defence do not have to prove innocence, however the prosecution have to prove their case so that the court (aka Jury) are SURE of guilt, anything else the court must find the defendant not guilty.

The defence do not have top produce any evidence whatsoever however they can challenge to prosecution evidence, just saying the defendant is guilty is not good enough.

However i did say in REAL CRIMINAL CASES motorist are in that catagorie in theory and law, but not in practice.

If the equipment is so good why is all the relevant information, that would prove its accuracy, CLASSIFIED INFORMATION, any reasonable and intelligent person will know the answer

So what does that say about those who dont know

The prosecution do bring evidence to prove guilt. Witness, evidence from corroborating device, sufficient.

Where is the difference in a speeding offence?


Witness evidnce from a corroborating device, which is, ACCORDING TO THE HOME OFFICE, only acceptable if the required checks have been carried out and carried out correctly and it is operated correctly.

So "What is correctly?" well if it is shown that an operator did not carry out the checks correctly, the the prosecution will state "It was not perfect by was, in my opinion, acceptable"

So where do we draw the line between acceptable and incorrect?

The answer will be different for each separate case, that is the location of the line not the acceptability


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 18:49 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Steve wrote:
Greenshed, this is the part where you resume your nominal pattern of ceasing to post!


Ah the well known phenomenon known as the Callaghan effect where evidence which dents the infallible belief in a posters abilities leads to a seizing up of the posting gland.

As Nick Freeman observed at Carlisle in the Montgomery case:
Daily Record wrote:
Mr Callaghan, 50, was not a member of the Engineering Council as he had stated, having left four years ago.

Mr Freeman said: "If an expert comes to court and misrepresents the nature of his qualifications, that must taint the nature and weight of his evidence.

"There is a question over whether he is an expert."


Clearly there is a gap between Greenshed's perceived expertise, and his actual abilities, and "There is a question over whether he is an expert."! :lol:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 19:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3428
I think that if you break down the meaning of expert, into, EX...an "has been" and SPURT...a large drip

then all will become clearer..... :lol:

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 26, 2011 23:47 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
An amusing read here from 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051223083205/http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml

Steve Callaghan wrote:
The method of operation employed on the Inside Out program is NOT the method employed in the field. If I found any of my operators using the geometry employed by those on the Inside Out program I would retrain them. How many incorrect readings were found when the geometry was correct and the thresholds set as expected? I saw none! I and 7 other operators are yet to see readings that have been demonstrated as obviously erroneous/spurious or not what has been expected.


Ernest Marsh wrote:
Actually Mr Hewitt, the device is designed to be used as a surveying tool, where it very accurately measures distances, and is used as such by some police accident investigators to produce an accurate record of a crash scene. Additional Software can also be employed to use those very accurate range checks, to determine the speed of a vehicle. It does this by interpreting the changing DISTANCE from the device to the vehicle over a set period of time, to calculate the speed. This only works if the SAME part of the vehicle is targeted during the readings. If not, the calculation is flawed by the movement of the aiming point in addition to the vehicle movement. Mr Callaghan assures us his operators are trained to do this. Surprisingly, the British Army has difficulty finding snipers who can match the accuracy at the ranges many of our camera partnerships operate at, as evidenced by film released to victims in court! Software is supposedly built in to 'trap' these errors, but the software code has never been made available for independent assessment - the only assurance that it works comes from the manufacturer.


How prophetic - at Carlisle Crown Court, Steve Callaghan's infallible belief in the operators he trained took a dent when the judge ruled that the operator had handled the LTI incorrectly despite the "expert" witness's earlier claims!

Of course SC didn't want to acknowledge that my summation was accurate...

Steve Callaghan wrote:
Mr Callaghan also says that the independent investigation into the device provided by the HOSB and its success indicates that the device is of high integrity. He also wonders how an engraver with no technical knowledge of such devices can now provide credible opinion of laser range finding equipment. All assumptions have been made with no regard for the width of the laser beam and the correllation of the returned beam by the receiver. I await the notice from the Home Office to withdraw the equipment, there appears to be nothing in my mail to this effect. Cheers S


And I was not the only one with concerns in 2005...
Smeggy (steve) wrote:
Steve Callaghan I’ll take your word at your perfect results. However, perhaps this could be because you were doing your tests in a sterile environment, conscious that you are being monitored, sub-consciously encouraging you to be alert and aware of your actions? Can you really confidently apply your findings to operators who are doing the job routinely, aiming the gun hundreds of times per day, day in day out, who after many hours become oblivious to the fact that they’re not following the ACPO guidelines to the letter. All the while fatigue is setting in, they get the shivers as they become cold, the wind gently rocking their hands. Have your really accounted for these factors? Let’s not be naive by dismissing the possibility of operators who deliberately try to get a wrong reading, through malice or boredom.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 27, 2011 13:16 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:52
Posts: 2
The bottom line of this thread is the acceptability of evidence produced for the courts by a single operator operating a “measuring” device.

Despite Fisherman's apparent view that all is fine in our courts, there is absolutely no doubt that the courts, at least up to divisional level, are biased to more or less automatically convict a driver accused of speeding.

I offer you an example concerning the evidence. (based on the use of an LTI2020)

It is a requirement of a criminal conviction for speeding that there are two corroborating sources of evidence. The courts accept that the opinion of the operator is one source and the corroboration of the record form the device is the other. Of course those of us with a logical turn of mind see an obvious flaw here. It is clear that the opinion of the operator should be formed without the aid of the device and to avoid the opinion being tainted by the record from the device it must be done prior to the deployment of the device, hence the description “prior opinion”.
So the hypothesis is that the operator views the vehicles passing at the enforcement site then, once (s)he observes a vehicle which in his/her opinion is travelling at a speed in excess of the prevailing limit (s)he then, and only then, turns to the device and goes through the sighting process and presses the trigger to activate the device. The device then returns the speed reading.

The courts appear to be only too keen to ignore the possibility that human nature will inevitably have the operator form his/her “prior opinion” after the device has delivered its result and that the “prior opinion” will be informed by that result.

It is also clear from the bizarre intellectual gymnastics displayed in their “judgements” that the courts apply the same uncritical approach to evidence, or lack of it, surrounding the integrity of the device, of its technical maintenance/calibration and operation.

The difficulty, faced by a driver, of obtaining anything that resembles an unbiased hearing in our courts has undoubtedly persuaded many to plead guilty even when they know perfectly well that they are innocent of the charge. Of course this is precisely the situation intended by the “authorities”. Among other things, the fact that ACPO Ltd set up a wholly owned company, RSS Ltd, precisely to effectively blackmail drivers into not defending themselves is evidence enough of their disreputable intentions. That the courts have joined them in this perversion of the course of justice is disgusting.

It remains to be seen whether or not the higher courts, the High Court and more importantly the Supreme Court, are prepared to join them in their perversion. I hope that the day of reckoning for those who have denied justice will be not too long in arriving.

There are those who believe that all this is OK because it supports road safety. Sadly they are being deliberately misled by misinformation as any student of SafeSpeed will know.

Aitken B


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 28, 2011 00:03 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
:welcome:

Great first post Aitken.

My Sister in Law is a magistrate, and she has no more idea how a speed camera works, than her alarm clock keeps time.
She tells me that they are given support when technical issues crop up, but from what I have learned this is risible and is only there to help the prosecution run smoothly!

My experience in court is that the magistrates swallow the impression given that the prosecution "experts" are infallible - and since Greenshed believes he is infallible, he can be convincing to an uninformed court official/lay person!

However, when a prosecution expert is known to lie, then that raises the issue to a whole new level, and risks dragging the justice system down to a level where people lose all respect for the law - a dangerous precedent... which is the reason why courts treat perverting the course of justice so seriously. One just hope that the judge presiding when lying experts are exposed bears this in mind - so far their record is not good in this area.
When the experts attempt to mislead the court, it is very difficult to have them exposed and acted against - as in the case discussed at length HERE

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 13:33 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 11:52
Posts: 2
Ernest Marsh wrote:
:welcome:

Great first post Aitken.

My Sister in Law is a magistrate, and she has no more idea how a speed camera works, than her alarm clock keeps time.
She tells me that they are given support when technical issues crop up, but from what I have learned this is risible and is only there to help the prosecution run smoothly!

My experience in court is that the magistrates swallow the impression given that the prosecution "experts" are infallible - and since Greenshed believes he is infallible, he can be convincing to an uninformed court official/lay person!

However, when a prosecution expert is known to lie, then that raises the issue to a whole new level, and risks dragging the justice system down to a level where people lose all respect for the law - a dangerous precedent... which is the reason why courts treat perverting the course of justice so seriously. One just hope that the judge presiding when lying experts are exposed bears this in mind - so far their record is not good in this area.
When the experts attempt to mislead the court, it is very difficult to have them exposed and acted against - as in the case discussed at length HERE



Thanks for the complement Ernest.
Might I make an observation.

Your sister-in-law is not expected to be a technical expert but what she is expected to be is mistrustful and enquiring. To seek the truth not just slavishly accept what the prosecution say.
Lets take the example I gave of Prior Opinion. The Officer/operator will say that (s)he formed her/his opinion prior to deploying the device and we have examples of operators who said that they can form the opinion, turn to the device, sight it and pull the trigger all in, if my memory serves me correctly, 0.7 seconds. The bench acepted that. I cannot believe that they really thought the operator's claim possible but they had to accept it to convict. Perhaps the Officer/operator should be asked to show some evidence to establish the veracity of their statement. There now have been a sufficient number of instances where officers/operators have been demonstrated to have lied for the habit of automatically assuming their statements to be true to be discontnued.

There are any number of similar examples of where "the bench" should challenge the equine fertiliser pushed at them by the prosecution. Unfortunately we see all too often examples of benches acting essentially as the prosecution in direct contravention of the Human Rights Act.

You will have to understand however that if she does challenge the prosecution it will be the last speeding case over which she presides. I trust you understand what I am really saying here.

There is a lot seriously wrong with the way in which we deal with road safety, this is merely one aspect of a huge problem.

Aitken B


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 14:32 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I agree with the thrust of your point Aitken, though would suggest that it is for the defence, rather than the magistrate, to challenge any wild assertions.

What must remain at the forefront of the magistrate(s)'s mind(s) however is that the defendant must be viewed as innocent until proven otherwise beyond reasonable doubt, and not give undue weight to certain prosecution witnesses' wilder claims merely because they are considered to be in a position of authority.

The current state of affairs does seem to smack of the old "bring in the guilty bastard and his lying mates" mentality.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 15:08 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7354
Location: Highlands
:welcome: Aitken B

I have seen several 'session' videos that clearly point precisely to the evidence that IMO no prior opinion took place at all.
The balance of presentation to the Judge by both parties becomes totally unfair/unjust when the governing body has all the cashflow to spend that it deems necessary and the 'accused' then has to cough up vast sums if they happen to loose.
I can easily imagine that Court officials might be pushed about by others, and of course any evidence of this is going to be very hard to obtain.
I would like to believe that some judges and some magistrates will be open minded and hear only the 2 sided arguments placed at their feet and judge accordingly.
The latest Lisbon Treaty of course will change much of this in time and most deifinitely not for the better for UK justice.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 15:13 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
I suspect this is bye bye :hello: Greenshed for the forseeable.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 02, 2011 09:20 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
RobinXe wrote:
I suspect this is bye bye :hello: Greenshed for the forseeable.


Ahh... the one area where Greenshed IS an expert!! :sublurking:

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.381s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]