Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 15:34

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jun 13, 2016 14:44 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06 ... i/?ref=yfp
Telegraph wrote:
Questions have been raised by lawyers over the accuracy of speed cameras after a driver doing just 29 miles an hour was clocked as reaching 85 mph.

Delivery driver Thomas Baird was sent a court summons accusing him of speeding in a 30 mph zone in Talke, Staffs.

Now Staffordshire Police have withdrawn the prosecution and paid out £2,000 to cover the driver's legal costs.

The error has raised questions over the reliability of the camera and whether other drivers have been wrongly prosecuted.

Latest figures show the camera that caught Mr Baird snared 568 motorists between October, 2014 and the end of September.

Bobby Bell, director of BB Law, which represented Mr Baird, said: "The most concerning fact about this case is that the police apparently still have no idea as to how or why this device managed to over-calculate my client's speed by a whopping 56mph.

"This case undermines confidence in this camera and possibly even the reliability of this model of camera. The police should switch it off until they can provide an explanation for the error.

"They should test the reliability of this camera and get to the bottom of why it has produced an inaccurate reading, so they can determine whether this is a one-off or a wider problem."

Mr Baird's Ford van was snapped 'doing 85mph' at 11.59am on December 1.
"This case is a stark reminder that these supposedly infallible devices can produce inaccurate and unreliable evidence"Mr Bell

The driver, who lives in Leicester, received a Notice of Intended Prosecution and immediately contested the matter with the police's safer roads team. But he was told he would have to wait for the case to go to court and was issued with a court summons in March.

Mr Bell said: "Gatso cameras take two photos which are 0.5 seconds apart. We calculated the true speed of the vehicle by making an application to Staffordshire Police for a copy of the second photograph.

"Once the police disclosed this we were able to calculate the speed by reference to the physical markings on the carriageway, proving he had been travelling at a maximum of 29.08mph.

"If the suggested reading had not been so high Mr Baird probably would have just paid the fine. There aren't many people who can spend the time, effort and money fighting something they think the police are likely to win.

"This case is a stark reminder that these supposedly infallible devices can produce inaccurate and unreliable evidence."

Police today acknowledged speed cameras can give inaccurate readings. Office staff check each case by comparing the two photos taken by the device. But in this case staff repeatedly failed to pick up the error.

Almost 14,000 drivers were issued with court proceedings in the past year after being caught speeding by cameras.

Superintendent Simon Tweats added: "This is the only time this type of error, to the best of our knowledge, has not been picked up prior to going to court. This was a one-off individual error."


(my bold etc).
Q1- A one off - have they investigated .
Q2- WHY did nobody check to see if this was an error,or did they hope the driver would just pay up?

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 14, 2016 18:14 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
This is really bad and not rare. We had a case locally about a year ago, where a stationary car parked in a layby, while the driver was in a shop, was sent a ticket and it turned out the camera was supposedly triggered by a motorbike.

How many innocent drivers, nationwide, are paying up because they haven't checked or have been put off contesting because of court costs?

_________________
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: Tue Jun 21, 2016 00:36 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
This is nothing new, gastos can be fooled by vibrations in large flat panels, e.g. the rear of a delivery van. Wasn't there a similar case a few years back involving a caravan?

The ticket isn't supposed to go out until someone has checked both photos, it's just sloppy work from the camera partnership. You'd expect someone who spends all day every day checking these photos to know at first glance that he wasn't doing the recorded speed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 24, 2016 19:03 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3427
Yes, how stupid do you have to be to think..."that blokes going a bit fast in that lay by"....

Obviously some photos aren't being checked at all.

_________________
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: Fri Jun 24, 2016 23:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9230
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
graball wrote:
Yes, how stupid do you have to be to think..."that blokes going a bit fast in that lay by"....

Obviously some photos aren't being checked at all.


Why bother,to check, when most will just roll over and cough up. After all the camera never lies , but they forget that some Quango cannot be relied on to tell the truth.

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2016 17:12 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
botach wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/10/questions-raised-over-accuracy-of-speed-cameras-after-driver-doi/?ref=yfp
Telegraph wrote:
Questions have been raised by lawyers over the accuracy of speed cameras after a driver doing just 29 miles an hour was clocked as reaching 85 mph.
..................
Superintendent Simon Tweats added: "This is the only time this type of error, to the best of our knowledge, has not been picked up prior to going to court. This was a one-off individual error."

What he's saying here sound like that there are many cases of error that simply aren't 'caught' before the NIP goes out, not that it doesn't happen.
Not that cameras are any good to proper road safety, but very little is error free.
Time automated speed camera's were removed and crushed.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2016 12:41 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
This shutter effect and a 'reflective image' effect have previously been discussed here, Defective Gatso Cameras :
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=22054&p=223111&hilit=Shutter+effect#p223111

and
Stationery car clocked at 37mph:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=19669&p=197604&hilit=Shutter+effect#p197604

and
Gatso speed cameras inaccurate in cold weather?
viewtopic.php?p=223139#p223180
viewtopic.php?p=223139#p223139

I guess they haven't sorted it out then! :( So I wonder just what percentage of NIP's aren't correct, yet still prosecute or fine those who are driving perfectly legally?

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


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 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 : 0.284s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]