Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 06:14

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 11:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:47
Posts: 59
Can anyone tell me ,preferably the magistrate on here, why speed cameras are automatically accepted as accurate by the courts, when in fact they have been shown umpteen times to be faulty or unreliable?? Why is this accuracy myth propagated and accepted by the legal system, where the defendant is regarded as guilty unless he can prove he wasn't speeding? Does it actually state in law that the camera must be accepted as accurate? Or is this merely some CPS "policy?" When is this scam going to be brought to an end, and the prosecution given the job of proving the defendant's guilt?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
zulu wrote:
Can anyone tell me ,preferably the magistrate on here, why speed cameras are automatically accepted as accurate by the courts, when in fact they have been shown umpteen times to be faulty or unreliable?? Why is this accuracy myth propagated and accepted by the legal system, where the defendant is regarded as guilty unless he can prove he wasn't speeding? Does it actually state in law that the camera must be accepted as accurate? Or is this merely some CPS "policy?" When is this scam going to be brought to an end, and the prosecution given the job of proving the defendant's guilt?



I couldn't agree more. I have been spouting this for some while now with Council and police but their response is, "They are Home Office Approved" and thats all that is required. When one looks into the case of Dr Luxford and the tests carried out with Chief Constables present and the equipment operated by their own experienced officers the results are a reflection as to the INACCURACY of such cameras and those who operate them. These tests were carried out to all the requirements of ACPO and others and shown that that both operators and equipment were indeed not up to the specification for the job to which they were being used. The many inaccurate readings recorded reflects that the cameras are not fit for purpose and also the manufactures stated in court that they can give INCORRECT readings. (So much for British justice)OLLIE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 12:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:47
Posts: 59
Hi Ollie. I know a lot about speed cameras and the police procedures as I have researched the subject. But there are still lots of gaps in my knowledge. Also, I have not heard of the Luxford case. Can you briefly explain what this was about, and what the outcome was?

Also, would just like to point out that the Home Office states, that when the angle between the camera and the car is 15 degrees, and the car is doing 40mph, the device will show a speed of 38mph due to the Cosine factor.I think someone on here was asking something to do with this? Trouble is this is theoretical. A camera can't calculate an angle, nor can the ploice decide the angle when they set a mobile camera up, as a driver can alter his road positio slightly compared to the last driver to pass by. Cameras assess speed, not measure it!!! That's why the NIP refers to "Recorded Speed." This is a euphemism for, "we assess your speed to have been..."The public have not been told about this particular con trick!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:41 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
zulu wrote:
Hi Ollie. I know a lot about speed cameras and the police procedures as I have researched the subject. But there are still lots of gaps in my knowledge. Also, I have not heard of the Luxford case. Can you briefly explain what this was about, and what the outcome was?

IIRC, Dr Luxford's cases are regarding Lidar guns (LTI2020, etc). Cosine correction is not applied to this type of speed 'camera'. However, these do suffer from another critical flaw - slip error.

zulu wrote:
Also, would just like to point out that the Home Office states, that when the angle between the camera and the car is 15 degrees,

Does it? I thought the mandatory installation angle of gatso (radar) cameras, to the road direction, was 20 degrees?
The camera compensates the consine factor based on that 20 degree angle - which goes to pot when the camera is installed on a strong bend.
In terms of speed measurement, the angles of cameras like Truvelos are irrelevant.

There are a few folks on this forum who know a lot about camera tech, usage and actual effectiveness (I'm one of them :wink: ).

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 13:58 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 21:17
Posts: 3734
Location: Dorset/Somerset border
Am I right in saying that camera manufacturers are used as expert witnesses when the accuracy of a camera is in doubt?

Like asking a dairy farmer if milk is good for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 14:32 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
Johnnytheboy wrote:
Am I right in saying that camera manufacturers are used as expert witnesses when the accuracy of a camera is in doubt?

You mean, folks like Frank Garrett (MD of a distributor of LTI tech), an expert witness who also went on record to say that slip error can be achieved by his LTI from a stationary surface, but cannot get one from moving one "because it’s not designed to measure stationary targets" – what? Lidar? :lol:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 17:41 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
zulu wrote:
I have not heard of the Luxford case.
Not too hard to research just google luxford speed

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 17:52 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
zulu wrote:
Can anyone tell me ,preferably the magistrate on here, why speed cameras are automatically accepted as accurate by the courts, when in fact they have been shown umpteen times to be faulty or unreliable??
Courts do not accept anything as true. One side puts forward evidence. The other side then has the opportunity to challenge that evidence. The prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that the defence only have to introduce a reasonable doubt to get a not guilty verdict.


A not guilty verdict in a speed camera case does not mean that the camera was shown to be at fault, just that the defence raised a reasonable doubt about that particular incident. It doesn't prove that the camera was faulty, although it is inevitably reported as such by people who don't understand how courts work. Neither does it prove that any other camera is faulty.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 18:25 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
Steve wrote:
zulu wrote:
Hi Ollie. I know a lot about speed cameras and the police procedures as I have researched the subject. But there are still lots of gaps in my knowledge. Also, I have not heard of the Luxford case. Can you briefly explain what this was about, and what the outcome was?

IIRC, Dr Luxford's cases are regarding Lidar guns (LTI2020, etc). Cosine correction is not applied to this type of speed 'camera'. However, these do suffer from another critical flaw - slip error.

zulu wrote:
Also, would just like to point out that the Home Office states, that when the angle between the camera and the car is 15 degrees,

Does it? I thought the mandatory installation angle of gatso (radar) cameras, to the road direction, was 20 degrees?
The camera compensates the consine factor based on that 20 degree angle - which goes to pot when the camera is installed on a strong bend.
In terms of speed measurement, the angles of cameras like Truvelos are irrelevant.

There are a few folks on this forum who know a lot about camera tech, usage and actual effectiveness (I'm one of them :wink: ).


So you must have a PhD in speed/light techology and more experience than Dr Luxford who worked on such devices at NASA and proved beyond any doubt that the camera "Does Lie" with what it records and also how its "set up". One of the ACPO requirements is that these cameras "Are Not Used" Where anything else could give a false reading. I/E Parked vehicle, other moving vehicles, in other words where anything could give a false reading like direction signs etc. Read the ACPO paper, all 104 pages and you will get some idea of what SHOULD be required when operating these devious things. We mere mortals do not understand that we are being ripped off on sometimes incorrect claims made by SCPs and others.
They claim,"Speed kills" but how many take this into account?. They also claim that ,"Smoking kills" but how many take this into account ? It is not speed or smoking that kills but the person who uses such.OLLIE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 18:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
Just for you Zulu. The Luxford case is a 30 page report on what transpired with him in Northamptonshire a while ago and shoots holes larger than the O2 dome into all these claims on how accurate the LTi 2020 cameras are. He also had to fight his case and get the ICO to force the police/SCP to give him a video of his alledged offence which was corrupt when viewed. He also proved that their operations were a shambles with no administration or control, a complete and utter shower of a force. The C/Conctable resigned/retired soon afterwards and the Senior officer in charge of operations also disappeared into the unknown. The Council then had a think about mobile cameras, whether to disband them or not and made their decision in December. If I could use a computer I could send you their minutes of the meeting, also I beleive one Councillor had 12 points on his licence. The 30 page report is available from the ABD site if not on this one and is well worth the read. Also shows photographs of the trials which were undertaken with C/Costables in attendance and who could not beleive the results, much to their disappointment and claims. Read the report and it will open your eyes to how we are being ripped off.OLLIE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 18:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
fisherman wrote:
zulu wrote:
Can anyone tell me ,preferably the magistrate on here, why speed cameras are automatically accepted as accurate by the courts, when in fact they have been shown umpteen times to be faulty or unreliable??
Courts do not accept anything as true. One side puts forward evidence. The other side then has the opportunity to challenge that evidence. The prosecution has to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. It follows that the defence only have to introduce a reasonable doubt to get a not guilty verdict.


A not guilty verdict in a speed camera case does not mean that the camera was shown to be at fault, just that the defence raised a reasonable doubt about that particular incident. It doesn't prove that the camera was faulty, although it is inevitably reported as such by people who don't understand how courts work. Neither does it prove that any other camera is faulty.


But the gun is ALWAYS fully loaded before entering the court. We now have to support the benevelent fund for "victims of crime" with a £15 additional cost to any fines. Its now £75 and points. "Thank you sir, and the next defendent please." Justice has long gone in this Country. OLLIE PS NOt only that but if one wins their case they still have to pay ALL COSTS


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 19:32 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
ollie wrote:
So you must have a PhD in speed/light techology and more experience than Dr Luxford who worked on such devices at NASA and proved beyond any doubt that the camera "Does Lie" with what it records and also how its "set up". One of the ACPO requirements is that these cameras "Are Not Used" Where anything else could give a false reading. I/E Parked vehicle, other moving vehicles, in other words where anything could give a false reading like direction signs etc. Read the ACPO paper, all 104 pages and you will get some idea of what SHOULD be required when operating these devious things. We mere mortals do not understand that we are being ripped off on sometimes incorrect claims made by SCPs and others.
They claim,"Speed kills" but how many take this into account?. They also claim that ,"Smoking kills" but how many take this into account ? It is not speed or smoking that kills but the person who uses such.OLLIE

I suspect you've got your knickers in a twist Ollie; your defensive stance isn't needed.
I fully support Dr L's underlying arguments (as well as the Safe Speed campaign), and I've even given him technical support (and evidence) in the past.
You probably don't want to underestimate just how much I have/know on the subject....

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 21:23 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
Steve wrote:
ollie wrote:
So you must have a PhD in speed/light techology and more experience than Dr Luxford who worked on such devices at NASA and proved beyond any doubt that the camera "Does Lie" with what it records and also how its "set up". One of the ACPO requirements is that these cameras "Are Not Used" Where anything else could give a false reading. I/E Parked vehicle, other moving vehicles, in other words where anything could give a false reading like direction signs etc. Read the ACPO paper, all 104 pages and you will get some idea of what SHOULD be required when operating these devious things. We mere mortals do not understand that we are being ripped off on sometimes incorrect claims made by SCPs and others.
They claim,"Speed kills" but how many take this into account?. They also claim that ,"Smoking kills" but how many take this into account ? It is not speed or smoking that kills but the person who uses such.OLLIE

I suspect you've got your knickers in a twist Ollie; your defensive stance isn't needed.
I fully support Dr L's underlying arguments (as well as the Safe Speed campaign), and I've even given him technical support (and evidence) in the past.
You probably don't want to underestimate just how much I have/know on the subject....

Maybe, I may have my knickers in a twist but I'm also in constant contact with police and Council on road safety (as they call it) and I wouldn't trust any of them as far as I could kick them. They are all tied to the same brush and justice for the working man is none existant today. You are trying to tell me that the court isn't loaded against the defendent? What a load of B------ks. My father served over 34 years in the force and must be turning in his grave at what transpires today. As he used to state,- "One has to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff" and which cannot be done with cameras and technology. Not all drivers are the same and yet they are classed into one section of incompetence if exceeding a speed limit, -Posible RTC,thanks that will be £75 and a few points. All automation which never has any conatact with the driver but generates finance for those at Central Government and brownie points for C/Constables. The whole system is rotten to the core and I have nothing but contempt for those who operate such systems. You may understand the camera systems but not the technology that is involved. A pilot understands how to fly a plane but not the systems that keep it in the air.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 22:27 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
ollie wrote:
You are trying to tell me that the court isn't loaded against the defendent?

You can reteract that statement if it was aimed at me. I have not made or implied any related sentiment; so far in this thread, my posts have been to give factual enlightment.

ollie wrote:
You may understand the camera systems but not the technology that is involved.

Excuse me, are you having a laugh?!?
Just for now, let's forget my electronics degree and my various designs and patents in the related fields. We can also dismiss your own level of knowledge and experience in those areas.
What makes you believe you are well placed to judge the abilities of someone you have never met, or even had a chance to evaluate?
There are other folks within these forums who understand, in detail, exactly how these things actually work and understand the flaws they have.
Perhaps folks shouldn't judge others by their own standards.


Please reconsider the way you express yourself before submitting your next post. Also, please check your PM inbox.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 23:21 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
ollie wrote:
But the gun is ALWAYS fully loaded before entering the court.
The CPS will have looked at the evidence and decided that there is a case to answer and that it is in the public interest to prosecute. To take court proceedings on a lesser basis would be unacceptable.

ollie wrote:
We now have to support the benevelent fund for "victims of crime" with a £15 additional cost to any fines.
Any one convicted of an offence too serious for a discharge and not serious enough for a community penalty or custody will pay the £15 surcharge. Not just motorists. In any event, at time of writing, it only applies in court so drivers who accept a fixed penalty not only benefit from the reduced amount they don't pay the surcharge either.


ollie wrote:
NOt only that but if one wins their case they still have to pay ALL COSTS
Defendants in England and Wales can claim costs if they win.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 23:25 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
ollie wrote:
A pilot understands how to fly a plane but not the systems that keep it in the air.

A pilot who didn't understand the systems that keep his or her aircraft in the air wouldn't be allowed to fly it.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 23:30 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
hi all not had much time to post over the past few months, due to a house move and massive renovation, this raised an eyebrow though Dr. Luxford TBH never heard of him the someone said Dr. L off here hmmmm intresting lets have a look maybe there is something new, initially i found a link to medival tapestry :lol: :lol:

until i found
link

Quote:
In December 2006 a judge ordered unfettered
tests on an LTI 20.20 speed camera. The results
of these tests were subsequently reported by
Paul Lee, who worked with the expert witness
Dr Michael Clark.


enough said, :bunker: :bunker: suppose if you google "where are they now" you might find them

just found the full report on the ABD site, quickly scrolled through the pages until page 16 - 18, thats it :fastasleep:

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 01:10 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 02:17
Posts: 7347
Location: Highlands
Dr Luxford report I do have and can make available. I can verify too that he did win his case due to the merits of his ability to show technical errors. He is a charming and intelligent chap who knows precisely with which he speaks and yes he is on this forum when time allows.

I can also verify that Steve is also highly qualified and is exceptionally knowledgeable on cameras, optical and electronics etc.
We are all here to debate and learn - hopefully in an in depth fashion.
I have had first hand experience of camera slip angle and cars turned off reading 7mph and then another where vehicle (van) doing 30 on the speedo read 39mph on the lti2020...
Cameras are not fool proof. The Home Office approved them. We are left dealing with them and the Courts aim to follow procedures.
It is time cameras were given the boot they deserve.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 12:29 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
SafeSpeedv2 wrote:
Dr Luxford report I do have and can make available. I can verify too that he did win his case due to the merits of his ability to show technical errors. He is a charming and intelligent chap who knows precisely with which he speaks and yes he is on this forum when time allows.

I can also verify that Steve is also highly qualified and is exceptionally knowledgeable on cameras, optical and electronics etc.
We are all here to debate and learn - hopefully in an in depth fashion.
I have had first hand experience of camera slip angle and cars turned off reading 7mph and then another where vehicle (van) doing 30 on the speedo read 39mph on the lti2020...
Cameras are not fool proof. The Home Office approved them. We are left dealing with them and the Courts aim to follow procedures.
It is time cameras were given the boot they deserve.


And I second all of the above. OLLIE


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 13:18 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 14:14
Posts: 131
camera operator wrote:
hi all not had much time to post over the past few months, due to a house move and massive renovation, this raised an eyebrow though Dr. Luxford TBH never heard of him the someone said Dr. L off here hmmmm intresting lets have a look maybe there is something new, initially i found a link to medival tapestry :lol: :lol:

until i found
link

Quote:
In December 2006 a judge ordered unfettered
tests on an LTI 20.20 speed camera. The results
of these tests were subsequently reported by
Paul Lee, who worked with the expert witness
Dr Michael Clark.


enough said, :bunker: :bunker: suppose if you google "where are they now" you might find them

just found the full report on the ABD site, quickly scrolled through the pages until page 16 - 18, thats it :fastasleep:



Of course cameras will not change driver behaviour but more RPUs would do a far better job of locating some of those who cause mayham on the roads instead of being so reliant on speed limits and the speed of vehicles. I really don't know how some folks who are deployed in such areas as camera operators can sleep at nights, although, I expect it does keep some off the unemployed register.OLLIE


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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 : 0.475s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]