Safe Speed Forums

same here,but ABD (www.abd.org.uk) has an audit form ( type in audit form in search ) which might give you ideas about things .Does mention things like power lines/ parked cars/moving vehicles etc.

_________________
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

I believe this has been discussed before, and far be it from me to tell you, but AIUI from ACPO guidelines.
The video is not evidence of speeding.
A conviction for speeding requires 2 forms of evidence. In the case of mobile cameras, this is:
1) Prior opinion of a police officer.
2) A speed detection device.

The video, I guess, could be used as evidence that the speed detection device displays on the video the speed that the PC says it does. However, the value of this to the prosecution is dubious, as to use it would require the video to be given to the defendant. For some reason, the prosecution are reluctant to allow the defendant to have video tapes. Presumably, because the defendant could prove that either the speed was incorrect for their vehicle, or that the correct procedures were not being followed, e.g. speeds of vehicles well below the speed limit were also being checked, hence disproving the first part of the required evidence.
However, the video is not required, but the word of the PC is sufficient, i.e. you can be prosecuted on the evidence of one persons word - albeit a PC.
If you are not a PC, but are instead a civilian, then that 'one persons word' is no longer considered reliable enough. Now, the question may be asked as to the difference between a PC's and a civilian operators word, but equally, the question may be asked as to why anyone is convicted on the basis of one persons evidence.

[quote="Teepee
If you are not a PC, but are instead a civilian, then that 'one persons word' is no longer considered reliable enough. Now, the question may be asked as to the difference between a PC's and a civilian operators word, but equally, the question may be asked as to why anyone is convicted on the basis of one persons evidence.[/quote]

So at the end of the day it is one persons word against anothers - as a civie op is basically the same as an old lady on the street corner.Ok he/she knows how to use a speed gun/camera - but with all respect , a chimp could be trained to do that.

_________________
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

A few points:
First off, the only way you'll hit anything with a firearm at 700 yards is if you're highly trained and using a SiG SSg/PSg or similar, bipod mounted and fitted with a decent scope.
Second: Demand the video evidence!! You'll probably see that, due to the lamp-posts etc, the lock-on was broken (says so in the display panel) and the reading is not admissible.
Third: The maximum practical range of these lasers is about 400 metres. Beyond that, there is too much scatter of the beam, not to mention the trembling of the human hand which (just like with binoculars or a telescope) have a more pronounced effect as the range increases
Fourth: even if the laser maintained lock-on, the video will probably show "slippage" i.e. the point-of-aim wanders all over your vehicle instead of staying fixed on one point- this exaggerates the readings.
Fifth: proven that road signs and other vehicles can create false readings.

I urge EVERYONE to grab a copy of MCN- lots of info on this, and a helpline through which you can get info from previous articles.