Safe Speed Forums

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1832482005


I think we need to find out a bit more about this. How can we get calibration data checked?

Since the calibration issue must have been known to the Police, is someone going to admit to perverting the course of justice by proceeding with the prosecution.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

PC

Maybe he lied....

I would be interested to know how they found out it was out of calibration though.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

The equipment performing its own checks always strikes me as a load of rubbish. Surely if it has a defect it can incorrectly report that it is functioning correctly when in fact it isn't. And if this never happens, why does it need annual calibration, why can't it just operate reliably indefinitely provided the internal checks indicate it's okay? The fact that it is deemed to need annual calibration is effectively an admission that it can be working incorrectly when it passes its internal checks, therefore the internal checks are not a guarantee that it's working correctly.

Not necessarily. It's more than likely that the annual calibration is a legal requirement.

Cheers
Peter

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

More on the story....http://www.cumbria-online.co.uk/viewarticle.asp?id=275420






So if you are innocent you are still guilty.....go figure
Forget speed cameras then, just bust drivers at random on the off chance they are breaking the law.

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

Ahhhhhhh, the wonderful logical sense that is Brake! Silly tossers, do they understand other road safety factors other than speed? They spout out some rubbish don't they, tailgating whilst being blindfolded is probably ok in their eyes if drivers are doing 20mph!

_________________
www.clubrwd.com - For all things rear wheel drive

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm_ob ... _page.html



Am I right in thinking that the error would have been in favour of the driver, ie. he could have been going faster?

G

doesn't it mean he was going almost 50% faster? ie he covered what the machine thought was 1/2 mile in 16 seconds (roughly 109mph) but in fact he'd actually covered 3/4 mile in that time (roughly 168mph!!!).

Looks to me like they calibrated it correctly with a 100ft steel tape. Then cocked up in court and said it was a 150ft tape.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

That s a bit optimistic for a vehicle with a quoted top speed of 130mph !!

it's a bit optimistic for anything on an A road.

Does this mean that all NIPS sent out where the calibration took place on the stretch of road used should be cancelled?

If it was a cock up in court, then no. If it was a cock up with calibration then yes.

The court ruling carries no force as case law. (Only higher court rulings do that) A Sherrif Court in Scotland is similar to a Magistrates Court in England and Wales.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

so

So the CPS were unable to bring enough evidence of the correct quality to prove he was breaking the speed limit to a judge, however to scammer it is evident? A wild assumption don't you think?



We all know it is completely different, that is why we call for more traf pol, and less parasites, because they are good at policing the roads and making them safer, whilst the parasites do what they do best.

gopher:

But you must know that all drivers exceed the speed limit from time to time. Do you think all drivers deserve punishment because they are dangerous?

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I’m sorry you take the use of the word parasite personally, I’m sure if we were to meet you would find me quite agreeable, and I welcome your input and views here, however I feel the camera partnerships are no better than a parasitic vermin because they take without giving, you know like huge amounts of money and reduction in freedom for an increase in deaths.. You know where I’m coming from.

I know you are paid to do the job, and I know the Govt appreciate your efforts, it’s a shame that the people whom you affect directly (road users) do not appreciate you, is there a way you could address that?

I appreciate you are not the driver when you click your button, and no, no – one told the driver to exceed the limit, but if it is safe to exceed the limit (like in the area that the parasites hang out) what is the issue? Is it that they are breaking the law?

Is it that you have nothing to do with road safety and are only interested in “upholding” The Law? Please tell.

I'd fully expect Ms Chisholm to turn herself in at the nearest police station every time she exceeds the speed limit, even by 0.0001 mph as she is breaking the law. She never thinks "I got away with it this time" - nope, she drives straight to the nick - "put the cuffs on, I'm guilty"

Or maybe she has a direct debit set up with the camera partnerships to pay the CFPO.

What she is saying is that normal standards of proof don't apply to speeding offences. Struth - what has this woman got between her ears. Why don't we apply this to every crime? - "he looks guilty to me, send him down"