Safe Speed Forums

See http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/safetycame ... myths.html
This states:


Q1. So does a mobile camera operator have to be a policeman?
Q2. What are the implications if they are not?
Q3. If a FPN has been sent out, and no Police have been involved, is this legally valid?

A quote from another thread (Inside out):
Quote


In other words, the camera operator can freely check the speeds of all cars, and there's no difference on the video between checking a speed of a vehicle below the limit and not checking the speed.

Q4. Is the statement above correct, or am I misinterpreting something - or has Anton got it wrong?

Q5. How many of you have known that you are driving within the speed limit, when a PC (Or other operator) with a speed detection device still checks your speed?

Q6. How would a conviction of, say, 32 mph in a 30 mph area stand? Surely, it would be up to the operator to be able to tell consistently the difference between a vehicle travelling at 30 mph and 32 mph without a camera. I know this speed is below the recommended limit in the ACPO guidelines, but there have been prosecutions this close to the speed limit.

I do believe that speed cameras are so completely relied upon to be accurate, that camera operators regularly abuse the 'prior opinion' checks, and simply check every single vehicle. Come to think of it, I can't remember a single occasion when I have been able to see a PC or camera operator (i.e. they weren't behind a closed window), when they have not checked my speed. On one occasion I even remember being checked when I was doing 20 mph in a 30 mph limit.

If they did this regularly, then the issues raised in the inside out program would not be as pertinent as they are. If the speed was checked only when the operator believed that the vehicle was going to fast, the device would only be confirmatory, and vehicles travelling below the speed limit would not suffer from being unfairly prosecuted. The only remaining issues would be that someone driving at, say 40 mph in a 30 mph limit, might be prosecuted for 50 mph due to instrument error. Of course, all camera operators should say to themselves - "This vehicle can't possibly be travelling that fast. I'd better note this one down as an error, and we won't prosecute."

Questions for the BiB's here:

1) How accurately can a trained observer estimate the speed of an approaching car, and how would this be affected by distance, lie of the road, other traffic, lighting etc? I'm trying to guage how fast a car must be going for a trained observer to be confident that the car's speeding.

2) How long would it take to make such a judgement, and would the accuracy of the judgement be affected by the time available?

3) How would the accuracy of such judgements be affected by training? (or lack of)

Cheers
Peter

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

Has anyone looked at pepipoo on this?

It seems that there may be a strong case that a civilian operator cannot make a prior opinion and therefore the evidence is inadmissable.

I don't think its 100% yet though.

The camera operator in my case was on the vans for two months before he could make the following opinion.

He looked past the scope and camera, out of a small window in the back of his van and made an opinion that I was speeding while approaching him. He then fired his laser at me and got a reading at 720+ Metres, so his opinion must have been made at around 750 or more metres.

He targetted 189 vehicles in his 90 minute session, 29 of them were asterisked showing that they were speeding. What about the other 160? He told the court, under oath, that there were different speed limits for different vehicles, inferring that there were 29 speeding cars and 160 speeding commercial vehicles. This was accepted by the court.

I bought a road angel after this and was lasered at 47mph on my next visit past this van, in a 60mph limit.

Prior opinion? I think not.

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

I tried to corner the Wiltshire CPS with this argument but they wrote back stating, and I quote

"On the final page of your letter, you have mentioned about a civilian's evidence being inadmissible in respect of speeding because they are not empowered to give primary evidence in such a prosecution. As stated above the primary evidence in this case come from the LTI 20/20 and its reading is evidence that is admissible in Court, Mr xxxxx is merely the operator of the device."

I really do not think that is true!

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

Have a look on pepipoo,

theres a thread about it but i don't think theres been a conclusion yet.

As with the Lti 20:20 and PACE defence this is another one of those aspects that if true could make it impossible to convict.

My understandinjg is that the laser reading confirms the prior opinion.

Been there, done that

In a recent letter I received from the Home Office, it states



This was in regard to a question about the approval on the LTi 20-20 TS/M speedscope, but it does show that the Home Office think it IS necessarry to form a prior opinion.

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

Well surely such a pretext would make speed cameras illegal then!!!1

No, that’s not the case, I'm sure but please anyone correct me if I am wrong.

My understanding is that there needs to be primary and corroborative evidence. In the case of the speed camera (e.g gatso) the radar is the primary and the lines on the road corroborate.

In the case of the talivan then I assumed it was the “police officer” provided the primary “I think that car is speeding” and the laser\video provided the corroborative.

The question is whether or not a civilian is eligible to provide the primary evidence in a speeding conviction, although according to Wiltshire CPS in quattro’s post above it seems they don’t bother with any secondary evidence the LT20\20 is enough!

Cheers

Paul

Now if this device carried a certificate of calibration, would that make the lasering a breach of human rights, and the operator in breach of his powers?. Or do we have to turn round, pick up a witness( PC preferably) and go past this vehicle once more to obtain evidence?
And then what action would be taken?

Over the years of looking down the road and estimating what speed a vehicle is travelling at,I have got it down to within a couple of miles either side of my estimation. I find that it helps to get a fixed point on the road and judge how quickly the moving vehicle passes it,if I feel it is fast then I commence my check and hopefully the Lti 20/20 confirms this in corroboration. I also do between 2 to 3 checks before condeming the driver to his fate works for and against both of us ie police and driver,as if you have good obs then you win poor obs then you guessed it.

What you have to remember thatyou only have to form the opinion that the vehicle is exceeding the speed limit then you can commence the check there is nothing in the guidelines to say that you must be good or have experience in this area prior to you carrying out checks.
Stephen

Hello Stephen



Two points

1/. The evidence of prior opinion is used as primary evidence and in my case where the secondary evidence is on shaky ground, it is used to strengthen the case against me. Surely it has to be good and the person making it has to have experience.

2/. I am sure that if you were to stand on the side of the road and watch a car coming at you from 150 metres, that you could make reasonable estimation of its speed. But can you sit in the back of a van, look past your electrical equipment, out of a small window three feet away, and over a distance of 750+ metres, and make an opinion that a car is speeding? This with only two months experience.

Please bear in mind that he dodgyscope reckons I was doing 70 in a 60, yet it doesn't actually hit my car at all and I KNOW that I was doing 60 on my speedometer, which I have had checked and when it reads 60 I am actually doing 57 mph.

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

So , please advise me that i have read this correctly - only a police officer can judge that a person is speeding as primary evidence
the secondary evidence is that of some form of speed gun.

Raises question in my mind of legal status of non police operator in camera van using speed gun/camera.
After all he has not got the qualification to be able to predetermine the speed to be enabled to use the uquipment to prove himself right.

What road was this on - the HGV ferry lane at Dover??? I can't believe the magistrates swallowed that one. On the other hand, I don't think they understand the importance of the 'prior opinion' issue either. IMO most magistrates simply believe that a camera is 100% reliable, and therefore prior opinion is not important. Your case, and many others, have shown this not to be true.