Safe Speed Forums

From Surrey-Hants Star.
_____________________________________________________________

SPEED CAMERA GETS IT WRONG - by CLIFF MOGG

A POLICE speed camera error on the notorious A325 road at Farnborough led to the wrong motorist being prosecuted, it was revealed this week.
Mrs Wendy Fitzpatrick was stunned when she received a fixed penalty notice claiming she had broken the speed limit on the 30mph dual carriageway section of the road earlier this month.
She protested that she had not been speeding – and after initially refusing to budge, the police now agree with her.
In an amazing admission, they said the speed limit was being broken by a car travelling in the opposite direction.
The speed device had clocked that car doing 36mph, but had photographed the number plate of her Vauxhall Astra Estate.
Mrs Fitzpatrick, who lives in Dorset, said on Monday: “How many other motorists has this happened to, with the result that they have been fined and had points placed on their licence?
“They say the camera never lies, but it did in my case.”
She said it was only her inside knowledge of the speed camera system, gained from her previous job, that forced police to admit they had made a mistake.
“If it hadn’t been for my persistence I could have lost my 45-year clean driving record,” said Mrs Fitzpatrick who lived in the Farnborough area until two years ago.
She has now written to Hampshire Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan protesting at the stress and worry the incident caused her.
Julian Hewitt, press spokesman for the Safety Camera Partnership which oversees the speed traps, blamed the incident on two human errors and one by a machine.
He said the initial slip-up was caused by the camera operator moving his camera too rapidly between the speeding car and Mrs Fitzpatrick’s vehicle.
“The digitising system that picks up the offences identified the wrong car,” he said.
Mr Hewitt said normally such an error was picked up during the rigorous checking system in his office.
“This is a very rare coincidence of three failures in that system, and we are confident that it does not represent a significant problem,” he added.
_____________________________________________________________

"Rare" [Jim Royle]My arse![/Jim Royle]. How the hell do they know how rare it is when most motorists can be relied upon to placidly cough up?Also, how did the Talivan crew fail to notice they'd pinged someone going in the opposite direction? I thought the speed was supposed to show up as either + or - value to diffentiate between traffic going towards or away from the scamera.

BTW, for anyone who doesn't know the area I'm pretty sure this is the same place that they nicked that pensioner (Stuart Harding IIRC) for making a sign warning drivers about the speed trap ahead. Hampshire Plod, gotta love 'em.


Edited to add: will someone post this on the Pepipoo forum if they haven't got it already?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

But it IS the cameras that are a significant problem

Andrew

_________________
It's a scam........or possibly a scamola


Homer Simpson

I was once pulled over for warning drivers about a speed camera by flashing my headlights. The cop asked me why my headlights were coming on and off and I replied that I was warning oncoming drivers about the speed camera. Well he almost had a fit because he thought I'd just sit there and take his shit.

In Victoria (Australia) you can only use flashing headlights or the horn to warn of a potential traffic hazard, well what else can you call a speed camera with people braking for no apparent reason.

He just mumbled for a while and then left.... +1 for the motorist -1 for the camera!!!!!

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

In this country you get screwed.....

_________________
Speed camera policy Kills

It would make an interesting court challenge though wouldn't it.

So, your honour, I am to be convicted of an offence even though what I was doing was in the interest of road safety. Are you telling me that I should not warn anyone of a road hazard and simply watch the carnage?

Are we to assume that laws are put in place to ensure that as much revenue as possible can be raised without consideration of road safety?

Can your honour assure me that there are no rear end collisions as a direct result of the sudden and unexpected braking of a vehicle that is already travelling within the speed limit when they see a speed camera? Unless your worship can assure me of this then my actions are in the interest of safety and you are clearly telling us that safety is secondary to revenue.

It could be fun if someone had the time to fight it.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

It's happened already. Read this and weep:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=537

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

Has anything happened regarding this poor guys appeal? The thread seems to fizzle out and I would love to know if he got off / got compensation etc.

I would fight this to the highest court and demand costs against the crown when I finally reached a court that upheld the law instead of the rights of the scamera operators over the law.

_________________
Ross

Yes I'm a hoon, but only on the track!!!!

I don't know. I'll make a phone call or two and see what happened.

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

From what I remember reading in the papers Stuart Harding's lawyer asked for the ban to be suspended pending an appeal on the grounds that the ban would almost certainly be over by the time an appeal was heard. Seems reasonable? You'd think so, but the magistrate rejected it (possibly against the advice of the Clerk of the Court according to one letter I read about it). I'd guess that Stuart Harding is still banned from driving, and that given the less than speedy judicial system we have his appeal won't be heard for months.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Does anyone know if the speed trap in the Stuart Harding case is part of the netting off scheme? If so, are they allowed to do anything that keep it's location from being public? Perhaps we could all report this to to whoever oversees such things.

It's a Talivan not a fixed scamera (seen it myself more than once). Do they need to publish the locations of these?

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

They do, but it's not that good:

http://www.safetycamera.org.uk/

I assume the operator clocked the car in the other direction, then swung the camera over to her - when the tape was reviewed they took her registration by mistake, not spotting the previous car had done it.

Gareth

Worse than that, if the article in my OP is correct. The car that was actually speeding was on the other carriageway. Question for the BiBs here. I'd heard that your speed trap gizmos show speed in one direction as a positive number and in the opposite direction as a negative number. Is this true? Assuming it is that might explain why the driver had her ticket binned so easily (well, relatively considering we're talking about pratnerships here ). Still, you'd have to worry that the muppet operating the thing didn't notice that the "speeding" vehicle came up as -40mph when everything else had been showing as +something (or whichever way round it is).

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

Aye .. supposed to be one of the "safety features" But this sounds like operator error ... but it does highlight a valid reason for querying - especially in a "high volume" zone such as this one would appear to be.

I draw you attention to this thread where Julian Hewet appears to making an fool of him self.


in the news paper clip above he said "Mr Hewitt said normally such an error was picked up during the rigorous checking system in his office. "

in a FOI request he said ...Question: I have also noticed prosecution photos that should never have got to court.
• Could you please supply the process hand book or local instructions for civilian staff for checking mobile and static camera photographs before issuing a nip, fixed penalty notice and court summons

Answer: "our staff are given initial and on the job training when they arrive. We have nothing in writing."

Either there was no rigerous system or he is witholding documents under FOI... keep watching ...

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code