Safe Speed Forums

Possibly a question for one of the legal types on board.

I was under the impression that a mobile camera unit was used in such a way that an operator would form an opinion as to the speed of the car, and use the laser gun to corroborate it. Is this the case, or only the case for police operated mobile cameras?

Anyway, the reason I ask is that on a trip back from my mother-in-laws near Shap, I joined the M6 at junction 39 (see map). I drove across the bridge, and in the teeming rain there was a speed camera van parked up overlooking the southbound carriageway. Over the carriageway, on tripods, there were 3 laser guns things, one pointing at each lane.

What's going on - is this in line with guidelines for use?

[I'm not anti-camera, but I don't agree with using them outside their allowed operational conditions]

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

It could have been ANPR, but if it was a mobile speed camera then a prior opinion is a required part of the process, although it has long been strongly suspected that it's a farce.

It didn't look like the ANPR setups I've seen before, I'm fairly certain the van was marked as Cumbria "Safety" camera partnerships.

_________________
COAST Not just somewhere to keep a beach.

A young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.

Definitely ANPR. I've seen these on bridges on the M3. It's the terrorist threat upgrade.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Alleged...?

_________________
Andrew.

Lancs Police had similar APNR set up on Sat afternoon on M6 Jnc 29 north.

On the overbridge - 1 camera monitoring each lane

_________________
That's how Nazi Germany started. They'll be burning books next. (Brian Noble, Wigan coach - updated 20/4/06!!).

Surely ANPR can only identify terrorists with hindsight, after they are convicted on other evidence? It's not like the DVLA has a database of which vehicles belong to terrorists.

The DVLA have a database of all criminals.

They're just waiting for the police to tell them which ones they suspect.

[/sarcasm]

_________________
Prepare to be Judged

I wonder how they manage to zap people appearing around a bend half a mile away? Has nobody ever challenged this?

Yes. we get those once in while.
It surprises me how little time experienced operators need to form an opinion although I suppose if you have been watching cars on the same bit of road for 4 or 5 hours you get plenty of practice.
But the defence only have to introduce reasonable doubt and a fair few cases come in not guilty based on this point.

Sure about that?

How do they prove that they formed a prior opinion? Given that it is fundamental to a successful prosecution?

Its something that can be very difficult for a defendant to challenge.

If the vehicle was in view for a long time its just about impossible to challege successfully, particularly if it was clearly going much faster than the rest of traffic.

When a camera is set up just past a corner, or some other obstacle that pervents the operator having a good view of the car, there is more leeway for defendants due to the short time it was possible to see the vehicle before the speed gun was triggered.

I have seen a full session video in court with the defence asking the operator to call out yes as each car came into view round a corner if, in his opinion it was speeding.
After a few initial problems while, as he put it he was "getting his eye in" the operator was able to accurately call yes within an extremely short time. I would say with not much more than a glimpse of the car to the considerable surprise of all present. Including the CPS who had tried to stop the test taking place.



Before anybody reads anything in to this that isn't there let me say that this one operator, one video, one occasion. I am not suggesting that they can all do it that quickly.

Almost every one I see seems to have been parked in order to 'ambush' drivers, which leads me to the same question as the OP.

What I mean is if they have evidence against them, they should use it now.
If they don't have evidence, watching them drive past a camera will not change that. You can't build up evidence against someone just by watching them driving up and down a motorway.

It's quite appropriate that The Police sung:

"Every breath you take.
Every move you make.
I'll be watching you."

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Not in Hampshire they don't!

Just to fill in detail,
duel carriageway 40 limit but painted as a 50-70mph road.
copper formed an opinion on a truck on the other side
It wasn't speeding (lti20-20).
one second later he formed another opinion , it wasn't speeding (lti20-20).
then he formed a third opinion and the lti20-20 decided it was 47 in a 40 skimming the top of the armco barrier to a numberplate in the recess under the body of the truck. he was fined around 300 with 200 costs.
I believe he was ex army driver driving for a supermarket with 2 disabled kids. Apparently calculating between the lti samples his heavily loaded supermarket lorry could out accelerate a porsche. Reasonable doubt... not in Hampshire. He could not afford the fine, let alone the appeal.

_________________
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

Also, I believe, that only a police officer is qualified in law to give prior opinion - civilians (including camera partnership employees) are not qualified.

I do know that some people hold that view but I don't think its been tested in court yet.

It is written in law, it has been tested in court and it was fudged in Wiltshire, (the defence lost). It is my understanding that it is heading up through the court system .

_________________
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