Safe Speed Forums

What the ACPO Code says is not relevant as it doesn't have any legal standing this has been withdrawn in any case. What is relevant is the HOSDB speedmeter handbook that sets the requirements for Type Approval; this is where you will find the secondary check requirements that have simply been repeated by ACPO.
You now need to ask yourself "did HOSDB miss out the requirement they set themselves when they tested the device?" I would suggest that they don't need to rely on the casual observations here to remind themselves to meet the requirements they have themselves set.
As far as having to say what the secondary check is, Speed Check Services have decided that it should remain a commercial secret; there is nothing at all wrong in that and, in addition requiring HOSDB keep those commercial secrets, something that is also a requirement perhaps.
Does it have a secondary check? Yes it does.

And how do you know this to be true?

Don't you see anything wrong with keeping the methods of evidence capture of speed measurements, for prosecutions of the public who (one way or another) fund their work, a secret from that public?
What recourse is there for anyone who wishes to dispute the speed measurement?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

The speed has been calculated by 2 independent means and is verified as an accurate and efficient system.

To dispute it, bring 2 independent speed calculations that have been verified as correct by some accepted standard and make sure they have been created at the same time; then argue why that brings reasonable doubt on the verified evidence.

My mind is boggling. Imagining a murder trial where the prosecution says that half of its scientific evidence is a commercial secret which cannot be examined by the defence. Think that hey might struggle to get a conviction

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I should imagine the board of the company features the usual retired ex-civil-service person....who probably was previously "employed" by the home office. Or police. Or ACPO.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The conviction would not be hampered because of evidence that is not examined by the defence as unless it is evidence that has the possibility of undermining the prosecution case it is not required to be released; it will be correctly listed as unused material.
In the case of SPECS, the thread subject, the secondary check method need not be released as it is not in the possession of the prosecution so is not evidence at all. The result of that check will be in the possession of the prosecution and because it has passed need not be released because it does not undermine the prosecution case. If the secondary check forms part of the record from the device, in SPECS it does as I recall, then the defence will be able to see the result in the evidence. How it is calculated is not in the possession of the prosecution, is not evidence and does not need to be served upon the defence.
You may need to visit the CPIA to get the exact details but that's the law as I understand it.
When you go to court in a Drink Drive offence do you get the detailed workings of the intoximeter revealed in evidence? I rather think you do not; nor do you need to.

Camera makers enter into confidentiality aggreements with the Home Office, that's why they won't respond. But if facing prosecution you are well within your rights to demand this info under FOI, but to the Police, not the camera maker.

The secondary check is "fully integrated":


http://www.speedcheck.co.uk/images/SCS_SPECS3_Brochure.pdf

Which presumably means it is carried-out within the system.....and has no operator input/output.
Which also means it is dependent on factors that may vary.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

The police don't have the information so are not in a position to supply it.

Yeah...OK.

Which means you have to rely upon their honesty......and since they market a product that will not sell if it is proven inaccurate, they have no reason to say if it is capable of inaccuracy.
The home office is a nest of crooks just waiting for a chance to retire to pastures new[er] and better paid....such as "consultancy" for a company marketing a product...

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

He did say that and keep a straight face, my eyes didn't deceive me did they?

My mind boggles, honestly!!!

No, FOI is not relevant in a court case. I believe it is then disclosure, if the prosecution refuse to disclose evidence to the defence then the case will almost certainly collapse.

That may well be the way it is, but it doesn't necessarily make it right.


We would like to confirm that the secondary measurement is independent mechanism from the first (which obviously is the case for a DD offence)


And Frank Garrett says an LTI 'can't get slip from a moving surface even though it can get it from a stationary one' - of course he wouldn't explain how, so do you also believe FG on that one too?


So in order to dispute the inherent correctness of something, one cannot use use a logical explanation and must instead wholly present direct evidence to the contrary without understanding how it arose?
Are you really sure you want to continue that line of thought? "prove it is false even though the means to do so has been withheld from you"

The two original questions remain:
- Don't you see anything wrong with keeping the methods of evidence capture of speed measurements, for prosecutions of the public who (one way or another) fund their work, a secret from that public?
- What recourse is there for anyone who wishes to dispute the speed measurement - apart from going back in time and evaluating that particular offence?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

He would - but then myriads of peoples have struggled to fathom the workings of the mmind of a submariner Scp agent - perhaps it's salt water attacking the braIN CELLS ( if any were there in the first place)

_________________
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

Are you talking about high up average cameras ?
The one in the picture on Here (as previously mentioned in thread) is the SPEC 3 cameras, eg one camera and one IR light device.
If this isn't it any chance of an image?
Or are you thinking about a truevelo (blue & yellow box) ? (Not av cams as I am sure you know.)

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

None of them - think Zulu started a post that might be more in tune wuth the ones I'm on about.

The looking on this thread - a phrase from old Will Shakespeare comes to mind "He doth protest too much" ,and I wonder WHY we see the submariner surfacing so often to employ his guns rather than use his torpedoes - does he have something he'd like to see scuttled .
Come on Greenshed ( AKA Steve of Cumbria ) --surface ,or we'll send down some more nasties -like a weepy depthcharge -you might get spokes in the props ,or whines in the acaustics .( and me silenced via another letter from Cumbria police )

_________________
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