Safe Speed Forums

No one should be prosecuted for speeding from Specs. Unattended Automatic Operated Devices are required by the Police to have an independent secondary check mechanism, which must verify the continuing accuracy of the device. Specs has no secondary check at all. Prosecutions from this camera should be null and void.

You asked the same question here.

I can see how it could appear there is no secondary check, but I can think of a way it could be done using the current equipment. I'm not sure if I should divulge those technical musings.

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

They do profess to have a secondary check, though I don't know if it has ever been tested in court. Steve, I'm not sure why you wouldn't share your thougts on the matter, unless you're in possession of privileged information?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

I've dug through some old emails from Graeme Southwood (tech director of Speedcheck Services): "it was tested and proven to meet or exceed the requirements of the relevant specification published by the Home Office at the time of its approval in 1999. ... we're under no obligation to disclose such information to you."


I have no privileged info; only arguments that could potentially lead to improved designs - which I'm not overly keen on broadcasting

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

Steve you are right, I did mention this some time ago. I had forgotten.
But I have made an FOI request to the Home Office on this matter and have their reply. I asked if the specs system had the same requirements as all other Unattended Automatic cameras for a secondary check mechanism. The reply is that , yes, it has a requirement for a secondary check mechanism.

Only thing is, it DOES NOT have a secondary check mechanism! ( I should also mention that they informed me that since they have disclosed this to me under FOI they are now making it public on the Home Office website. So out of a population of 60 million people I am apparently the first person to actually ask them this and force an answer! That gives me a tiny bit of satisfaction.) Wether this info has yet been placed on their website just yet I have no idea as I haven't checked.

Also, I will say that someone I met said he had asked a particular Police Force for info about what method of secondary check they use for Specs.( Can't remember which Force.) He said their answer was " by means of a viewing of the video recording of detection."

It seems to me that that answer needs a tremendous amount of explanation. According to the ACPO Code, a secondary check must be by an independent means or mechanism, which must be capable of verifying the continuing accuracy of the device. A mere passive viewing of the video by a member of staff, would not be able to verify the continuing accuracy of the device. If one of the pair of cameras malfunctioned and showed an incorrect time of entry/exit, that would not necessarily be picked up by the viewer. Or a fault in the speedmeter itself, the computer that calculates the speed, would not be picked up either. That could only be discovered by an engineer calibrating or maintaining it. It seems a bit shady to me. Also the ACPO Code says: "where ACPO standards vary from those laid down by manufacturers, the ACPO Code takes precedence."

Also another difficulty with Specs" is that the Code requires a vehicle to be isolated in the field of view, yet these cameras can apparently monitor multiple vehicles at once.

Trouble with ACPO CODE is that it is just that -a CODE - shopkeepers have something similar -MRP -and have you ever seen a corner shop deciding that this is gospel .Now once upon a time (as in all good fairy tales) , to be done for speeding ,required that you were judged to be in excess ( by a Police Officer)( still ACPO ,but how often does it happen) before a reading was taken .

_________________
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

Do you know SPECS cameras also have a second colour overview camera? This wasn't part of the solution I thought of earlier, but it does tie in with the: "by means of a viewing of the video recording of detection."

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

Hmmmmm! I am still not really convinced about the secondary check. This issue would have to be tested in court for a definitive judgment.
And yes, the ACPO Code is only a code, not the law of the land. However if the Code is to be simply ignored, then what is the point in having it? And the police do quote the code when it suits them in particular cases, so therefore they must stand by it all the time, as they can't get away with moving the goalposts when it suits them. The Code also says that it must be scrupulously followed to ensure the chain of evidence is not broken.

SPECS does have a secondary check so you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Imagine the scene at the home office when they got your FoI, "oh no chaps, I knew we meant to check that!". Or did they just raise their eyebrows and sigh "oh not another!"

Like they did with RTTM and 'bias on selection'?


Is there a risk that a flaw in the primary measurement (e.g. frozen/delayed timestamps) can carry over to a non-independent secondary measurement, thus rendering the secondary check effectively redundant?

Is it right to withhold details of the secondary check of devices used to lawfully prosecute the public, from the public?

"I have sure-fire evidence that proves you committed a crime, but I'm not going to show you what it is, but you can trust me; try to ignore the fact I make money from it!"

Does anyone have a sense of deja vu? (more unanswered questions)

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

WOuld that have been the Home Office? Awaits a toady get-out along the lines of, "I know it was DfT that were dealing with this but I will claim I meant the Gov't!"


Is there? I rather think not.


I have nothing to release nor do I have to.

I'm not here to answer all questions however I do point out where you are going wrong and this was one such subject, a little knowledge on zulu's part leads to him spouting rubbish. It could have been left at that but where would that lead your readers? In court with a crappy defence originating from your site. Perhaps I'll encourage a bit of false information about some of the technology.
...See those extra units popping up next to a Gatso, the're ANPR, CCTV and DNA sniffers, pass all the details back to PNC in a couple of milliseconds they do; when you see one make sure your car is covered in cling-film; that'll stop them adding your DNA to that database that will. Oh yes, and that little aerial; its an alien probe, pops straight up your arse if it detects you may be a terrorist. Or is it a flash? ...
Perhaps you should learn that you are not always right, don't know everything and to accept a bit of friendly advice given freely.

I'm quite sure you gist the gist of what I meant: the convenient suppression of embarrassing information (what the particular department is is irrelevant).


A great answer, really contributes to the debate!
Why do you think not, or are you just guessing?


You should know by now that opinions and claims are scrutinised here.


Without any supporting evidence or reasoning!


Given your position, some might say you're already doing just that - no I'm wrong, some already have said exactly that!


What is the aerial for if it doesn't connect to anything?


Perhaps you should realise that one can be forgiven for not wanting to simply "accept" advice from someone who has a demonstrable conflict of interest.



That question didn't ask you to release anything.

I ask again: Is it right to withhold details of the secondary check of devices used to lawfully prosecute the public, from the public?

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

Oh hey Greenshed! As you're about again, would you care to answer some of the points made on other threads where it appear as if you've been asked a difficult question/shown to be wrong, and have just abandoned the debate in favour of another thread where you can try to appear credible until you come unstuck again? If you have trouble finding these threads, try a search on your username, it'll produce a list of them for you.

Many thanks!!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Since when haven't you ,unless asked a question you won't/can't answer .


Nice try , GS (and I don't mean Greengrass) -but thanks to Warks SCP ,we already have the truth .They might like to hear what you've got to say , as they do like to make out that they're one of the more open SCP in the country .

_________________
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

Oh dear, he seems to have dived again, no doubt he'll resurface in the not too distant future to fire off another torpedo full of crazy, before submerging prior to seeing if it hits or misses, avoiding any kind of substantiation or accountability!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Hi Greenshed. You accuse me of spouting rubbish. OK then, since you obviously know more than me, can you tell me what is the SPECS Secondary Check? And explain how this verifies the continuing accuracy of the device? If you can't answer then we can assume you haven't a clue.