straightsix wrote:
As a result, I lodged an official complaint with the police on the grounds that the DA scheme contravened their own code of practice regarding equality.
I do see some sort of problem with the system, but I doubt a claim of equality could fly.
straightsix wrote:
Meanwhile, since I was unable to take up my place on the course, I should have been sent a Conditional Offer: I have a letter from the DAS concerned saying that would be the next course of action. In fact, the next document I received was a summons. So my first question is, does the fact that no conditional offer was made after the offer of a place on the course was withdrawn, contrary to the information provided in writing, give any sort of procedural defence?
Given that you were offered an SAC, I would say you should not have been within any circumstance where a summons could have been warranted (no totting up, speed within second threshold). So I believe you should have been given the conditional offer.
I can recall several instances where a decline of the Speed Awareness Course (SAC) resulted with the Conditional Offer/3 points being given.
HOWEVER,
Perhaps the staff who processed your claim realised that if you really cannot afford the SAC, then you obviously also cannot afford the fees for the conditional offer (which are roughly equal) hence they logically took your inability to afford the SAC as your tacit rejection of the conditional offer.
HOWEVER AGAIN,
I'm surprised your case has been allowed to be dragged on for this long (7 months)!
Therefore, it could also be that your case was dragged on for so long that the staff decided to lay the papers to the courts, before they lose their chance to guarantee prosecution of you. I believe there is a 6 month deadline from the date of offence, for them to lay the papers. Once they have been laid, you have to deal with the courts, hence the summons.
This is mere speculation on my part, you should check it.
straightsix wrote:
Turning to the images. The Laser pro 3 operates using a very narrow beam. The device itself weighs over two kilos. As someone with professional experience of optical design, I'md be concerned that those parameters could make the device vulnerable to a degree of 'camera shake', especially with an operator tracking a moving target. The obvious way to test this theory would be to use the device on stationary objects to check readings. Even with a tripod, manual (non-remote) actuation could cause problems with such a narrow beam. In addition, neither image targetted a flat, non sloped surface: the part of number plate in one of the pictures is mounted at an angle greater than 90 deg to the ground. The indicator lens is a rounded surface. The exhaust and my tousers (!) all move independently relative to the speed and direction of bike travel. So my second question is, does the evidence of the images seem technically compromised?
Please note: I have access to these laser/lidar speed guns and have a lot of hand-on experience with them. I also have intimate knowledge of exactly how they operate having disassembled and probed them as well as measured their characteristics. I'm also quite sharp with optics and physics.
IMO: you have no room for disputing your case based on those photos alone. The video clip could help you, if one exists.
The bottom photo shows the gun aimed at a different part of the bike, but this doesn't matter as the gun takes about 0.3 seconds to do a speed measurement (according to the brochure) and this photo was taken about 2 seconds before the top one. The bottom photo is probably used for ID purposes only (getting a clear shot of characters on your registration plate)
The top photo is the one that shows the speed, this is the critical one; everything seems to be OK with it.
The registration plate is the first and by far away the most powerful reflection the gun will see, and the laser more then likely struck this surface throughout the actual speed measurement, hence the gun effectively use that as the reference target.
While it is true that the laser may have been panning across the registration plate during the 0.3 seconds of the speed reading, this will make next to no difference as that surface is not large enough to achieve enough of what is known as 'slip'. So in this particular case, that slight angle of the plate doesn't have any significant bearing.
Maths:
If the plate is say 40cm across the diagonal, and it is at a relative angle (to the gun) of 20 degrees, the largest error that can be achieved due to slip is 0.4SIN(20d) / 0.3 = 0.45m/s = 1.0mph. This is well within nominal tolerance and cannot cast any doubt the speeding offence.
straightsix wrote:
I'd also be grateful if anyone can tell me what some of the data means.
My educated guess:
Date ... time ... >> speed
location data ... operator number ... ... offence ID.