Safe Speed Forums

In that case the camera must not operate. Or so I read in the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook.

_________________
Andrew.

Sorry for a sligty mad post but here goes

I have just woken up from nap after a day in court and a urika moment.
The copper was trying to convince me that the best place for him was the middle of the carriageway
This is true... if the car is comming towards him or going away he will not get slip or cosign effect if he holds the laser gun steady.

If he moves 10 degrees off of the path of the car and measures the car comming towards him there may be a 3% error in the drivers FAVOUR due to the cosine rule.

The further the camera van is off the angle the more benefit is given to the driver.

When the driver is going awar the cosine rule works AGAINST the driver
The wider the angle is the more cosine ADDS TO THE DRIVERS SPEED

URIKA THAT IS WHY THEY MUST NOT DETECT FROM THE OPPOSITE CARRIAGWAY

I would be realy pleased if someone could do the pictures and trhe maths for me coz my brain hurts!

this was my attempt so far....

Beam length is square route of (100sq+25sq)

_________________
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

No way. I don't know where you're going wrong, but going wrong you are.

I find it helpful to consider the perpendicular case (where movement is close to 90 degrees to the axis of measurement) when sorting out cosine error in my mind.

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

I've torn the office apart and found an old fasioned calculator!

_________________
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

Yeah. Sorry. What a shame. I'd much rather have been wrong.

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

just to conclude with some real data as I realised that the target only travels a small distance in the sample time.

_________________
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

Just an update.

I got my picture back.

It's in colour, very nice... will post it soon (prob. tomorrow).

For now, I'll just tell you it's from the opposite carriageway, and obviously I can't even identify who was driving it, but more to follow

I will post the picture as soon as I have taken some other details off the crime scene.

BTW, I think the operator saw, in this order:
- an old banger being overtaken by:
- a nice BMW with no one in front on the outside lane,
- followed at safe distance by *a sports car*, which was itself followed very closely by
- a huge bus (on the outside lane!)

conclusion: the sports car is speeding, and I will take a picture from the opposite carriageway just before it is obscured by the huge bus behind it and before some other vehicle comes in between us and also just in the middle of two huge pilons, at 400ft distance...

Timing eh?

the foreword to the code of practice reads

_________________
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

Today I took some pictures of the crime scene.

First picture:
http://www.rx8tribe.com/gallery/showpho ... 500&page=1


Second picture:
http://www.rx8tribe.com/gallery/showpho ... 500&page=1


I have two pictures taken from the camera van's POV (point of view).

I had to use the camera's 10x digital zoom so the quality is a bit crap. I will take other pictures another day in better qualiy so we can all discuss if this is indeed lawful enforcement.

It is pointing down the dual carriageway.

The spot the camera is pointing to is the area between two bus stops.

On the northbound carriageway lanes (rightside of the picture) there are white lines (distance markers) in front of the bus stop.
On the southbound carriageway lanes (leftside of picture), where I was aimed, those white lines are missing.

In a later post (once my camera battery is charged) I will post the picture sent back from the Support Unit.

you will probably find that the area between the two bus stops is the target zone for the opposite carriageway, i would imagine that a repeater sign would also be visible somewhere in the photo

_________________
now retired

Here is the picture I got back from the Support Unit.

Notice the BMW in front, and the bus in the fast lane.

What a criminal I am!

http://www.rx8tribe.com/gallery/showpho ... 500&page=1

I have decided to take the matter to court.

This is what I am planning to do:
I will complete the NIP, as it only states who the driver was at the "time" of the "alleged" offence. It does not constitute a confession for a crime I have not committed.
I will eventually receive the paper which will inform me of the intended prosecution, at which I will reply that I want to exercise my right to have the matter taken to court and provide details of the reason why.
Eventually they will call me to court at which point all I have to do is show the evidence and the supporting documentation which details how the evidence was obtained illegally.

Do you guys think that is the best course of action?

If you believe that you were not speeding then you will need to find some way of proving that the speed gun was in error, which is not an easy thing to do. If you were able to obtain the video from the speed camera and it contained two recordings of your speed, taken a second or so apart, together with the range on each occasion, then you can determine the time and frame number, at 50 frames per second, when each speed first appeared, you could then calculate the distance and time between each of those two conditions to calculate the speed, with a couple of percent accuracy. There are potential uncertainties in this, but it is a good place to start.

The police are unlikely to give you the video at least until the preliminary court hearing, but you can apply for it under the Data Protection Act and I recently had a preliminary ruling from the ICO upholding my claim that the police have to provide the video through this route, even though the police had claimed they are exempt from this. This ruling has to yet be finalised, but it is looking more hopeful than it did.

You will almost certainly get various intimidation from the police trying to persuade you to accept the fixed penalty and they will select any pictures they send you to make your case look as bad as possible, while they will conceal anything in your favour. This is why you need to get the full video with your car.

Obviously if you know you were speeding then none of this is likely to be of any help.

Don’t underestimate how difficult the fight could get, as shown by the recent case of David Jennings, see Daily Mail of 28 January, so could you afford the £30,000 and 15 days for court hearings it could require.

I believe it is well worth taking your case to court, since even if you lose and have to pay a higher fine, there is a reasonably chance of getting the case dropped, particularly if they will not provide a copy of the video. You will also learn a lot from the process, which could help you in the future.

I thought one of the problems with the way these cases are handled is the way that your response to the NIP (which is "information") magically becomes "evidence" against you. This is where the PACE witness statement comes in handy.

_________________
Andrew.

[quote="Dr L"]If you believe that you were not speeding then you will need to find some way of proving that the speed gun was in error, which is not an easy thing to do. If you were able to obtain the video from the speed camera and it contained two recordings of your speed, taken a second or so apart, together with the range on each occasion,
quote]

why would the operator wish to take multiple readings of the same vehicle (ok he could be accelerating away) but it is usually one hit

_________________
now retired

The whole argument is about legally obtained evidence. If it is (as it seems by reading the documents) illegal to monitor a road from the opposite carriageway, than that is illegally obtained evidence, which can't therefore be presented in court.
As such, the prosecution has no evidence to support their accusation.
I was not speeding, and they have no proof that I was, since the picture was taken in a manner that does not follow the guidelines and therefore the measurement obtained could be wrong and therefore is not a proof of anything.

I also think that this tactic is bad for road saftey. If a driver has to look at all other carriageways and over bridges then he is not putting as much attention on the road. What is next? detection from bedroom windows. Tower blocks?

The rules are there for a number of reasons.

_________________
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

The degree of forshortening makes it hard to tell, but presumably the white Mercedes(?) AND the bus were both speeding, or you would have left one standing to end up tailgating the other. Worth asking the bus company if their driver got a ticket that day!

Also the wing mirror of the white van looks extremely prominent to me - others here might be able to tell the degree of deflection needed to record it - as a photographer, I'd be looking at a bag of cement hanging off the tripod to keep the beggar still - but not much use if mounted in a van with half decent suspension and traffic passing close by!

Ask an Army sniper - they could really use some of these hot-shot camera operators!

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

It was three time in my case and twice for the other case I am involved with.
If I had my way it would be obligatory to have at least two readings to provide some corroborating evidence for the unreliable LTI 20.20.
If you take enough readings you will eventially get a slip error at a higher speed, so you can select that one and ignor the rest and intimidate the driver to accept that without seeing the others which would have cleared him.
You don't appreciate the misery the LTI 20.20 is causing to a lot of innocent people, but unfortunately they don't all have the £30,000 and15 court days available it took for David Jennings to fight his case through the courts.