Safe Speed Forums

well i wish you the best of luck, but everything seems in order to me you could always ask somone to bankroll you for court

_________________
now retired

edited

True, but it is a code of practice not a guideline. You must get this drummed into your head If you are to win this.

_________________
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

All this could be avoided if people just stuck to the speed limit.

OR if the talivan were forced to stick to the guidelines or if the guidelines were made as rules that must be obeyed, or if road safety was about road safety and not cash generation

_________________
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 think that's realistic?

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

1. operator error
2. tape reading error
3. signage error

has there been a court case where the camera itself has been found to be in error

_________________
now retired

There have been lots of dropped cases involving lti20.20 and slip effect. That counts and it doesn't count both at the same time.

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

no doubt there has been plenty of people arrested over the years for various offences which the CPS drop as not being in the public interest / insufficent evidence etc etc

_________________
now retired

Wow, that would be good news, and more importantly, a fairly important decision in relation to how the IC sees the DPA operating.

Gareth

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned pepipoo on this thread. They may be able to help.

There is also the fact that there is a bus in the photo. It is well documented that readings can be deflected from large vehicles when the intended target is smaller vehicles, especially if they are close together, as they are in this case. I believe two pulses are sent out at a set time apart (someone correct me if I'm wrong). What is there to stop one coming from the bus, and the next coming from your vehicle? It would make it seem like you are going much faster than you are. It also appears that you are coming up to a roundabout. That apparently small gap between you and the car in front, and a bus behind , at a speed of 50 mph appears to be on the face of it, very dangerous (Both appear to be about 1 cars length - certainly not the Highway Code recommended 175 ft). Do you think that you were actually doing that speed? If you actually were, then it's possible that you may face a greater charge in court. Getting a before and after still from the video could be very revealing, and will allow you to cross check your speed with the street lamps (You will have to measure this gap), and might be able to be used to prove your innocence, if, indeed you are.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=9405&hl=

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topi ... 239116&p=1
(you may need to register)

Not forgetting the Shutter Effect and Notsoaccurate

It is true that this thread would fit better with the pepipoo web site. I also found it made interesting reading and wanted to correct a few misconceptions.

The large vehicles are more relevent to gatsos/ truvellos. Stationary busses and lorries shaking are known to trigger them.

I might be repeating myself but ACPO CODE OF PRACTICE IS JUST THAT , CODE, RULES. JUST LIKE THE HIGHWAY CODE.

_________________
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

Lidar sends out many pulses to avoid exactly the situation you described. That photo looks like a measurement with an LTI. LTIs send out at least 43 pulses: 4 samples for acquisition and the results of up to 5 dodgy samples can be discarded; leaving over 30 pulses all of which must have perfect timing characteristics (to well within 1 meter).

The large distance between the bus and the vehicle will result with a hugely discontinuous ‘rate of change of distance’ (a.k.a. velocity) measurements with time; that would result with an E03 for sure.

But there's very little to stop the beam slipping down the side of the bus and the resultant wrong speed being wrongly assigned to the car.

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

Not quite the same, but I recently made a request to Blackpool Councils CCTV department for any footage that covered an area that I was in an accident (a van reversed into me at the exit of a carpark - it couldn't get under the hight limit bar). I filled in the form from their website giving details of time and place. I also did a second form as I saw the van parked on a street an hour later. I handed these in along with 2 cheques for £10 each and 2 forms of ID and a recent photo.

3 working days later I got a phone call saying that under the 'Data Protection Act' they were refusing my requests as under the 'Data Protection Act' the images do not consitute personal data. But they had looked at other ways and that they could do it under the 'Freedom of information Act'. 5 days later I picked up a video with footage from both my requests. They also only charged me £10

I completely agree. I was in the process of drafting my next reply (and eating peanut butter on toast) when you pointed that out.

After examining the photo, I would say your only hope is return to the site and measure 161.5 meters from the position of the camera van (determining the exact position of the van could be tricky); if the distance can only extend to where the bus was – you got ‘em. If not then I think your only hope is getting the video and confirm misapplication of the alignment procedure.

Be warned, the courts won’t care if you do indeed prove an error with the setup (there’s no basis in law to allow this to be used as a defence), but you could go to the partnership directly and they might drop the case for fear of getting their knuckles rapped (again).

Cerberus,

It is necessary to differentiate between the Freedom of Information Act, which is to obtain information that is of public interest and not specific to a person, and the Data Protection Act, which applies to data that someone is holding which is specific to you.

This means that you have to accept that you were driving the vehicle so that the video then becomes personal to you, since under the Data Protection Act you cannot get data that is not specific to you.

If and when the ruling is finalised it will be possible to discuss this in more detail.

As Anton put it, this is exactly my line of defence.

P.S.
I know the exact location of the Camera Van, as I drove past it on my way back home, 30 minutes later (I was going to feed a cat that day.)
I was not done on the way back, since I saw the van, and I also had to stop for fuel at the garage where the van was parked.
I remember exiting the petrol station slowly, in front of the van, and looking carefully inside to check if anybody was in there. Could not see anybody in the front, so I assumed they were all inside the back of the van, having a party

If what we have there is true, then your precise line of defence is that...

1. The camera is a prescribed device, and therefore any evidence is only admissible under section 20 RTOA 1988 (as amended by s23 RTA 1992).
1. Subsection 4 states that such evidence shall not be admissible unless it has received type approval AND any conditions subject to which the type approval was given are satisfied.

As such, then as long as you can indeed demonstrate that the ACPO code of practice are part of the HOTA then that should be an absolute bar to the admission of the evidence.

Which leaves the operators opinion as the only evidence against you. There is ample case law to demonstrate that without corroboration this is unsufficient to convict.

As a further note, have you replied to the s172 notice yet? You may wish to do so using the PACE statement pro forma available on PePiPoo. But either way, naming the driver is mandatory, but does not in any way affect your right to defend the allegation of speeding in court at a later date. Whatever your response, I advise you do so close to the 28 day deadline and using recorded delivery to ensure you have a record that you complied with s172.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!