People, they are NOT calibration markings please stop using that term, they are not used the calibrate the equipment in any way - they are only to aid the secondary check and are not *required*.
Gareth
You are quite correct in pointing out that the road markings are for secondary checking and not for calibration but they are required for compliance with Type Approval. This is my most
Ha ha, what a laugh. Mr Bowen should perhaps read the content of his
own website before slamming the phone down. My old friend Mr Callaghan appears to be his usual self i.e. incoherent, intellectually challenged and a veritable mine of misinformation.
A&S SCP website wrote:
RedSpeed secondary check marks
As in the case of fixed roadside Gatso cameras, there is a requirement to have secondary check marks painted on stretches of road covered by RedSpeed digital speed cameras.
The marks are placed exactly one metre apart, so the distance travelled by the speeding vehicle between the two photographs can be calculated.
This is done purely as a safeguard for the driver - to ensure the speed registered by the camera is accurate.
With digital cameras, the speed between the check marks is calculated automatically by the processing equipment.
Where there is a discrepancy - or the equipment fails to produced the secondary check speed - no action will be taken against the driver.
Of course, a condition of
Type Approval will be the ability to
scientifically demonstrate that the secondary check is valid and can accurately corroborate the primary speed measurement. However, the fact that this is no longer an
independent quality check by an operator but now a function of the camera itself is cause for concern as it flies in the face of fundamental quality principles with respect to the verification of data integrity. The Redspeed camera is essentially Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Indeed this situation could prove to be highly illegal as automated criminal prosecutions are forbidden under British law. In addition I wonder how secure the software is from unauthorised data editing. Mind you,
Section 23 of the 1991 RTA clearly states that only evidence generated by the camera itself is admissible in Court.
Incidentally the Redspeed Redspeed (formerly Monitron Redspeed) was Type Approved back in 2003 and has been used for speed enforcement in the Limehouse Tunnel link for a long time. MCN need to polish up their investigative journalism skills.
Best regards,
Max
Excellent point about about the data files being tamper proof, as echoed in my comments above. I believe software and electronic data integrity will be the next major battleground in the war against the scammers.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
