Safe Speed Forums

Since I was clocked by a fixed Gatso for 57 in a 50 area,( at least it might have been me, could have been the wife ) I've taken a keen interest in the use of these bloody things and how they comply with ACPO.
The one that snapped me was on a bend in the road and after much research I have found that they are being ioperated outside the ACPO guidelines because of this.
The guidelines clearly state that they "Should be facing a straight section of road"
Furthermore, if they are part of a mobile set up then they should not be used from inside a camera van but be tripod or trailer mounted.
To substantiate this take a look at the Gatso websitehttp://www.gatsometer.com/index.php?p=5496 and look at the description for the RLC 36. This makes a comparison against "Other radar type devices" which includes the Gatso 24 used in most instances on the roads of the UK. It says the RLC 36 can be used where other radar type devices cannot, ie on bends......
This rules out the legitimate use of the type 24 on such bends.
Further to that I wrote to the Home Office about the use of the type 24 on road bends. They confirm that "They should face a straight section of road" in compliance with the ACPO.
For further corroboration, and to nail this beast once and for all I also wrote to the General Mgr of a Camera Partership and got the same answer.
Since I was snapped doing 35 in a 30 area only a month after the first session when I know it was me driving I have made the submission in a statement that I wasn't actually speeding anyway but I could prove that the camera was being used against ACPO. Still waiting for a reply.
So, it hasn't been tested by me in court yet, though might well be in the next few weeks unless I get a change of mind following my NIP but if you are snapped on a bend in the road with a Gatso then please give this a go.
I'm not condoning speeding as such, but if the guidelines don't allow for this then there must be some reason for it, ie the readings might very well not be reliable in these circumstances.

Oh, the first offence I'm waiting news on is one where I have made the submission that I cannot remember who the driver was at the time. This is entirely truthful but requires me to "Have shown reasonable diligence".
In this case I have received both photographs from the scameras which show nothing more than the rear end of the car. I have written to vodofone to see if they can give the position of my mobile phone on the time in question, I have checked credit card statements to see if I can identify any spending on the day in question which might help, I have asked them if they can give a closer image of the rear of the car which might show the goods being carried and have even asked them to come and interview me.
I call that reasonable diligence.
In ACPO again, it's also a requirement that the Police have taken all reasonable steps to identify the driver.
Following my request for an interview which they have never taken up, I don't think they are in any position to claim that they have anything more than produce a couple of meaningless photo's.

ACPO guidelines are just that - guidelines, not law. Some cameras near me are still grey which again is outside guidelines, all it means is they don't get the money back if you get nipped.

Money which goes to buy more cameras, best they don't have it.
I'm interested to find out how we can make sure they don't get money from non-ACPO-complient cameras, most of the ones around here aren't reflective.

_________________
Andrew.