Notso Accurate?

[SafeSpeed]

This topic relates to Safe Speed page: http://www.safespeed.org.uk/notso.html

David Edgar, an engineer and motorist from Walsall challanges Gatso accuracy...

[CarlP]

Whilst I'm not suggesting for one second that this is a deliberate action on the part of the SCPs, is it not just a little to convenient that the photographs (ie. the only corroborative evidence the average person is going to have access to) now seems to always overread?

So basically, a GATSO flashes you and you get a NIP for 35mph when you're convinced you were only doing 30mph. You have no way of proving this outside of the photos, so you check those. Oh dear, they seem to show you going even faster than that, so you give in and post off your £60...

Cynical, moi?

[Twister]

Aren't the photos timestamped, or otherwise marked in such a way as to show the actual interval used? And doesn't the Gatso design allow for the interval to be changed, such that without knowing exactly what interval is set on each camera, judging it to be inaccurate based on the assumption that the interval should be 500ms is, in itself, inaccurate?

If Gatsos ARE genuinely taking photos at an interval longer than they've been set to or are recording on the photos, then clearly this is something that must be investigated. But given just that article and without knowing the details, I'm not so sure it's worth making too much noise about just yet...

[SafeSpeed]

This page may be important:

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcs ... /gatso.htm

Contains: "The time interval between photographs, typically 0.5 to 0.7 seconds, is derived from a timing source that is standalone."

This is a bizarre discovery in the circumstances.

Firstly, it's pretty amazing that something so basic could possibly come to light now, especially after the ABD issued advice about how to check Gatso photos last year (based on 0.5 seconds of course).

Secondly, having a variable timing interval seems a pointless complexity.

Thirdly, having a variable timing interval is going to do NOTHING for public confidence in the equipment.

The plot thickens.

[SafeSpeed]

The following statement from David Edgar just received by email:

Since launching this legal counter attack on the Gatso speed camera I have received an enormous amount of mail supporting my stand against the unfair and unjust exploitation of law abiding motorists, the Internet campaign groups have also rallied round and supported my efforts, so too have the national press and TV who have beat a path to my door for what is now becoming a very big story, I have also received a number of emails warning me of the evil empire who will do anything to protect its money grabbing scam, they were not wrong……

As predicted the old boy network have attempted to deny my legal challenge to the accuracy of the Gatso speed camera by totally ignoring my formal request for a full day in Court, this being made last November, they have deliberately remained silent about the fact that they knew all along that they had only allowed two hours for a very technical and complex trial.

Fortunately an investigative journalist alerted me to this fact yesterday following his conversation with the Listing Office, I then immediately contacted the Listings Office and confirmed the same, I also made it clear that this was totally unacceptable and I would immediately apply for an adjournment.

Having made such a formal Application to the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court yesterday afternoon I have to report that they have totally ignored the same therefore I have since written to the Court informing them that I will not be attending the Court tomorrow and warned them that if they proceed in my absence an immediate appeal will be made to the Crown Court.

Having received such an immense amount of support from the hundreds of decent people out there I felt it only right and fair to inform each and very one of them of the current situation and encourage them not to despair or give up, because I never will, this is only the beginning but I believe it will be the beginning of the end for the Gatso speed camera.

The fight will continue….

Sincere Regards

David Edgar

I'll add it to the "Notso" page shortly.

[SafeSpeed]

More from David Edgar:

"Yesterday I took part in a filmed interview with BBC Midlands Today and was given the opportunity to demonstrate the Notso device on camera by using a miniature mock-up Gatso which I have built, although this is not a camera it does provide a manually operated strobe flash to commence the timing sequence, apparently the BBC were suitably impressed, I was later told by the BBC journalist that having spoken to the BBC solicitors they were considering putting the interview on air before the final trial and would like to take part in a live Gatso test next week.

Naturally I have agreed to do this but have warned them that now the police know what I have discovered they are likely to be putting things right particularly as it now appears from Devon and Cornwall Police web site that the Gatso timings can be varied between 0.50 - 0.70 seconds see:

http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcs ... /gatso.htm


Therefore since we now have an army of supporters on this challenge to Gatso accuracy I would respectfully ask all supporters and their family, friends and colleagues to carry their digital camera with them this weekend and take pictures of any Gatso’s that are receiving any “special attention” ensuring that any pictures are date and time marked.

Sincere Regards,




David Edgar"

[drnomad]

Can anyone explain to me what "corroborative evidence" is?

[SafeSpeed]

Can anyone explain to me what "corroborative evidence" is?

It's evidence that support or confirms other evidence. In the case of Gatso cameras, there are various anomolies that may affect the radar speed meter, so we always have a pair of photos that provide a second strand of confirming evidence.

[orange]

If the gatso timing can be adjusted, then that means that the lines on the road would have to be painted at different intervals depending on what interval the camera was set for ... and I certainly wouldn't be confident that they would always match up.

[SafeSpeed]

If the gatso timing can be adjusted, then that means that the lines on the road would have to be painted at different intervals depending on what interval the camera was set for ... and I certainly wouldn't be confident that they would always match up.

Nah. Provided you know the flash interval, the line spacing and the number of marks crossed you can work out the speed.

This situation here is mainly that we're losing confidence in "knowing the flash interval".

[Roger]

Theory on timing...

These cameras still use real film don't they? This has to be wound on. Supposing that some film has a maximum wind rate a bit lower than other - or maybe the rate has to be slowed down when the film is cold? That would mean a change of timing (or a general lengthening overall) Perhaps they're using so much film that they can save money by not having the fast-wind stuff?

[g_attrill]

Theory on timing...

These cameras still use real film don't they? This has to be wound on. Supposing that some film has a maximum wind rate a bit lower than other - or maybe the rate has to be slowed down when the film is cold? That would mean a change of timing (or a general lengthening overall) Perhaps they're using so much film that they can save money by not having the fast-wind stuff?

The flash interval is adjustable so the cameras can be used in different speed limits and that the vehicles will use the whole of the length of the road markings.

If a camera was snapping motorists at 60mph+ and was then moved to a 30mph limit then the cars would end up only using half the length of the markers. The other way around they might end up off the edge of the photo and the offence would have to be scrapped.

Gareth

[Gatsobait]

Theory on timing...

These cameras still use real film don't they? This has to be wound on. Supposing that some film has a maximum wind rate a bit lower than other - or maybe the rate has to be slowed down when the film is cold? That would mean a change of timing (or a general lengthening overall) Perhaps they're using so much film that they can save money by not having the fast-wind stuff?

They're effectively shooting at about 1.5 to 2 frames per second, and the lower end isn't much faster than a good photographer could shoot a manual wind SLR. They buy film in bulk lengths of 100 foot, which is about the cheapest way anyone can lay their mitts on 35mm film stock. They always shoot two frames for each offence, so the only way they can cut costs is to photograph fewer cars. Film's so cheap I doubt it's a concern.
Different films won't have much variation in the speed at which you can wind them on. I suppose there's a theoretical top wind-on speed, but even pro spec bodies are nowhere near it at speeds of 7 or 8 fps, never mind 2 fps in a Gatso. Movie cameras use 35mm stock too, and they go a hell of a lot faster. It isn't the film that limits wind-on speed in practice, it's the type of camera.
If it's really really hot the emulsion might start getting sticky and gumming things up, but that would probably apply to all film fairly evenly. And celluloid burns of course. Probably never gets hot enough in the UK for it to be a problem. Cold shouldn't have any effect at all. I keep film in the fridge, and the only caveat is to let it get to the same temperature as the camera before you load it. After that it really doesn't matter how cold it gets. People have taken stunning photos on top of Everest and at both poles with film cameras. The batteries snuff it a lot faster than normal, but the film isn't a problem.

[Roger]

I agree - my idea above doesn't make sense in the light of this data. Thank you.

Film's so cheap I doubt it's a concern.

No - but the labour to reoad i is. 30mm per snap (including 2mm guard) roughly five cars per foot - 500 per roll.

And celluloid burns of course. Probably never gets hot enough in the UK for it to be a problem.

Except of course in necklace situations

[Gatsobait]

Frames are 24x36mm, just like in an ordinary 35mm SLR. SLR users who roll their own cannisters will lose a significant amount off a 100 foot roll in leaders for each individual roll of 36 or 24 they make. But Gatsos use a bulk cannister and get 800 frames, so they can trap 400 cars before they have to send a plodlet out to reload the thing. There's a big magazine doobrey inside, and I imagine it's preloaded to minimize the amount of time spent fiddling around in the gatso's innards. Have a look at the insides (image half-inched from http://www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/facts.htm

It might even be quicker to change the film magazine than to raise and lower the box. Have a look at that page by the way. There's a clue as to why the camera units are so expensive. Flash synchronised at 1/1000th of a second. Ker-ching, ker-ching, ker-ching. You go into Jessops and tell 'em you want a camera with 1/1000 flash sync - they'll ask you if you already have a mortgage!
What will be expensive in labour terms is having someone check a frame showing a speeding car, double check the second frame, and then repeat for another 399 vehicles. I suspect there's some temptation to skimp and save a few bob here, which might be why those cases of MACH2 Marinas aren't picked up until the owner gets a NIP and wonders why they think his car is doing 1200mph.

And celluloid burns of course. Probably never gets hot enough in the UK for it to be a problem.

Except of course in necklace situations

ROTFLMAO!

[SafeSpeed]

The Following just in from David Edgar:

PRESS RELEASE 4


Since a small minority of people have posted some less than helpful comments that I apparently know nothing about the law and I have allegedly ignored dealing with an NIP I would be obliged if I could be allowed set the record straight.

I have been a litigant (unpaid) for almost 11 years in both civil and criminal law, this also includes intellectual property law with respect to inventions and designs, in that time I have successfully represented myself in many Courts winning 80% of my cases, the other 20% would have been won if I were not up against an old boy network that is both bent and incompetent.

I have won (and lost), in many Courts where I have appeared alone with no support or funding including the County Courts, Magistrate’s Courts, High Courts, Appeal Courts including the High Court which is regularly seen on TV and is otherwise known as the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.

Currently I have three cases on going in the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, I have had numerous complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and received compensation, I have also received compensation from the Law Society as result of bent and incompetent solicitors and this does not include the countless cases I have won for my self and others at many tribunals.

I successfully saved my elderly mother’s life last year when the NHS tried to kill her by way of involuntary euthanasia (caught on camera doing it), sadly I was less successful with my elderly father who was neglected to death last by the local authority, needless to say those responsible for his death will be introduced to an out of court settlement in due course.

Whilst the satisfaction of restoring some justice is very rewarding it has badly affected my health, last year I had a heart attach as a result of the relentless pressure.

So for those of you out there who think I know nothing of the law I would respectfully ask you to revise your statements as I feel I have earned my law degree the hard way.

With respect to the current RTA Section 172 (3) case it should be noted that I do not have to prove that the Gatso’s are failing to meet Type Approval as I already have a robust defence to that charge. So I do not have to crusade for anyone and can abandon it at any time but I choose to do so because I know from bitter experience that the only way to change things is to fight it and keep fighting it until they listen.

I have used this Court case as a platform to expose the scam that we all know is criminalizing millions of innocent motorist but very few of us are willing to fight the bent establishment for the greater good of the motorist.

To correct the obvious legal misunderstanding with respect to my case please see an extract from my formal defence statement:

The police served an NIP stating that pursuant to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit, this being 41mph in a 30mph zone [The allegation]. They then stated on the same NIP that pursuant to Section 81 RTRA 1984 they had photographic evidence in support. [The material evidence] in addition pursuant Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I was obliged to identify the driver. Since it is well know that "he who alleges must prove" I then continued....

I then responded to the NIP by stating on the form that the driver was unknown to me and in a covering letter I had no recollection of the alleged incident and make no admission of guilt, I then asked for sight of the photographic evidence the police claimed they had in their possession thus complying with the statutory defence of using reasonable diligence as in Section 172 (3) to identify the driver.

Having received the photographic evidence from the police I then responded by letter and stated that inter alia, the photographic evidence failed to identify the driver and it was my contention that the evidence was inconclusive and therefore would not support a successful conviction, furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time of the alleged offence and could not reasonably identify the driver as their identity was unknown to me.

The police then sent another identical NIP to complete however I returned the same stating that I was not aware of any requirement in the RTA 1988 which compels me to duplicate the same statement of facts which I had previously made, I therefore returned the form and asked the officer to identify which section of which Act requires me to do so, strangely enough he never did!

I then stated that should the police commence a prosecution I would defend the same and apply for a Defendant's Costs Order I also stated that I would be relying upon material evidence in support including the case: Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, Head Middlesborough CID 2001 whereby he was not charged following an alleged speeding charge because he couldn't remember who was driving his car due to the photographic evidence conveniently being "inconclusive".

The police then commenced the prosecution and I received a Magistrates' Summons which was subsequently dealt with by entering a plea of NOT GUILTY. I would point out that at this time I was not aware of the serious inaccuracies of the Gatsometers.

Whilst I am reasonably confident that I can defeat the Section 172 (3) charge I am also confident that I can rely upon the Crown's documentary evidence which they have already filed and served, this being a witness statement by a member of the West Midlands Police Camera Enforcement Unit who has stated that pursuant to Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Gatsometer BV Type 24 AUS was Type Approved and was working correctly at the material time since I am of course permitted under Human Rights law to question any Witnesses the prosecution bring against me therefore I will be exploiting the failures of that particular Gatsometer to comply with the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook the likes of which I now have in my possession and the same being relied upon when the Calibration Certificate is signed, this also being disclosed as evidence for the Crown.

Allow me to quote from the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook, in particular section 3.4 under "Terminology" A speedmeter will be considered to fail a type approval test if it displays an incorrect reading of speed outside the tolerance range of error" The "Measuring Accuracy" being a positive error no larger than 3mph (or +3% above 100mph) and since my evidence will prove a wapping 26% error I rest my case!

There are also a number of other serious matters which the PSBD Speedmeter Handbook has identified.

I would also agree with Paul Smith's (Safe Speed) argument that this case is very much in the public interest with regards to speedmeter accuracy so I will be inviting the Crown to reintroduce the speeding charge in order that I can deal with it legally and technically.



David Edgar

[SafeSpeed]

This press notice just in:

The Legal Guys News Facility

Date: 1st March 2005

“People’s Hero” No Show at Court

Thousands of motorists were left fuming today as their “People’s Hero” failed to attend his own trial for a speeding offence.

Mr. David Edgar, of Walsall, West Midlands, had previously been very vocal in the development of his defence against the so-called “greed cameras”, where he claims to have categorical proof that speed cameras may not be as accurate as the Police claim they are.

A source at Birmingham Magistrates Court stated that Mr. Edgar, who had previously had his case adjourned because of his non-attendance in January of this year, did actually come to Court today. However, prior to him being called to Court, Mr. Edgar decided not to defend himself, and left before the case was heard.

Mr. Edgar’s non-attendance meant the Court had to deal with the case in his absence, and returned the decision that he was guilty of failing to complete his Notice of Intended Prosecution – technically referred to as a Section 172 Offence.

Mr. Edgar was fined £150 plus £300 Court costs, and his driving licence was suspended until such time as it was produced to the Court for an endorsement of 3 penalty points.

Simon Tonks, a local anti-speed camera campaigner said:

“This is bitterly disappointing; Mr. Edgar has let a lot of people down with his promises of proof. We were very hopeful that this case might shed some light on the speed camera schemes, as there have been fears for a long time that the implementation of speed cameras is less about road safety than it is about fining motorists.”
======================================

I'm trying to contact David Edgar.

[CarlP]

Well, lots of people (myself included) always said he'd be found guilty of S172 whatever he did, I doubt not attending the hearing made much difference to that...

[SafeSpeed]

I've had a brief email from David Edgar:

===============================
Coming soon to a Gatso near you
http://www.notsoaccurate.com

Hi Paul,

As I was not in Court yesterday I am unaware of the outcome therefore as soon as I know the result I will post my future intentions on the above website.

Regards,

David Edgar
===============================

[CarlP]

Actually, not attending is probably not as bad as it sounds. The S172 conviction at this stage was completely inevitable. It makes far more sense to ignore this stage of proceedings, allow yourself to be found guilty, then put your case to the High Court on appeal.

If that's what he's doing, then good luck to the bloke, it'll be a very interesting case and the High Court is a far better place for it to be heard.