Safe Speed Forums

Appeal for information:

There is a fairly new Gatso on the A44 new Road through Worcester. Positioned quite rightly where a: there are accidents involving inebriated cricket fans emerging from the County Cricket Club and b: wannabe Friday night young Schumachers used to run a figure of 8 Grand Prix through the city centre.

But, having been NIPped for running foul of it myself the other night, I can't help wondering how accurate it is. There's a whopping 10mph discrepancy between the speed it thought I ran through at and the velocity the car's speedometer said I was travelling at. The car is a BMW with standard wheels, and I have always found this manufacturer's instruments tolerably good.

Personally, I don't mind paying my dues for speeding, but I do wish be accused accurately. Recently the local press has run stories boasting about the large revenues this camera has garnered, and suspicious old me can't help wondering if accusation speed figures are being ramped in the hopes that drivers will pay up on fixed penalty option and create sexy numbers for the papers. If that is the case Worcester and the Safety Camera Partnership can get somebody else to pay for their promotions.

So has anybody else out there had trouble with this location? Or in fact entertained similar suspicions about other new and media-friendly camera sites? Answers on a postcard please...

I don't have info about that specific camera, but radar (which all Gatsos use to measure speed) is subject to all sorts of behaviours. It is affected when it hits a vibrating surface and can bounce from vehicle to vehicle giving "composite" speeds. It is because of these anomalies that all Gatso cameras take two photographs.

It's quite possible that your NIP is based on a radar anomaly and the photos have not been properly checked.

In the first instance I would suggest writing to the central ticket office and asking them to check the photos. They might or they might not. You could also ask them to provide both photos - they might or they might not.

_________________
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 you will have to write to the Safety Camera Partnership in Droitwich. I am in contact with them by mail at the moment.
They DO NOT, and will not accept phone enquiries. Don't expect any response other than a standard letter telling you to pay up or go to court.

I have an open NIP at the moment for being 'caught' by one of their mobile camera's in East Worcester 3 weeks ago. They took a week to reply, but seem insistent that I should still reply to the NIP on the original timescale.

In my case, I have been accused of doing 36 in a 30 limit. I have only travelled that road only once before (as I live in Devon), but was aware of the location so ensured I was below the prosecution limit. They have now accused me of 36 in a 30 limit (their lowest possible prosecution speed)

In my letter, I questioned if they had followed all of their procedural guidelines, and asked them to check their evidence against me, but they flatly refuse to discuss any of their evidence, or even provide me video evidence.

I returned to the area the other day, and now have photographic evidence of my own showing that:
1. The first Scamera warning sign is 90% obscured by a tree, and is not in any case easily visible as you enter that road, from a roundabout.
2. The second Scamera warning sign is after the detection equipment, and has been vandalised (someone has painted it with a spray can so that the speed limit is obscured)
3. The lines on the road have also been defaced (probably by the same person)


Is it worth me sticking to my guns and going for a Not guilty verdict ? I feel like doing that and telling them that I will not disclose my photographic evidence at this time.

I am very annoyed of their attitude so far. I have proved (by the photographic evidence) that they are not following the ACPO guidelines, but they are saying that they don't have to.

What do you consider the best way forward for me ? I only have 3 points on my license, incidentally the other one was for a mobile camera, but that was my first ever point on my license in 26 years, so I just accepted it.

If I end up going to court, the fine could be increased, but I feel strongly that they may not be able to give accurate and full evidence.

_________________
David Keight, Devon

Dkeight, try this forum:

http://www.pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewforum.php?f=5

By the sounds of it you may have a good defence - a) you may be able to prove that you were not in fact speeding or at least that the evidence is not reliable (defaced lines on the road?); or b) a technical defence of speed limit/speed camera signs non-compliance with regulations.

Did the NIP comply with the 14 day rule?

Cheers
arthurdent

_________________
DO NOT PANIC

DKeight, it sounds to me that Droitwich could do with tightening up practice. My gut feeling is that you should take them to court. Your defence is good and well researched and they should have to disclose their evidence against you if you request it. Should they fail to do so you can simply ask the court to quash the allegation. Should it actually turn up it has a high chance of, under analysis, proving a tad inaccurate.

Finally, should you turn up at court and have the allegation found against you I suspect you'll be treated with the leniency that a polite, well-informed and sober citizen should expect. You had every reason to doubt the allegation's accuracy - so it was your duty as a citizen to ensure that you didn't simply take the points and fine on a wildcard accusation.

Personally, I have been accused of disporting myself in a 30mph limit at a loony 51mph. Which as a member of the IAM I strongly suspect I wouldn't have been doing, uninebriated, on the way to my parents' home and carrying my pregnant fiancee, even at 11.55pm on a non-residential street. The NIP sent to me states that a conditional fixed penalty is not on offer here, so to Worcester Court I shall be wandering before long. And I have requested analysis of the evidence, plus a copy of the snaps, in a letter accompanying the returned NIP.

My interest in this issue goes beyond the personal, as by profession I am a motoring writer. And my journalistic radar detects less-than-proper practice in both our cases.

Good luck and may justice be done. Please let me know what transpires!

Ah, and Paul, many thanks for the advice.

David

Post script. Droitwich provided photographic evidence in an astounding two days. Was personally astonished. Even more so upon analysing said pics, which showed my speed to be a scorching 26-31mph (have provided generous upper and lower range). Oddly, haven't received a demand to attend court. Perhaps the Droitwich bods have actually looked at them this time round.

Anyway, was at a wedding in Worcs the other day, chatting to a Police officer who has recently left the local force. He tells me it's standard practice at Droitwich to send out a NIP without checking evidence. Which is gentlemanly of them, no? Hmm...

There is currently a case knocking around on Pepipoo regarding this specific camera (S172, not speeding).

http://pepipoo.com/NewForums2/viewtopic ... 0877f5a4b8

I know the 'accused' very well and have seen the evidence they have submitted, they have omitted some items crucial to their case.


Dave

I think we should publicise this shoddy practice. Would you like me to post the materials to a Safe Speed page? (NIP + Photos)? Or we could send out a PR or both.

The big problem here is that many members of the public would just pay the fine and they would have been cheated out of 25% of their driving licence, or worse.

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

Talking of Worcester - I noticed on a televised match this week the local Scamera Partnership have a advertising board at the cricket ground!!

If scameras are apparently so popular why do they need to advertise their services in this way??

Paul. Would be happy to help. Let me know what you feel best thing to do. Probably the PR approach would be best I feel. Anyway, feel free to discuss this further.

Accoring to the ACPO guidelines (www.acpo.police.uk), if the site is un-supervised, the central ticket office should have checked the 2-stage photographs and verified the speed before sending the NIP out. (They can do this using the white lines painted on the road).

I would suggest sticking out to gt a copy of the images. I have an outstanding speeding issue I have taken up with Northumbria Police. The police were, at first, very reluctant to provide the images, but having driven 40 miles to the ticket office, they oblige.

I've been told at a couple of stages they don't have to provide you with the information but I would contest this.

One excuse you can use (if they've sent the NIP and you haven't yet replied) is that you need the photo's to identify who was driving it as you're unsure. They'll probebly refuse. If you really want to get the goat up, use the data protection act. If they have your car (as long as you're the ownder) on film, you're entitled to the images! It's the law and is an issue I'm currently persuing with my local MP.

If you're convinced your speed was below what the Gatso said, hold out. It won't be an easy challenge, but you can't hold your hands up to a crime you haven't commited. Or they'll just keep on doing this!

Considering the latest proposal/promise by the Conservative party on scamera's, perhaps sending them a copy of all this could be sent to them, gives them ammunition to keep their promise.

_________________
Semper in excreta, nur quantitat variat.

Was astounded Saturday to receive a summons for the above alleged crime. Including another copy of the evidence, a statement by a SCP wonk saying the computer that they took the info from was accurate, and another statement by a Police johnny attached to SCP that he has looked at the film camera and observed the car I was driving doing the speed they accuse me of travelling at.

Which would seem to me to be an outright lie. I've had yet another session with rulers and even with wild optimism can't get my speed over about 36mph (30 zone). Naturally I shall plead not guilty and request that they turn up in person to explain quite what evidential alchemy produces their figure. But surely all this lunacy could be avoided if somebody at SCP would actually cast an eye at the pictures as they claim to have done. Otherwise, if acquitted, I shall be asking them for the couple of hundred quid I would be earning if in the office that day plus mileage at about 260 miles. All of which comes out of the taxpayer's pocket and will probably tie SCP up in unseemly and expensive litigation. Not to mention the adverse publicity generated given what I do for a living. We live truly in an age where sanity has been locked up in the attic.

Writman,

pepipoo is abound with first hand stories of SCPs proceeding with persecutions regardless of the quality of the evidence. My guess is that SCPs are staffed by people with minimum qualifications that cannot make such judgements. The Crown Persecution Service get to see the evidence literally on the day in some cases and even then they could still proceed in the full knowledge that the Magistrates are heavily biased in their favour. This is the secret of the system's 'success' - most people do not have the bottle to take the threats and the intimidation for 6+ months and pay up. Those that try to see it through face the inconvenience and the heavy bias against them, often leading to a change of plea to guilty because they cannot afford legal representation and cannot attend court in person.

Good luck,
ad

_________________
DO NOT PANIC