Driver defeats speeding ticket by measuring road markings
Discussion
...with tape.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
So the road markings at this location are not conforming?! How many people have been incorrectly pinged? Could be a sticky wicket for the Scamera Partnership this one.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-ra...
So the road markings at this location are not conforming?! How many people have been incorrectly pinged? Could be a sticky wicket for the Scamera Partnership this one.
" he visited the scene of the alleged crime where he noticed the white road markings, used to measure speed, seemed short."
Road markings are not used to measure speed - the primary check is often radar or an induction loop. Road markings may be used as a secondary check.
Any word about a prosecution appeal?
Road markings are not used to measure speed - the primary check is often radar or an induction loop. Road markings may be used as a secondary check.
Any word about a prosecution appeal?
I don't know how long the road marking are (I would guess something in the region of 10 metres) but would the lines being 1% too short be enough to make a significant difference to the recorded speed? Was the case dismissed not because he proved he wasn't speeding, but because he was able to cast sufficient doubt over the accuracy of the whole system of camera, radar, and calibration marks?
We are told by the authorities that the cameras themselves are accurate and that the secondary markings are not really necessary but are there to form a second opinion. I wonder what the local Police Force will have to say about it?
Some years ago now but a local BT engineer was given a NIP for doing 50+mph past a camera in a 30mph limit. He knew he couldn't have been doing it as the traffic was busy at the time. He asked for the photos, measured the lines on the road with the result that he was actually doing 13mph. Dorset Police blustered and apologised saying it was a known phenomena of a ghost reflection or somesuch thing. they never did explain why the secondary check was not carried out.
Some years ago now but a local BT engineer was given a NIP for doing 50+mph past a camera in a 30mph limit. He knew he couldn't have been doing it as the traffic was busy at the time. He asked for the photos, measured the lines on the road with the result that he was actually doing 13mph. Dorset Police blustered and apologised saying it was a known phenomena of a ghost reflection or somesuch thing. they never did explain why the secondary check was not carried out.
carinaman said:
I've taken it to be that the length of the transverse graduations was too short.
I am struggling to see how that would make much of a difference. It may be a technicality if the length of the graduations are shorter than the regulation says.
My guess is they mean distance between the graduations (length = lazy journalism)I am struggling to see how that would make much of a difference. It may be a technicality if the length of the graduations are shorter than the regulation says.
rewc said:
Some years ago now but a local BT engineer was given a NIP for doing 50+mph past a camera in a 30mph limit. He knew he couldn't have been doing it as the traffic was busy at the time. He asked for the photos, measured the lines on the road with the result that he was actually doing 13mph. Dorset Police blustered and apologised saying it was a known phenomena of a ghost reflection or somesuch thing. they never did explain why the secondary check was not carried out.
This is what is known as a 'reflective reading.' It happens occasionally when a tallish van often with roller shutters on the rear passes through the camera and the laser gets bounced around and reflects back a wildly inaccurate reading. The camera viewer is trained to detect them and most are completely obvious, however the odd one does slip through due to the camera viewer being a human being 
.A motorcycle rider in Oxford a few years back got hold of the photos of his offence that showed he wasn't breaking the limit at all. The images showed a bus on his OS going in the opposite direction and it may have been a reflection off of that. It was reported in the Daily Mail and I've referenced it before.
TheAllSeeingPie said:
The lines were 3 inches too short and this makes a big impact? So he was going 35.5mph instead of 36? Why didn't the judge give him the £1000 fine and teach the daft twonk a lesson for trying to find a loophole when he was blatantly 20% over the posted limit.
If each marking is supposed to be 12" apart (wild guess based on my visual recollection), being 3" short would be a 25% reduction in measuring distance. Thus it could possibly be that he was in fact not speeding and was doing roughly 28mph... (my maths working out his speed could be widly incorrect, but the point stands.) If the scamera radar had been calibrated to match the lines then this should mean all fines/points generated by this scamera location should be paid back/removed from licences.
R8VXF said:
If each marking is supposed to be 12" apart (wild guess based on my visual recollection), being 3" short would be a 25% reduction in measuring distance. Thus it could possibly be that he was in fact not speeding and was doing roughly 28mph... (my maths working out his speed could be widly incorrect, but the point stands.) If the scamera radar had been calibrated to match the lines then this should mean all fines/points generated by this scamera location should be paid back/removed from licences.
You are indeed very correct. I made the mistake of reading the article and assuming they were talking about overall length of the markings, not the gap between each marking, which is a very large difference.TheAllSeeingPie said:
R8VXF said:
If each marking is supposed to be 12" apart (wild guess based on my visual recollection), being 3" short would be a 25% reduction in measuring distance. Thus it could possibly be that he was in fact not speeding and was doing roughly 28mph... (my maths working out his speed could be widly incorrect, but the point stands.) If the scamera radar had been calibrated to match the lines then this should mean all fines/points generated by this scamera location should be paid back/removed from licences.
You are indeed very correct. I made the mistake of reading the article and assuming they were talking about overall length of the markings, not the gap between each marking, which is a very large difference.I am willing to bet the defendant is confused about the distance between the lines and the repeat distance. He will most likely be comparing the distance between the markings to that quoted for the repeat, the lines are 3-4" wide for that type of marking.
Seems like there has been a mistake in letting this chap go in my estimation.
Seems like there has been a mistake in letting this chap go in my estimation.
emmaT2014 said:
I am willing to bet the defendant is confused about the distance between the lines and the repeat distance. He will most likely be comparing the distance between the markings to that quoted for the repeat, the lines are 3-4" wide for that type of marking.
Seems like there has been a mistake in letting this chap go in my estimation.
Seems like there has been a mistake in letting this chap go in my estimation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff