LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Flat in Fifth said:
Wasn't that introduced in case Prescott was ever caught speeding?
No I think it was introduced in case Prescott's* driver was ever caught speeding.
* alt. Gwyneth Dunwoody
IIRC Prescott was caught speeding several years ago at 105 mph in (what was described as) his Daimler. He blamed it on the cruise control. I do not remember what penalty was imposed.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
safespeed said:
1. 745.4m away?!?!?! Is this a valid hit?
Last August The Times reported that ACPO had issued new guideleines that laser speed meters were NOT to be used over 500m.
And there are some very good reasons why this is the case. If your car was stationary & I tried enough times I could get a speed reading from your car that would get you points in a 30 limit...............
bryan35 said:
hey CPT,
you bought a new laser gun!
Errr yes
though its only a mini one, made by Kustom Signals, its more of a range finder with a speed function. Nice & simple & self contained, like a monocular. Might need to call you up & or the Prolaser at some point for some press articles if thats ok?
Peter Ward said:
Quick update: I have written to the Partnership to ask for a single photo that has both the reg no and speed visible. I am hoping that they will be able to provide this as I assume that it is required as evidence in court.
No response as yet. I have another week and a bit before the 28 days is up. I feel I should be chasing them in a week just to make sure that they give me enough time to respond. Your thoughts?
Peter Ward said:If they haven't provided you with the evidence within 7 days of the hearing you might like to ask a legal beagle whether it's admissible in Court even if produced at a later date or at the hearing on the day. You've asked, but it's likely you needn't have and likely it would have made no difference. Have a read
Quick update: I have written to the Partnership to ask for a single photo that has both the reg no and speed visible. I am hoping that they will be able to provide this as I assume that it is required as evidence in court.
No response as yet. I have another week and a bit before the 28 days is up. I feel I should be chasing them in a week just to make sure that they give me enough time to respond. Your thoughts?
I'm harping on about this a little having posted it a couple of times before.
During a CCTV course I attended the trainer was adamant that in CCTV operations number plate evidence is not admissible if the number plate does not fill one third of the width of the original frame and he considered it to be a get-out where speed cameras are concerned (though he was a bit cocky and fancied the trainee in the front row). There's a similar ruling regarding identification of a person by CCTV. I haven't been able to find anything to back this up via the internet but then again haven't got access to any legal material.
It does beg the question though, does this carry across to speed cameras? Should it carry across to speed cameras? Is there a defined threshold outside which the image is not admissible? The number plate on our friend's image is quite small - just how small does it need to become before the revenue seekers are allowed to squint at it saying "is that a K or an X?"
I've just been doing a bit more searching and discovered a Home Office document that states. "For detection purposes a standard saloon car should not fill less than 50% of the picture height". Which is a shame if you have a tall car.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr1205.pdf
I bet the car on many Gatso images doesn't fill more than 50% of the image height.
Anyway, I keep on mentioning this because I think it could be very relevant in many cases.
"Reg"
During a CCTV course I attended the trainer was adamant that in CCTV operations number plate evidence is not admissible if the number plate does not fill one third of the width of the original frame and he considered it to be a get-out where speed cameras are concerned (though he was a bit cocky and fancied the trainee in the front row). There's a similar ruling regarding identification of a person by CCTV. I haven't been able to find anything to back this up via the internet but then again haven't got access to any legal material.
It does beg the question though, does this carry across to speed cameras? Should it carry across to speed cameras? Is there a defined threshold outside which the image is not admissible? The number plate on our friend's image is quite small - just how small does it need to become before the revenue seekers are allowed to squint at it saying "is that a K or an X?"
I've just been doing a bit more searching and discovered a Home Office document that states. "For detection purposes a standard saloon car should not fill less than 50% of the picture height". Which is a shame if you have a tall car.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr1205.pdf
I bet the car on many Gatso images doesn't fill more than 50% of the image height.
Anyway, I keep on mentioning this because I think it could be very relevant in many cases.
"Reg"
regmolehusband said:
I'm harping on about this a little having posted it a couple of times before.
During a CCTV course I attended the trainer was adamant that in CCTV operations number plate evidence is not admissible if the number plate does not fill one third of the width of the original frame and he considered it to be a get-out where speed cameras are concerned (though he was a bit cocky and fancied the trainee in the front row). There's a similar ruling regarding identification of a person by CCTV. I haven't been able to find anything to back this up via the internet but then again haven't got access to any legal material.
It does beg the question though, does this carry across to speed cameras? Should it carry across to speed cameras? Is there a defined threshold outside which the image is not admissible? The number plate on our friend's image is quite small - just how small does it need to become before the revenue seekers are allowed to squint at it saying "is that a K or an X?"
I've just been doing a bit more searching and discovered a Home Office document that states. "For detection purposes a standard saloon car should not fill less than 50% of the picture height". Which is a shame if you have a tall car.
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr1205.pdf
I bet the car on many Gatso images doesn't fill more than 50% of the image height.
Anyway, I keep on mentioning this because I think it could be very relevant in many cases.
"Reg"
You are right, I believe it has some relevance but only in certain situations. If the defendant is there to give evidence then this somewhat ruins the arguement, as they will just be cross-examined with the direct question whether they were driving the car, and obviously their appearance can be matched to the picture.
However, if you had a good lawyer they could defend the case in your absence without you being there, thus forcing the CPS to prove their case. If the number plate is unrecognisable, it would be an interesting case for the CPS to prove what exactly the numberplate was. I have heard of at least one case in similar circumstances where the case was lost by the CPS as they could not prove who was drving the car as they did not show ID. Of course the driver did not give evidence to be IDed at court...
Right, I'm back from another week in Norfolk. I went along this road this morning and:
1. I guess the camera van was parked on the wide verge on the "wrong" side of the road. There are loads of trees and bushes, and the verge slopes down away from the road, all of which would help to obscure a van. In addition, as can be seen from the photo, traffic driving away from the van could possibly hide the van completely
2. That car couldn't have been doing 77mph at the time it was snapped. I came round the corner this morning in a similarly laden state (wife, daughter and luggage) and 60 was enough -- and I was deliberately trying to see whether I could go faster than that. It's quite a sharp corner, not one you take in a loaded Forester at 77mph.
I was expecting to have received further communication from the Partnership but I have no response to my request (sent 15/5) for a picture that shows both the speed and the registration number. All I have stil are the 2 at the head of this thread -- a distant dot claimed to be doing 77mph and a car that's obviously mine but with no speed recorded against it.
Can such a distant dot with no registration number actually be used for prosecution? I am trying to decide whether to ask again for a suitable picture and hope they don't have one, or just plead not guilty and argue my case. The trouble is, I'm not sure whether a magistrate will believe me when I say that my car couldn't have been going round that corner at 77mph -- the camera never lies, etc, etc.
1. I guess the camera van was parked on the wide verge on the "wrong" side of the road. There are loads of trees and bushes, and the verge slopes down away from the road, all of which would help to obscure a van. In addition, as can be seen from the photo, traffic driving away from the van could possibly hide the van completely
2. That car couldn't have been doing 77mph at the time it was snapped. I came round the corner this morning in a similarly laden state (wife, daughter and luggage) and 60 was enough -- and I was deliberately trying to see whether I could go faster than that. It's quite a sharp corner, not one you take in a loaded Forester at 77mph.
I was expecting to have received further communication from the Partnership but I have no response to my request (sent 15/5) for a picture that shows both the speed and the registration number. All I have stil are the 2 at the head of this thread -- a distant dot claimed to be doing 77mph and a car that's obviously mine but with no speed recorded against it.
Can such a distant dot with no registration number actually be used for prosecution? I am trying to decide whether to ask again for a suitable picture and hope they don't have one, or just plead not guilty and argue my case. The trouble is, I'm not sure whether a magistrate will believe me when I say that my car couldn't have been going round that corner at 77mph -- the camera never lies, etc, etc.
Peter, why not find an expert witness who would travel that road with you in your Forrester and confirm, under oath in court, that your car could not do 77 around that corner. A traffic cop would be good, or an IAM examiner, or some other ride and handling specialist.
In the meantime, why not write again demanding a valid photograph.
In the meantime, why not write again demanding a valid photograph.
cooperman said:Strangely enough, there is a reason, according to motoring legal beagle Nick Freeman anyway - if OP asks and they send it before 7 days prior to a hearing it's admissible as evidence, if they don't send it by the 7 days limit it's not admissible even if they take it to Court for the hearing and even if it hasn't been asked for. They must provide it, asked or not, for it to be admissible.
In the meantime, why not write again demanding a valid photograph.
Read all about it
I wouldn't go asking for the pictures again. Hope they don't have an original at court and ask for the matter to be dismissed because it wasn't served upon you (by 1st class post) 7 days prior to the hearing. Don't ask for an adjournment or you'll probably get it and a trial!
If you don't get it dismissed then try and cast doubt about the equipment and methods. It's not a lot of gopod for the CPS if they have to suggest you were speeding and subsequently slowed down. Where's their proof that this happened. I think I'd fight this if it were me.
Boosted
If you don't get it dismissed then try and cast doubt about the equipment and methods. It's not a lot of gopod for the CPS if they have to suggest you were speeding and subsequently slowed down. Where's their proof that this happened. I think I'd fight this if it were me.
Boosted
People here are missing the point....
The partnership do not have to provide any evidence at this stage as no charges have been brought - so the 7 days issue is garbage - not relevent at this stage.
Peter Ward has to identify the driver of the vehicle - if he can identify the driver then he should. Its only at a later stage in the process does the issue of the admissability and accuracy of the evidence come into play.
It doesn't matter if the car was doing 1 mph 100 mph or warp 1 - the only issue is the identity of the driver... The scamerati have made a request for the identity of the driver - PW MUST respond or he will be charged with failure to supply (which he will be guilty of if he follows most of the advice so far given or hinted at). He can admit he was driving, nominate someone else or say he doesn't know who was driving but the S172 request remains valid even if the speeding is garbage.
Goto www.pepipoo.com to learn how to respond to a s172 request in the best way possible.
Sean
The partnership do not have to provide any evidence at this stage as no charges have been brought - so the 7 days issue is garbage - not relevent at this stage.
Peter Ward has to identify the driver of the vehicle - if he can identify the driver then he should. Its only at a later stage in the process does the issue of the admissability and accuracy of the evidence come into play.
It doesn't matter if the car was doing 1 mph 100 mph or warp 1 - the only issue is the identity of the driver... The scamerati have made a request for the identity of the driver - PW MUST respond or he will be charged with failure to supply (which he will be guilty of if he follows most of the advice so far given or hinted at). He can admit he was driving, nominate someone else or say he doesn't know who was driving but the S172 request remains valid even if the speeding is garbage.
Goto www.pepipoo.com to learn how to respond to a s172 request in the best way possible.
Sean
Edited by NugentS on Saturday 3rd June 21:21
Agree with you there NugentS - but to go back to Peter's recent investigations...
If you look at the first picture, and look at the position of the vehicle, it's not on the corner. You can clearly make out the connection of the vehicle on the painted area, and it has moved a fair bit from the corner, therefore making 77mph a more likely possibility.
If you look at the first picture, and look at the position of the vehicle, it's not on the corner. You can clearly make out the connection of the vehicle on the painted area, and it has moved a fair bit from the corner, therefore making 77mph a more likely possibility.
I spent several hours last night reading Pepipoo. If I write the "PACE" response letter rather than filling in the NIP, it looks like I'll be badgered into filling it in, then the next thing that happens is that they invite me to court.
At that point I would be saying several things:
1. The distance is greater than the ACPO guidelines
2. I don't believe I was doing more than the speed limit so the reading is wrong
3. There were cars, signs and other things close to the line of sight that could affect the reading.
Realistically, reading over Pepipoo stories, none of these things is likely to be considered relevant by a magistrate. Even really clear cases where guidelines have been flouted are still found guilty by the magistrates, so it would end up being my word against the video. Of course the CPS might get their case wrong, but that's not justice that's luck.
So despite my certainty I can't see much point or hope in fighting this. I'll call the Partnership tomorrow to see if they can provide a picture with both registration number and speed on it, but I presume the answer will be "no, we don't need to, it's all on the video". At that point I'll decide what to do.
Thanks for all your pointers and comments to date, and for the PMs. I appreciate your assistance.
At that point I would be saying several things:
1. The distance is greater than the ACPO guidelines
2. I don't believe I was doing more than the speed limit so the reading is wrong
3. There were cars, signs and other things close to the line of sight that could affect the reading.
Realistically, reading over Pepipoo stories, none of these things is likely to be considered relevant by a magistrate. Even really clear cases where guidelines have been flouted are still found guilty by the magistrates, so it would end up being my word against the video. Of course the CPS might get their case wrong, but that's not justice that's luck.
So despite my certainty I can't see much point or hope in fighting this. I'll call the Partnership tomorrow to see if they can provide a picture with both registration number and speed on it, but I presume the answer will be "no, we don't need to, it's all on the video". At that point I'll decide what to do.
Thanks for all your pointers and comments to date, and for the PMs. I appreciate your assistance.
Dibble said:If he had slowed down to deal with any other hazard then that would suggest to any sane mind that he was driving responsibly and safely, whatever number the camera threw up in the first instance. A mockery of a sham.
I wasn't suggesting Peter did slow down, I was just hypothesising why the car might still be in shot in the time difference shown. For the sake of balance, I should have also mentioned that there is possibly a fault with the equipment, as well as the possibility that Peter had slowed (and he needn't have slowed because of the camera/van, he could have been dealing with any other hazard).
Peter Ward said:
I spent several hours last night reading Pepipoo. If I write the "PACE" response letter rather than filling in the NIP, it looks like I'll be badgered into filling it in, then the next thing that happens is that they invite me to court.
At that point I would be saying several things:
1. The distance is greater than the ACPO guidelines
2. I don't believe I was doing more than the speed limit so the reading is wrong
3. There were cars, signs and other things close to the line of sight that could affect the reading.
Realistically, reading over Pepipoo stories, none of these things is likely to be considered relevant by a magistrate. Even really clear cases where guidelines have been flouted are still found guilty by the magistrates, so it would end up being my word against the video. Of course the CPS might get their case wrong, but that's not justice that's luck.
So despite my certainty I can't see much point or hope in fighting this. I'll call the Partnership tomorrow to see if they can provide a picture with both registration number and speed on it, but I presume the answer will be "no, we don't need to, it's all on the video". At that point I'll decide what to do.
Thanks for all your pointers and comments to date, and for the PMs. I appreciate your assistance.
Dont ask for any more photos, ask for the video. You have a right to see the *whole* video of that recording even if they were there for hours. They are not allowed to abridge it as it is evidence. If they do not give it to you they wont be able to proceed with the case as you have legitimately asked for a piece of evidence before trial which they have refused to give.
From my experience with the ACPO Code of Practice to the point where I could pretty much recite the laser section I learnt a few things. The first is that only the CPS and the witness will say that they are 'only guidelines'. If you read the front of the Code you will find that it must be 'followed scrupulously'. From experience with cross examining with the help of the code you will find that anything which can be denied with regard to a failure in setup etc will be 'fudged'. BUT the video as some time *will* show some evidence that the device was not being used properly. If you can induce enough doubt that the operator does not know what they are doing for evidential purposes then you have a case. For example:
Do they have in their notebook the times that they tested the device before and after the tour of duty?
Did they zap any cars which were under the limit? This shows that the operator either cannot judge the speed at that distance and thus does not have the right to use the device to back up his evidential opinion. Similarly it can show if they are indescriminately zapping it nullifies their evidence as their statement with start that they have an opinion of excess speed of your vehicle.
You could test whether the operator can actually assess speed by picking an area of the tape in court. Ask them to provide video equipment before the trial for you to use. As the cars come around the corner stop the tape and ask the operator how fast they were going. If he doesnt get it approximately right, then this also discredits his evidence.
Are there *any* strange readings at any point in the video? Do they zap a car and then two seconds later it is doing 20-30mph more/less? Does the device show an obviously false reading? Remember if this happens at *any* point in the video this will be enough for you to cast doubt on the case. After all, all you need to do is ask the operator if this reading is correct. If he says no, ask what warning code or beep is shown on the video or device. There will be none. Ask if there was a warning code or beeb when he zapped your car. There will be none. The point is that when the device fails the operator does not know and is not warned.
All of these factors show that there are problems in the system itself? Surely the equipment works properly, and the operator must be able to do their job or there must be miscarriages of justice done everyday, the magistrates will be thinking (really this is true). However put forward that the you do not have doubts in the system at short distances, and you are not questioning that, but you do not believe that it works at longer distances. Proof of that is that you know you were not doing that speed. You then pull out the ACPO document where it should hopefully give the 500 metre limit... Game over. The most recent copy I have however only states that use should be avoided at the limit of the operational maximum distance, but i think this is also enough to show doubt. You have identified the problem in the CPS case, discredited their evidence and then shown the polices own documentation to prove what you have summised.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff