Power Supply Units to GATSO cameras - update

[moreflaps]

[quote=Who me ?] Radar needs a gavetron and a very high voltage supply. Slightest problem and the voltage arcs =fire /crash bang walop .
[/quote]

Gavetron?
What are you smoking?

Cheers

[V8LM]

ramtec said:

It's worth remembering too, that the evidence that they sought desperately to discount came from the National Physical Laboratory.

Oh FFS, NO IT DIDN'T.

And you have never published what exactly the 'expert' (ex = has been; spurt = drip under pressure ) wrote.

[carinaman]

Devil2575 said:

carinaman said:

I don't know that it's not the PSUs being the cause of GATSO false positives?

You also don't know that it isn't the pixies.

There are any number of reasons why an electrical device could give an erroneous result. I've never heard of a piece of calibrated analytical equipment producing erroneous results due to a problem with the PSU and I spent many years working with such equipment in a BS5750 registered laboratory.

And to think firms have been making specialised components for such applications for years. Who needs voltage regulation and current limiting if the piece of kit on the o/p can cope with any dc levels?

Zener diodes? Pah! Who needs 'em?

Nobody has ever had a car with a voltmeter on the dash? Or had a car refuse to start after a night of sub zero temeperatures have they? Supplies don't matter one jot.

When there's a frost on the ground Pixies come out and steal voltage from car batteries.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 21st March 23:26

[mjb1]

ramtec said:

Devil2575 said:

Having worked for much of my adult life with precision measuring equipment i'm actually interested to understand how a power supply can have a significant impact on the calibration of a GATSO.

However i'm not sufficiently interested to read 42 pages of people trying to sound clever by using big technical words...

Why not do what I did and go to the body that sets the standards (National Physical Laboratory), find yourself an expert and ask them?

It doesn't, the OP is totally and utterly wrong, and so is his 'expert witness' (or he's been misinformed/interpreted).

The power supply either provides power within the load devices (the radar unit and the camera) rated level (specced as 12v for the camera, 10.8-15v for the radar unit), or it doesn't. Too high and it will fry the devices (or blow fuses), too low and they will shut down. It's nonsense to suggest that the accuracy of the devices is dependent upon the voltage that they are supplied with.

Compare it to the digital clock on your car's dashboard - when the engine/alternator is running it'll be seeing over 14v, when the engine isn't it'll be 12v, and if left to stand while the battery goes flat it will drop below that. Does time go faster when the engine is running? It does vary with temperature though, but I'd expect the quartz oscillators in a Gatso to be temperature compensated, either TXCO or MXCO.

I don't know what is wrong with the OP, he seems to be desperate to prove a technicality that doesn't exist. ramtec, where have you been for the last two years, since your last post??

[Devil2575]

carinaman said:

And to think firms have been making specialised components for such applications for years. Who needs voltage regulation and current limiting if the piece of kit on the o/p can cope with any dc levels?

Zener diodes? Pah! Who needs 'em?

Nobody has ever had a car with a voltmeter on the dash? Or had a car refuse to start after a night of sub zero temeperatures have they? Supplies don't matter one jot.

When there's a frost on the ground Pixies come out and steal voltage from car batteries.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 21st March 23:26

Voltmeters in cars and failing to start after sub zero temperatures has nothing to do with the subject under discussion.

Does the clock in your car start to run slow/fast or become inaccurate as the batteries performance falls off?

Voltage regulators and current limiting are to protect components that swould fail if the supply went outside a specified range. As far as I am aware it has nothing to do with the calibration of the equipment, other than if it breaks it is probabaly going to eff up any calibration, but it's broken so who cares.

[Devil2575]

mjb1 said:

I don't know what is wrong with the OP, he seems to be desperate to prove a technicality that doesn't exist.

He is clearly ideologically opposed to speed cameras/enforcement and so has come up with a hypotheis as to why cameras could read in error. He has then set out to prove what he knows to be true at all costs. Unfortunately because there is little evidence to support his case he is having to cherry pick data, ignore the general concensus and use an awful lot of confirmation bias to keep clinging to his original position.

It's very simlar to people who know for a fact that the earth is only 6000 years old and was created in a day.

[anonymous-user]

In addition, this thread concerns a Magistrates' Court case that ended in defeat for the OP a few years ago. He goes on about lawyer this and expert witness that, but it's all pie in the sky. He claimed also that he was involved in a TV film about the subject, but, anxiously scanning the Easter viewing schedules, I see that once again we are to be disappointed. Hey, maybe we'll see it at Christmas......2029.

The OP, who contributes nothing else to PH so far as I am aware, may be a variant on the standard troll, and the sporadic revivals of this thread do appear to be no more than trollery. The OP never puts forward any arguments to support his crackpot ideas, merely repeated assertions, which he declines to debate.

[FiF]

The silly thing is that there are quite a few who would be interested to hear the ins and outs of the case.

The lack of input and the sporadic nature plus the flamboyant this will bring down the judiciary malarkey just removes credibility


Meanwhile in other news a brake light in the Landy went out the other day.

Halfords were completely out of red electrons. It's a Communist plot I tell thee

[anonymous-user]

There are no ins and outs of the case, as it has been dead and buried for ages. It was just a trivial spat in a court of first instance, which established no legal or other principle. The OP seized on a non point. The Court sensiblY disregarded the point, and potted the OP, who, for reasons known only to him, couldn't bring himself to accept that he'd made a commonplace mistake, one that most of us make from time to time, and been zapped by a speed camera. The wider debate about speed enforcement has little to do with this case. The OP tried it on with what looks like a pretty Mickey Mouse defence. He lost. Er, that's it.

[FiF]

BV due to my sloppy use of the word case you're interpreting too literally. I was referring to ramtec's theory concerning the influence of the PSU could be worthy of an airing to people who may be interested and capable of sensible and reasonably objective input for and against.

[spikeyhead]

moreflaps said:

Quite so. And the probability of the crystal oscillator in the camera timing circuit having the same % error as the radar is frankly so close to zero that the extra expense to all of us that this nonsense will incur is a travesty. Suck it up, the OP WAS speeding and stop acting like a child who refuses to say mea culpa.

My 2c

Cheers

This to me is the key issue. There are two separate ways that the camera measures the speed. If they both agree then it matters not one wit whether the weather is sunny, or the mains supply is flaky, or the pole painted purple.

[Devil2575]

spikeyhead said:

or the pole painted purple.

No, you're wrong. If the pole is painted purple it alters the cameras mystical energy field and causes it to over read speed measurments. The government know this but have been covering it up as it allows them to make more money!!

[odyssey2200]

OK. I'm kinda lost now.

What I started watching as a thread about Gatsos not actually complying with their type approval has irrupted into a torrent of hatred for the OP.

In line with the thread about the Font on motorway gantry signs, what does the Approval say about the PSU?

If the Manufacturer's approval says that it should be within certain tollerances to be compliant, then that should be the case and be able to be provem to be the case, regardless of what difference it may be to the readings.

Rules is rules, The law is the Law..etc.

So

What does the approval for a gatso require ?

[JustinP1]

odyssey2200 said:

What I started watching as a thread about Gatsos not actually complying with their type approval has irrupted into a torrent of hatred for the OP.

It might be worth a read to catch up.

What started out as a marginally interesting factor died a death when:

1) The OP won't share what the expert witness actually said.

2) The OP repeats how strong his case is, about how barristers and expert witnesses support him but does not appeal.

3) The OP takes the normal procedures of the courts and CPS as evidence of some Illuminati conspiracy against him, and finally,

4) When anyone questions the above, he accuses them of having a vested interest in the speed camera industry.


Don't get me wrong - I've taken a technical speedmeter case to court, and appeal at Crown Court so you'd think I'd be a natural ally of the OP - but in this case the OP has only proven himself to be a bit of an obsessed conspiracy theorist which has unfortunately completely overshadowed the interesting ditty of the argument he had in the first place.

[bryan35]

I think that this way of thinking does fit that of a conspiracy theorist reasonably well.

Don't really know how something works, have your own ideas about how somethings works, show that something (the PSU) being 'faulty' means that how you think it works is compromised.

Runs very similar to 'no stars in the photos', 'Van Allen Belts' and 'lack of blast craters'.

[carinaman]

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id...

So we have Golf ball finding bomb detectors at £27K a pop and GATSOs that issue tickets to vehicles passing within the speed limit.

Something aint right.

[Devil2575]

carinaman said:

http://www.defencemanagement.com/news_story.asp?id...

So we have Golf ball finding bomb detectors at £27K a pop and GATSOs that issue tickets to vehicles passing within the speed limit.

Something aint right.

What isn't right.

You keep posting links to issues not conected to that in the OP then trying to infer some sort of connection.

[Deadly Dog]

Very sadly this thread has degenerated into considerable obfuscation of the basic core issue, i.e. the Safety Camera Partnerships' fundamental obligation to comply with statute law.

JustinP1 said:

Don't get me wrong - I've taken a technical speedmeter case to court, and appeal at Crown Court so you'd think I'd be a natural ally of the OP - but in this case the OP has only proven himself to be a bit of an obsessed conspiracy theorist which has unfortunately completely overshadowed the interesting ditty of the argument he had in the first place.

"Interesting ditty" is somewhat of an understatement. The core issue which I brought to light on page 6 of this thread still remains unanswered:

ramtec said:

Deadly Dog said:

Should this individual win their case then they will not be setting any legal precedent, they will be merely clarifying an existing point of law. Paragraph 4, Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act states the following:

Paragraph 4 said:

A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—

(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

Any performance and maintenance conditions attached to Gatso PSUs would be enforced via the above Act. These conditions would have been determined during the Type Approval process and failure to observe them would constitute act of serious misconduct on the part of the scammers.

Deadly Dog - spot on. We've just started an application to a District Judge to disallow the speed camera evidence on that very basis. We're also alleging abuse of process, given both the Crown and the police's misleading statements to the Court, and failure to disclose, ref Speedmeter Handbook power specifications, to save their sorry asses from a criminal prosecution by the HSE.

So for just one moment, let's ignore any of the irrelevant issues around the OP's alleged state of mental health and ask the fundamental question once more:

In this particular case, is there evidence to demonstrate that the Safety Camera Partnerships had breached Paragraph 4, Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act?

[Devil2575]

Deadly Dog said:

Very sadly this thread has degenerated into considerable obfuscation of the basic core issue, i.e. the Safety Camera Partnerships' fundamental obligation to comply with statute law.

JustinP1 said:

Don't get me wrong - I've taken a technical speedmeter case to court, and appeal at Crown Court so you'd think I'd be a natural ally of the OP - but in this case the OP has only proven himself to be a bit of an obsessed conspiracy theorist which has unfortunately completely overshadowed the interesting ditty of the argument he had in the first place.

"Interesting ditty" is somewhat of an understatement. The core issue which I brought to light on page 6 of this thread still remains unanswered:

ramtec said:

Deadly Dog said:

Should this individual win their case then they will not be setting any legal precedent, they will be merely clarifying an existing point of law. Paragraph 4, Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act states the following:

Paragraph 4 said:

A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—

(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

Any performance and maintenance conditions attached to Gatso PSUs would be enforced via the above Act. These conditions would have been determined during the Type Approval process and failure to observe them would constitute act of serious misconduct on the part of the scammers.

Deadly Dog - spot on. We've just started an application to a District Judge to disallow the speed camera evidence on that very basis. We're also alleging abuse of process, given both the Crown and the police's misleading statements to the Court, and failure to disclose, ref Speedmeter Handbook power specifications, to save their sorry asses from a criminal prosecution by the HSE.

So for just one moment, let's ignore any of the irrelevant issues around the OP's alleged state of mental health and ask the fundamental question once more:

In this particular case, is there evidence to demonstrate that the Safety Camera Partnerships had breached Paragraph 4, Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act?

And what are the performance and maintenance conditions attached to the gasto PSU subject to which approval was given?

[JustinP1]

Deadly Dog said:

Very sadly this thread has degenerated into considerable obfuscation of the basic core issue, i.e. the Safety Camera Partnerships' fundamental obligation to comply with statute law.

JustinP1 said:

Don't get me wrong - I've taken a technical speedmeter case to court, and appeal at Crown Court so you'd think I'd be a natural ally of the OP - but in this case the OP has only proven himself to be a bit of an obsessed conspiracy theorist which has unfortunately completely overshadowed the interesting ditty of the argument he had in the first place.

"Interesting ditty" is somewhat of an understatement. The core issue which I brought to light on page 6 of this thread still remains unanswered:

ramtec said:

Deadly Dog said:

Should this individual win their case then they will not be setting any legal precedent, they will be merely clarifying an existing point of law. Paragraph 4, Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act states the following:

Paragraph 4 said:

A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—

(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and

(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.

Any performance and maintenance conditions attached to Gatso PSUs would be enforced via the above Act. These conditions would have been determined during the Type Approval process and failure to observe them would constitute act of serious misconduct on the part of the scammers.

Deadly Dog - spot on. We've just started an application to a District Judge to disallow the speed camera evidence on that very basis. We're also alleging abuse of process, given both the Crown and the police's misleading statements to the Court, and failure to disclose, ref Speedmeter Handbook power specifications, to save their sorry asses from a criminal prosecution by the HSE.

So for just one moment, let's ignore any of the irrelevant issues around the OP's alleged state of mental health and ask the fundamental question once more:

In this particular case, is there evidence to demonstrate that the Safety Camera Partnerships had breached Paragraph 4, Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act?

When you consider that this thread has gone on for five and a half years, and the OP has not yet provided it, I think the answer to that is obvious.