calibrated speedometers
Discussion
Richard C said:
vonhosen said:
saaby93 said:
vonhosen said:
saaby93 said:
In many cases they are treated as being advisory
eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit
The limit means what it means, not what you would like it to mean.eg buffer zones outside towns village where they extend the limit an extra 1/4 mile to allow people to slow down. The people that requested them dont expect them to be enforced to the limit
but if anyone asks it seems the police often respond with waste of police time, otherwise theyd be issuing tickets to the people who requested the extension in the first place.
I have to express a little disappointment over the lack of response in general to this topic. I e-mailed quite a few of the regulars on here and most of you responded very positively, and thanks for that.
However, in general terms, I feel that this is one of those situations that only becomes a serious problem for those who find themselves deep in the midst of it; only then do you become desperately interested in what is really happening; when your licence is threatened.
The principles discussed here are extremely important from the evidential aspect, and we should all be fighting to ensure that this practice is not acceptable, and is in fact, prohibited. As I previously stated, the equipment in these unmarked cars empowers the operators with a tremendous opportunity to really make a difference in terms of improvements in road safety: every case similar to this just spoils and wastes such opportunities. There can surely now be no doubt that the single collective cause of accidents is bad driving, not speeding, and the camera car is the perfect tool to demonstrate and reinforce this.
One or two officers have stated that this event was not the fault of the individual officers but that of current policy. Surely we have not gone so far down the road of political correctness that each officer cannot express opinion, and therefore influence change without the risk of reprisals from his seniors?
If we have, I would put it to you that the police service is in dire straits, and we, those that rely, and indeed depend on them are compromised.
However, in general terms, I feel that this is one of those situations that only becomes a serious problem for those who find themselves deep in the midst of it; only then do you become desperately interested in what is really happening; when your licence is threatened.
The principles discussed here are extremely important from the evidential aspect, and we should all be fighting to ensure that this practice is not acceptable, and is in fact, prohibited. As I previously stated, the equipment in these unmarked cars empowers the operators with a tremendous opportunity to really make a difference in terms of improvements in road safety: every case similar to this just spoils and wastes such opportunities. There can surely now be no doubt that the single collective cause of accidents is bad driving, not speeding, and the camera car is the perfect tool to demonstrate and reinforce this.
One or two officers have stated that this event was not the fault of the individual officers but that of current policy. Surely we have not gone so far down the road of political correctness that each officer cannot express opinion, and therefore influence change without the risk of reprisals from his seniors?
If we have, I would put it to you that the police service is in dire straits, and we, those that rely, and indeed depend on them are compromised.
I have experience of similar cases where officer's have chosen to rely on calibrated speedo's rather than use the more accurate speed detection devices fitted to their vehicles.
Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
Ms Demeanor said:
I have experience of similar cases where officer's have chosen to rely on calibrated speedo's rather than use the more accurate speed detection devices fitted to their vehicles.
Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
Only a very small percentage of Police vehicles have anything more than a speedo for measuring speed.Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
vonhosen said:
Ms Demeanor said:
I have experience of similar cases where officer's have chosen to rely on calibrated speedo's rather than use the more accurate speed detection devices fitted to their vehicles.
Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
Only a very small percentage of Police vehicles have anything more than a speedo for measuring speed.Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
vonhosen said:
Ms Demeanor said:
I have experience of similar cases where officer's have chosen to rely on calibrated speedo's rather than use the more accurate speed detection devices fitted to their vehicles.
Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
Only a very small percentage of Police vehicles have anything more than a speedo for measuring speed.Where an officer choses to switch off more reliable and transparent methods of detection the first question in cross examination should be, "Why didn't you use the more sophisticated and transparent device fitted to your vehicle, why was it switched off?"
I don't know if this is relevant but it reminds me of the many instances where officer's have asked to see clients at there home addresses in order to take a statement in relation to criminal allegations. They claim to have an open mind, but from the moment they arrive it is apparent that they have made up their mind already and the client is in fact a suspect. By doing the interview at the accused's home address the officer avoids the obligation to provide free independant legal advice and many of the Police codes of practice. I suppose the relevance of this is the issue of transparency. Old style policing (avoiding using more sophisticated methods of detection) can sometimes lead to old style miscarriages of justice.
Surely in a modern society we should be using the safest and most reliable methods of investigation. Police officer's evidence should stand up to scrutiny. It's there job! If I give unreliable advice or a service lacking in transparency the SRA come down on me like a tonne of bricks.
We need to get away from presumption that there is no smoke without fire and accept that wherever possible the police should be obliged to use the most modern and reliable methods of investigation.
Incidentally, in Scotland I have never found a traffic car, be it marked or unmarked, that is not fully equipped; and of course, in terms of corroborative evidence, they are always double crewed. Every case I refer to was with fully equipped cars.
And to Slider: why on earth would you want to remove the Vascar and go back to speedos?
What force is this and who authorised that?
jith said:
Dibble, if you are out there I just wondered if you got my e mail regarding pics of twin speedos on the cars you drove?
Can you help?
I don't have any photos of UK traffic cars with additional speedometers , but just for interest , here is a German Police Ponton equipped with the big speedometer on the n/s/f wing ; the cars also had twin 35mm cameras mounted up beside the interior mirror which took a photo of the offending car and the speedometer .Can you help?
Although I have a similar car it , sadly , lacks those optional extras
jith said:
Well, this is the rather interesting conclusion to this case..........
.........Almost 3 miles on he noticed the police vehicle coming up behind him very fast with blues and twos on and flashed for him to stop; he did so immediately. He was invited to sit in the rear of the vehicle and was told he was being charged with speeding at 100 MPH.
I don't suppose they came out with the old chestnut " We had to do 100 mph to catch you " , then accused him of doing that speed ?.........Almost 3 miles on he noticed the police vehicle coming up behind him very fast with blues and twos on and flashed for him to stop; he did so immediately. He was invited to sit in the rear of the vehicle and was told he was being charged with speeding at 100 MPH.
Unless they had followed him at a set speed for 0.2 miles or further , they could not have used the speedometer to determine his speed - if he saw them coming with blues & twos on and he stopped immediately then that would not have been possible .
I agree re the BMW installation although , in fairness , I have been in other traffic cars at RPU and elsewhere which have never been as bad as that one .
I also remember some of the older cars with twin speedometers , like the Granada above , Rover SD1's etc . The VLS unit is not unlike the 'button box' that some of our fire service vehicles have . A friend of mine used to come into the Police workshops in Helen St , across the road from the present RPU , to service the video kit in some of the cars and I remember kit sometimes being smashed up as a result of RTC's or just carelessness with stuff being put into the boot .
Pontoneer said:
jith said:
Dibble, if you are out there I just wondered if you got my e mail regarding pics of twin speedos on the cars you drove?
Can you help?
I don't have any photos of UK traffic cars with additional speedometers , but just for interest , here is a German Police Ponton equipped with the big speedometer on the n/s/f wing ; the cars also had twin 35mm cameras mounted up beside the interior mirror which took a photo of the offending car and the speedometer .Can you help?
Although I have a similar car it , sadly , lacks those optional extras
Trust the Germans to be so efficient, eh?
By the way, the pics of the BMW traffic car were taken in the new depot in Helen Street.
J
jith said:
Absolutely fantastic pictures pontoneer. I've never seen anything like that, and with cameras too! That must have been late 50s/early 60s I take it?
Thanks .Yes , mid to late '50s .
The car is most likely a 220S ( produced from 56 to 59 ) , but could just be a 220SE ( 57 to 59 ) since the external appearance is the same . The earlier 220a looked very similar but had different wheeltrims , so it wasn't one of these .
Even then , there were special police versions with firmer suspension and uprated engines to help them catch the bad guys
BTW - is that your rather lovely Nautic Blue SEC I've seen up around EK a couple of times ?
Pontoneer said:
jith said:
Absolutely fantastic pictures pontoneer. I've never seen anything like that, and with cameras too! That must have been late 50s/early 60s I take it?
Thanks .Yes , mid to late '50s .
The car is most likely a 220S ( produced from 56 to 59 ) , but could just be a 220SE ( 57 to 59 ) since the external appearance is the same . The earlier 220a looked very similar but had different wheeltrims , so it wasn't one of these .
Even then , there were special police versions with firmer suspension and uprated engines to help them catch the bad guys
BTW - is that your rather lovely Nautic Blue SEC I've seen up around EK a couple of times ?
I'll need to do some work to it though to get it up to scratch. Problem is it's so damned reliable you tend to neglect servicing.
I'll get it into the workshop one of these days.
J
jith said:
One of the important issues here DVD is the evidential difference between Scotland and England. In Scotland corroboration MUST be between two officers or an officer and a civilian. A single officer is not permitted to use equipment as corroboration. Even when Provida is used, there must be the testimonies also of the two officers. I could not swear to it, but I think we can assume that the dual speedo system was probably only used in Scotland due to the evidential requirement.
IANAL, but I don't think this is correct. As I understand it, s36 RTA 1988 has specific exemptions meaning corroboration is not always required in Scotland. Perhaps one of our resident BiB can confirm?Skyrat said:
jith said:
One of the important issues here DVD is the evidential difference between Scotland and England. In Scotland corroboration MUST be between two officers or an officer and a civilian. A single officer is not permitted to use equipment as corroboration. Even when Provida is used, there must be the testimonies also of the two officers. I could not swear to it, but I think we can assume that the dual speedo system was probably only used in Scotland due to the evidential requirement.
IANAL, but I don't think this is correct. As I understand it, s36 RTA 1988 has specific exemptions meaning corroboration is not always required in Scotland. Perhaps one of our resident BiB can confirm?J
The only exception I can think of is the well known 'scamera van' , which I understand is normally single crewed , even here in Scotland - or is this wrong ?
You would be relying on the opinion of a lone operator that a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit before he/she decided to check it , not sure if that satisfies Scots Law ?
The resulting video evidence is probably pretty conclusive , but I wonder about the process ?
You would be relying on the opinion of a lone operator that a vehicle was exceeding the speed limit before he/she decided to check it , not sure if that satisfies Scots Law ?
The resulting video evidence is probably pretty conclusive , but I wonder about the process ?
Skyrat said:
jith said:
The corroboration does not have to come from a police officer; it can be a witness from any other source, clearly as long as it is considered reliable.
J
No, I mean that there does not have to be corroboration. At all (in those specific circumstances).J
There is no mention of corroboration in this part of the act. Furthermore it relates to offences of non compliance with traffic signs, not speeding.
I have never come across a case in Scotland where there was prosecution of a traffic offence without corroboration. I don't think the Fiscal would go to court with that.
Pontoneer, you are right about the cameras of course. I think they have probably caused more strife and debate than anything else in motoring history. In the case of a Gatso the principle is that the camera takes 2 pictures at a set time difference apart and this gives the speed by calculation from the time and distance travelled. If questioned the lines on the road can corroborate the camera's calculation by simple mathematics.
The mobile cameras however corroborate nothing and I have no idea why they are allowed in Scotland.
J
jith said:
Skyrat said:
jith said:
The corroboration does not have to come from a police officer; it can be a witness from any other source, clearly as long as it is considered reliable.
J
No, I mean that there does not have to be corroboration. At all (in those specific circumstances).J
There is no mention of corroboration in this part of the act. Furthermore it relates to offences of non compliance with traffic signs, not speeding.
I have never come across a case in Scotland where there was prosecution of a traffic offence without corroboration. I don't think the Fiscal would go to court with that.
Pontoneer, you are right about the cameras of course. I think they have probably caused more strife and debate than anything else in motoring history. In the case of a Gatso the principle is that the camera takes 2 pictures at a set time difference apart and this gives the speed by calculation from the time and distance travelled. If questioned the lines on the road can corroborate the camera's calculation by simple mathematics.
The mobile cameras however corroborate nothing and I have no idea why they are allowed in Scotland.
J
20 Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence.
(1)Evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence) of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be given by the production of—
(a)a record produced by a prescribed device, and
(b)(in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed;
That's why your comment about mobile cameras in Scotland is not correct. The record from a Home Office Type Approved device may stand alone when it is certified by a section 20 compliant certificate.
It seems your knowledge of these matters is somewhat flawed.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff