calibrated speedometers

[randlemarcus]

I'm curious as to how this thread develops, as I'm not reading this as an attack either on the integrity of traffic officers in the OPs neck of the woods, nor on the ability of an officer to arrest/charge solely on the evidence of their own eyes.

I'd much prefer it if the speedometer plus one officer thing didnt exist, but I'll balance that against the scenarios VH et al outline, and grant its better that its there, and used in speeding, than not there, and not able to be used for affray and breach of the peace type behaviours.

I think what would stick mightily in my craw would be the fact that if the equipment was installed (and presumably running) in the unmarked car, why would it not be used? I was under the impression that where recording systems are fitted, they are on all the time. Is this not the case?

If it is the case, then choosing not to present that evidence would raise a question or two in my mind. Lord Hewart said "...justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done".

[Colonial]

G51CAV said:

Through all of that I can't help but get the feeling that your tactic is simply to try and discredit the police, stopping just short of directly calling them liars and to put down the mags as in your opinion they don't know what they are talking about.

I note that through your post you steer clear of saying that your client claims to be innocent or that you believe them to be. 30mph is not a small margin.

You ask for police officers to view it through the eyes of a member of the public, I would ask the type of people you represent to view it through my eyes and take responsibility for their own actions, because I have wasted enough time that could have been better spent, filling out reports on how their broken bodies ended up lying on the carriageway after the high speed ride has went wrong.

I'm sorry but I used to take that approach until one of the bad eggs decided to try and impound my car and issue me an 1.8k in total fine (speeding, dangerous driving, street racing, doing a burnout) with absolutely no evidence and no basis in fact.

After that experience I would not want for any offence simply to be on the officers word and I'm sorry to all the very good police officers out there, but I'm going to have issues taking your word for it. Simple. A line was crossed. You accused someone with no criminal record of some very serious crimes with no evidence and threatened to impound his car for no good reason. Simply because you were having a bad night.

[ExChrispy Porker]

Colonial said:

G51CAV said:

Through all of that I can't help but get the feeling that your tactic is simply to try and discredit the police, stopping just short of directly calling them liars and to put down the mags as in your opinion they don't know what they are talking about.

I note that through your post you steer clear of saying that your client claims to be innocent or that you believe them to be. 30mph is not a small margin.

You ask for police officers to view it through the eyes of a member of the public, I would ask the type of people you represent to view it through my eyes and take responsibility for their own actions, because I have wasted enough time that could have been better spent, filling out reports on how their broken bodies ended up lying on the carriageway after the high speed ride has went wrong.

I'm sorry but I used to take that approach until one of the bad eggs decided to try and impound my car and issue me an 1.8k in total fine (speeding, dangerous driving, street racing, doing a burnout) with absolutely no evidence and no basis in fact.

After that experience I would not want for any offence simply to be on the officers word and I'm sorry to all the very good police officers out there, but I'm going to have issues taking your word for it. Simple. A line was crossed. You accused someone with no criminal record of some very serious crimes with no evidence and threatened to impound his car for no good reason. Simply because you were having a bad night.

Was this in Australia?

[Colonial]

Yeah

But that said I still have respect for the general duties and the one time I've been pulled for a legitimate offence the highway patrol person was reasonable.

That one run in just left me with a sour taste in my mouth and a tendancy towards not taking things on face value. If there is a radar reading then sure, not a problem, and I know I was speeding then I am going to cop it on the chin. But, if they are making things up because they are having a bad night then I am not going to stand for it.

Official complaint was made to the station for what it's worth.

[Collectingbrass]

Obviously it may well be that there are maintenance or calibration issues making the equipment unavailable but I can not conceive of a set of circumstances where the Officers involved in the OP’s cases would want to revert to traditional methods if they have available to them all the modern technology we are led to believe from the OP that they do. When they carry out the stop they don’t know that the offender will roll over and play dead against their testimony in the witness box, surely they would want to build the best case they can in case the offender decides to fight it?

There's no quibble here among MoP's that regardless of the means to demonstrate the offence people are speeding or they are not. The issue for MoP’s is that once an arbitrary figure above the limit is exceeded there is a significant step change in penalty handed down. I know that there are similar step changes in penalty for what appear to be similar offences (eg ABH / GBH) but the tipping point between the two isn’t so close as it is in speeding cases is it? Even if it is, I can probably expect to loose my job if convicted of ABH or GBH, whereas in speeding if convicted of 90 no one (except my insurer) need know, but at 101 that’s my job gone.

I really thought that in the days of PACE and the CPS, the job of the Police when investigating crime (and speeding is a crime) is to gather the evidence to the best of their ability using the tools of their trade that society has provided and present it fairly and reasonably without fear or favour.

I really would like to believe that the Officers in the OP’s case have no reason not to gather the evidence as best they can. However you do have to ask why they have reported for a figure that brings the drastically harsher penalty without using all the means at their disposal.

[jith]

vonhosen said:

Believe me there are plenty of people who have been convicted of vehicle interference solely on the testimony of a couple of officers (no damage, no DNA etc etc).

Police officer sees male throw brick throw window in early hours of the morning (no CCTV, no forensics, no independent witnesses) & you think he wouldn't get charged ?
Again the only thing linking the accused to the damage is the Police officer's testimony.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 28th April 00:18

You are still not grasping my point, particularly how finite this is.

The police officer witnessing the brick throwing has the damage to the window and the brick that caused it. This IS material evidence, absolutely no question.

If you catch someone interfering with a vehicle it will usually be because they are attempting to steal the vehicle or break into it to steal the contents. You have the vehicle, the broken lock, window, etc, fingerprints of the villain. This is material evidence.

You go to court to convict a driver on the evidence of a calibrated speedometer, you have NOTHING.

[jith]

randlemarcus said:

I'm curious as to how this thread develops, as I'm not reading this as an attack either on the integrity of traffic officers in the OPs neck of the woods, nor on the ability of an officer to arrest/charge solely on the evidence of their own eyes.

I'd much prefer it if the speedometer plus one officer thing didnt exist, but I'll balance that against the scenarios VH et al outline, and grant its better that its there, and used in speeding, than not there, and not able to be used for affray and breach of the peace type behaviours.

I think what would stick mightily in my craw would be the fact that if the equipment was installed (and presumably running) in the unmarked car, why would it not be used? I was under the impression that where recording systems are fitted, they are on all the time. Is this not the case?

If it is the case, then choosing not to present that evidence would raise a question or two in my mind. Lord Hewart said "...justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done".

This post is right on the button.

I have delayed further response because I was hoping, possibly naively, that some response would have been forthcoming from a police officer who agreed with my original assertions. I know of several locally who are deeply concerned about the way traffic enforcement is going. The issue of the whole concept of unmarked cars is being lost and/or abused by politically correct, ill founded policies.

I experienced my first unmarked vehicle in the '70s in the shape of a 3 litre Capri operated by Strathclyde. Other than a radio, the only other piece of equipment was a calibrated speedometer. Within the space of the first six months in operation it was used almost exclusively to book speeders; I'm talking about previously undreamed of conviction figures. It occurred to me then that this practice was devoid of the principle of road safety education or deterrence. Those convicted simply did not see it coming, they were unaware of it's existence until it was too late thereby utterly negating any deterrent effect it may have had.

This was happening in many parts of the country until the complaints reached the ears of Prince Phillip, who made such a public demonstration of his intense dislike of this practice that the modus operandi of these cars was rapidly changed and cleaned up to be respectable.

In Strathclyde they developed the concept of the three Es: Education, encouragement and enforcement. You will notice that enforcement was listed last, implying that it would be the last resort. Today's practice of course totally reverses this concept.

In the modern unmarked vehicle, the opportunity to practice and capitalise on the three Es is superb. If I were the senior officer in one of these vehicles the last offence I would be regularly reporting would be speeding. The recording device would NEVER, and I mean never be switched off. I would clock every miscreant who indicates left then turns right in front of you, every misguided fool who cannot navigate a roundabout without causing a near miss, every lunatic who pulls out into the path of an oncoming vehicle from a side road deliberately or otherwise. I would put every one of these misbegotten souls into the rear of the police vehicle and treat them to a movie of their incompetence, then explain to them in joined up writing what they have done wrong, and the consequences of them doing it again!

THAT would make a difference; guaranteed!

The last two trials I have been involved in over calibrated speedometers in unmarked vehicles with the equipment switched off yielded my real cause for concern.

A simple question was asked i.e roughly what percentage of time on duty is this vehicle used for speed detection? The answer at the first trial was 87%; the second 91%. We, the taxpayer, pay a great deal of money towards the training of these officers and the equipment installed in these vehicles. This practice dictates that we most definitely are not getting value for money, and those at the sharp end of the "equipment switched off" scenario are not getting justice in the courts.

[vonhosen]

jith said:

vonhosen said:

Believe me there are plenty of people who have been convicted of vehicle interference solely on the testimony of a couple of officers (no damage, no DNA etc etc).

Police officer sees male throw brick throw window in early hours of the morning (no CCTV, no forensics, no independent witnesses) & you think he wouldn't get charged ?
Again the only thing linking the accused to the damage is the Police officer's testimony.

Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 28th April 00:18

You are still not grasping my point, particularly how finite this is.

The police officer witnessing the brick throwing has the damage to the window and the brick that caused it. This IS material evidence, absolutely no question.

If you catch someone interfering with a vehicle it will usually be because they are attempting to steal the vehicle or break into it to steal the contents. You have the vehicle, the broken lock, window, etc, fingerprints of the villain. This is material evidence.

You go to court to convict a driver on the evidence of a calibrated speedometer, you have NOTHING.

You have someone walking down the street trying every cars door handle, you don't have any damage either.

Just because there is damage to a shop window it doesn't mean that the person before the court did it. The only thing that might link them to it is the officer's testimony. Thus they are being convicted because of what the officer says (in both cases).
Same with drunk & disorderly, breach of the peace, the list is endless.
The witnesses testimony is either compelling for the court, or it isn't.

[Colonial]

vonhosen said:

You have someone walking down the street trying every cars door handle, you don't have any damage either.

Just because there is damage to a shop window it doesn't mean that the person before the court did it. The only thing that might link them to it is the officer's testimony. Thus they are being convicted because of what the officer says (in both cases).
Same with drunk & disorderly, breach of the peace, the list is endless.
The witnesses testimony is either compelling for the court, or it isn't.

My issue with that is that there is clearly a broken window so someone was responsible.

Just saying that someone was speeding without any conclusive form of proof is far to open to abuse by the very small percentage of those who have had a bad day/bear a grudge/whatever.

Oh, and for all those that don't like unmarked cars don't come to Australia. Roughly a 60/40 split in favour of marked highway patrol cars over unmarked (the only ones with an approved radar device) so they are everywhere.

[tvrgit]

jith said:

In Strathclyde they developed the concept of the three Es: Education, encouragement and enforcement. You will notice that enforcement was listed last, implying that it would be the last resort. Today's practice of course totally reverses this concept.

A minor point, which doesm't take away from the rest of your argument, but just to correct the record, the three Es were originally Education, Engineering and Enforcement. The Engineering referred to both the engineering of vehicles to impove their safety (which has of course led ultimately to the NCAP system now prevalent) and the engineering of road safety schemes, which has become the mainstay of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges.

[Colonial]

So we have safer cars and safer roads and fewer deaths.

How is the next sensible move lower speed limits?

Eejits.

[vonhosen]

Colonial said:

vonhosen said:

You have someone walking down the street trying every cars door handle, you don't have any damage either.

Just because there is damage to a shop window it doesn't mean that the person before the court did it. The only thing that might link them to it is the officer's testimony. Thus they are being convicted because of what the officer says (in both cases).
Same with drunk & disorderly, breach of the peace, the list is endless.
The witnesses testimony is either compelling for the court, or it isn't.

My issue with that is that there is clearly a broken window so someone was responsible.

The person accused by the officer's testimony will no doubt have no qualms about that (or care little). What they are worried about though is the officer's testimony that they did it.

Colonial said:

Just saying that someone was speeding without any conclusive form of proof is far to open to abuse by the very small percentage of those who have had a bad day/bear a grudge/whatever.

If somebody wants to be dishonest then it applies to all offences. They can fit people up for anything. That's why the penalties for perverting the course of justice are so severe, to deter exactly that.

[Dibble]

My 2p's worth...

I'm not old enough to remember Jags or the like as traffic cars (although there are some in use in Merseyside currently - new ones, obvioulsy!).

I do remember the 827 Rovers, including the "Fastbacks", being used for traffic cars, with a second calibrated speedo on the top of the dash, in front of the front passenger seat.

I can say that in the Force I work in, most traffic cars don't have video fitted. I don't know why. My own view is that every Police vehicle, not just traffic, should be video equipped. Once the capital cost had been sorted, it would save a lot of time, effort and money by reducing "not guilty" pleas at Court if there was clear video evidence of offences (and I don't just mean traffic offences).

I do know that some forces were forced to remove cameras from their vehicles because they were in the "swept area" of the windscreen. I think that's now been rectified by smaller digital cameras, which go onthe back of the interior mirror (ie the plastic back bit, between the back of the mirror and the inside of the windscreen).

However, because these kind of cameras weren't initially "type approved", there was a period when there were cars without video.

And of course as has already been pointed out, if the driver/operator isn't trained and qualified to use Police Pilot/ProVida, then it can't be used. It's the Mk I Eyeball and the IRS Speedo.

[new in today]

mk1 eyeball and blue rinse nimbies... www.speedcheck.webs.com

[jith]

Dibble said:

My 2p's worth...

I'm not old enough to remember Jags or the like as traffic cars (although there are some in use in Merseyside currently - new ones, obvioulsy!).

I do remember the 827 Rovers, including the "Fastbacks", being used for traffic cars, with a second calibrated speedo on the top of the dash, in front of the front passenger seat.

I can say that in the Force I work in, most traffic cars don't have video fitted. I don't know why. My own view is that every Police vehicle, not just traffic, should be video equipped. Once the capital cost had been sorted, it would save a lot of time, effort and money by reducing "not guilty" pleas at Court if there was clear video evidence of offences (and I don't just mean traffic offences).

I do know that some forces were forced to remove cameras from their vehicles because they were in the "swept area" of the windscreen. I think that's now been rectified by smaller digital cameras, which go onthe back of the interior mirror (ie the plastic back bit, between the back of the mirror and the inside of the windscreen).

However, because these kind of cameras weren't initially "type approved", there was a period when there were cars without video.

And of course as has already been pointed out, if the driver/operator isn't trained and qualified to use Police Pilot/ProVida, then it can't be used. It's the Mk I Eyeball and the IRS Speedo.

Thanks for your input Dibble, refreshingly frank and to the point as usual; although I don't know about you not being old enough!!

Rover 827s.... the bloody awful memories that brings back. Front tyres lasting 2000 miles, brake discs every FORTNIGHT! We eventually fitted Brembos and they were great. Camshafts, fifteen hundred quid a pair!! A two day job to change the timing belt on the 24 valves. But you are right about the calibrated speedo on top of the dash, but most of ours had VASCAR as well.

Your remarks re the video evidence always being available is the whole point of my post, it removes every bit of doubt, and any argument over legalities or liability can be properly and fairly dealt with by the court because it has the evidence to view.

[F i F]

Have been giving the question raised by jith some thought and the resultant induced procrastination has resulted in most of the things I wanted to say already having been said.

I would like, however, to put things in a slightly different way, as is my wont.

Let's move away from the emotive speeding issue for a moment.

Let us suppose that you are having a new kitchen fitted. Bear with me on this.

The builder, despite having a shiny 4ft bubble level in his kit, plus a fancy Carlos Fandango laser level and aligment kit proceeds to fit the kitchen by alignment using mark one eyeball.

I think you'd be entirely justified asking him why he was doing this and not using the accurate and modern tools available to him. This, to me is all that jith is asking to do, why not use them if you have them.

Now turning back to the builder. When questioned suppose his response is, well the level is bent because I used it as a wheelbrace on the van, and the laser has a bat flattery plus I've never really sussed out how to use it so I don't much bother. I think you'd be well annoyed and with good reason.

But suppose his response was, well these old places don't have a straight and level line in them, (not unusual in old buildings) and if I line it up with the natural lines it will look right, but if I put in textbook fashion it will look just wrong. Well that might be a valid and professional answer, and of course it might be bull effluent, but would definitely be accepted if the end result was right.

But you'd be right to question, and right to expect an honest answer.

Not sure if that helps any, but I too agree that if the kit is working and people trained to use it, then it should be used, and there needs to be a good explanation why not in my view.

Edited by F i F on Wednesday 29th April 21:32

[Colonial]

vonhosen said:

Colonial said:

vonhosen said:

You have someone walking down the street trying every cars door handle, you don't have any damage either.

Just because there is damage to a shop window it doesn't mean that the person before the court did it. The only thing that might link them to it is the officer's testimony. Thus they are being convicted because of what the officer says (in both cases).
Same with drunk & disorderly, breach of the peace, the list is endless.
The witnesses testimony is either compelling for the court, or it isn't.

My issue with that is that there is clearly a broken window so someone was responsible.

The person accused by the officer's testimony will no doubt have no qualms about that (or care little). What they are worried about though is the officer's testimony that they did it.

Colonial said:

Just saying that someone was speeding without any conclusive form of proof is far to open to abuse by the very small percentage of those who have had a bad day/bear a grudge/whatever.

If somebody wants to be dishonest then it applies to all offences. They can fit people up for anything. That's why the penalties for perverting the course of justice are so severe, to deter exactly that.

As I said, I would have agreed with you up until a few short months ago.

It's amazing what a bad experience does. I'm only young, but spend money on the important bits of my car, take care of my licence and how I drive because I need it for work, have never been in an accident, have a professional job and have a great deal of respect for the police.

Now I second guess a lot of things. If there is an accurate radar reading then good, not a problem. But after that unfortunate early morning incident I simply cannot take an officers word on something with no proof of on offence being committed. Simple as that.

[vonhosen]

Colonial said:

vonhosen said:

Colonial said:

vonhosen said:

You have someone walking down the street trying every cars door handle, you don't have any damage either.

Just because there is damage to a shop window it doesn't mean that the person before the court did it. The only thing that might link them to it is the officer's testimony. Thus they are being convicted because of what the officer says (in both cases).
Same with drunk & disorderly, breach of the peace, the list is endless.
The witnesses testimony is either compelling for the court, or it isn't.

My issue with that is that there is clearly a broken window so someone was responsible.

The person accused by the officer's testimony will no doubt have no qualms about that (or care little). What they are worried about though is the officer's testimony that they did it.

Colonial said:

Just saying that someone was speeding without any conclusive form of proof is far to open to abuse by the very small percentage of those who have had a bad day/bear a grudge/whatever.

If somebody wants to be dishonest then it applies to all offences. They can fit people up for anything. That's why the penalties for perverting the course of justice are so severe, to deter exactly that.

As I said, I would have agreed with you up until a few short months ago.

It's amazing what a bad experience does. I'm only young, but spend money on the important bits of my car, take care of my licence and how I drive because I need it for work, have never been in an accident, have a professional job and have a great deal of respect for the police.

Now I second guess a lot of things. If there is an accurate radar reading then good, not a problem. But after that unfortunate early morning incident I simply cannot take an officers word on something with no proof of on offence being committed. Simple as that.

And if the officer witnessed someone pouring brake fluid over your car at night & then said 'I'm sorry I let him go, because I couldn't do anything about it as it was only me that saw it', you'd no doubt view it differently.

[Colonial]

And if a giant asteroid was heading to earth I might view it a little differently.

Your analogy is about the same. Small scale speeding, with a monetary fine (not to mention that fact he wanted a cash payment as an "early payment discount) is a crime, yes, but it does not involve property damage. Without the speed reading on a radar there is no evidence of any crime ever being committed, unlike your ludicrus slippery slope brake fluid analogy.

[jith]

I spent a very interesting morning yesterday at the Road Policing unit examining the vehicle used in this case. Both the officer in charge who organised the inspection and the constable assisting me were superb; most helpful and very switched on.

I can tell you though that I now cannot find one single officer in this area at least, who advocates the current policies on speeding. All of them to a man talk of dangerous driving being the problem, but they have to respond to political pressures.

It makes me sick to my stomach to hear this: what are we going to do to change this?