calibrated speedometers
Discussion
I would ask the mods on this forum to read this post carefully and consider making it a sticky to allow time for appropriate feedback on it; even if it is just on a temporary basis.
I have been asked yet again to defend someone who is accused of speeding on the basis of the reading on a calibrated speedometer. This is a practice I have always been concerned over, but is now occurring with increasing frequency, but in circumstances that are totally unacceptable. To let you understand I will give you a bit of background on how this is done, and why it was replaced by much more accurate and evidentially acceptable methods.
In the days before VASCAR when the speedo was the only in-car device for the police to use it took the form of a large mechanical device situated, in the case of a Jaguar for example, in the glove box lid directly in front of the passenger. It was manufactured by Smiths or British Jaeger and very precisely calibrated on the bench before being fitted to the vehicle and was checked before and after every shift by the officers in charge of the vehicle using an extremely accurate stop watch on a measured mile. The driver's speedometer was also calibrated, but situated in the normal place in the binnacle.
The technique of using this device was to pursue a vehicle that was thought to be speeding and maintain a precise distance between the police vehicle and the pursued vehicle for a legal minimum of two tenths of a mile. The reading on both speedos would then be corroborated by the officers and the passenger would push a trip button on the calibrated speedometer that would freeze the reading. This reading could then be shown to the accused as the evidence of his speed.
In reality of course, it is a very accurately measured reading of the police vehicle's speed and nothing else. It is assumed that it is the accused's speed if the two vehicles were travelling at exactly the same speed and distance apart. This can only be taken from the testimony of the two officers, something of which there is no material evidence whatever, only spoken testimony.
As time went on it became evident that this was no longer acceptable, particularly in the light of the advancements in technology, and this actually became the subject of much debate and many trials in court. This is a link to an all night sitting of the House of Commons on the 26th of July, 1979 when Mr. Peter Snape, the member for West Bromwich East raised concerns over the methods and accuracy of certain detection equipment the police were using at that time.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/ju...
This makes extremely interesting reading, but relative to the assertions here is the remarks at section 1118 by the then Minister for State Leon Brittan who states, "In modern traffic conditions it is no longer practical to follow a speeding vehicle for a reasonable distance while checking its speed on an accurately calibrated speedometer." Bearing in mind that this remark was made in 1979, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is much more difficult today.
With the advent of VASCAR, a device was available that, at least theoretically, could give a much more accurate reading without the requirement for the police vehicle to be kept at any particular distance or indeed even to be moving at all in order to acquire a speed reading for the target vehicle. But sadly, there was a snag in this also. In order for VASCAR to be utilised accurately, particularly whilst on the move, it requires precise observation of datum points for input and output for both vehicles, and the actions required to do so are manually operated.
So we had reached a point where the police have the ability to more accurately calculate speed and show the calculation to the accused in the police vehicle on the VDU of the VASCAR system, but it required correct operation and the calculated result could be manipulated by simply pushing the buttons at the incorrect or inappropriate time.
Finally along came Provida, a lightweight video recording system that is directly linked to the VASCAR unit and shows an image of the police vehicle's speed, the pursued vehicle, and the calculation as it is made complete with audio inputs as the particular buttons are being pushed. This then provides wholly acceptable evidence, because for the first time the police could stand up in court and verify their statements absolutely. But importantly, the defence also had the means whereby they could question any unreasonable claims of for example, careless driving and also erroneous calculations in the process of speed detection.
The cases I have become involved in recently are those where the police have stopped a driver and accused them of speeding in a fully equipped, usually unmarked traffic car, and they have switched off all the equipment and implied that they detected the speed using a calibrated speedometer.
This is not a post about dishonest policemen or what has been accepted by lower courts as evidence of speeding in the past, it is simply a question of what is now acceptable in the eyes of the public as a method of prosecution. Why would a police officer or, in cases in Scotland two officers, switch off all the detection equipment in a modern police vehicle and attempt to rely on a fifty year old method to gain a prosecution? These officers have a duty of care to use ALL of the equipment that has been developed at great cost to the taxpayer to ensure that both accuracy and integrity in material evidence is presented to the accused and the courts.
Here is a case that bears remarkable similarities to the one I am defending at the moment, but is from 2008.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums...
It occurred on the same motorway and the vehicle used, contrary to what the poster thinks actually does have full equipment, including Provida. Once again, why would the police do this? It is clearly not acceptable to the poster, as it is not acceptable to every single person I have addressed with these cases. In this case the target vehicle is a motorcycle, and it takes virtually no imagination to realise that it is almost an impossibility to maintain a constant distance behind a bike such as this one to get an accurate reading. The detected reading, according to the police was exactly 100 MPH. I can reveal that the alleged detected reading in the case I am defending strangely enough is precisely the same.
Most of these cases if defended come before magistrates. These judges, without any legal precedent or statute whatever, are following their own guidelines and banning at 100 MPH. The requirement therefore for accuracy in the detected readings has never been greater. Even if you are guilty of exceeding the limit, it is vital that the extent of the contravention is accurately recorded. The practice of throwing the clock back fifty years and switching off the means of accruing video evidence is not acceptable by any standards, and leaves the police wide open to accusations of incompetence and dishonesty. It must stop now.
I would like to hear comments from everyone with a vested interest in this, whether you be a police officer or a driver who is or has been accused of speeding by this method. I want to build a portfolio of these cases and present them to members of parliament with a view to having legislation introduced to strictly control the method by which evidence of speeding is accrued by police vehicles.
If you want to comment as a police officer, please be objective and attempt to view this as a member of the public does. If you want to remain anonymous you can e mail me direct, I will guarantee your anonymity.
I have been asked yet again to defend someone who is accused of speeding on the basis of the reading on a calibrated speedometer. This is a practice I have always been concerned over, but is now occurring with increasing frequency, but in circumstances that are totally unacceptable. To let you understand I will give you a bit of background on how this is done, and why it was replaced by much more accurate and evidentially acceptable methods.
In the days before VASCAR when the speedo was the only in-car device for the police to use it took the form of a large mechanical device situated, in the case of a Jaguar for example, in the glove box lid directly in front of the passenger. It was manufactured by Smiths or British Jaeger and very precisely calibrated on the bench before being fitted to the vehicle and was checked before and after every shift by the officers in charge of the vehicle using an extremely accurate stop watch on a measured mile. The driver's speedometer was also calibrated, but situated in the normal place in the binnacle.
The technique of using this device was to pursue a vehicle that was thought to be speeding and maintain a precise distance between the police vehicle and the pursued vehicle for a legal minimum of two tenths of a mile. The reading on both speedos would then be corroborated by the officers and the passenger would push a trip button on the calibrated speedometer that would freeze the reading. This reading could then be shown to the accused as the evidence of his speed.
In reality of course, it is a very accurately measured reading of the police vehicle's speed and nothing else. It is assumed that it is the accused's speed if the two vehicles were travelling at exactly the same speed and distance apart. This can only be taken from the testimony of the two officers, something of which there is no material evidence whatever, only spoken testimony.
As time went on it became evident that this was no longer acceptable, particularly in the light of the advancements in technology, and this actually became the subject of much debate and many trials in court. This is a link to an all night sitting of the House of Commons on the 26th of July, 1979 when Mr. Peter Snape, the member for West Bromwich East raised concerns over the methods and accuracy of certain detection equipment the police were using at that time.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1979/ju...
This makes extremely interesting reading, but relative to the assertions here is the remarks at section 1118 by the then Minister for State Leon Brittan who states, "In modern traffic conditions it is no longer practical to follow a speeding vehicle for a reasonable distance while checking its speed on an accurately calibrated speedometer." Bearing in mind that this remark was made in 1979, I think it is reasonable to conclude that it is much more difficult today.
With the advent of VASCAR, a device was available that, at least theoretically, could give a much more accurate reading without the requirement for the police vehicle to be kept at any particular distance or indeed even to be moving at all in order to acquire a speed reading for the target vehicle. But sadly, there was a snag in this also. In order for VASCAR to be utilised accurately, particularly whilst on the move, it requires precise observation of datum points for input and output for both vehicles, and the actions required to do so are manually operated.
So we had reached a point where the police have the ability to more accurately calculate speed and show the calculation to the accused in the police vehicle on the VDU of the VASCAR system, but it required correct operation and the calculated result could be manipulated by simply pushing the buttons at the incorrect or inappropriate time.
Finally along came Provida, a lightweight video recording system that is directly linked to the VASCAR unit and shows an image of the police vehicle's speed, the pursued vehicle, and the calculation as it is made complete with audio inputs as the particular buttons are being pushed. This then provides wholly acceptable evidence, because for the first time the police could stand up in court and verify their statements absolutely. But importantly, the defence also had the means whereby they could question any unreasonable claims of for example, careless driving and also erroneous calculations in the process of speed detection.
The cases I have become involved in recently are those where the police have stopped a driver and accused them of speeding in a fully equipped, usually unmarked traffic car, and they have switched off all the equipment and implied that they detected the speed using a calibrated speedometer.
This is not a post about dishonest policemen or what has been accepted by lower courts as evidence of speeding in the past, it is simply a question of what is now acceptable in the eyes of the public as a method of prosecution. Why would a police officer or, in cases in Scotland two officers, switch off all the detection equipment in a modern police vehicle and attempt to rely on a fifty year old method to gain a prosecution? These officers have a duty of care to use ALL of the equipment that has been developed at great cost to the taxpayer to ensure that both accuracy and integrity in material evidence is presented to the accused and the courts.
Here is a case that bears remarkable similarities to the one I am defending at the moment, but is from 2008.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/community/Forums...
It occurred on the same motorway and the vehicle used, contrary to what the poster thinks actually does have full equipment, including Provida. Once again, why would the police do this? It is clearly not acceptable to the poster, as it is not acceptable to every single person I have addressed with these cases. In this case the target vehicle is a motorcycle, and it takes virtually no imagination to realise that it is almost an impossibility to maintain a constant distance behind a bike such as this one to get an accurate reading. The detected reading, according to the police was exactly 100 MPH. I can reveal that the alleged detected reading in the case I am defending strangely enough is precisely the same.
Most of these cases if defended come before magistrates. These judges, without any legal precedent or statute whatever, are following their own guidelines and banning at 100 MPH. The requirement therefore for accuracy in the detected readings has never been greater. Even if you are guilty of exceeding the limit, it is vital that the extent of the contravention is accurately recorded. The practice of throwing the clock back fifty years and switching off the means of accruing video evidence is not acceptable by any standards, and leaves the police wide open to accusations of incompetence and dishonesty. It must stop now.
I would like to hear comments from everyone with a vested interest in this, whether you be a police officer or a driver who is or has been accused of speeding by this method. I want to build a portfolio of these cases and present them to members of parliament with a view to having legislation introduced to strictly control the method by which evidence of speeding is accrued by police vehicles.
If you want to comment as a police officer, please be objective and attempt to view this as a member of the public does. If you want to remain anonymous you can e mail me direct, I will guarantee your anonymity.
Edited by jith on Wednesday 11th November 12:39
paintman said:
Calibrated separate speedo in glove box. That's a new one on me. (20 years service 1979 to 1999).
Traffic cars I drove had had the vehicle's own speedo calibrated at the IRS (Instrument Repair Service) which was I think in Nottingham.
Speedo would subsequently be checked over one of the measured 1/2 miles at 30 & 60 against a certificated stop watch. Prior to (and after) using Muniquip KGP or Pro-laser the devices would be checked against the vehicle speedo reading, the vehicle having been checked by us on the 1/2 mile.
The ex Lincs Police Ford Granada I owned in the early 80's had a sticker on the vehicle's speedo with when & where it was calibrated by the IRS. (purely out of personal interest I did check it over the distance & it was accurate)
VASCAR was fitted to very few vehicles, I was not trained in its use - I do know how it could be used - & therefore never used it.
Those I did for speeding by following them were quite at liberty to challenge in court but nobody ever did. Possibly because I never usually bothered reporting anyone who wasn't way over the limit. I would add that I usually recorded that their speed varied between x & y, the only times I had a particular speed was when using a device that froze the display when the trigger was operated.
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Thanks for your input paintman. The calibrated speedo was fitted to the glove box lid which in the case of the Jaguars I worked on was locked in the closed position. It weas therefore very easy to remove it for re-calibration in the event of new tyres, gearbox, etc.Traffic cars I drove had had the vehicle's own speedo calibrated at the IRS (Instrument Repair Service) which was I think in Nottingham.
Speedo would subsequently be checked over one of the measured 1/2 miles at 30 & 60 against a certificated stop watch. Prior to (and after) using Muniquip KGP or Pro-laser the devices would be checked against the vehicle speedo reading, the vehicle having been checked by us on the 1/2 mile.
The ex Lincs Police Ford Granada I owned in the early 80's had a sticker on the vehicle's speedo with when & where it was calibrated by the IRS. (purely out of personal interest I did check it over the distance & it was accurate)
VASCAR was fitted to very few vehicles, I was not trained in its use - I do know how it could be used - & therefore never used it.
Those I did for speeding by following them were quite at liberty to challenge in court but nobody ever did. Possibly because I never usually bothered reporting anyone who wasn't way over the limit. I would add that I usually recorded that their speed varied between x & y, the only times I had a particular speed was when using a device that froze the display when the trigger was operated.
I have also on a couple of occasions reported people by evidence of opinion - which required the opinion of two officers, my crewmate & I - & they weren't challenged either, but the alternative for those would have been a report for low flying!
Edited by paintman on Sunday 26th April 20:05
Dwight VanDriver said:
In all my years on Traffic including driving Jags I never came across the dual speedo system described. In fact this is the first time I have heard of it.
Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
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.Instructions to us was to allow at least 2.10th of a mile on follow after having settled down to a constant distance. This can be observed by counting the white lines but not neccessary as it is obvious whether you are catching up and in fact we observed the contrary...let then pull ahead slightly so that our speed would be lower than actual. Our evidence would state max and min recorded but there were the odd times when a constant was there.
Despite what was said by Leon Brittan and the greedy crew at H of L/H of C the law has not been changed on speeding. Corroboration required and a speedo alone plus officer still sufficient. What VH has posted is correct.
Personally I think straws are being clutched at to get a client off. There is no law that states what device should be used or if one fitted no other method can be brought into play.
dvd
This brings us to what is now acceptable, not when you and I were lads DVD, but now. If you permit the current practice of one officer and a calibrated speedometer, there is not only no material evidence, but the concept of using the speedometer as corroboration only exists in the officer's head, he cannot prove it. In real terms therefore there is no corroboration.
We have argued this point before and vonhosen has raised it. That is the comparison between an officer's spoken testimony in an assault case and that of a speeding case using a speedometer. In the case of an assault there is always material evidence to corroborate the very existence of the crime: a weapon, the victim's wounds, DNA from the victim on the accused, etc. In cases of assaults in busy places there are often many other witnesses, and in most cases the police did not actually witness the crime, they are there after the complaint is made. In the case of one officer and a speedo he has utterly nothing to show the court, absolutely not a thing.
I'm sorry DVD, there would be no hope of conviction in genuine criminal cases with such flimsy evidence, none whatever. Yet the lower courts and officers like yourself seem to think it is acceptable because it is a motoring offence. The penalties now are far too draconian to allow this to continue.
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.
You are still not grasping my point, particularly how finite this is.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
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.
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'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".
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.
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!! 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.
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.
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?
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?
Mg6b said:
I was on traffic in the early 1980's when we were using Granada and SD1 Rover cars. The Rover 3500 V8 had two speedometers. The calibrated one was in the middle of the dashboard between the two occupants in a separate box above the gear lever. The box was mounted on top of the dash and was indeed just that, a box of about 4 inches square face and oblong extending back towards the windscreen with a circular calibrated speedo dial. The factory fitted Rover speedo was wildly inaccurate from the drivers perspective so imagine what it was like from the passengers side and view!
The Granada had only one calibrated speedo and this was an IRS device that had replaced the Ford standard speedometer in its natural place next to the tachometer.
Rovers were the standard motorway patrol car because they had greater capacity for carrying kit than the Granada, especially if a full slip road closure was required and they were generally much faster being capable of on average 130mph (the vitesse about 135-140mph) whilst the Granada was capable of only about 115-120mph and took a while longer to get there.
I know we've crossed swords on here on a few occasions Mg, but thanks for your input, it really helps. You are right about the Rovers; very quick and quite reliable, totally unlike the rebadged Honda in the shape of the 827 that followed.The Granada had only one calibrated speedo and this was an IRS device that had replaced the Ford standard speedometer in its natural place next to the tachometer.
Rovers were the standard motorway patrol car because they had greater capacity for carrying kit than the Granada, especially if a full slip road closure was required and they were generally much faster being capable of on average 130mph (the vitesse about 135-140mph) whilst the Granada was capable of only about 115-120mph and took a while longer to get there.
Edited by Mg6b on Monday 11th May 00:01
This case is becoming extremely interesting, but what I really need are photographs of the interiors of any of these vehicles with calibrated speedometers. If any of the BiB out there can help I would be much obliged.
Mail me if you want to remain anonymous.
Edited by jith on Monday 11th May 20:38
Well, this is the rather interesting conclusion to this case.
Since last I wrote in May, the case called back in Paisley magistrates court. This is my home town and I am fortunate enough not to have appeared in this court that often, I say fortunate because it is one of the worst I have found. The prejudice and ignorance is staggering. In Scotland there is only one mag and an assistant to guide them on points of law. It became clear to me that the assistant was actually running the court.
The case was continued on no less than five occasions due to the crown being unable to proceed. In the interim, due to serious problems with the court attempting to prevent me representing this man, I found a seriously good solicitor who took the case up, with myself as a technical witness.
The case called for the last time on Tuesday last week when, yet again, the Fiscal asked for a continuance, and this is the interesting part. Both the officers who were in the vehicle on the night were present, but the other two who allegedly checked the speedo calibration and signed the certificate had failed to turn up yet again.
The solicitor simply explained the concept of no material evidence and the fact that the crown had ample opportunity to present the case on several occasions and had failed to do so, and the case was dismissed. Young man on cloud 9 after months of worry and time off work.
Now, the following is why I decided to pursue this matter and it clearly was well worth the effort. On the day of the inspection I photographed the police vehicle, a BMW 530D on a 05 plate. What I found was nothing short of disgraceful, but I will start by comparing it to an older vehicle with the aforementioned extra speedo.
With the compliments of the wonderful Museum of Transport in Glasgow, this is a 1986 Granada, ex Strathclyde Police Traffic Dept and in virtually new condition; a credit to them as they were then.
This is a view of the interior showing the extra calibrated speedo mounted in the centre of the dash giving clear site to both the driver and the passenger. This vehicle is also equipped with early Vascar shown on the extreme left of the picture. Apologies for the quality, but I had to take these through the reflection of the glass because the person who had the keys was on holiday!
These Fords incidentally, were supplied as police specials complete with the extra speedo but it was normally on the left hand side beside the Vascar; I assume this one has been moved to accomodate the VLS which was probably fitted at some time into the vehicles life. It is clear from these pictures that the passenger was in control of the actual business of speed detection, but that the driver could simply corroborate this at the appropriate time. This view demonstrates that virtually all of the equipment is in front of the passenger.
It is also clear that the only evidence that the accused could be shown in this car would be the Vascar reading, the speedo would show nothing. Hence no material evidence.
Now let's look at the very latest gizmo-bristling hi-tech police special.
This is beyond doubt the worst installation I have ever come across in a police vehicle. There are cables everywhere, including in the footwells where they can be caught and damaged. The long box you see with a telephone cable attached lying on the floor is the control unit for the Provida: lying face down in the dirt on the floor! Just above it and to the right is the control joystick for the camera, hanging by its cable attached to nothing. You will notice that the speedo is housed in a binnacle and is on the left, virtually out of sight of the passenger. How deeply it is recessed is shown here.
It was calibrated by IRS when the vehicle was new, but has never been removed and bench checked since; remember it is electronic.
This next picture is a close up of the equipment showing the control unit for the blues and twos with a huge roll of cable wrapped around the back of it; the VDU for the Provida screwed on over the heater controls!!;behind this the dash is melted and damaged from some past attempt at fitting god knows what; to the left the camera cable just lies down over the dash. If you look to the bottom right you can see the driver's floor mat which is filthy, like the rest of the interior.
If any of my lads would have left even one item installed like this they would have been straight out the door. Just compare it to the 23 year old Granada. The next picture is the VCR unit installed in the boot: the front cover has been snapped off exposing some of the maintenance sockets. This is a 24 hour time lapse VCR made by Sanyo and is designed to run continuously in time lapse mode for 24 hours on just one 180 minute tape. Remember that.
What, I hear you say does this have to do with evidential proof? I'll tell you what: do you honestly expect any member of the public who is accused of speeding by the drivers of this vehicle to take them seriously as competent and professional members of the Roads Policing unit? Would you accept their word for your speed when they put you in a vehicle like this and tell you they used the speedometer.
A resume of the case. The accused was driving from Greenock in the West coast of Scotland to Glasgow Airport to pick up his fiance. He used the A8 running onto the M8 at around 9pm. The road was very quiet and driving conditions were perfect. As he entered the large roundabout at the start of the dual carriageway at Port Glasgow he noticed the police vehicle sitting at the side of one of the entry roads. They sit here all the time and he immediately recognised it. He drove onto the carriageway and accelerated to motorway speeds, overtaking only 3 other slow moving vehicles, returning to his nearside lane as he completed the overtakes.
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. All the equipment in the police vehicle was switched off. When he asked how they detected his speed, one of the officers said, "This is your lucky day son, we have run out of tape, so had to use the speedometer." There is no logic or reason to this remark and it puzzles both myself and the accused to this day.
They then complimented him on his style of driving and informed him he would be reported to the Procurator Fiscal.
The conclusion to this is that these two officers, driving a vehicle that should have been capable of providing absolutely crystal clear evidnce of any offence that was committed totally failed in their duty to actually produce anything in the way of evidence. Their vehicle was in an apalling state and should not have been out on duty. Their ridiculous assertion about running out of tape is simply unbelievable, particularly considering the type of VCR fitted to this vehicle. You do not go out on duty in an unmarked car without enough tape to last the shift: why on earth would you? Anything could happen on that shift and the evidence could be utterly crucial in the conviction of a serious offence.
The Fiscal who attempted to prosecute this case was completely devoid of any knowledge of this vehicle and how the systems operate. He was not interested in the misgivings or the fact that no material evidence existed. Had this lad simply held his hands up he would have lost his licence and his job. It has cost him some £1700 in court fees, none of which are recoverable in Scotland, even when you win.
This kind of policing is totally unacceptable, disingenuous and shabby and there is no place for it in a police force that claims to be overworked and undermanned. This young man learned only one thing from it. He has lost all trust in the police.
Since last I wrote in May, the case called back in Paisley magistrates court. This is my home town and I am fortunate enough not to have appeared in this court that often, I say fortunate because it is one of the worst I have found. The prejudice and ignorance is staggering. In Scotland there is only one mag and an assistant to guide them on points of law. It became clear to me that the assistant was actually running the court.
The case was continued on no less than five occasions due to the crown being unable to proceed. In the interim, due to serious problems with the court attempting to prevent me representing this man, I found a seriously good solicitor who took the case up, with myself as a technical witness.
The case called for the last time on Tuesday last week when, yet again, the Fiscal asked for a continuance, and this is the interesting part. Both the officers who were in the vehicle on the night were present, but the other two who allegedly checked the speedo calibration and signed the certificate had failed to turn up yet again.
The solicitor simply explained the concept of no material evidence and the fact that the crown had ample opportunity to present the case on several occasions and had failed to do so, and the case was dismissed. Young man on cloud 9 after months of worry and time off work.
Now, the following is why I decided to pursue this matter and it clearly was well worth the effort. On the day of the inspection I photographed the police vehicle, a BMW 530D on a 05 plate. What I found was nothing short of disgraceful, but I will start by comparing it to an older vehicle with the aforementioned extra speedo.
With the compliments of the wonderful Museum of Transport in Glasgow, this is a 1986 Granada, ex Strathclyde Police Traffic Dept and in virtually new condition; a credit to them as they were then.
This is a view of the interior showing the extra calibrated speedo mounted in the centre of the dash giving clear site to both the driver and the passenger. This vehicle is also equipped with early Vascar shown on the extreme left of the picture. Apologies for the quality, but I had to take these through the reflection of the glass because the person who had the keys was on holiday!
These Fords incidentally, were supplied as police specials complete with the extra speedo but it was normally on the left hand side beside the Vascar; I assume this one has been moved to accomodate the VLS which was probably fitted at some time into the vehicles life. It is clear from these pictures that the passenger was in control of the actual business of speed detection, but that the driver could simply corroborate this at the appropriate time. This view demonstrates that virtually all of the equipment is in front of the passenger.
It is also clear that the only evidence that the accused could be shown in this car would be the Vascar reading, the speedo would show nothing. Hence no material evidence.
Now let's look at the very latest gizmo-bristling hi-tech police special.
This is beyond doubt the worst installation I have ever come across in a police vehicle. There are cables everywhere, including in the footwells where they can be caught and damaged. The long box you see with a telephone cable attached lying on the floor is the control unit for the Provida: lying face down in the dirt on the floor! Just above it and to the right is the control joystick for the camera, hanging by its cable attached to nothing. You will notice that the speedo is housed in a binnacle and is on the left, virtually out of sight of the passenger. How deeply it is recessed is shown here.
It was calibrated by IRS when the vehicle was new, but has never been removed and bench checked since; remember it is electronic.
This next picture is a close up of the equipment showing the control unit for the blues and twos with a huge roll of cable wrapped around the back of it; the VDU for the Provida screwed on over the heater controls!!;behind this the dash is melted and damaged from some past attempt at fitting god knows what; to the left the camera cable just lies down over the dash. If you look to the bottom right you can see the driver's floor mat which is filthy, like the rest of the interior.
If any of my lads would have left even one item installed like this they would have been straight out the door. Just compare it to the 23 year old Granada. The next picture is the VCR unit installed in the boot: the front cover has been snapped off exposing some of the maintenance sockets. This is a 24 hour time lapse VCR made by Sanyo and is designed to run continuously in time lapse mode for 24 hours on just one 180 minute tape. Remember that.
What, I hear you say does this have to do with evidential proof? I'll tell you what: do you honestly expect any member of the public who is accused of speeding by the drivers of this vehicle to take them seriously as competent and professional members of the Roads Policing unit? Would you accept their word for your speed when they put you in a vehicle like this and tell you they used the speedometer.
A resume of the case. The accused was driving from Greenock in the West coast of Scotland to Glasgow Airport to pick up his fiance. He used the A8 running onto the M8 at around 9pm. The road was very quiet and driving conditions were perfect. As he entered the large roundabout at the start of the dual carriageway at Port Glasgow he noticed the police vehicle sitting at the side of one of the entry roads. They sit here all the time and he immediately recognised it. He drove onto the carriageway and accelerated to motorway speeds, overtaking only 3 other slow moving vehicles, returning to his nearside lane as he completed the overtakes.
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. All the equipment in the police vehicle was switched off. When he asked how they detected his speed, one of the officers said, "This is your lucky day son, we have run out of tape, so had to use the speedometer." There is no logic or reason to this remark and it puzzles both myself and the accused to this day.
They then complimented him on his style of driving and informed him he would be reported to the Procurator Fiscal.
The conclusion to this is that these two officers, driving a vehicle that should have been capable of providing absolutely crystal clear evidnce of any offence that was committed totally failed in their duty to actually produce anything in the way of evidence. Their vehicle was in an apalling state and should not have been out on duty. Their ridiculous assertion about running out of tape is simply unbelievable, particularly considering the type of VCR fitted to this vehicle. You do not go out on duty in an unmarked car without enough tape to last the shift: why on earth would you? Anything could happen on that shift and the evidence could be utterly crucial in the conviction of a serious offence.
The Fiscal who attempted to prosecute this case was completely devoid of any knowledge of this vehicle and how the systems operate. He was not interested in the misgivings or the fact that no material evidence existed. Had this lad simply held his hands up he would have lost his licence and his job. It has cost him some £1700 in court fees, none of which are recoverable in Scotland, even when you win.
This kind of policing is totally unacceptable, disingenuous and shabby and there is no place for it in a police force that claims to be overworked and undermanned. This young man learned only one thing from it. He has lost all trust in the police.
Edited by jith on Wednesday 20th January 11:02
ipsg.glf said:
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
ipsg.glf said:
jith said:
ipsg.glf said:
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
All of these things are of the same negative philosophy as the manner in which these officers performed their duties in this case. They ignored the brutally expensive equipment that we all pay for and switched it off: they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for. Their interference, and I mean that quite literally, in this man's life has cost him dear financially and emotionally, and it has achieved utterly nothing.
You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority. The police have been doing it in one form or another since the automobile was invented and it has made not one jot of difference to road safety. There has never been more draconian enforcement than there is now and the standard of driving is utterly appalling and degrading by the day.
These unmarked vehicles are a wonderful tool in the right hands, but this case demonstrates just how cavalier the attitude towards this equipment in some forces is today, and the opportunity to truly make a difference is wasted.
ipsg.glf said:
jith said:
they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for. Their interference, and I mean that quite literally, in this man's life has cost him dear financially and emotionally, and it has achieved utterly nothing.
You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.
Flawless? Says who?You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.
No evidence? Says who?
I don't want to see prosecutions for minor infractions of the speed limit. I know of no-one who does (except the loonies, of course)
But 100mph in a 70mph is over 40% over the speed limit. Hardly a minor transgression if you look at it that way.
More detail; the two officers who stopped this lad actually complimented him on his style of driving; THEY said it was flawless. They then went on to accuse him of this speed and could show him absolutely nothing, leaving him literally stunned. He is sitting in the rear of the vehicle shown in the pictures, knows nothing about how detection equipment works, observes all the gadgets and cables everywhere, but knows damn well whether or not something is switched on! Quite frankly, I am utterly dismayed that anyone can come on here under these specific cicumstances and think that this is acceptable. My god, what kind of standards do some of you people work to?
The conversation I had with the second Fiscal was an even bigger eye opener than the inspection on the vehicle. When I asked him if he had actually read the report that disclosed the police had everything switched off, he accused me of being ridiculous and said that "the police would never do a thing like that!" I responded by telling him that it is in the report, they stated it themselves!! Clearly he never read it, but worst of all he did not have a clue about how the police operate in unmarked vehicles or how the equipment functions. What the hell is this individual doing working in the prosecution service when he has no idea how the evidence is accrued?
When we entered a not guilty plea and requested the evidence all that was received was two extremely summary reports from the officers and a so-called calibration certificate from two other officers from the shift before. The two that had carried out the report did not test the speedo at the start of their shift nor at the end: or if they did would not state that they did and could not supply certificates.
This case and the others similar to it that I have been involved in raise many questions, but the two at the top of the list are firstly the business of the police being unable to present any physical or material evidence whatsoever, and I'm not prepared to debate that issue any further. Secondly there has to be questions asked as to how they can justify both the clear abuse of process by failing to provide sufficient and pertinent evidence when they have the means to do so, and why there is still this ludicrous and totally ill founded emphasis on speeding offences in the apparent name of road safety.
Lastly let me once again remind you that this nonsense about the lad might have been lying about his speed, or he should own up and take it on the chin, is most definitely NOT how the law works. The onus of proof of an offence lies squarely with the crown. It is not up to the driver at any time to assume the police got it right and "take it on the chin". It is the clear cut responsibility of the police and the prosecution service to competently and professionally prosecute a crime. In this case they failed dismally to reach anything approaching a professional standard; that's why they lost.
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.
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?
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
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
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
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
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff