should i have hired a solicitor?

[einion yrth]

As an aside, how much does it cost for what is basically a stopwatch, a calibrated piece of string and a pocket calculator.

[IOLAIRE]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Mrr T www.vascarplus.com/Pages/How_It_Works.htm DVD

That's an American branch, different company and standards.
This is the British one and the one I dealt with.

www.tssltd.co.uk/

[Mrr T]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Mrr T www.vascarplus.com/Pages/How_It_Works.htm DVD

Thanks DVD but this asked as many questions as is answers.

So question one how is the distance covered measured?? It says "the police car is used only to measure distance" so is it measured using GPS or the milometer. What are the error percentages?? Even GPS is only accurate to I think to 30 yds.

I would agree that a measurement taken travelling with a car would be more accurate but in this case and in others the operator is stationary.

For an instrument used to bring a prosecution I would be interested to see some test studies of relative accuracy.

[DeMolay]

IOLAIRE said:

The extra effort required in answering most of these questions because people do not read the posts correctly becomes increasingly irritating. DeMolay said: I maintain that being stopped by two officers using VASCAR is the hardest charge to wriggle out of on Britain's roads.

I wasn't actually referring to this case per se, but to the general point. I apologise if you misconstrued my post. I'll be clearer next time.

[DeMolay]

5ive-0 said:

VASCAR It works on a basic calculation of time over distance equals speed. There is a multitude of ways it can be used, the most common is where you are followed or where you are following the police vehicle. T-D-T-D or D-T-D-T The device has 3 buttons, Time-Sync-Distance. The distance is used for the police vehicle as this is fully calibrated at least every seven days and will be checked over a measured mile at the start of a shift and before the end. The time button is used for the vehicle who’s speed you are measuring. So if you are being followed, as you pass a static mark (mark on the road, shadow from a bridge etc) the ‘T’ button is pressed and when the police vehicle passes the same point the ‘D’ button is pressed. This is repeated at a point more than .125 miles later and your average speed is recorded. If you are the following vehicle then the buttons are pressed in the reverse order. S-S. This button starts and stops both the time and distance together. This is a useful one where it is difficult to see marks or where the vehicles are together. If being followed providing the police vehicle is the same distance from the offending vehicle at the start of the check and the end then this method can be used. It is also useful if both vehicles are together such as the offending vehicle overtakes the police vehicle, the officer lets it run then comes alongside it. Depending on the circumstances these methods of operation can be mixed. Pre-Fed. Another way it is used is to measure a distance between two points ie two bridges or a bridge and where the police vehicle is parked and then store the distance in its memory. Only the ‘T’ button needs to be used then to time vehicles between the two points. Some points to remember; You cannot detect it with road angel and other such gadgets. Use your mirrors and always survey your environment. Assume that all Roads Policing (traffic) vehicles are fitted with it including unmarked cars. The police vehicle can be behind you, in front of you, side on to you or above you. It can be stationary or moving and doesn’t need to keep constant vision on you.

Officers undergo a rigorous training course and at the end are adjudged on their performance. I believe they have to be accurate to within a tiny margin, otherwise they fail the test.

Under most circumstances, VASCAR is very accurate. If you go to court and dispute it's accuracy, be prepared.



>> Edited by DeMolay on Wednesday 8th December 17:46

[DeMolay]

One last point,

IOLAIRE has a problem with the way in which VASCAR calculates speed with regards to the markers on/at the roadside as he makes clear in one of his posts.

He states that corroboration is/should be required for the results to be acceptable in law, as the police could be making any old cobblers up :

1) Why would an officer want to do that anyway?
2) Officers who use it are trained to a high standard, and have certificates to say so
3) Prior opinion is formed by the officer and the VASCAR unit is used as corroboration
4) A court will ususally accept the word of an officer
5) Your rantings have all the hallmarks of a frustrated lawyer, and it is folly to advise people to contest the charge based on your own opinion and not the facts.

The fact of the matter is that VASCAR is - when used correctly - one of the most accurate devices used by plod. Why else do you think it doesn't require type-approval from the Secretary of State?

[jeremyadamson]

DeMolay said:

One last point, IOLAIRE has a problem with the way in which VASCAR calculates speed with regards to the markers on/at the roadside as he makes clear in one of his posts. He states that corroboration is/should be required for the results to be acceptable in law, as the police could be making any old cobblers up : 1) Why would an officer want to do that anyway? 2) Officers who use it are trained to a high standard, and have certificates to say so 3) Prior opinion is formed by the officer and the VASCAR unit is used as corroboration 4) A court will ususally accept the word of an officer 5) Your rantings have all the hallmarks of a frustrated lawyer, and it is folly to advise people to contest the charge based on your own opinion and not the facts. The fact of the matter is that VASCAR is - when used correctly - one of the most accurate devices used by plod. Why else do you think it doesn't require type-approval from the Secretary of State?

Hi Demolay - I agree with you, that mags usually believe whatever the police tell them, but I also agree with Iolair that it isn't right. They should have to prove guilt, and not the other way around.

Secondly, why doesn't VASCAR need approval by the Sec of State??? Surely it should, for the same reasons that cameras do!

J.

[IOLAIRE]

DeMolay said:

One last point, IOLAIRE has a problem with the way in which VASCAR calculates speed with regards to the markers on/at the roadside as he makes clear in one of his posts. He states that corroboration is/should be required for the results to be acceptable in law, as the police could be making any old cobblers up : 1) Why would an officer want to do that anyway? 2) Officers who use it are trained to a high standard, and have certificates to say so 3) Prior opinion is formed by the officer and the VASCAR unit is used as corroboration 4) A court will ususally accept the word of an officer 5) Your rantings have all the hallmarks of a frustrated lawyer, and it is folly to advise people to contest the charge based on your own opinion and not the facts. The fact of the matter is that VASCAR is - when used correctly - one of the most accurate devices used by plod. Why else do you think it doesn't require type-approval from the Secretary of State?

I don't know who the hell you are De Molay, but one thing is certain, you don't live up to the philisophical standards of your namesake.
I don't have any problem with VASCAR, because I'm not required to use it and never will be.
Any time an attempt has been made to use it against me, I have successfully despatched it through the courts.
The case I highlighted is utterly accurate in content, anyone wishing to see the papers or view the notes can do so, I still have them, which incidentally probably set a precedent since it went all the way to the High Court.
Now just so nobody has any misconceptions about that case, I'm going to make it crystal clear what transpired. The senior officer in the patrol car lied on the stand, does everyone get that; I don't know why he did nor do I care, but he did.
The same person, by his own admission, deliberately destroyed evidence in a criminal trial, and got away with it; he erased the video and actually boasted about it.
The other officer was quite clearly desperately embarrassed by everything that transpired, that is why his evidence did not corroborate the other officers.
The magistrate, as is often the case, was totally unsuited to pass judgement on any type of case like this; she had absolutely no concept of the technical aspects of the case and failed to grasp anything that was being explained to her. She also displayed the most appalling prejudice towards any accused person by stating several times in the trial that the police never made mistakes.
My opponent on the day at the Appeal Court was none other than the Lord Advocate himself who, as I rose to present the arguments for the Appeal, politely interrupted and conceded the points, all NINE of them.
I am NOT a lawyer, frustrated or otherwise, and never will be, but I have studied the law; in Greece, where the ancient philosophies are far more important than hanging Joe Public out to dry for technical, non-criminal infringements.
I do NOT rant, unlike a great many other individuals on this site. Every single statement I make and any advice I give comes from over thirty years of study and experience, not from being trained to perform a task incessantly and in a manner that is guaranteed to close the mind to question.
If Shoodie had taken the advice of the BiB over this matter, he wouldbe sitting with no driving licence right now and a conviction.
As it is he now has a seriously good chance of minimising his prosecution or even having it dismissed.
Bad advice? I don't think so.
Now I'm going to have a nice glass of Rioja Reserve and think about whether or not I contribute any further on this forum, or simply stick to the motoring forums where myself and other technically minded people have a lot of fun giving advice and swapping ideas without being constantly insulted and abused by ill informed people who for some utterly incredible reason actually seem to endorse the current enforcement policies.

[Flat in Fifth]

Hang on a minute, Vascar 5000 units deactivate after 7 days unless recalibrated, hence they are mostly checked daily.

So why get all pressured about calibration certificates, oh I forgot no one can be trusted to tell the truth can they.

If that goes for one side of the discussion, then doesn't it apply equally to the other side?

Not boring but definitely becoming tedious.

[DeMolay]

IOLAIRE,

It seems to me that you are advising shoodie to plead not guilty on the grounds that the VASCAR and/or the operator is at fault. On what grounds?

1) Operator error? Forget it. The officer will have a certificate to say he is competent to operate the device, and the magistrate will believe him.
2) Calibration? The police will provide some form of certificate to say it has been done, and the magistrate will accept that as fact.
3) Corroboration? The officer has it. The VASCAR is the corroboration of the officer's primary opinion.

I will categorically state that shoodie is doomed if he follows this pointless line of attack. Only a serious cock-up from the CPS with S9 witness statements or paperwork will get him off in this regard. Way too risky in my opinion.

And as for my namesake and his philisophical views.................never mind, you wouldn't understand.

EDIT - I am certainly not misinformed (if that comment was directed at me). To date, I can count upwards of 20 people I have gotten off with other lines of attack. All legitimate.

>> Edited by DeMolay on Wednesday 8th December 22:23

[IOLAIRE]

DeMolay said:

IOLAIRE, And as for my namesake and his philisophical views.................never mind, you wouldn't understand.

You really have no idea what your talking about.

[DeMolay]

IOLAIRE said:

DeMolay said: IOLAIRE, And as for my namesake and his philisophical views.................never mind, you wouldn't understand. You really have no idea what your talking about.

Well if that's the best you can do then so be it.

[nobbles]

Keep up the good work, I have read through this forum and it is fascinating. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and in a way that gives this forum more depth from various view points. This is probably the only multipage forum that I have actually read all the way through......

Quick question though - from what I understand it is down to there only being one officer in the car, is it a police requirement to have two officers in the car?

[shoodie]

A few days have passed since the court trial was adjourned due to my change of plea to not guilty and I have now received the court's Notice of Adjournment through the post. It reads:

OFFENCE: EXCEED SPEED LIMIT OF 70 MPH

THE CASE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED FOR A PRE-TRIAL REVIEW. THE CASE WILL BE FURTHER ADJOURNED TO A DATE FOR TRIAL. YOU MUST ATTEND THE REVIEW BRINGING WITH YOU DETAILS OF ANY WITNESSES TO BE CALLED AND DETAILS OF WHEN THEY ARE AVAILABLE TO ATTEND COURT. SHOULD YOU NOW WISH TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE MATTER YOU MUST ATTEND ON THIS DATE AND THE CASE WILL BE DEALT WITH.
YOU SHOULD BRING YOUR DRIVING LICENCE WITH YOU IF YOU INTEND TO PLEAD GUILTY.

THE CASE WILL BE HEARD ON THE 19.01.05 AT 10.00AM.

Question to IOLAIRE... I've been following your plan of action on this. And so far it's worked. Next you advised I contact the CPS for an out-of-court settlement.

So...

How do I contact them?

Who do I address it to?

What do I write?

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as always!!

>> Edited by shoodie on Wednesday 15th December 21:33

[ohopkins]

This is absoutely fascinating.

I think DeMolay has go the wrong end of the stick :

In a regular vascar case, there would be no point in disputing like you say.

In this particular case, the lack of corroration, the Officer having a restriced view/parralax errors and no video evidence gives leverage over the CPS.

I totally agree with Ioltaire, you just CANNOT have a situation where you can lose you licence, your job and life just on the say so of one policeman manually operating a stopwatch looking at two points half a mile away.

[Peter Ward]

This is a fascinating discussion. I really want to know what happens in January....

I guess ultimately the point is this. Is it right to make a judgement on the say-so of 1 person (police or not)? That 1 person may have some technology to support him/her, but by definition it's not an independent view because it's operated by the same person. Therefore the technology is no corroboration.

Let's face it. This case is unlikely to be that of a crazed PC out to trap honest motorists for his own warped satisfaction. He's probably quite capable of operating the technology and there is just a small margin of error. But that's not the point. Why should a PC be put in the position of having to justify his allegations without having the tools to prove that he's not "a crazed PC out to...."?

In the old days a policeman was totally trusted, and given huge leeway to do the job. Now not even the government trusts the police or there wouldn't be all the targets to prove they're doing their jobs. The relationship with the public is going downhill as a result of the anti-car sentiments that the police have agreed to support, and they're being devalued by the quasi-police that can do almost as much as they can at (it is claimed) a fraction the cost.

Where does society go now? Eventually every crime without evidence (fingerprints, etc) will have to be videoed to be proven -- that's why there's so much CCTV? -- because a policeman's word will be worth no more than a MoP. But perhaps that's preferable to the risk of unsafe conviction?

[DanH]

Flat in Fifth said:

andygo said: I'm sorry, but it is amazing how accurate you can get with a stopwatch, which is essentially what plod is doing with Vascar. That's my point, obviously didn't explain myself. Two seconds out due to chance operational errors is just not feasible in my very honest opinion. Of course two deliberate seconds out appears to be believed by the sad subscribers to conspiracy and corruption theories.

I've been done with exactly that when the copper had no line of sight or tape. I pulled away faster from a junction than he liked so he performed a dangerous overtake on a junction (he was shaking with rage at what 'I made him do') but since he was 4 cars behind he couldn't have done the vascar visually due to the extreme twistiness and hilliness of the road.

Since I was accelerating from standstill, my car would have needed unfeasible performance to give the average speed of 45 he claimed (It was a Rover metro 1.4). I was speeding though so didn't bother contesting it. In hindsight I regret that.

Coppers are human and just as likely to bend things a bit as anyone else.

>> Edited by DanH on Thursday 16th December 13:21

[sheepy]

This is an interesting discussion to which I can only add that bringing highway-code quoted reaction times into an arguement, that these would add or introduce in-accuracy does not (in my opinion) help matters. The reaction times / distances quoted are for reacting to an un-anticiapated event whereas the reaction times for anyone starting or stopping a timer based on an observed event are much lower.

You can try this at home with a stop-watch. Simply start it running and try to stop it as close to 30.00 seconds. It doesn't take much practise to achieve very good accuracy (heck some of us do this type of thing every time we fill up with exactly £30 of petrol!).

Also, given that the copper has to start the timer and stop the timer based on an observed event which he can clearly anticipate, then the real error will be negligible as it would be entirely reasonable to assume the reaction error to starting the timer and the reaction error to stopping the timer would effectively cancel each other out.

Sheepy

[Mrr T]

sheepy said:

Also, given that the copper has to start the timer and stop the timer based on an observed event which he can clearly anticipate, then the real error will be negligible as it would be entirely reasonable to assume the reaction error to starting the timer and the reaction error to stopping the timer would effectively cancel each other out. Sheepy

If you are going to calculate an percentage error on an instrument you should never assume errors off set. This is possible but the accuracy must always assume a worst case, with in some probability limit, so error must be assumed to be cumulative.

[IOLAIRE]

Shoodie,
the server's been down in my house for a few days; should be back up tomorrow.
I'm in the public library just now and their firewall is preventing me from getting yor e-mail; it says it's porn!!
Just what are you up to old son!!??
I'll come back on tomorrow and catch up with things then.
In teresting that the court has asked you to provide details of your evidence.
It's the CPS that's pursuing you, not the other way round; bloody cheek!!