RE: Gatso man plans to fight on
Friday 14th January 2005
Gatso man plans to fight on
David Edgar's legal battle against over-reading cameras rumbles on
David Edgar, the man who intends to prove that Gatso scameras over-read and therefore help convict the innocent, has reiterated his commitment to continue the fight against what he described as 'the old boy network'.
He said that since they had refused to communicate with him, he would not be attending the court hearing, which was due yesterday but, if they convicted him in his absence, he would take it to appeal.
However, sources suggest that this may not be the full story, as the charge against Edgar was not, say sources, speeding but failure to disclose the driver. In other words, Edgar has received a notice of intent to prosecute (NIP) but has not responded. The Crown Prosecution Service has consequently ruled that the Gatso evidence is not relevant to the case until the matter of who was driving has been determined.
Nonetheless, Edgar's statement, posted on another forum, is below:
“Since launching this legal counter attack on the Gatso speed camera I have received an enormous amount of mail supporting my stand against the unfair and unjust exploitation of law abiding motorists, the Internet campaign groups have also rallied round and supported my efforts, so too have the national press and TV who have beat a path to my door for what is now becoming a very big story, I have also received a number of emails warning me of the evil empire who will do anything to protect its money grabbing scam, they were not wrong......
"As predicted the old boy network have attempted to deny my legal challenge to the accuracy of the Gatso speed camera by totally ignoring my formal request for a full day in Court, this being made last November, they have deliberately remained silent about the fact that they knew all along that they had only allowed two hours for a very technical and complex trial.
"Fortunately an investigative journalist alerted me to this fact yesterday following his conversation with the Listing Office, I then immediately contacted the Listings Office and confirmed the same, I also made it clear that this was totally unacceptable and I would immediately apply for an adjournment.
"Having made such a formal Application to the Birmingham Magistrates' Court yesterday afternoon I have to report that they have totally ignored the same therefore I have since written to the Court informing them that I will not be attending the Court tomorrow and warned them that if they proceed in my absence an immediate appeal will be made to the Crown Court.
"Having received such an immense amount of support from the hundreds of decent people out there I felt it only right and fair to inform each and every one of them of the current situation and encourage them not to despair or give up, because I never will, this is only the beginning but I believe it will be the beginning of the end for the Gatso speed camera.
"The fight will continue...."
Previous story: www.pistonheads.com/speed/default.asp?storyId=9689
Discussion
Fully support this guy, as you'd expect but...
Not my field so I may be talking out my ar$e but:- if the summons was really on this issue of failure to disclose the driver then he has shot his bolt a bit.
Should have fessed up and THEN taken them to court re the alledged 'speeding offence'.
Not my field so I may be talking out my ar$e but:- if the summons was really on this issue of failure to disclose the driver then he has shot his bolt a bit.
Should have fessed up and THEN taken them to court re the alledged 'speeding offence'.
This guy seems like a complete whacko with more than one loose screw!
The basis of his argument seems to be that the flashes from the camera are more than 500ms apart and thus the camera must be over estimating the speed. What a load of bollocks! If I were designing a speed camera (I build real-time event logging systems for a living) then I would have a free running timer that would trigger approximately 500 ms after the first shot, flash and film advance providing. On each frame I would ensure that there was an accurate (1ms is *very* easy) timestamp on each frame from a free running timer. I believe that this is the case and that each photo is imprinted with the details of the camera...and that you can see the evidence that the police have against you?
Now if the difference between the timestamp on both photos was supiciously exactly 500ms and there was a difference in the flash timing on that camera (which is understandable - as is the radar not being totally accurate(I've been flashed for doing 25 in a 30!)) he would have a good point to prove. If the Gatso cameras were not built along the lines I outline above then it would be easy to prove that their design was negligent and that they should all have to be replaced overnight - they would just be car picture taking cameras with an approximate speed trigger! Bit like me with my £5 disposable snapping at cars I think look fast!!
Something tells me that the design of all Gatsos is probably not negligent at all...and at £20k for the camera equipment neither it should be. This guy is just a nut job.
The basis of his argument seems to be that the flashes from the camera are more than 500ms apart and thus the camera must be over estimating the speed. What a load of bollocks! If I were designing a speed camera (I build real-time event logging systems for a living) then I would have a free running timer that would trigger approximately 500 ms after the first shot, flash and film advance providing. On each frame I would ensure that there was an accurate (1ms is *very* easy) timestamp on each frame from a free running timer. I believe that this is the case and that each photo is imprinted with the details of the camera...and that you can see the evidence that the police have against you?
Now if the difference between the timestamp on both photos was supiciously exactly 500ms and there was a difference in the flash timing on that camera (which is understandable - as is the radar not being totally accurate(I've been flashed for doing 25 in a 30!)) he would have a good point to prove. If the Gatso cameras were not built along the lines I outline above then it would be easy to prove that their design was negligent and that they should all have to be replaced overnight - they would just be car picture taking cameras with an approximate speed trigger! Bit like me with my £5 disposable snapping at cars I think look fast!!
Something tells me that the design of all Gatsos is probably not negligent at all...and at £20k for the camera equipment neither it should be. This guy is just a nut job.
davefiddes said:
they would just be car picture taking cameras with an approximate speed trigger! Bit like me with my £5 disposable snapping at cars I think look fast!!
Something tells me that the design of all Gatsos is probably not negligent at all...and at £20k for the camera equipment neither it should be. This guy is just a nut job.
Nail, head, hit! That's exactly his point, they are not as accurate as we are led to believe...
He seems far from a fruitcake, he has simply uncovered the tolerances on the device. I'm sure the manufacturer knows the tolerances, but it's not in their interests to publish them.
Oh, and £20K.... You couldn't even get one on ebay for that
BliarOut said:
they would just be car picture taking cameras with an approximate speed trigger! Bit like me with my £5 disposable snapping at cars I think look fast!!
Something tells me that the design of all Gatsos is probably not negligent at all...and at £20k for the camera equipment neither it should be. This guy is just a nut job.
Nail, head, hit! That's exactly his point, they are not as accurate as we are led to believe...
He seems far from a fruitcake, he has simply uncovered the tolerances on the device. I'm sure the manufacturer knows the tolerances, but it's not in their interests to publish them.
Oh, and £20K.... You couldn't even get one on ebay for that
But your could but it might have some fire damage
I happen to know (I sold it to them and have trained them) that the Home Office use extremely accurate GPS speed testing equipment (plus or minus 1/10th of a km/h) to test speed cameras, and go to some lengths to test and verify them. At the end of the day, this is only fair on the motorist, so don't shoot me!
If there was a discrepancy between the Radar and the calculated value then they would have found it and corrected it by now.
Anyway, I thought that the secondary evidence was only used when the case was contested, so if you are caught and sent a fine, it has nothing to do with the flash timing...
If there was a discrepancy between the Radar and the calculated value then they would have found it and corrected it by now.
Anyway, I thought that the secondary evidence was only used when the case was contested, so if you are caught and sent a fine, it has nothing to do with the flash timing...
I won't flame you personally, but how do you explain the gatso that allegedly caught a motorist doing 43 when he was stuck in a traffic jam?
Examintion of the photographs proved he was actually doing 13MPH. No machine is infallible. While your measuring equipment may be accurate, what are the tolerances on the Gatso? 2MPH can make the difference between a ban or points and therefore someones livelihood and ability to support their family.
If it can be proven that they are innacurate, then there is hope of getting more plod on the roads and a return to sensible policing. Personally, I have come to love Gatso's. There isn't one that's immune to a simple aerosol can
Examintion of the photographs proved he was actually doing 13MPH. No machine is infallible. While your measuring equipment may be accurate, what are the tolerances on the Gatso? 2MPH can make the difference between a ban or points and therefore someones livelihood and ability to support their family.
If it can be proven that they are innacurate, then there is hope of getting more plod on the roads and a return to sensible policing. Personally, I have come to love Gatso's. There isn't one that's immune to a simple aerosol can
And still the biggest problem is, the camera's don't do what they are meant to anyway. They are not "safety cameras" at all... they don't reduce deaths.
This is what p**ses me off, what is a "few mph" between friends anyway? A few mph should not matter anyway, yet these camera's are judging people on such a tight tolerance (now 31 mph in a 30 and your fined and get points!!!!), then the accuracy of the things DOES become a problem.
If a 30mph zone was set to trigger at 40mph, then even if they are out by 10%, chances are the offender was doing at least 10-15% OVER the limit anyway.
At such tight tolerances, there are going to be problems, and it's peoples driving lisences and livelihoods on the line here.
Either up the tolerances so that even a 10% inaccuracy still leaves you in the "going to fast" camp, or make these camera's infallible!
I think the telling thing is that the courts have been ignorant from day one with this case, and no one has responeded to the genuine and legally allowable questions from him. What are they trying to hide either way if everything is so "perfect" with these "safety" cameras...
Dave
This is what p**ses me off, what is a "few mph" between friends anyway? A few mph should not matter anyway, yet these camera's are judging people on such a tight tolerance (now 31 mph in a 30 and your fined and get points!!!!), then the accuracy of the things DOES become a problem.
If a 30mph zone was set to trigger at 40mph, then even if they are out by 10%, chances are the offender was doing at least 10-15% OVER the limit anyway.
At such tight tolerances, there are going to be problems, and it's peoples driving lisences and livelihoods on the line here.
Either up the tolerances so that even a 10% inaccuracy still leaves you in the "going to fast" camp, or make these camera's infallible!
I think the telling thing is that the courts have been ignorant from day one with this case, and no one has responeded to the genuine and legally allowable questions from him. What are they trying to hide either way if everything is so "perfect" with these "safety" cameras...
Dave
Mr Whippy, I'm sure you're well aware that 50% of cameras reduce KSIs (and -- whisper it quietly so it's not reported in the media -- 50% of cameras increase KSIs).
Therefore I really can't understand your statement that cameras don't save lives. The figures prove it (while crossing fingers so it's not a lie).
Random variation? Impossible! Keep those fines flowing!!
Therefore I really can't understand your statement that cameras don't save lives. The figures prove it (while crossing fingers so it's not a lie).
Random variation? Impossible! Keep those fines flowing!!
Peter Ward said:
Mr Whippy, I'm sure you're well aware that 50% of cameras reduce KSIs (and -- whisper it quietly so it's not reported in the media -- 50% of cameras increase KSIs).
Therefore I really can't understand your statement that cameras don't save lives. The figures prove it (while crossing fingers so it's not a lie).
Random variation? Impossible! Keep those fines flowing!!
Name all those who the cameras have "saved". Shouldnt be so hard as im sure they know who they are.
On the other hand its easier to name all those who the dammed scameras DIDNT save!
Speed cameras- taking more than just cash.
>> Edited by DeltaFox on Friday 14th January 17:12
Just goes to show.
If you are going to fight the law.
You must have your evidence perfectly presented.
Whilst the law places the responsibility on the accuser the defendent must have their case in order.
Particularly as to what the offence alledged was and to a bona fides defence case.
No point in defending a wreckless driving charge with...
'But I wasn't drinking m'lud!'
If you are going to fight the law.
You must have your evidence perfectly presented.
Whilst the law places the responsibility on the accuser the defendent must have their case in order.
Particularly as to what the offence alledged was and to a bona fides defence case.
No point in defending a wreckless driving charge with...
'But I wasn't drinking m'lud!'
davefiddes said:
This guy seems like a complete whacko with more than one loose screw!
The basis of his argument seems to be that the flashes from the camera are more than 500ms apart and thus the camera must be over estimating the speed. What a load of bollocks! If I were designing a speed camera (I build real-time event logging systems for a living) then I would have a free running timer that would trigger approximately 500 ms after the first shot, flash and film advance providing. On each frame I would ensure that there was an accurate (1ms is *very* easy) timestamp on each frame from a free running timer. I believe that this is the case and that each photo is imprinted with the details of the camera...and that you can see the evidence that the police have against you?
Now if the difference between the timestamp on both photos was supiciously exactly 500ms and there was a difference in the flash timing on that camera (which is understandable - as is the radar not being totally accurate(I've been flashed for doing 25 in a 30!)) he would have a good point to prove. If the Gatso cameras were not built along the lines I outline above then it would be easy to prove that their design was negligent and that they should all have to be replaced overnight - they would just be car picture taking cameras with an approximate speed trigger! Bit like me with my £5 disposable snapping at cars I think look fast!!
Something tells me that the design of all Gatsos is probably not negligent at all...and at £20k for the camera equipment neither it should be. This guy is just a nut job.
It just never ceases to amaze me how many people come on this site and instantly brutalise someone when they clearly have utterly no sufficient technical knowledge to do so.
Who the hell are you to call this guy a nut job Dave, you know nothing about him or what he has done?
For your and everyone else's information, I have been in contact with this man and he is a fully qualified and highly experienced electronics engineer who has devoted MONTHS of work and research into what he is doing, and just bear in mind that if he is successful, everyone will benefit from this, not just himself.
The device he has used and the method that he deployed is completely fullproof, hence the reason why he can't pin the courts down to actually proceeding with the trial; they know he is going to win.
Do you have any conception as to the implications of him proving this?; the Government will be in desperately serious bother because there is the obvious assumption that these hideous devices have been inaccurate, possibly even deliberately for years.
Think of the backlash involved in dealing with millions of wrongful prosecutions.
A nut job?? You need to get out more!
Well put!
If he's wrong, well good on him for trying...
If he's right, well done for standing up for the truth for himself and everyone else! He could take it on the shoulder and pay the fine, but he's standing up for himself and everyone else...
I surely wouldn't be seen shouting someone down because they were standing up for theirs and everyone elses rights!
OT/
I'd prefer all scamera's to be replaced with a police checkpoint for tax, mot and insurance, with breathalysers etc.
That would reduce speed to well below the limits like a camera AND catch hundreds (is it a 1/5 of all motorists), who drive illegally every day?
I should be transport minister
/OT
Dave
If he's wrong, well good on him for trying...
If he's right, well done for standing up for the truth for himself and everyone else! He could take it on the shoulder and pay the fine, but he's standing up for himself and everyone else...
I surely wouldn't be seen shouting someone down because they were standing up for theirs and everyone elses rights!
OT/
I'd prefer all scamera's to be replaced with a police checkpoint for tax, mot and insurance, with breathalysers etc.
That would reduce speed to well below the limits like a camera AND catch hundreds (is it a 1/5 of all motorists), who drive illegally every day?
I should be transport minister
/OT
Dave
IOLAIRE said:
The device he has used and the method that he deployed is completely fullproof, hence the reason why he can't pin the courts down to actually proceeding with the trial; they know he is going to win.
AAAAAHHHEEEMMMM!!!!
QUOTE:
However, sources suggest that this may not be the full story, as the charge against Edgar was not, say sources, speeding but failure to disclose the driver. In other words, Edgar has received a notice of intent to prosecute (NIP) but has not responded. UNQUOTE
The guy may know a lot about science.. but bugger all about the law. Nice try but no prize this time.
i55inginthewindsmiley:I believe that Mr Edgar could get the results he needs with the use of the Freedom of Information Act, which has just come into force. This means that anyone can ask a question of a public body, such as the Police or the Government, and be legally entitled to a written reply within 2 weeks.
I gather that HRH Tony has a huge team of people ready to field questions...
I gather that HRH Tony has a huge team of people ready to field questions...
PRESS RELEASE 4
Since a small minority of people have posted some less than helpful comments that I apparently know nothing about the law and I have allegedly ignored dealing with an NIP I would be obliged if I could be allowed set the record straight.
I have been a litigant (unpaid) for almost 11 years in both civil and criminal law, this also includes intellectual property law with respect to inventions and designs, in that time I have successfully represented myself in many Courts winning 80% of my cases, the other 20% would have been won if I were not up against an old boy network that is both bent and incompetent.
I have won (and lost), in many Courts where I have appeared alone with no support or funding including the County Courts, Magistrate’s Courts, High Courts, Appeal Courts including the High Court which is regularly seen on TV and is otherwise known as the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand.
Currently I have three cases on going in the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, I have had numerous complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and received compensation, I have also received compensation from the Law Society as result of bent and incompetent solicitors and this does not include the countless cases I have won for my self and others at many tribunals.
I successfully saved my elderly mother’s life last year when the NHS tried to kill her by way of involuntary euthanasia (caught on camera doing it), sadly I was less successful with my elderly father who was neglected to death last by the local authority, needless to say those responsible for his death will be introduced to an out of court settlement in due course.
Whilst the satisfaction of restoring some justice is very rewarding it has badly affected my health, last year I had a heart attack as a result of the relentless pressure.
So for those of you out there who think I know nothing of the law I would respectfully ask you to revise your statements as I feel I have earned my law degree the hard way.
With respect to the current RTA Section 172 (3) case it should be noted that I do not have to prove that the Gatso’s are failing to meet Type Approval as I already have a robust defence to that charge. So I do not have to crusade for anyone and can abandon it at any time but I choose to do so because I know from bitter experience that the only way to change things is to fight it and keep fighting it until they listen.
I have used this Court case as a platform to expose the scam that we all know is criminalizing millions of innocent motorist but very few of us are willing to fight the bent establishment for the greater good of the motorist.
To correct the obvious legal misunderstanding with respect to my case please see an extract from my formal defence statement:
The police served an NIP stating that pursuant to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit, this being 41mph in a 30mph zone [The allegation]. They then stated on the same NIP that pursuant to Section 81 RTRA 1984 they had photographic evidence in support. [The material evidence] in addition pursuant Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I was obliged to identify the driver. Since it is well know that "he who alleges must prove" I then continued....
I then responded to the NIP by stating on the form that the driver was unknown to me and in a covering letter I had no recollection of the alleged incident and make no admission of guilt, I then asked for sight of the photographic evidence the police claimed they had in their possession thus complying with the statutory defence of using reasonable diligence as in Section 172 (3) to identify the driver.
Having received the photographic evidence from the police I then responded by letter and stated that inter alia, the photographic evidence failed to identify the driver and it was my contention that the evidence was inconclusive and therefore would not support a successful conviction, furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time of the alleged offence and could not reasonably identify the driver as their identity was unknown to me.
The police then sent another identical NIP to complete however I returned the same stating that I was not aware of any requirement in the RTA 1988 which compels me to duplicate the same statement of facts which I had previously made, I therefore returned the form and asked the officer to identify which section of which Act requires me to do so, strangely enough he never did!
I then stated that should the police commence a prosecution I would defend the same and apply for a Defendant's Costs Order I also stated that I would be relying upon material evidence in support including the case: Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, Head Middlesborough CID 2001 whereby he was not charged following an alleged speeding charge because he couldn't remember who was driving his car due to the photographic evidence conveniently being "inconclusive".
The police then commenced the prosecution and I received a Magistrates' Summons which was subsequently dealt with by entering a plea of NOT GUILTY. I would point out that at this time I was not aware of the serious inaccuracies of the Gatsometers.
Whilst I am reasonably confident that I can defeat the Section 172 (3) charge I am also confident that I can rely upon the Crown's documentary evidence which they have already filed and served, this being a witness statement by a member of the West Midlands Police Camera Enforcement Unit who has stated that pursuant to Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Gatsometer BV Type 24 AUS was Type Approved and was working correctly at the material time therefore since I am of course permitted under Human Rights law to question any Witnesses the prosecution bring against me I will be exploiting the failures of that particular Gatsometer to comply with the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook the likes of which I now have in my possession and the same being relied upon when the Calibration Certificate is signed, this also being disclosed as evidence for the Crown.
Allow me to quote from the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook, in particular section 3.4 under "Terminology" A speedmeter will be considered to fail a type approval test if it displays an incorrect reading of speed outside the tolerance range of error" The "Measuring Accuracy" being a positive error no larger than 3mph (or +3% above 100mph) and since my evidence will prove a wapping 26% error I rest my case!
There are also a number of other serious matters which the PSBD Speedmeter Handbook has identified.
I would also agree with Paul Smith's (Safe Speed) argument that this case is very much in the public interest with regards to speedmeter accuracy so I will be inviting the Crown to reintroduce the speeding charge in order that I can deal with it legally and technically.
I think he might have taken some of the comments and criticism a little personally, there was a lack of information and many people are cynical about the justice system with regards to motoring offences - and reading his background he should know this!
Two thumbs up and I look forward to seeing how it goes.
Gareth
Two thumbs up and I look forward to seeing how it goes.
Gareth
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff