RE: Faulty cameras won't be checked
Wednesday 13th April 2005
Wrong, wrong, wrong...The Institute of Advanced Motorists, normally a fairly conservative organisation, has called on speed camera operators to review their operations to ensure that procedures were robust. It follows the attempted prosecution of Trevor Martin, who was told he was travelling at 81mph, when in fact it was 29mph. He was driving a bus at the time.
Faulty cameras won't be checked
Suffolk's massively incorrect scameras to be left alone
Wrong, wrong, wrong...
After being told he would be prosecuted, Martin said that his bus was limited to 62mpoh maximum, and his tachograph showed he was under the 30mph speed limit on the A140 at Earl Stonham, Suffolk.
The accused won't be prosecuted because the local speed camera operator investigated after Martin complained and found that two errors had been made. The camera was wrong, incorrectly recording his speed, and an error by a member of staff double-checking the camera's reading compounded the problem.
A project manager of Suffolk SafeCam said the incident was a rare mistake. He added that the county's cameras in the county didn't need to be switched off or their technology checked.
Discussion
Artical said:
The camera was wrong
If this one is wrong, how many others are also wrong?
Artical said:
... or their technology checked
Surley something should be done to ensure that all are correct otherwise they will be convicting innocent people (which they have been doing already but only Mr Martin has proved)
What happened to innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt????
>>> Edited by chimyellow on Wednesday 13th April 13:30
If you get caught by a camera, you should always ask for the calibration certificate to be checked. The calibration should be done annually.I know this doesn't guarantee the camera to be correct but with the ever-increasing number of cameras popping up, I assume this task will get more difficult to keep up with.
just a thought.
just a thought.
In a case with this level of discrepancy it's not such a problem as close examination of the photo will show the error.
However, what if you were doing, say, 62 in a 60 (i.e. well within the threshold) and the 'bounce' caused a reading of 68, you could well get 3 points and the photo may not show the error with sufficient accuracy to aviod prosecution. Even a tachograph may not be enough to prevent the 3 points in this sort of case.
The question we should be asking is how accurate is the check from the road markings and what is the tolerance?.
However, what if you were doing, say, 62 in a 60 (i.e. well within the threshold) and the 'bounce' caused a reading of 68, you could well get 3 points and the photo may not show the error with sufficient accuracy to aviod prosecution. Even a tachograph may not be enough to prevent the 3 points in this sort of case.
The question we should be asking is how accurate is the check from the road markings and what is the tolerance?.
cerbera17 said:
If you get caught by a camera, you should always ask for the calibration certificate to be checked.
There are more boxes around than camera's to go in them. Do the camera's have to be re-calibrated every time they're moved to a new location? If not, why not as I'm sure that moving a sensitive piece of equipment around has the potential to knock out its' accuracy? Annually doesn't seem to be sufficient if they are being moved around (which they are).
Under English law one is INNOCENT until proven guilty and no-one can be convicted because the real culprit cannot be found. Not if you are a motorist. Guilty until you can prove yourself innocent. Some JPs are arrogant enough to state that they will impose the maximum penalty in the event of an "unsuccessful" defence. The police on the road also are pleased (and proud) to re-state this. I spend far too much time driving with my eyes on the speedometer. At thiry mph a half-second look away means travelling 22 feet blind. At 70 that becomes 102 feet or 34 yards! It is high time there was a return to the previous tolerance where POLICE (not politicians) enforced the limits more rigorously at busy times and were more relaxed during quiet periods. How can that be done? The speed camera is a real revenue raiser. Easy. 657 (or thereabouts) upstanding citizens each contest a parliamentary seat. Even with a small (but vociferous) representation the government would have to listen. Oh, and where data from cameras is blatantly inaccurate, this should be regarded as a libel and dealt with accordingly.
cerbera17 said:
If you get caught by a camera, you should always ask for the calibration certificate to be checked. The calibration should be done annually.I know this doesn't guarantee the camera to be correct but with the ever-increasing number of cameras popping up, I assume this task will get more difficult to keep up with.
just a thought.
Dont forget that the calibration equipment must also have been correctly calibrated, otherwise one error gets transferred to the gatso making two errors....
Imagine the uproar that would ensue if people were hauled of the street and convicted with known incorrect evidence.
This is, in effect what is happening here, i.e. an attempt to convict with evidence known to be (likely to be) incorrect. ...and all for the easy revenue.
It's a true disgrace.
This is, in effect what is happening here, i.e. an attempt to convict with evidence known to be (likely to be) incorrect. ...and all for the easy revenue.
It's a true disgrace.
Yep...but the majority of the sheep in this country eat up all the spin the government throws at them...and until those sheep wake up, the rest of us are equally stuffed.
Personally, I can only see the long-term trend as downwards...I think that democracy will be seen as a 20th Century experiment that failed, in it's place will be a cross between Corporate Oligarchy and Nationalism.
Personally, I can only see the long-term trend as downwards...I think that democracy will be seen as a 20th Century experiment that failed, in it's place will be a cross between Corporate Oligarchy and Nationalism.
As I read that article, it seems that it did NOT go to court because he provided evidence to the scp, which when they saw it, knew that they would lose in court, and so dropped it. BIG MISTAKE! and a great opportunity missed.
He should have let them take him to court, and faced them with his evidence there. Not only does that show them up for what they are, but makes the courts realise that these things are not infallible, and gets it entered into case history which can be quoted later.
This has to be "The one that got away", .....Damn! bet the SCP drew a sigh of relief at that one! As it stands now there is no recorded history of any such thing ever happening and will pass through time into becoming an "urban myth".
He should have let them take him to court, and faced them with his evidence there. Not only does that show them up for what they are, but makes the courts realise that these things are not infallible, and gets it entered into case history which can be quoted later.
This has to be "The one that got away", .....Damn! bet the SCP drew a sigh of relief at that one! As it stands now there is no recorded history of any such thing ever happening and will pass through time into becoming an "urban myth".
If you get caught by camera, always ask for the photo's - they can't refuse as its yor right. There will be 2 and then you can check your speed against the lines on the road and the time between pictures - thats what the lines are there for. I have heard in the past that quite often they only get one good photo but will send the nip anyway so quite often once the photos are requested they go away as they can't continue unless you admit guilt.
Gixer said:
If you get caught by camera, always ask for the photo's - they can't refuse as its yor right. There will be 2 and then you can check your speed against the lines on the road and the time between pictures - thats what the lines are there for. I have heard in the past that quite often they only get one good photo but will send the nip anyway so quite often once the photos are requested they go away as they can't continue unless you admit guilt.
And if the flash timings are wrong, even by a small amount? I think this was the basis of the defense that never was.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff