Friday 26th August 2005

Many mobile cameras illegal: report

Police to plug speed enforcement blunder

---

Illegal operator?

Are mobile cameras operating outside the law?

The Times newspaper today reveals that the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) plans to introduce new rules concerning the distance from an allegedly speeding car at which mobile speed camera vans may operate. This follows concerns raised that mobile speed camera operators may not be following the law, which states that speed measurement apparatus may only be used to confirm a constable's prior opinion that a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit.

Laser speed meters as used in mobile speed trap vans can measure speeds at distances of up to 1,000m -- more in some cases -- but it is very unlikely that the operator could make the legally required judgement when a target vehicle is more than half a mile away.

Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said he had heard from many motorists who have been prosecuted in circumstances where there was little or no opportunity for the operator to form a prior opinion of speed.

Smith said: "In our opinion this abuse of the legal process is likely to be widespread and is highly indicative of the slipshod way in which greedy camera partnerships operate.

"Our knowledge from talking to motorists together with the news from ACPO suggests that many recent convictions have not been carried out in proper accordance with the law. Motorists may be entitled to have their cases reopened.

"Partnership speed enforcement is running on little more than bluff, threat and public gullibility. When motorists take the time to investigate the case against them in detail, it's far from unusual to find a fatal flaw. The biggest flaw of all is that the resources simply don't exist to prosecute motorists in court - the system entirely depends on motorists paying a fixed penalty notice without a fight."

Action points

Smith urged drivers to challenge prosecutions in court: "With large scale errors being reported in the news every few weeks I would urge all motorists to test and examine the evidence against them in very fine detail. Call their bluff. Ignore their threats. And show that you're not gullible."

Checklist for a successful prosecution

• The speed limit must be correctly signed in accordance with the regulations (Folly Bottom, Wylye, North Wales)
• A speed limit order must apply correctly to the location in question
• (Lincolnshire, London)
• The paperwork must be correct and in accordance with all laws and regulations. (Dorset)
• The paperwork must be delivered on time
• The Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) cannot be served by second class post. (South Wales)
• The equipment must be calibrated correctly
• The operator must use the equipment in accordance with rules and guidelines
• The operator must form a prior opinion of speed in excess of a speed limit
• Arguably only a Police constable is qualified to for a prior opinion of speed in excess of a posted speed limit
• Communications equipment must be switched off while measurements of speed are taken (including the operator's mobile phone)
• The site must be suitable (restrictions include near power lines)
• The equipment must be working properly
• Evidence must be disclosed to the defence 7 days before the trial on request or it becomes inadmissible
• If you don't know who the driver was at the time of the alleged offence you may well have a statutory defence in RTOA1988 S172(4) as amended
• The court must be impartial (And since the Magistrate's Court Service are usually a camera partnership member it is far from clear that the court has the required degree of impartiality.)
• The process must not breach your Human Rights (A 'right to silence' case is ongoing to be heard in 2006 in Strasbourg.)
• In the case of Gatso fixed speed cameras the transit of the calibration marks in the two photographs must match the speed recorded by the radar speed meter
• The prosecution must turn up in court with the correct paperwork
• Witness statements cannot be signed by machine. (North Wales)

Link

• Times article

Image courtesy of www.speedcam.co.uk

[pakrat]

I've just been nabbed for doing 85 on a 70mph stretch of DC. Clear empty road in good conditions. Makes my blood boil. Mobile cam on top of a bridge. Come to think of it, isn't it illegal to park on bridges over motorways and dualcarriage ways?

[supermono]

I'd be surprised if that's illegal. The Norfolk speed tax collectors scam from up on a bridge all the time on the A11 near Norwich.

Whilst I'm sure they routinely disregard some other more subtle little legal inconveniences that would otherwise limit their profits, I can't see them being that blatant.

Although having said that, we all know these bozos aren't the sharpest tools in the box, who who knows?!

SM

[bunglist]

When are they going to realise that speed camaras are not the answer, they are causing more harm than good.

How many other countries are using speed detection equipment to the amounts the UK are?

Great to see that something, is trying to be done about it with posting helpful hints on websites such as this one.

More people need to see this information so i am going to e-mail this article to all my friends and tell them to e-mail it to everyone in their inbox.

[PhantomPH]

So does this differ from those vans that have the camera firing out of a small opening (camera-sized) in the back door of the van?

I was always under the impression that there WAS no person sitting watching. Figured the van was parked up - the 'flap' opened to allow the camera to fire out the back, then the cash would roll in. Certainly thats how it seems on the one I see in the same spot regularly on the A695

[TSS]

“The site must be suitable (restrictions include near power lines)”

That’s interesting. A while ago I saw a Northants Scamera Van parked right underneath some really large power lines (the suspended by huge pylons that you can hear buzzing). It was scamming people on a dead straight NSL section of the A45.

[nonegreen]

PhantomPH said:

So does this differ from those vans that have the camera firing out of a small opening (camera-sized) in the back door of the van? I was always under the impression that there WAS no person sitting watching. Figured the van was parked up - the 'flap' opened to allow the camera to fire out the back, then the cash would roll in. Certainly thats how it seems on the one I see in the same spot regularly on the A695

Thats a good question. The ones I have seen always seem to have a bit of genetic waste operating them though I assume thats what is making the judgement.

[vetteheadracer]

akrat said:

I've just been nabbed for doing 85 on a 70mph stretch of DC. Clear empty road in good conditions. Makes my blood boil. Mobile cam on top of a bridge. Come to think of it, isn't it illegal to park on bridges over motorways and dualcarriage ways?

Snap!

Lucky for me they didn't send me the NIP until 6 weeks after the offence

[jackass]

supermono said:

I'd be surprised if that's illegal. The Norfolk speed tax collectors scam from up on a bridge all the time on the A11 near Norwich.

The one that got me was parked in the middle of the road on some hatchings. However, I was speeding so I just accepted it.

['King Deadly]

The checklist said:

Arguably only a Police constable is qualified to for a prior opinion of speed in excess of a posted speed limit

"Arguably"? Has it ever been "argued" in a court of law?

[puggit]

'King Deadly said:

The checklist said: Arguably only a Police constable is qualified to for a prior opinion of speed in excess of a posted speed limit "Arguably"? Has it ever been "argued" in a court of law?

Partnerships have probably backed off on this one and withdrawn the accusation to avoid case law being made.

Anyone know?

Also - forgot another 'get out': the S172 must be signed on behalf of the chief constable

[cotty]

Im going to get a jammer, what are they going to do have me prosecuted for perverting the course of justice when what they are doing is illegal

[pieman1]

I mean the story is all good and true . . .But the bottom line is what can you actually do, how do you prove them wrong . . Untill such time the only solution is a) counter detection b) accepting it . . .If anyone has any ideas, I am open to suggestions . . .

[smeggy]

As I stated in the parallel thread:

Times Online said:

POLICE are to be given new guidelines on using mobile speed cameras

If these are only guidelines then whatever is stated within this is effectively meaningless

[joephandango]

"
Smith urged drivers to challenge prosecutions in court: "With large scale errors being reported in the news every few weeks I would urge all motorists to test and examine the evidence against them in very fine detail. Call their bluff. Ignore their threats. And show that you're not gullible.""

That's the main point here as I see it, fight fire with fire. If everyone who got an NIP challenged every miniscule detail, the system would get completely bound up in it's own red tape!

[cdp]

joephandango said:

" Smith urged drivers to challenge prosecutions in court: "With large scale errors being reported in the news every few weeks I would urge all motorists to test and examine the evidence against them in very fine detail. Call their bluff. Ignore their threats. And show that you're not gullible."" That's the main point here as I see it, fight fire with fire. If everyone who got an NIP challenged every miniscule detail, the system would get completely bound up in it's own red tape!

That's _EXACTLY_ what happened in Canada. The court system fell over and the cameras were axed.

In Britain our tax collection depends on threats that a successful persecution (as opposed to prosecution) in the courts can result in £1000 and 6 points while just admitting to it yields £60 and 3 points. If there have been convictions based on cameras where the radar and photographic evidence don't match and I think we're getting into the realms of extortion....

[J99NNO]

This week they had a speed trap set up in Maltby. The device was a large black box (size of a gatsocamera)on a tripod, aiming at oncoming traffic. The van that was operating it / watching it was then parked on the opposite side of the road, on the pavement obscurred from view by a building until you were right up to the trap. If the above is correct, how could anyone have gauged the speed of the oncoming vehicle to decide whether to check the speed?

Surely that was just way out of the bounds of their rules or guidelines?

Luckily i was warned in advance by several helpful motorists flashing their lights, althought that is also illegal i believe.

The same van was parked the next day further up the road in some temporary roadworks, again obscurred from view.

I know that the partnerships dont make profit themselves, but they are definately making money for the Government. Are they are targets or something? Or maybe there are awards for the most creative or profitable parking?

[puggit]

The partnerships are paid from the money they scam.

Therefore no tickets = no jobs. It's a vested interest.

The more tickets they sell, the more plush their offices are and the fancier the junkets they go on.

They must produce a 'business plan' which is given to the government and approved - they have to reach those targets, but I don't know what the consequences are.

Any money they can't spend is then sent to the government, but it is negligble (£27m last year across the country?).

[bigdods]

Kind of on the subject here - theres a new twist on the A43 near silverstone - fixed camera on the dual carriage way both ways at the green man pub , plod have realised everyone is wise to them - could it be the huge speed camera sign 100yds before you reach them that gives the game away ? So last week they parked up the mobile scamera van 200 yds before the camera to catch eveyone before they slowed down for the fixed one. Sneaky. Now I would have thought that parking on the side of a dual carriageway on a hard standing by what looks to be a field entrance (so there for the farmer to gain access one would imagine) is pushing it a bit ? I reckon if I parked up there for any reason I would probably expect to be nicked for something....

[sh]

Serious question: how do the unmanned cameras not come under the same "prior opinion" rule? And if its somehow because they are unmanned, then what's the definition of a manned/unmanned device...? For example, if a mobile is left to snap on auto is it then "unmanned"??? This looks like a bag of worms for all.

[Imafreeman]

Surely that van is parked illegally. The double yellow lines applies to the carriageway which includes the grass alongside. How can they park in a clearly illegal (and obviously dangerous) manner then catch people going a little over the limit.

I would have thought that any Nips issued would have been done so illegally. Any traffic law experts out there? If so, there is photographic evidence with the driver caught on camera so a conviction should be easy to obtain.