Invalid Secondary Check markings from Speed Camera evidence
Discussion
Mates
I have been accused of a 36 in a 30 and the below camera evidence provided. This is from Avon & Somerset Camera Regiment. I'm in the Cayenne coming towards the camera.
|https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/337819/202601304172362[/url]
[/url]
Are the two photographs valid as a secondary check? The camera has recently been replaced to a new type with external infrared illuminators from the one that has been there for the last few years. The old camera was a common Speedcurb unit. The new one is a very small camera, with two external infra red illuminators. The information on the A&S force website still lists the Speedcurb.
The fact that the first photo was taken well before the markings shirley renders them as not useful in determining the distance covered between the photos. I guess they *could* go and measure from features on the wall and come up with some numbers, not sure if this is a thing or not though.
I got busted on the A303 at the end of 2023 and did a driver awareness course then. They're offering me 3 points or a hearing. I could do without another 3 points, so deciding if this evidence is admissible, or if I should take it to court. Armchair lawyer Googling suggests a valid secondary check is required for RTA Section 20 evidence. I did try and engage the well known barrister on here, but he said he wouldn't cover a speeding case in Somerset.
Any experience or knowledge here team?
I have been accused of a 36 in a 30 and the below camera evidence provided. This is from Avon & Somerset Camera Regiment. I'm in the Cayenne coming towards the camera.
[/url]
Are the two photographs valid as a secondary check? The camera has recently been replaced to a new type with external infrared illuminators from the one that has been there for the last few years. The old camera was a common Speedcurb unit. The new one is a very small camera, with two external infra red illuminators. The information on the A&S force website still lists the Speedcurb.
The fact that the first photo was taken well before the markings shirley renders them as not useful in determining the distance covered between the photos. I guess they *could* go and measure from features on the wall and come up with some numbers, not sure if this is a thing or not though.
I got busted on the A303 at the end of 2023 and did a driver awareness course then. They're offering me 3 points or a hearing. I could do without another 3 points, so deciding if this evidence is admissible, or if I should take it to court. Armchair lawyer Googling suggests a valid secondary check is required for RTA Section 20 evidence. I did try and engage the well known barrister on here, but he said he wouldn't cover a speeding case in Somerset.
Any experience or knowledge here team?
Edited by catfood12 on Friday 30th January 11:43
E-bmw said:
As above, they are neither needed nor even (frequently) actually looked at with modern cameras.
Their pics/data will show distance and time travelled virtually to the milli second/meter.
Well that's the gist of my query. Can the above pictures be used to accurately (or within 10%) determine my speed.Their pics/data will show distance and time travelled virtually to the milli second/meter.
paul_c123 said:
The pictures are not evidence. They are a discretionary thing they send you to help make it easier to fulfil the s.172 obligation you have.
I don't think that's right fella.Prosecutions for speeding using an automatic device come under Section 20 of the Road Traffic Act. That says that a secondary check must be incorporated in addition to the primary in order to rule out any false readings caused by technical faults or interference. In this case they're relying on the photographs for this secondary check evidence. It appears to me that when the camera was replaced, they may not have set the check photo timing or whatever such that the lines on the opposite carriageway can be used to calculate the vehicle's speed. Hence my query as to if this evidence looks like it satisfies the requirements required under Section 20.
catfood12 said:
Mates
I have been accused of a 36 in a 30 and the below camera evidence provided. This is from Avon & Somerset Camera Regiment. I'm in the Cayenne coming towards the camera.
|https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/337819/202601304172362[/url]
[/url]
Are the two photographs valid as a secondary check? The camera has recently been replaced to a new type with external infrared illuminators from the one that has been there for the last few years. The old camera was a common Speedcurb unit. The new one is a very small camera, with two external infra red illuminators. The information on the A&S force website still lists the Speedcurb.
The fact that the first photo was taken well before the markings shirley renders them as not useful in determining the distance covered between the photos. I guess they *could* go and measure from features on the wall and come up with some numbers, not sure if this is a thing or not though.
I got busted on the A303 at the end of 2023 and did a driver awareness course then. They're offering me 3 points or a hearing. I could do without another 3 points, so deciding if this evidence is admissible, or if I should take it to court. Armchair lawyer Googling suggests a valid secondary check is required for RTA Section 20 evidence. I did try and engage the well known barrister on here, but he said he wouldn't cover a speeding case in Somerset.
Any experience or knowledge here team?
Some newer cameras don’t use lines on the road for the second measurement. For instance the new Redspeed system, Jenoptic Vector SR and Redflex systems.I have been accused of a 36 in a 30 and the below camera evidence provided. This is from Avon & Somerset Camera Regiment. I'm in the Cayenne coming towards the camera.
[/url]
Are the two photographs valid as a secondary check? The camera has recently been replaced to a new type with external infrared illuminators from the one that has been there for the last few years. The old camera was a common Speedcurb unit. The new one is a very small camera, with two external infra red illuminators. The information on the A&S force website still lists the Speedcurb.
The fact that the first photo was taken well before the markings shirley renders them as not useful in determining the distance covered between the photos. I guess they *could* go and measure from features on the wall and come up with some numbers, not sure if this is a thing or not though.
I got busted on the A303 at the end of 2023 and did a driver awareness course then. They're offering me 3 points or a hearing. I could do without another 3 points, so deciding if this evidence is admissible, or if I should take it to court. Armchair lawyer Googling suggests a valid secondary check is required for RTA Section 20 evidence. I did try and engage the well known barrister on here, but he said he wouldn't cover a speeding case in Somerset.
Any experience or knowledge here team?
Edited by catfood12 on Friday 30th January 11:43
No not “ shirley” no.
paul_c123 said:
What stage of proceeds are you at?
1) Have you received a s.172 notice and NIP?
2) Have you already received this and been offered a FPN or court?
3) Have you declined the FPN and are now going to court?
I'm at 2. It was me driving, I've admitted to that and now have received the option of fixed penalty or court hearing. The only evidence provided at the moment is the photos on the A&S website, reproduced above.1) Have you received a s.172 notice and NIP?
2) Have you already received this and been offered a FPN or court?
3) Have you declined the FPN and are now going to court?
They have replaced the old Speedcurb camera, which could only take rear facing photographs and did the carriageway in the opposite direction to which I was travelling, with a Redspeed Sentio, which does both directions.
As above, they didn't repaint the lines or anything, and it appears the timing for the photos doesn't put the vehicle over the measurements, certainly not in the direction I was travelling.
If I did take it to court, I'm looking at advocacy from a specialist lawyer, down in Somerset. If I did win I'd only get Legal Aid rates back, but I really don't want another 3 points. That's why I'm posting, to see if anyone has experience or knowledge in these circumstances.
It is I suppose getting off (if I was guilty in the first place) on a technicality, but if the evidence isn't sound then I can't be convicted. I'm just not clear on the validity of the secondary check evidence.
catfood12 said:
They have replaced the old Speedcurb camera, which could only take rear facing photographs and did the carriageway in the opposite direction to which I was travelling, with a Redspeed Sentio, which does both directions.
A quick online search reveals (my bold). the internet said:
How Sentio s secondary check works
Sentio uses computer vision as its primary method of detecting and measuring speed (and red light offences), tracking vehicles across up to five lanes.
The unit includes an additional camera that provides an automatic secondary check , meaning the enforcement back end (RS720 platform) independently validates the primary speed measurement using a separate set of image data from this extra camera.
This automatic secondary check is built into the processing workflow so that every recorded offence has two independent evidential sources: the main computer vision speed capture and the corroborating image stream from the secondary camera.
Public documentation does not spell out the exact algorithm (for example, whether it uses frame to frame distance over time or another image based metric), but it is clear that Sentio s secondary check is done via a dedicated additional camera and automated computer vision analysis, not via painted secondary check lines or timing of road sensors.
Looks like you're bang to rights Sentio uses computer vision as its primary method of detecting and measuring speed (and red light offences), tracking vehicles across up to five lanes.
The unit includes an additional camera that provides an automatic secondary check , meaning the enforcement back end (RS720 platform) independently validates the primary speed measurement using a separate set of image data from this extra camera.
This automatic secondary check is built into the processing workflow so that every recorded offence has two independent evidential sources: the main computer vision speed capture and the corroborating image stream from the secondary camera.
Public documentation does not spell out the exact algorithm (for example, whether it uses frame to frame distance over time or another image based metric), but it is clear that Sentio s secondary check is done via a dedicated additional camera and automated computer vision analysis, not via painted secondary check lines or timing of road sensors.
Edited by Fore Left on Friday 30th January 13:51
Some googling gets the following
AI said:
The Redspeed Sentio uses a "totally non-invasive" secondary verification mechanism that does not require physical road markings or in-ground sensors. It employs the following methods:
Computer Vision and Virtual Grid: The Sentio system uses advanced computer vision to create a virtual grid over the road. It captures high-resolution digital images (9-megapixel) and video to calculate a secondary speed measurement by tracking the vehicle's movement over a known distance within the camera's field of view.
Dual-Clock System: For Home Office Type Approval (HOTA), the secondary check must use an independent free running clock separate from the one used for the primary (4D radar) measurement.
Automatic and Manual Review: The system performs an automatic secondary check in near real-time. The resulting speed must be within +/- 10% of the primary 4D radar reading. This evidence is then typically reviewed by a trained police staff member before a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is issued.
Offence-Specific Cameras: The hardware includes a dedicated additional camera specifically for this secondary verification to ensure the integrity of the data.
Which means they haven't sent you the evidence they have. Just some shots to help you answer the S172 question. In terms of your chances, I think the technical legal term is buggeredComputer Vision and Virtual Grid: The Sentio system uses advanced computer vision to create a virtual grid over the road. It captures high-resolution digital images (9-megapixel) and video to calculate a secondary speed measurement by tracking the vehicle's movement over a known distance within the camera's field of view.
Dual-Clock System: For Home Office Type Approval (HOTA), the secondary check must use an independent free running clock separate from the one used for the primary (4D radar) measurement.
Automatic and Manual Review: The system performs an automatic secondary check in near real-time. The resulting speed must be within +/- 10% of the primary 4D radar reading. This evidence is then typically reviewed by a trained police staff member before a Notice of Intended Prosecution (NIP) is issued.
Offence-Specific Cameras: The hardware includes a dedicated additional camera specifically for this secondary verification to ensure the integrity of the data.
The new breed of cameras have appeared in Leeds City Centre and they are operating with no road markings at all on the roads. I believe the road markings are probably a legacy of the previous camera system left in place, they have no material bearing on the new cameras taking these pictures
catfood12 said:
I'm at 2. It was me driving, I've admitted to that and now have received the option of fixed penalty or court hearing. The only evidence provided at the moment is the photos on the A&S website, reproduced above.
They have replaced the old Speedcurb camera, which could only take rear facing photographs and did the carriageway in the opposite direction to which I was travelling, with a Redspeed Sentio, which does both directions.
As above, they didn't repaint the lines or anything, and it appears the timing for the photos doesn't put the vehicle over the measurements, certainly not in the direction I was travelling.
If I did take it to court, I'm looking at advocacy from a specialist lawyer, down in Somerset. If I did win I'd only get Legal Aid rates back, but I really don't want another 3 points. That's why I'm posting, to see if anyone has experience or knowledge in these circumstances.
It is I suppose getting off (if I was guilty in the first place) on a technicality, but if the evidence isn't sound then I can't be convicted. I'm just not clear on the validity of the secondary check evidence.
My first post still stands, what they have sent you isn't evidence. They have replaced the old Speedcurb camera, which could only take rear facing photographs and did the carriageway in the opposite direction to which I was travelling, with a Redspeed Sentio, which does both directions.
As above, they didn't repaint the lines or anything, and it appears the timing for the photos doesn't put the vehicle over the measurements, certainly not in the direction I was travelling.
If I did take it to court, I'm looking at advocacy from a specialist lawyer, down in Somerset. If I did win I'd only get Legal Aid rates back, but I really don't want another 3 points. That's why I'm posting, to see if anyone has experience or knowledge in these circumstances.
It is I suppose getting off (if I was guilty in the first place) on a technicality, but if the evidence isn't sound then I can't be convicted. I'm just not clear on the validity of the secondary check evidence.
Its to help you decide if you're going to accept the FPN or take it to court. If you elect the latter, they will prepare the evidence they will rely on to try to prove the conviction, after which they will also share it with you. It might be those pictures, it might be different pictures or something else or additional things.
catfood12 said:
E-bmw said:
As above, they are neither needed nor even (frequently) actually looked at with modern cameras.
Their pics/data will show distance and time travelled virtually to the milli second/meter.
Well that's the gist of my query. Can the above pictures be used to accurately (or within 10%) determine my speed.Their pics/data will show distance and time travelled virtually to the milli second/meter.
As I said the markings are neither required nor relevant to modern cameras.
Markings are NOT required to prove distance travelled, it can be done against ANY fixed point in the pic.
ETA.
Oh, and don't forget the pic detail they have is MUCH better than they have sent you.
What you have been sent does NOT constitute the evidence they have, just a few images to help you confirm who was driving/identify who was driving if you contest.
Edited by E-bmw on Friday 30th January 15:02
Jamescrs said:
The new breed of cameras have appeared in Leeds City Centre and they are operating with no road markings at all on the roads. I believe the road markings are probably a legacy of the previous camera system left in place, they have no material bearing on the new cameras taking these pictures
This.It costs money and takes time to remove the old road markings (and is generally imperfect - see council near me refusing to fix dangerously narrow cycle lane on basis that to actually remove the markings (they repainted at <0.5m from kerb - lane is narrower than my road bike...) because to do it well enough for markings not to appear in some light conditions etc would require ripping up and replacing the brand new surface at horrific expense)
If they won't remove markings that are a safety issue (cycle lane narrower than basically any bicycle) they aren't going to remove markings with minimal impact at all...
https://www.redspeed-int.com/cameras/
"Our software is ground breaking, so our hardware doesn’t have to be – Redspeed’s camera installations are non-invasive and don’t require road markings."
"Our software is ground breaking, so our hardware doesn’t have to be – Redspeed’s camera installations are non-invasive and don’t require road markings."
netherfield said:
Or put another way 'you were caught doing 36 in a 30 and are trying wriggle out of it'.
Or put another way, if the authorities want to prosecute you for a technical infringement of the law, then it is appropriate to also use the law to provide a technical defence.In any case, it's now been shown that the secondary checks that are required by law are carried out by the camera setup itself, rendering the painted road markings redundant in this situation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff