Do camera vans have to have rear hatch open when operating?
Discussion
smeggy said:
The ACPO guidelines for laser speedmeters state:
"The beam must not be projected through glass or any mirrors"
However, these are only guidelines......
Is a "Code of Practice" the same as guidelines?
If so:
ACPO Code of Practice for Operational use of Enforcement Equipment
Foreword
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
And here's the important bit:
"The beam must not be projected through glass or mirrors."
When I defended myself in court, I actually read out the 'foreword' to the court as a prior explanation to what the ACPO guidelines were.
In my case, the operator failed on at least 5 points in the ACPO guidelines. The fact that he had never read them did not matter.
The view of the court is that they are 'only guidelines'. I thought this to be fundamentally wrong, so I spent £800 on a barrister and appeal. In the few minutes before the trial the CPS barrister asked on what grounds the appeal was made, and he response was, 'This isnt going to be a dissection of the ACPO guidelines as that is a futile waste of time'. He obviously had experience with the Crown Courts view of the guidelines. He was right.
So, to cut a long story short, what the ACPO guidelines say is irrelevant. In all of the questionable cases I have seen some of the guidelines were not followed. In my case the operator didnt even know the guidelines existed. In any legal challenge they are also worthless.
I have made this point before, perhaps Mr Brunstrom before he stands down should confirm what the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent creating the guidelines from testing the equipment has been used for. He should either back them up in a legal sense or hold an investigation to where the public's money has been wasted.
Unfortunately all the ACPO guidelines are are a bit of spin on paper to give the public the inpression that they are being accused fairly and that the operators are culpable to someone other than themselves. In the real world this is certainly not the case.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 20th October 11:30
In my case, the operator failed on at least 5 points in the ACPO guidelines. The fact that he had never read them did not matter.
The view of the court is that they are 'only guidelines'. I thought this to be fundamentally wrong, so I spent £800 on a barrister and appeal. In the few minutes before the trial the CPS barrister asked on what grounds the appeal was made, and he response was, 'This isnt going to be a dissection of the ACPO guidelines as that is a futile waste of time'. He obviously had experience with the Crown Courts view of the guidelines. He was right.
So, to cut a long story short, what the ACPO guidelines say is irrelevant. In all of the questionable cases I have seen some of the guidelines were not followed. In my case the operator didnt even know the guidelines existed. In any legal challenge they are also worthless.
I have made this point before, perhaps Mr Brunstrom before he stands down should confirm what the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent creating the guidelines from testing the equipment has been used for. He should either back them up in a legal sense or hold an investigation to where the public's money has been wasted.
Unfortunately all the ACPO guidelines are are a bit of spin on paper to give the public the inpression that they are being accused fairly and that the operators are culpable to someone other than themselves. In the real world this is certainly not the case.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 20th October 11:30
blueyes said:
It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
……in just the same way as
“It is important that the beam is held steady on the target area to avoid any 'slip factor'”
and
“Operators should bear in mind the device confirms and corroborates their prior personal observations and opinion.”
…which we all know doesn’t always happen
As backed up by…..
“Adherence to the recommendations within this Code of Practice……”
{ACPO Code OF Practice For Operational Use Of Road Policing Technology}
So as Justin points out, there is no legal requirement for these guidelines to be applied scrupulously.
Noted a lot of talivans when was driving in Derbyshire High Peak, which were taking pictures through closed doors - ist in lay-by on each side of Buxton on A6. 
Und since when do they adhere to their guidelines
I see these vans parked on pavement, on yellow lines, within yards of speed limit changes, hidden under foliage und behind concealing street furniture - in other word where they can grab a few quid on the blippers und justify existence else it make for boring day Ist not where ist history of nuisance drivers or accidents...
Und since when do they adhere to their guidelines
I see these vans parked on pavement, on yellow lines, within yards of speed limit changes, hidden under foliage und behind concealing street furniture - in other word where they can grab a few quid on the blippers und justify existence else it make for boring day Ist not where ist history of nuisance drivers or accidents...justinp1 said:
I have made this point before, perhaps Mr Brunstrom before he stands down should confirm what the hundreds of thousands of pounds spent creating the guidelines from testing the equipment has been used for. He should either back them up in a legal sense or hold an investigation to where the public's money has been wasted. >> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 20th October 11:30
That's a good point. Is there anyway Brunstrom could be alerted as to the money he has wasted in this way? Maybe he doesn't know.
jjustin said:
ledfoot said:
Suffolk scammers use a Ford Focus with camera in back window. I have seen it parked in a layby at Elveden on the A11.
Crikey, do they?
Is the focus marked up or just plain?
Yes, it is colour white.
Seen it in the 40mph limit towards Elvedon in layby southbound side at bottom of the long straight gentle slope.
It is marked on the side doors only as 'SC4' or something like that, in large black signwriting.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Thursday 20th October 13:02
ledfoot said:
ledfoot said:
Suffolk scammers use a Ford Focus with camera in back window. I have seen it parked in a layby at Elveden on the A11.
Crikey, do they?
Is the focus marked up or just plain?
Yes, it is colour white.
Seen it in the 40mph limit towards Elvedon in layby southbound side at bottom of the long straight gentle slope.
It is marked on the side doors only as 'SC4' or something like that, in large black signwriting.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Thursday 20th October 13:02
i saw that car there the other day, i thought it was good timing of them, as Brandon-Thetford road is closed for 2 weeks, and the traffic is diverted through elveden.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff