Mobile Speed Camera photo with a lot of lamp-post in it...

[andy 308gtb]

My apologies if you may have seen this post on another forum but I was pointed in this direction and thought I would see what you guys thought.

I got a ticket through a week or so ago (40mph in a 30) - taken by a mobile speed camera. The camera had been positioned on the 'other' side of the road. i.e. facing oncoming traffic but monitoring traffic that was travelling away from the camera.

The photo shows the rear of the car (Focus estate) and the side of the car up to the pillar between the rear door & the drivers door but the camera was positioned such that a lamp-post occupies approximately 25/30pct of the photo (i.e. the lamp-post is between the camera and my car)
The lamp-post is not even on the edge of the photo - the left hand side of it is just off centre and it more or less occupies the entire right hand side of the photo, from top to bottom.

It has already been pointed out to me that the laser is a seperate device (and could be positioned separately) and the photo is merely to record the car registration. However, it does seem odd that the camera was positioned as it was. If I could, I would post the photo on here but I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

Any ideas? (other than pay the fine and don't speed)

[puggit]

First of all welcome, and good luck fighting the corrupt money grabbing system that has ensnared you in it's mits.

You'd be right to think that the lamp-post is likely to have interfered with the recording of your speed - but you'd be very unlikely to win a case based on this in court. The magistrates just aren't interested in a reasoned debate and will almost always side with the Home Office approved device.

Best get over to www.pepipoo.com and get some good advice in the forums as well as in here

[BliarOut]

You need to be getting information together on the type of speed gun used and the ACPO guidelines for it's use. Someone will be along shortly with a link

[justinp1]

puggit said:

...but you'd be very unlikely to win a case based on this in court. The magistrates just aren't interested in a reasoned debate and will almost always side with the Home Office approved device.

I have had personal experience of this at magistrates and crown court, and agree completely. However, as it happens the ****ed uk way the 'fair' system works is that although you reasonable case will really not be accepted for its merits, you have much more chance in:

1) Asking the CPS for all the information about the case you can, including the full video recording of the tour of duty, calibration certs for the device, copies of the training certs of the operators, maintainance logs and full manual for operating the device.

2) Looking at the case to find a roundabout loophole which makes the case unsafe.

I have not heard of a case where the CPS has sent all of 1) first time. They will bitch and moan and fob you off and ignore you, but if you send the letter by recorded delivery and they do not respond, they will have a hard time explaining to the magistrates by the case needs to be adjourned and will need a very good reason why they could not supply you with the information you need to mount a case, and wasted your and the courts time.

Similarly their witness may not turn up at court.

Thirdly, they may look at the tape and decide that they do not want to send it to you as it reveals they have ****ed up in taking some readings during the day, the case will be dropped.

Fourthly, the tape may show the above, and with a specialist solicitor you will have a good case.

What I have found is that playing the game by the rules, ie researching the case and returning with compelling evidence of faults is a waste of time. If I had exploited the failures of the CPS and the way they come to trial I would have won. I have recently advised someone from here in a similar situation, and the CPS turned up at court without the documents he had asked for, and without a witness... If the duty solicitor had been there to say something, or if the guy knew to say something the case would have been closed there and then.

[smeggy]

andy 308gtb said:

The photo shows the rear of the car (Focus estate) and the side of the car up to the pillar between the rear door & the drivers door but the camera was positioned such that a lamp-post occupies approximately 25/30pct of the photo (i.e. the lamp-post is between the camera and my car) The lamp-post is not even on the edge of the photo - the left hand side of it is just off centre and it more or less occupies the entire right hand side of the photo, from top to bottom.

If I understood you correctly, that is a big

The designers feel that this is such an important point that they put a statement regarding this into the manual – twice:

LTI manual said:

LINE OF SIGHT While setting up it is important that a position be chosen which has a clear view to the section of road that will be targeted. It is important that no trees, telephone poles, buildings, etc. are situated between the instrument and the section of road that will be targeted. …………. LINE OF SIGHT An important requirement of the laser speed detector that must be adhered to at all times is that the operator must have a clear line of sight to the target vehicle. It is important that nothing intersects the laser beam as it travels between the instrument and the target. If at any time an object does intersect the beam while a velocity measurement is being taken the instrument will display an error message.

andy 308gtb said:

It has already been pointed out to me that the laser is a seperate device (and could be positioned separately) and the photo is merely to record the car registration. However, it does seem odd that the camera was positioned as it was. If I could, I would post the photo on here but I don't have access to a scanner at the moment.

I would be surprised if the video camera wasn’t physically attached to the LTI such that they were both aimed at the same object, otherwise what use is the video for confirming that your vehicle was the object that was targeted? In this case, I believer you have good cause to demand disclosure of the video. As others have pointed out, you might find that the case will simply get dropped if that issue is pushed (but prepare for a battle)

[andy 308gtb]

Thanks for the replies.
I am only wearing 3 points on my licence at the moment, so this is not going to be a 'do or die' mission also I work abroad Mon-Fri so ending up in court is not really viable or cost-effective.
I am irritated by the use of these mobile cameras, there was a big push locally to make them more visible, this was achieved by putting Red & Yellow chevrons on the back doors. The operators simply got around this by leaving the back doors open.
Where I was caught is a regular site but the van had been parked on the other side of the road. If it had been facing the traffic it was recording the chevrons would not have been visible. I suspect the van had been backed into an NHS entrance, i.e. hidden.

However, I am encouraged by the responses and will see how far I can push this matter. I will update this thread with any progress I make.

Thanks again

>> Edited by andy 308gtb on Monday 5th December 11:33