Time/distance calculations
Discussion
VASCAR
They drive a distance between two points, VASCAR measures the time and the distance.
Then they can sit and watch and time anybody else over the same distance - instant average speed reading. They trot out in front of you and pull you up.
Not entirely reliable due to parallax errors (it's very difficult to tell exactly when somebody passes a particular point more than half a mile away - they might use the "emerging from shadow of a bridge" or something to fix the exact point).
They drive a distance between two points, VASCAR measures the time and the distance.
Then they can sit and watch and time anybody else over the same distance - instant average speed reading. They trot out in front of you and pull you up.
Not entirely reliable due to parallax errors (it's very difficult to tell exactly when somebody passes a particular point more than half a mile away - they might use the "emerging from shadow of a bridge" or something to fix the exact point).
Edited by tvrgit on Friday 22 December 10:14
Thanks for that - I'm very confused tbh because I got pulled some time ago and was told I was being nicked for 111mph.
Didn't kick off at the time because whats the point?
However summons has come through post and the associated paperwork says I was timed over 0.7 mile - but I just don't believe I was going that fast and my solicitor simply says it will be his word on the day in court. But surely the policeman must have some evidence or methodology of him timing my car over 0.7 mile??
Didn't kick off at the time because whats the point?
However summons has come through post and the associated paperwork says I was timed over 0.7 mile - but I just don't believe I was going that fast and my solicitor simply says it will be his word on the day in court. But surely the policeman must have some evidence or methodology of him timing my car over 0.7 mile??
vonhosen said:
All that is required is two independent sources.
Two officers
OR
One officer & speedo
OR
One officer & vascar
OR
One officer & laser
OR
One camera & road markings
etc, etc.
Two officers
OR
One officer & speedo
OR
One officer & vascar
OR
One officer & laser
OR
One camera & road markings
etc, etc.
So what happens if one of the "Officers" is not an officer of the law?
Edited by cptsideways on Friday 22 December 13:19
cptsideways said:
vonhosen said:
All that is required is two independent sources.
Two officers
OR
One officer & speedo
OR
One officer & vascar
OR
One officer & laser
OR
One camera & road markings
etc, etc.
Two officers
OR
One officer & speedo
OR
One officer & vascar
OR
One officer & laser
OR
One camera & road markings
etc, etc.
So what happens if one of the "Officers" is not an officer of the law?
In the case of the camera & the road markings there is no "officer", just an "approved device".
It seems to be fine that an "approved person" can take the place of the officer.
vonhosen said:
cptsideways said:
So what happens if one of the "Officers" is not an officer of the law?
It seems to be fine that an "approved person" can take the place of the officer.
www.pepipoo.com/files/Gazette_Herald_2006-10-26.jpg
I believe this is being appealed.
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
cptsideways said:
So what happens if one of the "Officers" is not an officer of the law?
It seems to be fine that an "approved person" can take the place of the officer.
www.pepipoo.com/files/Gazette_Herald_2006-10-26.jpg
I believe this is being appealed.
It may well have been, but it's business as usual for them until any ruling says otherwise.
S 89 RTRA 84 (2) deals with corroboration and no where does it state Police Officer, merely 'witness' which in my book means anybody.
So if two upwards citizens of repute with a modecum of motoring ability were to measure a distance of say half a mile with a chain certified by Trading Standards and using a stop watch, again certified as accurate, they could gather the necessary evidence to prosecute a speed offence by timing a vehicle over the half mile. One at the start flagging the passange of a vehicle which they believed to be driven over the limit over the start of the measured half mile. At the end of which the second with the stopwatch activates when he sees the flag and stops when the vehicle passes his point at the end of the half mile.
The evidence at law is there.
The problem is stopping the vehicle or serving NOIP/172.
Unless of course if the both knew the driver and could take out a private summons and serve within 14 days. Or even concoct a certificate from information in the Act [RTOA 88]that proceedings were being taken in relation to the speed offence and handed to him within 14 days personally, or posted etc.
Regarding the .7 mile = 7 clicks of the odometer from zero ?
dvd
Emerging from the shadow of a bridge is a good one. Considering the distance away of the sun, and, of course if it were overhead such that the height of the bridge was not an issue then every mile you travel would be just under an inch out.
Of course you could argue that light can actualy travel round corners when it acts like a particle.
Either way the judge is going to be looking bored by the time you finish your speech so probably best to throw a few jokes in.
Of course you could argue that light can actualy travel round corners when it acts like a particle.
Either way the judge is going to be looking bored by the time you finish your speech so probably best to throw a few jokes in.
vonhosen said:
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
cptsideways said:
So what happens if one of the "Officers" is not an officer of the law?
It seems to be fine that an "approved person" can take the place of the officer.
www.pepipoo.com/files/Gazette_Herald_2006-10-26.jpg
I believe this is being appealed.
It may well have been, but it's business as usual for them until any ruling says otherwise.
"...business as usual.."
Is that an unfortunate misnomer Von, or a Freudian Slip!?
You have been here nearly a year now, perhaps something is rubbing off on you!
Flat in Fifth said:
vonhosen said:
One camera & road markings
And for one I always wonder about the situation with automatically operated cameras in unattended mode where there are no road markings. Corroboration in these cases is what?
Anything's possible in this absurd world where dependent evidence sources are deemed independent for the sake of expediency.
justinp1 said:
vonhosen said:
smeggy said:
vonhosen said:
cptsideways said:
So what happens if one of the "Officers" is not an officer of the law?
It seems to be fine that an "approved person" can take the place of the officer.
www.pepipoo.com/files/Gazette_Herald_2006-10-26.jpg
I believe this is being appealed.
It may well have been, but it's business as usual for them until any ruling says otherwise.
"...business as usual.."
Is that an unfortunate misnomer Von, or a Freudian Slip!?
You have been here nearly a year now, perhaps something is rubbing off on you!
nah
Julian64 said:
Emerging from the shadow of a bridge is a good one. Considering the distance away of the sun, and, of course if it were overhead such that the height of the bridge was not an issue then every mile you travel would be just under an inch out.
Of course you could argue that light can actualy travel round corners when it acts like a particle.
Either way the judge is going to be looking bored by the time you finish your speech so probably best to throw a few jokes in.
Of course you could argue that light can actualy travel round corners when it acts like a particle.
Either way the judge is going to be looking bored by the time you finish your speech so probably best to throw a few jokes in.
I am not sure that the judge looks bored in every case! In fact there have been many VASCAR cases which have been lost. So much so I have heard it from the horses mouth that a few years ago North Wales stopped using them for a while.
The 'emerging shadow' situation relates to that the operator has to literally flick a switch whilst the car they are following passes a point, then another when they pass the same point. They then have to flick a switch at the end of the 'test zone' when the accused passes the point and then when the chasing car passes the point.
All of these have to be done manually, and if the driver is on his own whilst he is driving and chasing the accused in order to keep up or close on him. Thus, there is quite a margin for error if an officer must do all this whilst they are driving at 111mph!
There is also the factor that the timing of the switches can be consciously or subconsciously 'lent on' to 'increase the strength' of the evidence.
Of course the stronger cases to defend will be those where a 'margin of error' can be shown to affect the reading. Thus if the OP was pulled for 85 over 0.3 of a mile he would have a much stronger case.
It would be my guess that the OPs solicitor in this case will be looking for an administrative loophole in this situation - as the only other way to justify the fact that a 41mph error over 0.7 of a mile would be that the operator is hugely incompetant or dishonest. Failing finding an error the other thing he may do is negotiate a guilty plea if the CPS offer a speed of say 95, thus avoiding a ban.
Edited by justinp1 on Friday 22 December 16:59
justinp1 said:
Julian64 said:
Emerging from the shadow of a bridge is a good one. Considering the distance away of the sun, and, of course if it were overhead such that the height of the bridge was not an issue then every mile you travel would be just under an inch out.
Of course you could argue that light can actualy travel round corners when it acts like a particle.
Either way the judge is going to be looking bored by the time you finish your speech so probably best to throw a few jokes in.
Of course you could argue that light can actualy travel round corners when it acts like a particle.
Either way the judge is going to be looking bored by the time you finish your speech so probably best to throw a few jokes in.
I am not sure that the judge looks bored in every case! In fact there have been many VASCAR cases which have been lost. So much so I have heard it from the horses mouth that a few years ago North Wales stopped using them for a while.
The 'emerging shadow' situation relates to that the operator has to literally flick a switch whilst the car they are following passes a point, then another when they pass the same point. They then have to flick a switch at the end of the 'test zone' when the accused passes the point and then when the chasing car passes the point.
All of these have to be done manually, and if the driver is on his own whilst he is driving and chasing the accused in order to keep up or close on him. Thus, there is quite a margin for error if an officer must do all this whilst they are driving at 111mph!
There is also the factor that the timing of the switches can be consciously or subconsciously 'lent on' to 'increase the strength' of the evidence.
Of course the stronger cases to defend will be those where a 'margin of error' can be shown to affect the reading. Thus if the OP was pulled for 85 over 0.3 of a mile he would have a much stronger case.
It would be my guess that the OPs solicitor in this case will be looking for an administrative loophole in this situation - as the only other way to justify the fact that a 41mph error over 0.7 of a mile would be that the operator is hugely incompetant or dishonest. Failing finding an error the other thing he may do is negotiate a guilty plea if the CPS offer a speed of say 95, thus avoiding a ban.
Edited by justinp1 on Friday 22 December 16:59
Hmm I understand your point, but in a day and age where I'd argue for more police and less cameras, I'd hazard a guess that if your driving brought its attention to a plod, then that was probably good enough for me and the proof was probably secondary. I never really have believed that plod are vindictive, just trying to do a job.
Its just that we live in a world where we are almost encourged to try and argue the toss, and will be worse as the measures become more draconian.
So for the same reason I'd argue with a camera conviction I probably wouldn't be arguing techinicalities with a policeman.
tvrgit said:
AFAIK 2 cops and a VASCAR is all they need - no photos, no video (although they might also have both)
Aye they got me on the M5 with that set up, parked on the side of the Mway.
I was doing 85-90
They said I was doing 101.9
I coughed to 85 and a FPN
They refused and I got a summons.
Result: 6 points and a small fine.
Stitched up like a kipper.
blueyes said:
tvrgit said:
AFAIK 2 cops and a VASCAR is all they need - no photos, no video (although they might also have both)
Aye they got me on the M5 with that set up, parked on the side of the Mway.
I was doing 85-90
They said I was doing 101.9
I coughed to 85 and a FPN
They refused and I got a summons.
Result: 6 points and a small fine.
Stitched up like a kipper.
Out of interest why do you think they would want to lie about it?
Hopefully they don't get paid more for copping you at 101 than 85, so why did they exaggerate?
Not having a crack at you because you may well be right, but why do you think?
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff