NIP for 400 mph on the M4

[rs1952]

Just heard the radio news. A taxi driver has apparently been sent an NIP for doing 400 mph on the M4

In, apparently, a 12-year old diesel ....

A spokesman said: - Human error was the cause of the mistake - not the speed camera

Now, why aint I surprised

[tigger1]

It was a 12 year old cavalier and the blame is being put on human error. Problem (to me) is that this is easy to prove when it's 400mph in a 30, but what about 40 in a 30?

[GKP]

story here

[Gerry Breen]

Does anyone else think they use the "human error" excuse to stop any criticism of potentially faulty kit/calibration (just thinking about the Peter Ward thread). I believe they should be required to give precise details of the human error involved.

[batfink]

was it downhill?

[tigger1]

Gerry Breen said:

Does anyone else think they use the "human error" excuse to stop any criticism of potentially faulty kit/calibration (just thinking about the Peter Ward thread). I believe they should be required to give precise details of the human error involved.

Could it be shown that any potential use of the same equipment was subject to this same error, and it was therefore unreliable (again, thinking about the PW scenario)

[jatinder]

more here

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/04012007/140

[supermono]

This is another variation of the old chestnut like the 90mph milk float, the 120mph imprezza that was restricted to 108 IIRC, the 110mph punto, etc.

As a previous poster said this is all very hilarious at 400mph but it proves that the system is flawed -- and I can't hear the 70mph guy who's just lost his livelihood for getting "caught" doing 106 laughing very loudly, can you?

They're saying well your vehicle could have possibly been travelling at that speed therefore it was. Oh you mean it couldn't do 400mph? Right you are, you must be innocent then...

It's a bit like discovering that sometimes a DNA test gave a false positive (the alleged perp of a rape was in jail at the time, for example) and then saying "Oh well, we'll keep on locking people up on the strength of the DNA evidence because it's mostly right"

Justice? My arse.

SM

[turbobloke]

supermono said:

This is another variation of the old chestnut like the 90mph milk float, the 120mph imprezza that was restricted to 108 IIRC, the 110mph punto, etc.

As a previous poster said this is all very hilarious at 400mph but it proves that the system is flawed -- and I can't hear the 70mph guy who's just lost his livelihood for getting "caught" doing 106 laughing very loudly, can you?

They're saying well your vehicle could have possibly been travelling at that speed therefore it was. Oh you mean it couldn't do 400mph? Right you are, you must be innocent then...

It's a bit like discovering that sometimes a DNA test gave a false positive (the alleged perp of a rape was in jail at the time, for example) and then saying "Oh well, we'll keep on locking people up on the strength of the DNA evidence because it's mostly right"

Justice? My arse.

SM

That's an insult to your arse, which is surely a very fair and reasonable arse incapable of foisting injustices on innocent people.

[vonhosen]

tigger1 said:

It was a 12 year old cavalier and the blame is being put on human error. Problem (to me) is that this is easy to prove when it's 400mph in a 30, but what about 40 in a 30?

I would imagine it's a simple input typo error on the NIP, but not in the evidence relating to speed actually recorded.

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

[turbobloke]

vonhosen said:

tigger1 said:

It was a 12 year old cavalier and the blame is being put on human error. Problem (to me) is that this is easy to prove when it's 400mph in a 30, but what about 40 in a 30?

I would imagine it's a simple input typo error on the NIP, but not in the evidence relating to speed actually recorded.

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

And the NIP sent out featured in the media not so long ago for 0 mph, what was that speed? And what about the milk float and the Inmpreza and the other totally ludicrous speeds? And the fact that vibrations from HGVs can set off GATSOs, what aboutb that?

What about putting an end to automated enforcement since Canada's more honest politicians and road safety groups have confirmed that
-it has no safety benefits
-it is an arbitrary and oppressive approach redolent of big government
-it harms witness cooperation, police resruitment, and severely damages police public relations
-it requires a well funded spin machine to sustain it

Automated enforement should be scrapped immediately as it is a dishonest immoral con trick.

[spokey]

vonhosen said:

tigger1 said:

It was a 12 year old cavalier and the blame is being put on human error. Problem (to me) is that this is easy to prove when it's 400mph in a 30, but what about 40 in a 30?

I would imagine it's a simple input typo error on the NIP

Sure.

[supermono]

VH is it ok then that these errors keep cropping up, since maybe 9 times out of 10 the evidence is correct?

What if it's actually 8 times out of 10? Or 3? What's the percentages of miscarriages of justice that's acceptable? Hmmm? Don't forget it's not 60 quid and 3 points on a clean licence every time -- some people here in the real world are losing their jobs, their houses, their marriages, everything on a process that has documented flaws like this.

Or is it a fair price to pay since the cameras are saving so many lives? Oh, but they're not though are they?

SM

[Zod]

vonhosen said:

tigger1 said:

It was a 12 year old cavalier and the blame is being put on human error. Problem (to me) is that this is easy to prove when it's 400mph in a 30, but what about 40 in a 30?

I would imagine it's a simple input typo error on the NIP, but not in the evidence relating to speed actually recorded.

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

Surely NIPs are automatically generated? (I've never seen one)

[njwc]

A question for the legally minded amongst us

From a purely academic / technical viewpoint, lets assume that he was actually speeding, but at (say) 42mph in a 30, and the NIP has gone out showing 420mph due to a typo on the SCPs part.

So, with the sole objective of not being found guilty (regardless of the rights and wrongs of this), which is the better course of action - to tell the SCP they've made an error and give them the chance to re-issue the NIP, or to sign it, wait for the court case then plead not guilty to the charge of driving at 420mph on the basis it cant possibly be true ?

I believe that there is a precedent for changing minor details on NIPs etc in the event of a clerical error, but does it extend to something as significant as the actual speed ?

BTW Lets not get into an argument about whether he should be prosecuted for 42mph, whether he therefore is guilty, whether the whole system is corrupt yada yada yada. We have that argument every day and I'm asking how the law operates from a purely legal, technical, amoral point of view.

[rs1952]

supermono said:

This is another variation of the old chestnut like the 90mph milk float, the 120mph imprezza that was restricted to 108 IIRC, the 110mph punto, etc.

As a previous poster said this is all very hilarious at 400mph but it proves that the system is flawed -- and I can't hear the 70mph guy who's just lost his livelihood for getting "caught" doing 106 laughing very loudly, can you?

They're saying well your vehicle could have possibly been travelling at that speed therefore it was. Oh you mean it couldn't do 400mph? Right you are, you must be innocent then...

SM

A difficulty I have is that these “simple mistakes” only get discovered and accepted when they are blatantly obvious. As Peter Ward’s thread has demonstrated so clearly, under normal circumstances the SCPs just refuse to accept that any mistakes can be made, or take any steps to justify their position, if it appears that one might have been.

I remembered another example of a “mistake” in 2002 and have spent the last hour looking for it – I found it in Old Glory magazine, September 2002:-

The Museum of Rail Travel at Ingrow got a FPN because their 1948 Scammel Mechanical Horse tractor unit had allegedly been pinged doing 44 down the Bury Road at Bolton. For those of you not old enough to remember these things, the early ones had no speedo and a light came on if it exceeded 18 mph!

It turned out that its registration, CAN 863, had indeed been pinged in Bolton, but it was a Belgian plate that had been photographed. If the tosspots who administer these things can’t tell the difference between a Belgian plate and a UK plate, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the system, does it? And, of course, if the UK plate CAN 863 had been fitted to something that could have done 44 in a 30, what defence would the owner have given the difficulty in obtaining photographic evidence (VH please take that as a question to you personally!)

vonhosen said:

tigger1 said:

It was a 12 year old cavalier and the blame is being put on human error. Problem (to me) is that this is easy to prove when it's 400mph in a 30, but what about 40 in a 30?

I would imagine it's a simple input typo error on the NIP, but not in the evidence relating to speed actually recorded.

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

Pure speculation on your part, chum. It might just as easily have been 24.

[vonhosen]

rs1952 said:

vonhosen said:

I would imagine it's a simple input typo error on the NIP, but not in the evidence relating to speed actually recorded.

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

Pure speculation on your part, chum. It might just as easily have been 24.

It is pure speculation, but the evidence in the case (which is the important thing) will say what the recorded speed was. A mistake on the written NIP need not be fatal to the case.
Shield v Crighton 1974

[mel]

I actually got done for doing 62 in a 70 on the M11 a few years ago, I questioned it and they said slip error should have been 92 and we're still doing you, and did, and they won.

[GKP]

vonhosen said:

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

What sort of stake are we talking here? Would you bet your job/livelihood on it?

[tigger1]

vonhosen said:

For 420mph in a 30, I'd bet that the evidence actually says 42 in a 30.

And what sort of incompetents make that kind of mistake?

There have been cases in the past, have there not, of planes etc being pinged at 400+mph? In the current case (Chavalier), does anyone know what type of device was used - was it automated or a "man with a gun"? Just curious.