Truth About Speed Cameras

[SirSimon]

Some interesting facts. Highly recommended if you have time. If not make time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTllmqWjOU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBXROqE9l8

This has been taken from ukspeedcameras.co.uk

[fizz876]

WOW..just watched it....it shocks me at how much room for error there is. They need to be banned.

[davido140]

?????????????? Im confused.

even a small possibility of unsafe convictions (as quoted in the film 1% is 20,000 unsafe convictions) it just should not be permitted!!!

I always thought these bits of kit were infallible...

[flemke]

davido140 said:

I always thought these bits of kit were infallible...

No, but that's what they want you to believe when you're deciding whether to accept the FPN.

[davido140]

im utterly

I havent been nabbed speeding by one of these for about 4 years

but if these are really as unreliable as this program suggests why are they still in use? Ignore the whole argument about whether speed traps are a good idea or not, lets just say for the sake of my rant they are great and do save lives, surely some reliable technology should be used to enforce this, not something with a margin of error, when prosecuting someone for a CRIMINAL OFFENCE any margin of error is unnaceptable!

do we have "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this country or have I just picked that up from watching law and order too much?

edit: excellent advert for doc what-his-names services as an expert witness, they earn top dollar IIRC

Edited by davido140 on Monday 9th July 23:53

Edited by davido140 on Monday 9th July 23:54

[Lostusernamedamn]

Now there was I, cynical old me, thinking cameras were all about the revenue...

[Just_a_guide]

SirSimon said:

Some interesting facts. Highly recommended if you have time. If not make time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTllmqWjOU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBXROqE9l8

This has been taken from ukspeedcameras.co.uk

“Just a different point of View” Keeping the debate balanced

two comments on U tube shows that it may not have been that impartial!

2nd comment on first link

3rd comment on second link

As with any piece of equipment if its not used correctly or by an un trained persons / or even a poor operator then it could be wrong.

A police officer told me years ago that there was a big case with breathalysers were they are meant to have a regular gas checks? Which was not being done on ONE unit. The unit said that the person was over the limit, but the bloods came back Zero.(Guy never ever drank) The device was wrong because it had not been tested and was not fit for use for what ever reason the test would have shown it..... It did not make ever one in the UK wrong and not fit for use. Isolated miss uses or poor operator use does not mean they are all wrong....

[bluepolarbear]

[quote=Just_a_guide“Just a different point of View” Keeping the debate balanced

..... It did not make ever one in the UK wrong and not fit for use. Isolated miss uses or poor operator use does not mean they are all wrong....
[/quote]

Which is the point the film makes. It shows that used incorrectly it will give a false video, further it shows that the device error checking routines do not trap all types of errors.

You then get a tripe answer from ACPO stating that all tests aren't using the procedures they use and the device is 100% accurate when used in the manner they proscribe.

the problem is, and something never addressed by any ACPO statement on the subject is that there are no checks and balances to ensure that the device is being used correctly. There is plenty of evidence (several cases in the film to start with) that show that on occasion the device isn't being used correctly.

[flemke]

bluepolarbear said:

Just_a_guide said:

“Just a different point of View” Keeping the debate balanced

..... It did not make ever one in the UK wrong and not fit for use. Isolated miss uses or poor operator use does not mean they are all wrong....

Which is the point the film makes. It shows that used incorrectly it will give a false video, further it shows that the device error checking routines do not trap all types of errors.

You then get a tripe answer from ACPO stating that all tests aren't using the procedures they use and the device is 100% accurate when used in the manner they proscribe.

the problem is, and something never addressed by any ACPO statement on the subject is that there are no checks and balances to ensure that the device is being used correctly. There is plenty of evidence (several cases in the film to start with) that show that on occasion the device isn't being used correctly.

Cars are 100% safe, with no need for speed limits or other sanctions, as long as they are driven correctly.

[skymaster]

Just_a_guide said:

SirSimon said:

Some interesting facts. Highly recommended if you have time. If not make time!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noTllmqWjOU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTBXROqE9l8

This has been taken from ukspeedcameras.co.uk

“Just a different point of View” Keeping the debate balanced

two comments on U tube shows that it may not have been that impartial!

2nd comment on first link

3rd comment on second link

As with any piece of equipment if its not used correctly or by an un trained persons / or even a poor operator then it could be wrong.

A police officer told me years ago that there was a big case with breathalysers were they are meant to have a regular gas checks? Which was not being done on ONE unit. The unit said that the person was over the limit, but the bloods came back Zero.(Guy never ever drank) The device was wrong because it had not been tested and was not fit for use for what ever reason the test would have shown it..... It did not make ever one in the UK wrong and not fit for use. Isolated miss uses or poor operator use does not mean they are all wrong....

Yes, but with alcohol limits the road side tests are often confirmed with better more precise (and less portable) tests down at the station, therefore having a safety net for dodgy equiptment. Take an LTI 20/20 speed gun for example. It takes less than a second to give a reading, then that single reading is used as evidence that a car was speeding. What would be better is if the SCP took maybe 3 or 4 readings with a speed gun then averaged them out. Then if they got maybe 34,35,33,98 they might question the 98. But of course they wouldn't make so much cash this way would they!

[odyssey2200]

They say that if it is operated correctly it gives correct readings.

When you receive your NIP a week later how do you know if it was being used correctly.
Even if you are stopped on the spot how do you know the correct operating procedure?

Make me

[tomuch]

There was a old thread that i came across 2005 it was writen ,
I belive by some members of the forum when thay were in a traffic car for the day .
Thay were stating the problems with the lt gun back then after testing in the police yard and then test another make of gun that was much easer to use and get correct reading from.
i do not no how to link it in .
i was stopped by one of these guns when i was on my way to work i was not speeding as i thort i was aproching a accident .i am waiting to go to court to fight my case .
i hope the judge accsept web links.

[oldsoak]

tomuch said:

There was a old thread that i came across 2005 it was writen ,
I belive by some members of the forum when thay were in a traffic car for the day .
Thay were stating the problems with the lt gun back then after testing in the police yard and then test another make of gun that was much easer to use and get correct reading from.
i do not no how to link it in .
i was stopped by one of these guns when i was on my way to work i was not speeding as i thort i was aproching a accident .i am waiting to go to court to fight my case .
i hope the judge accsept web links.

Weblinks to old programs of 2005 vintage...hardly up to date evidence..and if it was indeed 'evidence' the instances shown in the films would not be so precisely set up to show erroneous readings that in real life moving traffic situations would be very hard to emulate.
Honestly, what self respecting BiB would target a wing mirror with the speed gun?
Also I would wager that if the target was close enough to pan the gun down its side it was too close for a reliable reading anyway.
Ideally the registration plate is the target area (nice flat surface) failing that the area of the radiator grille is second choice...the windscreen is not first choice of targets unless the vehicle is so low slung that a good lock cannot be attained from the reg plate or rad grille.
Another flaw in the vid is the aiming of the gun at the stationary object (car and wall) and then moving the camera (panning) then feigning shock horror as a speed is registered...doh!
My thoughts are that the cameras themselves are perfectly OK...the problem is not in the equipment but rather in its initial deployment and use by the operator....who after all is the 'human factor' that is prone to making errors ...not the machine.
Perhaps it is the operators that need calibrating on a regular basis?

[odyssey2200]

oldsoak said:

[My thoughts are that the cameras themselves are perfectly OK...the problem is not in the equipment but rather in its initial deployment and use by the operator....who after all is the 'human factor' that is prone to making errors ...not the machine.
Perhaps it is the operators that need calibrating on a regular basis?

Sadly the SCP and CPS not to metion magistrates do not allow for the human errors when the see you in the court.

They tend to take the view that the system is flawless and the fact that you are there proves you are guilty.

Thats why so many pay the £60 and take the points.

[Who me ?]

TRUTH - SPEED CAMERAS - The two phrases don't mix