A90 Laurencekirk Speed Camera.

A90 Laurencekirk Speed Camera.

Author
Discussion

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
in 2016 I represented myself at Aberdeen Sheriff court, re alleged speeding through the A90 Speed camera limit of 50mph.

The case was never heard in court once the PF representative read through my statement and reviewed my evidence.

Key facts

1. The white lines are not 2 metres apart as stated by the police in writing to me, they are a few inches less.This means the speed distance calculation for the camera is wrong. This is important as the picture taken, tends to show you having travelled a considerable distance from the start of the white lines.
2. The Police stated the camera does not depreciate re accuracy during the year. Why then does it need to be calibrated each year. The Police are wrong the camera does require calibration as per manufactures recommendation.
3. The police refused to provide the calibration certificate for the camera, however I ascertained the camera at the time of the alleged offence was in Q4 of the year, therefore the accuracy of the camera had decreased dramatically.

Anybody who was flashed and convicted by this camera, pre recent white lines being adjusted by the council. Could very well have a claim against the police for wrongful conviction.

I will share the details of my case free of charge.

AndrewEH1

4,917 posts

152 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
Good I guess, although I'd question points 2 & 3 regarding calibration.

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
Any measurement equipment which has certain requirements for accuracy, will need calibration. The environment in which the camera is located also has an impact of the efficiency of the camera.

The fact the PF recognised this and the incorrect 2m measurement, resulted in the case not even being heard by the Sheriff. Hence the council have now painted white lines on the road re correct distance apart.


AndrewEH1

4,917 posts

152 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
Andy2307 said:
Any measurement equipment which has certain requirements for accuracy, will need calibration. The environment in which the camera is located also has an impact of the efficiency of the camera.

The fact the PF recognised this and the incorrect 2m measurement, resulted in the case not even being heard by the Sheriff. Hence the council have now painted white lines on the road re correct distance apart.
Suspect it wasn't heard by the Sheriff due to the measurements alone, despite your mixture of metric and imperial.

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
That was a factor, in that the police state the gap between the white lines is two metres, the reality is they are not. I choose to use Imperial to prove a point. MPH etc and the calculation works on Miles not metres.

rossub

4,400 posts

189 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
What speed were you caught at?

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
The prosecution was based on a Camera speed of 64 mph, that was proven not to be correct.

haggishunter

1,315 posts

242 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
Was it the north or southbound camera? Or are they both the same?

the tribester

2,340 posts

85 months

Monday 22nd May 2017
quotequote all
Even if there were no white lines on the road, the camera would have still recorded your speed at 64mph.

The white lines are for the secondary check.

You were probably going 64mph.

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
This was the Northbound Carriage. The south bound carriage way lines have been repainted with different spacings, the old locations are still visible.

Yes the lines are secondary, however they are there to verify the speed/distance covered measurement/timing, under which the penalty notice is sent. So therefore the incorrect spacing is a key piece of evidence, otherwise why send the picture showing the back of your car and quoting the speed et al.

The calculation proved that I was not driving at 64 mph and having driven through the south bound lane/camera trap earlier that day, I clearly knew the area.

Likewise for the cops to say the camera does not need calibration is both deflection and ignorance, hence the manufacturer confirmed the cameras are sent for calibration each year. Likewise the accuracy depreciates over the timeframe - One year. This why the PF representative did not want this information in the court. Lets see what the press make of it.

No doubt the last comment is from a copper.

boydy6

22 posts

163 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Andy2307 said:
This was the Northbound Carriage. The south bound carriage way lines have been repainted with different spacings, the old locations are still visible.

Yes the lines are secondary, however they are there to verify the speed/distance covered measurement/timing, under which the penalty notice is sent. So therefore the incorrect spacing is a key piece of evidence, otherwise why send the picture showing the back of your car and quoting the speed et al.

The calculation proved that I was not driving at 64 mph and having driven through the south bound lane/camera trap earlier that day, I clearly knew the area.

Likewise for the cops to say the camera does not need calibration is both deflection and ignorance, hence the manufacturer confirmed the cameras are sent for calibration each year. Likewise the accuracy depreciates over the timeframe - One year. This why the PF representative did not want this information in the court. Lets see what the press make of it.

No doubt the last comment is from a copper.
I can see all your points and generally agree, however, I do not agree with your opinion that the accuracy depreciates over time. I use a lot of tools and instruments at work which are calibrated each year. We would not continue to use them if they "depreciated" over the year. They are cal'd to make sure they are still performing within the required range of operation. They very rarely fail. I would agree that if a calibration was overdue then they would have no argument against you, they'd be scuppered.

Also, 64mph in a 50. Regardless of markings and camera calibration, it's safe to say you were well over 50! Lucky boy wink

Driver101

14,376 posts

120 months

Thursday 25th May 2017
quotequote all
Andy2307 said:
This was the Northbound Carriage. The south bound carriage way lines have been repainted with different spacings, the old locations are still visible.

Yes the lines are secondary, however they are there to verify the speed/distance covered measurement/timing, under which the penalty notice is sent. So therefore the incorrect spacing is a key piece of evidence, otherwise why send the picture showing the back of your car and quoting the speed et al.

The calculation proved that I was not driving at 64 mph and having driven through the south bound lane/camera trap earlier that day, I clearly knew the area.

Likewise for the cops to say the camera does not need calibration is both deflection and ignorance, hence the manufacturer confirmed the cameras are sent for calibration each year. Likewise the accuracy depreciates over the timeframe - One year. This why the PF representative did not want this information in the court. Lets see what the press make of it.

No doubt the last comment is from a copper.
I've driven that road a million times and don't remember the last time I've seen anyone getting caught. People drive through it at 55mph with no issues.

How did the calculation prove you were not doing 64mph?

If the lines were closer together than the distance used for caluculation the calculation would have calculated your speed even higher.

Who measured the lines a few inches short of 2m? The lines are considerably closer than 2m.


Sandy59

2,706 posts

210 months

Friday 26th May 2017
quotequote all
Andy2307 said:
in 2016 I represented myself at Aberdeen Sheriff court, re alleged speeding through the A90 Speed camera limit of 50mph.

The case was never heard in court once the PF representative read through my statement and reviewed my evidence.

Key facts

1. The white lines are not 2 metres apart as stated by the police in writing to me, they are a few inches less.This means the speed distance calculation for the camera is wrong. This is important as the picture taken, tends to show you having travelled a considerable distance from the start of the white lines.
2. The Police stated the camera does not depreciate re accuracy during the year. Why then does it need to be calibrated each year. The Police are wrong the camera does require calibration as per manufactures recommendation.
3. The police refused to provide the calibration certificate for the camera, however I ascertained the camera at the time of the alleged offence was in Q4 of the year, therefore the accuracy of the camera had decreased dramatically.

Anybody who was flashed and convicted by this camera, pre recent white lines being adjusted by the council. Could very well have a claim against the police for wrongful conviction.

I will share the details of my case free of charge.
Andy, do you know when the lines were repainted to correct spacing exactly ??
Also interested in your case details, could you please PM me as can't seem to PM you ??

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Friday 26th May 2017
quotequote all
All

My email is anysluk@yahoo.co.uk if you email me, I will reply with details.

I know within the North East hundreds of drivers have been prosecuted for alleged speeding, through these cameras. The question is are all the other markings throughout the UK the same!

The road maker distance changes are within the last few months, the council are duty bound to confirm the date of the repainting if you ask them.

To clarify I was not lucky and I was not driving at 64 mph. As a Chartered Engineer, I know a great deal about calibration also root cause analysis and failure mode effect analysis, likewise RTA investigations.

The entire correspondence file is now being shared with a Journo from a National paper. If the system is wrong then that is an injustice as was the case in this instance.

Information follow request to the Police.

1. The certificate of calibration seems to indicate that the certificate references five cameras? Is this correct and which is the camera applicable to this case?

2. The certificate of calibration is dated 02 December 2014 to the 01 December 2015, this indicates that the camera has a depreciation value of accuracy of 75% based on the picture date being the 23/09/2015. This implies the camera has only a 25% accuracy rating!

3. Confirm the re-calibration date for the camera and depreciation of accuracy over a twelve month period? The police paperwork clearly stated date of calibration.

4. The images indicating three, end elevation pictures for !!!!!!!!!!! with two positions of the vehicle on the road, via time-lapse. Please confirm the actual distance between the vehicle end elevation positions, this will enable me to verify the distance against my own measurements for the actual speed calculation.

5. I travelled on the southbound carriage way at midday, on the same day. This indicates awareness of the 50mph zone and due compliance with the speed limit.

My correction replies to the Police.

Correction 1

I do not live at !!!!!!!!! as per your letter or !!!!!!!!!! as per Police Scotland correspondence. So please do explain why have these basic mistakes have been made, robot or human error?

Correction 2

The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “With regard to the accuracy within the 12 month calibration period. This is confirmed when every offence is checked in the office using photographic evidence”.

In response to this comment, I draw your attention to Appendix 1

Likewise it my understanding that the calibration process for the Gatso Cameras, requires said cameras to be returned to the Dutch factory. Furthermore the camera at the time of the incorrect activation was 75% - 9 months, into its annual period of calibration. This therefore implies that the camera at best, has 25% of working accuracy retained.

The legal definition of competency in the UK is 50% experience and 50% training. I will therefore be asking for confirmation, that whoever calibrates the Gatso cameras at the Aberdeen office, can indeed verify their competency to carry out this complex task.

Appendix 1 Short Version - Tom Magner, a forensic engineer specialising in speed cameras told the BBC that the odds were stacked against the motorist, and that Gatsos should be calibrated more frequently.

"It's a precision piece of equipment and there's a very tight tolerance on which it is operated in order to be accurate," he said. "So when you're dealing with the sort of speeds you deal with in these particular cases, it's asking a lot of that equipment to operate time and time and time again so accurately.

"I don't think one annual calibration is sufficient. I think every six months at least but every time the camera is used, it should be checked to make sure that it is working properly."

Correction 3

The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “In this case the photographic evidence shows the vehicle travelled just over 14 metres between the two photographs”

The measured distance is 6 x 76 inches = 456 inches or 38 feet. Therefore the car therefore has travelled 38 feet in 0.5 seconds, a speed of 76 feet in one second, multiple by sixty seconds = 4,560 then multiple by 60 minutes = 273,600 feet per hour. Divide this by 5,280, the number of feet in a mile, and you get 51.81mph. This is the speed you would expect of somebody who drove through the same camera area, in the opposite direction four hours previously.

Correction 4

The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “Each small white roadside marking is two metres apart”.
The measured distance is in fact 76 inches, when measured correctly.
Two metres equates to 78.75 inches, therefore this raises the question about the distance v speed ratio calibration for the Gatso based on the incorrect reference made as 2 metres v the actual ground distance, between the white markers being 76 inches.

Likewise with the accuracy depreciation factored in, it calls into question the legality of the alleged offence in the first instance.
Please reference the case study in Appendix 2

I am sure the Journo will like this scoop.


the tribester

2,340 posts

85 months

Friday 26th May 2017
quotequote all
The Police/camera partnership says you travelled 14m between the two photographs, which at their stated 2 metre intervals, suggests you travelled 7 white lines. Your calculations suggest it is only 6 white lines ( quote ‘6 x 76 inches = 456 inches’) which will reveal different speed measurement conclusions.

You say your measurement of the distance between the white painted lines is 2 inches (0.0508m) short of the 2 metres they state it is. Did you measure from the same point of the white lines? i.e front edge of one line to front edge of the next?, or centre of one line to centre of the next? If you merely measured the gap between the two lines, then you'll probably be a couple of inches short of the measurement the camera partnership would use. Hang on a minute........

ps not a copper

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Friday 26th May 2017
quotequote all
Hi

The measurement was correct, start of white line to the next start of the white line. Therefore one white line thickness is accounted for in each section.

The police correspondence was wrong with address, distance travelled, and line distances. Then they stated calibration was annual and subsequently backtracked saying no calibration was required.

750turbo

6,164 posts

223 months

Friday 26th May 2017
quotequote all
Is this over a simple speeding charge...?


Driver101

14,376 posts

120 months

Saturday 27th May 2017
quotequote all
Where does the measurement of 2m, or a few inches short, come from? They are much shorter than 2m clearly visible in the picture. I read online that the standard isn't 2m either.

How come your calculations are based on travelling exactly 6 lines, but they say you travelled exactly 7 lines?

There's a 3.1m difference used for speed calculations. Where does this error come from? You contest that 2m is wrong by a few inches, but didn't argue they counted a completely extra 2m line???

Also when measuring your distance you've measure one line and then multiplied it. Any error in your measurement, or the lines not being equally spaced, Will be multiplied into your maths. That's a totally wrong way of measurement of distance.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 27th May 11:01

Andy2307

Original Poster:

11 posts

82 months

Saturday 27th May 2017
quotequote all
Driver 101

Police Scotland verified in writing the 2m distance between the white lines, duly shared with the Procurator Fiscal. Likewise my measurements are correct and duly verified for individual distances, between white lines and overall distance.

Clearly you feel the Police and Camera arrangement and lines cannot be wrong, not an issue as we are all entitled to our respective viewpoint.

I however refuse to be prosecuted for an offence, I did not commit. I will therefore ram it up em via the Media and Press.

Have a nice day.

Driver101

14,376 posts

120 months

Saturday 27th May 2017
quotequote all
Andy2307 said:
Driver 101

Police Scotland verified in writing the 2m distance between the white lines, duly shared with the Procurator Fiscal. Likewise my measurements are correct and duly verified for individual distances, between white lines and overall distance.

Clearly you feel the Police and Camera arrangement and lines cannot be wrong, not an issue as we are all entitled to our respective viewpoint.

I however refuse to be prosecuted for an offence, I did not commit. I will therefore ram it up em via the Media and Press.

Have a nice day.
I don't think they can't be wrong. Equally I think you could also be wrong. The lines aren't 2m apart which is clear to see by the picture I posted.

Who verified your measurement? How did you measure the distance?

I doubt the camera fell out of calibration for your offence only and be such a difference in your measurement and actual counting of the lines.

Are you sure you didn't get off as the PF realised that the case was more hassle than it was worth for a simple speeding offence?

Can you post up pictures? What paper is going to run with a simple speeding offence?