Camera van calibration

Author
Discussion

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Saturday 18th January 2020
quotequote all
They apparently calibrate these things from 25m in 25m increments up to 150m. If they are deemed accurate without actual testing from 150m all the way up to 1000m, why do they bother with more than one shorter distance test? What's the significance of the lower increments, and if they don't test them at the higher ones, how can a conviction be upheld at the distances between 150m and 1000m? Surely the certificate of calibration is questionable if it isn't actually representative of the distances the radar is being used for?

There's obviously a reasonable explanation for something that has so much precedent, but it seems to be a situation that's accepted without question, and I wondered how that was possible.

Helicopter123

8,831 posts

155 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
How fast were you going when caught then?

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Heaveho said:
... questionable if it isn't actually representative of the distances the radar is being used for.
Radar! Is it 1985 again?

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
Radar! Is it 1985 again?
Hmm, you can laugh but I'm old enough to think things were better back then! smile

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Helicopter123 said:
How fast were you going when caught then?
You missed out " allegedly "! Let's just say I've had my attention drawn to the small print. To be fair, I've already had a very detailed answer to this question from someone " in the trade ", but to someone with little experience of the situation, it seemed there was a question to be asked.

BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
who said?

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
BertBert said:
who said?
If you mean who told me, I rang the force that issued the NIP and spoke to the department that deals with the calibration of the device in question. Regardless of my views on the answer, I can't see a way to dispute it, but I'm amazed in this day and age of everything having to be taken to the enth degree, that it's deemed acceptable for a device not to have to be calibrated right up to the limit of the use it's being given. No point in asking any more questions as it stands, that's the way it is in current law, accept it and move on.

BertBert

18,953 posts

210 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Heaveho said:
BertBert said:
who said?
If you mean who told me, I rang the force that issued the NIP and spoke to the department that deals with the calibration of the device in question. Regardless of my views on the answer, I can't see a way to dispute it, but I'm amazed in this day and age of everything having to be taken to the enth degree, that it's deemed acceptable for a device not to have to be calibrated right up to the limit of the use it's being given. No point in asking any more questions as it stands, that's the way it is in current law, accept it and move on.
Sorry, I didn't phrase that well. I meant what was the answer from the someone in the trade?
Bert

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Heaveho said:
They apparently calibrate these things from 25m in 25m increments up to 150m. If they are deemed accurate without actual testing from 150m all the way up to 1000m, ...

Incorrect.

link

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
agtlaw said:

Incorrect.

link
Hi, thanks for the link. I can't show it now sadly, as the NIP is in the envelope waiting to go back to Northants, and I need the pin no from it to access the images and calibration cert, but the one I've been nicked with has stated that the device is tested in increments up to and including 150 metres. None of those in the link would appear to tally with that? I'd prefer not to fart about re-opening the envelope to check, but I will if there's any merit in it.

martinbiz

3,047 posts

144 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Calibration certification or otherwise, going to court NG and trying to prove their device doesn’t work properly is a very rocky and incredibly expensive road and doomed to almost certain failure as many have found to their great cost

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
BertBert said:
Sorry, I didn't phrase that well. I meant what was the answer from the someone in the trade?
Bert
No worries, probably could have figured out what you meant if I'd tried a bit harder! They've said that if it calibrates correctly at 150 metres, the calibration will also be correct at 1000 metres. My question as to how they could know that if they didn't actually test it regularly at 1000 metres was met with the stony response that the test results were within stipulated Govt. guidelines. I'm led to understand that there is a linearity between certain distances that equates to zero discrepancy in accuracy, and that any distance between 150 metres and 1000 metres falls within those parameters in this instance.

I'm new to this and agtlaw will probably confirm that in a moment with a view on my approach to trying to clarify it, but if I learn something, I'll be happy to be shown why I'm wasting my time querying the position.

Edited by Heaveho on Sunday 19th January 21:31

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
martinbiz said:
Calibration certification or otherwise, going to court NG and trying to prove their device doesn’t work properly is a very rocky and incredibly expensive road and doomed to almost certain failure as many have found to their great cost
Well, that was never the intention. I'm just asking a reasonable question based on what appears to be a discrepancy.

martinbiz

3,047 posts

144 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
What was the speed on the nip and do you think you weren’t speeding?

agtlaw

6,680 posts

205 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Heaveho said:
Hi, thanks for the link. I can't show it now sadly, as the NIP is in the envelope waiting to go back to Northants, and I need the pin no from it to access the images and calibration cert, but the one I've been nicked with has stated that the device is tested in increments up to and including 150 metres. None of those in the link would appear to tally with that? I'd prefer not to fart about re-opening the envelope to check, but I will if there's any merit in it.
That’s the calibration certificate for the annual calibration test (cf. Home Office Type Approval).

Your original question is based on a false premise and I don’t rate your man “in the trade.”

I’m very surprised that you haven’t kept a copy of the completed paperwork. Are you planning to use Signed For post, or are you just praying it gets there?

Durzel

12,232 posts

167 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
If you think you weren’t speeding, plead NG and have your day in court.

If you plead NG you’ll have every chance to call into question the evidence that will be used against you. What you can’t expect to do is pore over the evidence in advance of pleading one way or the other so you can decide if they’ve got you bang to rights or not.

If your starting point is speculating about how calibration works then you’re probably going to have problems.

martinbiz

3,047 posts

144 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
The OP hasn’t divulged the alleged speed or whether or not he thinks he was speeding

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
martinbiz said:
What was the speed on the nip and do you think you weren’t speeding?
None of it's relevant mate. I'm not disputing it, and it'll be an SAC if I decide I can stomach it. The NIP came with an offer to view the images and the calibration certificate, which I did, and I'm simply questioning something that seems peculiar. Given that historically this is clearly the accepted protocol for issuing calibration certificates, there's seemingly nothing to be gained by pursuing the matter legally,

I'm just genuinely interested in how something that hasn't been tested above 150 metres can be used to target people at any distance up to 1000 metres. I've asked the specific question of the force involved and been given the answer in my earlier post, and it doesn't so much answer the question as pose new ones, at least to an enquiring mind. I would be interested in this even if I wasn't directly involved, and, to be fair, they've supplied me with the ammo, I didn't ask them for it.

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
Durzel said:
If you think you weren’t speeding, plead NG and have your day in court.

If you plead NG you’ll have every chance to call into question the evidence that will be used against you. What you can’t expect to do is pore over the evidence in advance of pleading one way or the other so you can decide if they’ve got you bang to rights or not.

If your starting point is speculating about how calibration works then you’re probably going to have problems.
If you have a look back at one of my earlier posts, I did say I wouldn't be contesting it. I was asking a question out of interest based on information received with the NIP , not based on wriggling out of something I've done.

Heaveho

Original Poster:

5,279 posts

173 months

Sunday 19th January 2020
quotequote all
agtlaw said:
That’s the calibration certificate for the annual calibration test (cf. Home Office Type Approval).

Your original question is based on a false premise and I don’t rate your man “in the trade.”

I’m very surprised that you haven’t kept a copy of the completed paperwork. Are you planning to use Signed For post, or are you just praying it gets there?
That's the only calibration certificate I was supplied with via a website on paperwork supplied with the NIP.

Despite his detailed reasoning, I also don't rate the man in the trade, although I suspect my reasons for that may be different to yours. "My" man, he is not. Northampton " safer roads team " man, he is.

I do have a copy of the original paperwork, but am working away now and have brought the original with me. The copy currently resides at home, hence why, at the moment, I would have to open the envelope to go over any erroneous details. I'm only religious when I hurt myself!

I'm sensing a slight edge to your responses? No need to reply if this thread is giving you the hump. Apologies if I'm mistaken.