Discussion
18 February 2005 17:03
Motorists have been urged to query speeding tickets after a Suffolk bus driver was falsely accused of hurtling through a 30mph limit at 81mph on the A140 Norwich to Ipswich road.
Trevor Martin was actually travelling at 29mph when the fixed camera flashed his vehicle, at Earl Stonham, near Stowmarket.
The 43-year-old, of Preston Drive, Ipswich, was able to prove his innocence, as the bus he was driving was fitted with a tachograph, which recorded his speed, and a device preventing it going above 62mph.
Suffolk SafeCam, the group responsible for speed enforcement in the county, admitted the blunder and assured road users it was the first case of its kind in the county.
But Motorists Against Detection, a national lobby against the inappropriate use of speed cameras, said it knew of at least 10 other examples from elsewhere in the UK.
A spokesman said: "There are discrepancies and inaccuracies due to technical breakdowns within the system.
"The cameras are not foolproof and this is the reason why people should fight every case. People should check every detail about it before accepting fines and points."
Tony Fowler, Mid Suffolk district councillor for Earl Stonham, said this particular camera had proved controversial ever since it was installed, in August 2003, with its position the subject of local debate.
He said: "Although it has made that particular area a lot safer, it's a worry to think they aren't as accurate as we'd like to think."
It was at about 8am on January 18 that Mr Martin was said to have hurtled along the Norwich-bound stretch of the road. A week later he received a letter warning him he was to be prosecuted for the offence.
After proving the error, he received a further letter, dated January 31, saying no further action would be taken.
But for Mr Martin, who has always had a clean driving license, it offered scant consolation.
He said: "The only response I had was a short and sharp letter, which was not satisfactory in my opinion.
"I was completely shocked when I received the notice, when you consider driving is my livelihood. I knew going 81mph in a 30mph limit would lead to a loss of license or suspension from work. It created quite a lot of stress and worry."
"In a way I'm relieved I was in a bus. It made it easier because there was no way I could've been doing that speed. It would've been harder to prove if I was in a car."
Mr Martin wanted to highlight his case to show the system is not infallible.
Suffolk SafeCam said it was a combination of technical and human error that led to Mr Martin being sent a speeding ticket.
It is believed the camera may have recorded vibrations being made by a panel on the back of the bus, instead of the speed of the vehicle. This would have caused the camera to flash, sending an image of the bus back to partnership's central ticket office.
It was at this point that a further check should have been made, measuring the speed of the vehicle using the white lines painted on the road. But this did not take place.
Michelle Finnerty, communications manager for the partnership, said procedures have been reviewed with the intention of ensuring that such a mistake can never happen again.
link
Motorists have been urged to query speeding tickets after a Suffolk bus driver was falsely accused of hurtling through a 30mph limit at 81mph on the A140 Norwich to Ipswich road.
Trevor Martin was actually travelling at 29mph when the fixed camera flashed his vehicle, at Earl Stonham, near Stowmarket.
The 43-year-old, of Preston Drive, Ipswich, was able to prove his innocence, as the bus he was driving was fitted with a tachograph, which recorded his speed, and a device preventing it going above 62mph.
Suffolk SafeCam, the group responsible for speed enforcement in the county, admitted the blunder and assured road users it was the first case of its kind in the county.
But Motorists Against Detection, a national lobby against the inappropriate use of speed cameras, said it knew of at least 10 other examples from elsewhere in the UK.
A spokesman said: "There are discrepancies and inaccuracies due to technical breakdowns within the system.
"The cameras are not foolproof and this is the reason why people should fight every case. People should check every detail about it before accepting fines and points."
Tony Fowler, Mid Suffolk district councillor for Earl Stonham, said this particular camera had proved controversial ever since it was installed, in August 2003, with its position the subject of local debate.
He said: "Although it has made that particular area a lot safer, it's a worry to think they aren't as accurate as we'd like to think."
It was at about 8am on January 18 that Mr Martin was said to have hurtled along the Norwich-bound stretch of the road. A week later he received a letter warning him he was to be prosecuted for the offence.
After proving the error, he received a further letter, dated January 31, saying no further action would be taken.
But for Mr Martin, who has always had a clean driving license, it offered scant consolation.
He said: "The only response I had was a short and sharp letter, which was not satisfactory in my opinion.
"I was completely shocked when I received the notice, when you consider driving is my livelihood. I knew going 81mph in a 30mph limit would lead to a loss of license or suspension from work. It created quite a lot of stress and worry."
"In a way I'm relieved I was in a bus. It made it easier because there was no way I could've been doing that speed. It would've been harder to prove if I was in a car."
Mr Martin wanted to highlight his case to show the system is not infallible.
Suffolk SafeCam said it was a combination of technical and human error that led to Mr Martin being sent a speeding ticket.
It is believed the camera may have recorded vibrations being made by a panel on the back of the bus, instead of the speed of the vehicle. This would have caused the camera to flash, sending an image of the bus back to partnership's central ticket office.
It was at this point that a further check should have been made, measuring the speed of the vehicle using the white lines painted on the road. But this did not take place.
Michelle Finnerty, communications manager for the partnership, said procedures have been reviewed with the intention of ensuring that such a mistake can never happen again.
link
Another example of where it's possible to prove the prosecution is wrong. But just how many are happening where it's not possible to disprove? The more of these get publicity, the more people are going to wake up to the unfairness of it all. Just think what would happen if the animal rights activists turned against the Partnerships!
I think this is connected with the flash timings being in dispute. They hope to collect most money very easily (or the system is unworkable).
The first level of evidence is the radar, but this is usually inaccurate, and can be wildly inaccurate.
The second level is the photo and the flashes on the white markings. This will be checked by an operator who assumes that the flashes are exactly 500ms apart. The fact these are usually not 500ms apart is currently the subject of much debate.
I don't think that the aim is to provide super accuracy - most limits are pretty arbitrary anyway so who cares. The aim is to get a statistically useful number of fines to make the exercise worthwhile.
The first level of evidence is the radar, but this is usually inaccurate, and can be wildly inaccurate.
The second level is the photo and the flashes on the white markings. This will be checked by an operator who assumes that the flashes are exactly 500ms apart. The fact these are usually not 500ms apart is currently the subject of much debate.
I don't think that the aim is to provide super accuracy - most limits are pretty arbitrary anyway so who cares. The aim is to get a statistically useful number of fines to make the exercise worthwhile.
'King Deadly said:
18 February 2005 17:03
Suffolk SafeCam, the group responsible for speed enforcement in the county, admitted the blunder and assured road users it was the first case of its kind in the county...
...that they know about.
...or are prepared to acknowledge.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
medicineman said:
Has it?
said:
"Although it has made that particular area a lot safer, it's a worry to think they aren't as accurate as we'd like to think."
No. It's a deathtrap, as is the whole A140 Norwich to Ipswich (with the sole exception of the Scole Bypass). The whole Suffolk section is now 50mph or less, enforced of course.
It's a dreadful windy single carriageway road with umpteen blind junctions and some which are frankly almost suicidally dangerous.
There may be a reduction in accidents, but there may also be traffic going to Norwich via Thetford, which is 15 miles further but is mostly dual carriageway (A14/A11), whereas the A140 is almost entirely unbelievably crap single carriageway, made considerably worse by indiscriminate and ill considered house building (i.e. building estates that use blind junction s !)
The decision to reduce the limit to 50mph in Suffolk was even slated by Norfolk's Safety Partnership !
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff