Speed Camera 'Cert of Conformity'
Discussion
I am not a lawyer (but I sometimes work with calibrated instruments and sensors. Where if they’re inaccurate they’ll only be inaccurate by a small amount). Maybe if she was speeding A LOT over the limit, the calibration wouldn’t be a defence in her case
Because the speed camera might only be inaccurate within plus or minus 2 mph. So if she was detected doing 30 mph over the limit then she’d still be speeding after you give her the benefit of the doubt and take the maximum tolerance into account. Her speed over the limit would still be greater than the max possible inaccuracy.
Another example is when you’re on the motorway and someone goes past you in the right hand lane and disappears over the horizon so fast, they make every other car look like they’re standing still. It’s blatantly obvious that person is doing well over 70 mph and you don’t need a speed gun to tell you that
TLDR: A sensor is never going to be out by 30 mph or 42%
Because the speed camera might only be inaccurate within plus or minus 2 mph. So if she was detected doing 30 mph over the limit then she’d still be speeding after you give her the benefit of the doubt and take the maximum tolerance into account. Her speed over the limit would still be greater than the max possible inaccuracy.
Another example is when you’re on the motorway and someone goes past you in the right hand lane and disappears over the horizon so fast, they make every other car look like they’re standing still. It’s blatantly obvious that person is doing well over 70 mph and you don’t need a speed gun to tell you that
TLDR: A sensor is never going to be out by 30 mph or 42%
Edited by Mr Miata on Friday 7th October 15:03
Mr Miata said:
I am not a lawyer (but I sometimes work with calibrated instruments and sensors. Where if they’re inaccurate they’ll only be inaccurate by a small amount). Maybe if she was speeding A LOT over the limit, the calibration wouldn’t be a defence in her case
Because the speed camera might only be inaccurate within plus or minus 2 mph. So if she was detected doing 30 mph over the limit then she’d still be speeding after you give her the benefit of the doubt and take the maximum tolerance into account. Her speed over the limit would still be greater than the max possible inaccuracy.
Another example is when you’re on the motorway and someone goes past you in the right hand lane and disappears over the horizon so fast, they make every other car look like they’re standing still. It’s blatantly obvious that person is doing well over 70 mph and you don’t need a speed gun to tell you that
TLDR: A sensor is never going to be out by 30 mph or 42%
But if it weren't calibrated, then there's no way of knowing how accurate it is, other than Mr Miata says so.Because the speed camera might only be inaccurate within plus or minus 2 mph. So if she was detected doing 30 mph over the limit then she’d still be speeding after you give her the benefit of the doubt and take the maximum tolerance into account. Her speed over the limit would still be greater than the max possible inaccuracy.
Another example is when you’re on the motorway and someone goes past you in the right hand lane and disappears over the horizon so fast, they make every other car look like they’re standing still. It’s blatantly obvious that person is doing well over 70 mph and you don’t need a speed gun to tell you that
TLDR: A sensor is never going to be out by 30 mph or 42%
Edited by Mr Miata on Friday 7th October 15:03
FAOD not suggesting in this case that it's not calibrated
This thread with input from agtlaw should tell you what you need to know:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=19...
It's relevant to all 'approved devices'.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&t=19...
It's relevant to all 'approved devices'.
Edited by paintman on Friday 7th October 15:26
Personally if I had nothing to lose I'd try it.
Put as follows it doesn't seem fair: "the only evidence available is from a camera which isn't calibrated for the distance the speed recording was taken, vis-a-vis is it really evidence?"
But if the existing record on the license is clean then the outcome is likely to be offer of a retraining course. So I would only recommend getting technical in cases where it really matters. If you have to pay £100 and sit in front of some scaremonger hamming up the lethality of doing 35 in a 30 for 60 minutes then go for the course.
Put as follows it doesn't seem fair: "the only evidence available is from a camera which isn't calibrated for the distance the speed recording was taken, vis-a-vis is it really evidence?"
But if the existing record on the license is clean then the outcome is likely to be offer of a retraining course. So I would only recommend getting technical in cases where it really matters. If you have to pay £100 and sit in front of some scaremonger hamming up the lethality of doing 35 in a 30 for 60 minutes then go for the course.
SS2. said:
strippier said:
Wife been caught speeding, pictures show from a distance as 240m, whereas Cert of Conformity only shows calibration tests up to 150m?
Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
On that point ? Not a snowball's chance.Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
ingenieur said:
SS2. said:
strippier said:
Wife been caught speeding, pictures show from a distance as 240m, whereas Cert of Conformity only shows calibration tests up to 150m?
Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
On that point ? Not a snowball's chance.Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
vonhosen said:
ingenieur said:
SS2. said:
strippier said:
Wife been caught speeding, pictures show from a distance as 240m, whereas Cert of Conformity only shows calibration tests up to 150m?
Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
On that point ? Not a snowball's chance.Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
ingenieur said:
But if the existing record on the license is clean then the outcome is likely to be offer of a retraining course.
Another angle is theory vs practice here. In theory, challenging the calibration could well succeed and she gets off the speeding charge. However, she'll have to go to trial, there's the cost of finding/employing expert witness, checking the calibration, cost of engaging legal rep to present in court etc, etc which is all v expensive. She may get off but you're £2k down. Unless her speed was outrageous it's not worth the risk. If she's been offered a course, take it. If its not course applicable, take the fixed penalty/points, or simply plead guilty for a single justice ruling. Depends what the speed was but, assuming its not extortionate, it'll be 3-6 points and a fine (that will be smalls the previous court case cost I mentioned)..
A correct calibration procedure for any device, not just a speed camera, will be designed to check accuracy at specific points. These are determined during design, development and verification stages.
For a camera to be certified it will need to be accurate to a given level at quite long distances and a calibration distance set and used to check. At 150m it will have an accuracy specification to meet. If it does then it is ok. That distance check is a validation that will have been tested for suitability to ensure accuracy for longer and shorter distances during the design and certification stages.
The only likely defence using calibration error is if it can be proven that the calibration has not been done within specified time and/or in the correct way. Good luck in proving that!
For a camera to be certified it will need to be accurate to a given level at quite long distances and a calibration distance set and used to check. At 150m it will have an accuracy specification to meet. If it does then it is ok. That distance check is a validation that will have been tested for suitability to ensure accuracy for longer and shorter distances during the design and certification stages.
The only likely defence using calibration error is if it can be proven that the calibration has not been done within specified time and/or in the correct way. Good luck in proving that!
BertBert said:
But if it weren't calibrated, then there's no way of knowing how accurate it is, other than Mr Miata says so.
FAOD not suggesting in this case that it's not calibrated
My point is, even if it was inaccurate it’s never going to be wildly inaccurate by a significant amount. So if the device showed someone drove over 100mph on the motorway, it’s not the device at fault. As it’s not going to be out by as much as 30 mph FAOD not suggesting in this case that it's not calibrated
strippier said:
Wife been caught speeding, pictures show from a distance as 240m, whereas Cert of Conformity only shows calibration tests up to 150m?
Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
Thanks
S
Tell her to slow down - and accept the punishment. Speed limits are there for a reason.Would this be grounds for case dismissal?
Thanks
S
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff