Speed traps: prior opinion required before using camera
Discussion
Ben Webster writes another interesting article in today's Times... (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1750804,00.html)
[quote=Times]The Times
[b]Speed-trap police are told to look before they pounce[/b]
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
POLICE are to be given new guidelines on using mobile speed cameras because of concerns that they are breaking the law by trapping motorists at too great a distance.
Laser cameras, which can either be handheld or mounted in vans, are certified by the Home Office for use at a range of up to 1,000 metres (3,281ft).
But the law states that a camera operator must be able to form a “prior opinion” that a vehicle is breaking the limit before using the camera to record its speed. The law dates from the days before radar speed guns when all that was needed to convict a driver of speeding was the opinion of two officers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is concerned that some officers and civilian operators may be ignoring the law and firing their lasers at random.
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, are increasingly using mobile cameras instead of fixed cameras because the rules on deploying them are less stringent. A mobile camera can be used on any stretch of road where there have been two or more serious crashes in the previous three years. A fixed camera can be installed only after a fourth serious crash.
Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot. Motorists slow down for a hundred yards and then speed up again.
Mobile cameras usually catch drivers before they have even spotted the officer standing by the road or the camera van. There is no flash and the first time many motorists realise they have been caught is when they receive a penalty notice in the post.
The Department for Transport requires camera operators to be visible from 100 metres, but admits that motorists may be caught outside this range. Several motorists caught by mobile cameras are fighting their penalties on the ground that they were detected so far away that it would have been impossible for anyone to have formed an opinion they were speeding.
Richard Cleary, 45, was allegedly caught doing 70mph on a 60mph road in Wiltshire. He requested a video from the camera partnership which showed the speed recording was made when he was 728 metres from the camera van. He revisited the site and claims that even someone with perfect eyesight could not have told the difference between 60mph and 70mph. His case has been adjourned to allow some technical issues to be clarified.
Ian Bell, ACPO’s speed camera liaison officer, said that the guidelines were being reviewed because of concerns that they were unclear. “It was felt that during the revision of ACPO’s manual it might be necessary to emphasise the need to have a prior opinion that the driver was speeding,” he said.
Mr Bell said that there were no written rules on the distance at which it would be deemed reasonably possible to form an opinion. “The operator has to be able to say that he could visually tell that the vehicle was speeding, but the distance depends on the site. From a motorway bridge, the distance could be 400 to 600 metres. But in a congested area it could be only 100 metres.”
Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign, said: “The system operates on the principle that people will simply pay the fixed penalty without challenging them or studying the rules. The system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate case took it to court.”[/quote]
Naturally ACPO is playing down the significance of this, but it must at least be a small victory. You do get the impression that the operator just pulls the trigger for everyone and hopes a few will be over the limit.
The comment that mobile cameras can be used on roads where permanent cameras can't is also interesting. There's a reduction in revenue that has to be made up with the mobile cameras. With everyone having GPS camera locators now, only mobile cameras are really relevant. Hence last month's announcement that fixed camera rollout will slow down/stop. At the time we felt that was a red herring -- this article seems to confirm that. Anyone for an electric garage door?
[quote=Times]The Times
[b]Speed-trap police are told to look before they pounce[/b]
By Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
POLICE are to be given new guidelines on using mobile speed cameras because of concerns that they are breaking the law by trapping motorists at too great a distance.
Laser cameras, which can either be handheld or mounted in vans, are certified by the Home Office for use at a range of up to 1,000 metres (3,281ft).
But the law states that a camera operator must be able to form a “prior opinion” that a vehicle is breaking the limit before using the camera to record its speed. The law dates from the days before radar speed guns when all that was needed to convict a driver of speeding was the opinion of two officers.
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is concerned that some officers and civilian operators may be ignoring the law and firing their lasers at random.
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, are increasingly using mobile cameras instead of fixed cameras because the rules on deploying them are less stringent. A mobile camera can be used on any stretch of road where there have been two or more serious crashes in the previous three years. A fixed camera can be installed only after a fourth serious crash.
Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot. Motorists slow down for a hundred yards and then speed up again.
Mobile cameras usually catch drivers before they have even spotted the officer standing by the road or the camera van. There is no flash and the first time many motorists realise they have been caught is when they receive a penalty notice in the post.
The Department for Transport requires camera operators to be visible from 100 metres, but admits that motorists may be caught outside this range. Several motorists caught by mobile cameras are fighting their penalties on the ground that they were detected so far away that it would have been impossible for anyone to have formed an opinion they were speeding.
Richard Cleary, 45, was allegedly caught doing 70mph on a 60mph road in Wiltshire. He requested a video from the camera partnership which showed the speed recording was made when he was 728 metres from the camera van. He revisited the site and claims that even someone with perfect eyesight could not have told the difference between 60mph and 70mph. His case has been adjourned to allow some technical issues to be clarified.
Ian Bell, ACPO’s speed camera liaison officer, said that the guidelines were being reviewed because of concerns that they were unclear. “It was felt that during the revision of ACPO’s manual it might be necessary to emphasise the need to have a prior opinion that the driver was speeding,” he said.
Mr Bell said that there were no written rules on the distance at which it would be deemed reasonably possible to form an opinion. “The operator has to be able to say that he could visually tell that the vehicle was speeding, but the distance depends on the site. From a motorway bridge, the distance could be 400 to 600 metres. But in a congested area it could be only 100 metres.”
Paul Smith, founder of Safe Speed, the anti-camera campaign, said: “The system operates on the principle that people will simply pay the fixed penalty without challenging them or studying the rules. The system would grind to a halt if everyone with a legitimate case took it to court.”[/quote]
Naturally ACPO is playing down the significance of this, but it must at least be a small victory. You do get the impression that the operator just pulls the trigger for everyone and hopes a few will be over the limit.
The comment that mobile cameras can be used on roads where permanent cameras can't is also interesting. There's a reduction in revenue that has to be made up with the mobile cameras. With everyone having GPS camera locators now, only mobile cameras are really relevant. Hence last month's announcement that fixed camera rollout will slow down/stop. At the time we felt that was a red herring -- this article seems to confirm that. Anyone for an electric garage door?
"Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot."
Wasnt that the point? These are safety cameras after all, and if income is falling then less people are speeding and therefore "unsafe", the job is done. Disband the pranterships with a big thankyou now FO and take your cameras with you.
Oh no its get more mobile vans and put them on really dangerous road where you have 1,000 m of clear visability to ping drivers in the next time zone before whilst they are being "dangerous"! Mobile cameras need less accidents to be there, so the roads are "Less Dangerous" but they are increasing the number of vans? This argument does not hold much water, IMHO, and I am sure that if I used one as weak at work I would be roasted by my boss!
Never mind I can always vote out the government, oh no I can't they changed the rules for service voters and didn't tell us until after the deadline for registering! Still at least it is nice to think that I have contributed to the democratic process by helping to ensure "free" elections in other countries, even if my own "democratic" nation refuses to allow my voice to be heard!
Wasnt that the point? These are safety cameras after all, and if income is falling then less people are speeding and therefore "unsafe", the job is done. Disband the pranterships with a big thankyou now FO and take your cameras with you.
Oh no its get more mobile vans and put them on really dangerous road where you have 1,000 m of clear visability to ping drivers in the next time zone before whilst they are being "dangerous"! Mobile cameras need less accidents to be there, so the roads are "Less Dangerous" but they are increasing the number of vans? This argument does not hold much water, IMHO, and I am sure that if I used one as weak at work I would be roasted by my boss!
Never mind I can always vote out the government, oh no I can't they changed the rules for service voters and didn't tell us until after the deadline for registering! Still at least it is nice to think that I have contributed to the democratic process by helping to ensure "free" elections in other countries, even if my own "democratic" nation refuses to allow my voice to be heard!
If the camera was connected to a system that kept a record of all measurements I believe that we would find that the majority of the measurements were below the spped limit, whereas they *should* all be above the limit.
If he is just using the device to confirm his opinion then he wouldn't be measuring many "law abiding" cars.
If he is just using the device to confirm his opinion then he wouldn't be measuring many "law abiding" cars.
For speeding no one can be convicted on the single OPINION of a witness that the vehicle was being driven at a speed in excess of the limit.
So PC Bloggs looks down the road and in his opinion sees Mr Fast giving his car some wellie. Without a gun etc then PC Bloggs can do nothing about it as far as speed is concerned.
But if Bloogs was with his mate standing side by side, no gun etc, and BOTH formed the OPINION that Mr Fast was speeding, then he can be pulled and reported and tried.
But PC Bloggs is out by himself and his handheld and sticks it up, without forming an opinion, and notes the reading indicates an offence committed. He can stop and prosecute.
Ahh you all say - who says so?.
None other than a High Court judge in the case of Nicholas v Penny [1950]
" a person may be convicted on the evidence of one police officer supported by his own evidence of the reading of a speedometer or OTHER mechanism where his evidence IS OF FACT and not merely OF OPINION"
Now bearing in mind this so called opinion before hand consider how come a driver can and has been convicted of speeding from brake marks left on the road.
Using formula of physics certian tests can determine the speed of a vehicle on lockup. No opinion before hand that driver exceeding the speed limit? FACT?
Neither does it clarify in the Act as to what comes first opinion or fact. So even if he used his gun first and got a fact vehicle speeding why not his opinion - yep that's about right he is speeding?
Stands back for broadside.
dvd
So PC Bloggs looks down the road and in his opinion sees Mr Fast giving his car some wellie. Without a gun etc then PC Bloggs can do nothing about it as far as speed is concerned.
But if Bloogs was with his mate standing side by side, no gun etc, and BOTH formed the OPINION that Mr Fast was speeding, then he can be pulled and reported and tried.
But PC Bloggs is out by himself and his handheld and sticks it up, without forming an opinion, and notes the reading indicates an offence committed. He can stop and prosecute.
Ahh you all say - who says so?.
None other than a High Court judge in the case of Nicholas v Penny [1950]
" a person may be convicted on the evidence of one police officer supported by his own evidence of the reading of a speedometer or OTHER mechanism where his evidence IS OF FACT and not merely OF OPINION"
Now bearing in mind this so called opinion before hand consider how come a driver can and has been convicted of speeding from brake marks left on the road.
Using formula of physics certian tests can determine the speed of a vehicle on lockup. No opinion before hand that driver exceeding the speed limit? FACT?
Neither does it clarify in the Act as to what comes first opinion or fact. So even if he used his gun first and got a fact vehicle speeding why not his opinion - yep that's about right he is speeding?
Stands back for broadside.
dvd
I don't understand the reporting in The Times -- "the law states that the officer must form prior opinion..."
As far as I know the law does not require that, but ACPO already guidelines that (ie there is no defence in law if the officer does not form a prior opinion).
But then how come the case referred to has been defended on that basis? There is evidence of his speeding, and that evidence is of fact (albeit gathered not in accordance with ACPO guidelines).
As far as I know the law does not require that, but ACPO already guidelines that (ie there is no defence in law if the officer does not form a prior opinion).
But then how come the case referred to has been defended on that basis? There is evidence of his speeding, and that evidence is of fact (albeit gathered not in accordance with ACPO guidelines).
7db
The Times reporter obviously is bending facts to get a story and if the full truth was known I doubt he has not given a true quote from ACPO, who may be about to modify guidelines in view of the distance these devices now can penertrate.
The "corroboration" aspect required of speeding stems from the old, old days in that more than one opinion required and carried forward piecemeal without cognisance being taken of the modern electronic devices now available to report a FACT that a vehicle was speeding. As a result it can give rise to an enterprising Brief trying to bamboozle the Bench and thereby get an aquittal.
Glad that you confirm the article is not as clear as it makes out.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 26th August 20:18
The Times reporter obviously is bending facts to get a story and if the full truth was known I doubt he has not given a true quote from ACPO, who may be about to modify guidelines in view of the distance these devices now can penertrate.
The "corroboration" aspect required of speeding stems from the old, old days in that more than one opinion required and carried forward piecemeal without cognisance being taken of the modern electronic devices now available to report a FACT that a vehicle was speeding. As a result it can give rise to an enterprising Brief trying to bamboozle the Bench and thereby get an aquittal.
Glad that you confirm the article is not as clear as it makes out.
dvd
>> Edited by Dwight VanDriver on Friday 26th August 20:18
The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is concerned that some officers and civilian operators may be ignoring the law and firing their lasers at random.
Well NO SH1T!! ask north yorks police about the parked T5 complete with <<< hanging out of driver window scanning traffic "for a quick one"
It's all about £££££££ and nothing to do with road safety.
As all the real traffic pols are either assimilated or retire and are replaced with the "converted" the situation will only get worse.
MoJo.
Well NO SH1T!! ask north yorks police about the parked T5 complete with <<< hanging out of driver window scanning traffic "for a quick one"
It's all about £££££££ and nothing to do with road safety.
As all the real traffic pols are either assimilated or retire and are replaced with the "converted" the situation will only get worse.
MoJo.
DVD
I have a question you you, just out of curiosity.
What would be the position of the law if it could be demonstrated that the speed measurement from a Lidar gun could be altered or tampered with, by external means, such that the resulting speed reading did not match the speed of the targeted vehicle, without indicating any form of error?
I have a question you you, just out of curiosity.
What would be the position of the law if it could be demonstrated that the speed measurement from a Lidar gun could be altered or tampered with, by external means, such that the resulting speed reading did not match the speed of the targeted vehicle, without indicating any form of error?
Home Office Approved Device found in the field and demonstrated to be defective as a result, as you say, external influences, then I would say that its approval would be withdrawn and taken out of use nationally.
It is not, despite what some may think, in the interests of the Police Service to use duff equipment.
Electronic devices used by police initially are extensively tested and prodded for defects by Home Office Police Research and Scientific Branch before HO Approval is given.
In the field, it always was and I believe still to be true, any problems with a device, it was also withdrawn from use until problem identified and fault rectified.
Image plays an important part. Destroy that image and you haven't got a respected Police Force and Plod is well aware of that.
A Baker wouldn't last long if he sold mouldy bread would he?
dvd
It is not, despite what some may think, in the interests of the Police Service to use duff equipment.
Electronic devices used by police initially are extensively tested and prodded for defects by Home Office Police Research and Scientific Branch before HO Approval is given.
In the field, it always was and I believe still to be true, any problems with a device, it was also withdrawn from use until problem identified and fault rectified.
Image plays an important part. Destroy that image and you haven't got a respected Police Force and Plod is well aware of that.
A Baker wouldn't last long if he sold mouldy bread would he?
dvd
dvd said:
Glad that you confirm the article is not as clear as it makes out.
I feel a letter coming on... In fact the reporting in The Times has gone considerably downhill and populist in recent years (ie the last 20). I'm amazed that the reporter didn't focus his story around the driver's teddy bear and how it felt about his being targetted without prior opinion.
I do suspect that speed measuring devices are being used in contravention of ACPO guidelines - and think that more users should be told off for that. Perhaps enshrining the guidelines as a defence in law would help, but I suspect that would just make lawyers richer.
I personally think that we should do speed enforcement by throwing mannequins of two-year olds out into the street in front of suspected speeding motorists...
Dwight VanDriver said:Thanks DVD, that was exactly the response I was hoping for.
Home Office Approved Device found in the field and demonstrated to be defective as a result, as you say, external influences, then I would say that its approval would be withdrawn and taken out of use nationally.
But that ist problem mit hiding behind hedges und parking the talivans illegally und zapping over tirvialities... it ist destroying that image of "fair play, professional judgement und integrity" - und a nation ist judged by its fair play und common sense und justice systems.
Ist being destroyed by PC pee-cee
Ist being destroyed by PC pee-cee
WildCat said:
But that ist problem mit hiding behind hedges und parking the talivans illegally und zapping over tirvialities... it ist destroying that image of "fair play, professional judgement und integrity" - und a nation ist judged by its fair play und common sense und justice systems.
Ist being destroyed by PC pee-cee
The laws of physics, line of site etc still need to be obeyed (no choice about that). I tend to drive looking for potential ambush points on motorways etc like sliproads, bridge abutments, etc. Easier in winter due to lack of foliage, etc.
A passive IR detector would be interesting to get a decent idea of targetting distances used, etc. Would this be illegal bearing in mind that once triggered your speed would have already been measured by a LIDAR device?
>> Edited by timtonal on Saturday 27th August 13:51
timtonal said:
A passive IR detector would be interesting to get a decent idea of targetting distances used, etc. Would this be illegal bearing in mind that once triggered your speed would have already been measured by a LIDAR device?
Laser detectors are not current illegal but proposed changes will make them illegal to use or carry in a vehichle.
Times said:
The Times
Camera partnerships, which include police and local authorities, are increasingly using mobile cameras instead of fixed cameras because the rules on deploying them are less stringent. A mobile camera can be used on any stretch of road where there have been two or more serious crashes in the previous three years. A fixed camera can be installed only after a fourth serious crash.
Partnerships are also finding that their income is dropping from fixed cameras because they have been painted yellow and are easy to spot. Motorists slow down for a hundred yards and then speed up again.
This is just unbelieveable and just goes to prove that the partnerships are solely financially motivated. Hmmm...our revenues are dropping so we'll use a legal loophole which allows us to target more motorists and shore up our falling fixed camera revenues.
Plus the fact that they are basically using intimidation to extort money from motorists because the majority of people who receive a penalty will not fight it and just pay up because they're scared of the consequences.
Dwight VanDriver said:
But PC Bloggs is out by himself and his handheld and sticks it up, without forming an opinion, and notes the reading indicates an offence committed. He can stop and prosecute.
Ahh you all say - who says so?.
None other than a High Court judge in the case of Nicholas v Penny [1950]
" a person may be convicted on the evidence of one police officer supported by his own evidence of the reading of a speedometer or OTHER mechanism where his evidence IS OF FACT and not merely OF OPINION"
DVD, I could do with some clarification of your above assessment.
I believe that ‘manned’ or ‘actively operated’ devices (for the PC brigade) must have the prior opinion of speed from the operator prior to achieving evidence suitable for proseution.
From ACPO codes of practice:
Code of practice for operational use of enforcement equipment
© ACPO 2002 Version 2.0 Page 31 of 97
5. Attended Actively Operated Devices: Presentation of
Evidence
Any prosecution depends upon the integrity of the method of operation, accurate observations by the officer operating the device and their professional presentation of evidence, if challenged, before the Court. It is in this area that the integrity of the device and its operation will be closely scrutinised.
Operators should record evidence concerning the target vehicle, such as speed, direction of travel, etc. Additionally, they should note any other factor (such as the presence of any other vehicle in the vicinity), which may be used in defence when challenging prosecution evidence. (Criminal Procedure & Investigations Act 1996).
All evidence must be properly documented. The evidence from attended actively operated equipment corroborates the
operator's [I]prior[/I] opinion the target vehicle was travelling in excess of the permitted speed limit for the road or class of vehicle.
If the operator has any doubt as to the validity of the reading obtained by the device in comparison to their personal estimation of the speed of the target vehicle, then they will stop the check.
Except in exceptional operational circumstances, devices should normally be operated from positions where they will be clearly visible to the public.
The target vehicle must be kept within direct sight of the operator of the device at all times throughout the period of observation and check.
Contemporaneous positive identification of the target vehicle must be made by the device operator.
So according to the ACPO Codes of Practice, in conjunction with the law as defined by Sec89(2) of the RTRA 84 a person prosecuted for driving a motor vehicle at a speed exceeding the limit… shall not be convicted solely on the evidence of one witness.
Nicholas v Penny allowed the officer to use evidence from an uncalibrated source ie. a speedo to corroborate his evidence. I don’t see anything in Nicholas v Penny to permit the use of a device as evidence without any other pre-obtained evidence.
And I believe that a subsequent formation of opinion by the operator is always going to be seen to have been influenced by the reading obtained from the speed recording device.
>> Edited by IaHa on Tuesday 30th August 12:25 to sort quotes
>> Edited by IaHa on Tuesday 30th August 12:29
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff