Follow on from "contesting speeding fines".
Discussion
Questions:
Regarding the photos.
Photos are meant to be taken 0.5 seconds apart.
How can it actually be proven absolutely that they were indeed taken the prescribed timed distance apart?
If the period is longer than 0.5 then youll have travelled further and hence youll appear to be travelling faster than in reality.
If for example they were taken 5 seconds apart youd be almost out of the second picture, but if the same 0.5 seconds figure is applied to work out the speed you'd automatically be "proved" to be doing 140 whatever in a 30 zone.
Obviously this is just an exaggerated example but it does give a cause for concern as to the procedures being proven to have been carried out absolutely correctly.
Calibration certs? Whats the calibration standard? Who did it? Were they qualified? Was the procedure actually done ?
When was the calibration equipment calibrated? Who did it? Was it calibrated correctly? etc etc etc all the way down the line. If its wrong at the start its wrong at the finish but its "proved" you were a speeder, even if you were not.
The whole point of this post is to see if its possible to bring it down from the inside by giving reasonable doubt as to the equipment being originally set up correctly before it was even sent out for use, starting way back in the calibration stage of the calibration equipment.
Heck if it gets just one person off from a speeding charge thats wrong then its got to be a result.
What think?
>> Edited by deltafox on Friday 17th March 14:33
Regarding the photos.
Photos are meant to be taken 0.5 seconds apart.
How can it actually be proven absolutely that they were indeed taken the prescribed timed distance apart?
If the period is longer than 0.5 then youll have travelled further and hence youll appear to be travelling faster than in reality.
If for example they were taken 5 seconds apart youd be almost out of the second picture, but if the same 0.5 seconds figure is applied to work out the speed you'd automatically be "proved" to be doing 140 whatever in a 30 zone.
Obviously this is just an exaggerated example but it does give a cause for concern as to the procedures being proven to have been carried out absolutely correctly.
Calibration certs? Whats the calibration standard? Who did it? Were they qualified? Was the procedure actually done ?
When was the calibration equipment calibrated? Who did it? Was it calibrated correctly? etc etc etc all the way down the line. If its wrong at the start its wrong at the finish but its "proved" you were a speeder, even if you were not.
The whole point of this post is to see if its possible to bring it down from the inside by giving reasonable doubt as to the equipment being originally set up correctly before it was even sent out for use, starting way back in the calibration stage of the calibration equipment.
Heck if it gets just one person off from a speeding charge thats wrong then its got to be a result.
What think?
>> Edited by deltafox on Friday 17th March 14:33
There was a guy that had made a device to time this interval. He was trying to get his speeding case taken to court. The case kept getting delayed.
Found the details. His name is David Edgar. His website was www.notsoaccurate.com but site is no longer there.
>> Edited by russ35 on Friday 17th March 15:53
Found the details. His name is David Edgar. His website was www.notsoaccurate.com but site is no longer there.
>> Edited by russ35 on Friday 17th March 15:53
russ35 said:
There was a guy that had made a device to time this interval. He was trying to get his speeding case taken to court. The case kept getting delayed.
Found the details. His name is David Edgar. His website was www.notsoaccurate.com but site is no longer there.
Wasn't this the one that ended in some controversy, with him allegedly being arrested forcefully on CCTV? IIRC he reckoned that the 0.5 sec was very 'variable'.
I posted a similar question a while back. Someone (I believe it was sean3502) claimed that because Gatsos use "pro canon EOS cameras" that there was no-way it would be wrong...
Judge as you see fit.
edit to add link; scroll down
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 17th March 16:59
Judge as you see fit.
edit to add link; scroll down
>> Edited by _dobbo_ on Friday 17th March 16:59
The trail starts right back in the lab surely?
If the devices used to calibrate the calibrators arent calibrated, how can we trust the calibration of the calibrated calibrator......if you see what im getting at...
Its like measuring the length of a piece of string with a stretched tape measure and then declaring it to be accurate.
Im thinking that if every time they had to go back and prove all of this stuff, we'd get see an awful lot of eff ups and maybe some not inconsequential numbers of nips flushed down the nearest lavvy as a result......maybe?
If the devices used to calibrate the calibrators arent calibrated, how can we trust the calibration of the calibrated calibrator......if you see what im getting at...
Its like measuring the length of a piece of string with a stretched tape measure and then declaring it to be accurate.
Im thinking that if every time they had to go back and prove all of this stuff, we'd get see an awful lot of eff ups and maybe some not inconsequential numbers of nips flushed down the nearest lavvy as a result......maybe?
Re the equipment used to do the calibration and the act of calibration - "using equipment traceable to national standards " might be the correct phrase as in "can you prove (by producing certs) that calibration equipment can be traced to national standards" ---that might throw up a wobly or two
oldie said:
Re the equipment used to do the calibration and the act of calibration - "using equipment traceable to national standards " might be the correct phrase as in "can you prove (by producing certs) that calibration equipment can be traced to national standards" ---that might throw up a wobly or two
Yeah thats where i was going in a round about way...
Theres some calibration stuff in this thread www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=249714&f=10&h=0
I have seen some calibration certificates for speed cameras. Not one of them state what standards (calibrated equipment) were used. Not one of them includes the actual results measured. Not one of them state that "this is a traceable calibration back to National standards" (usually would be traceable to www.ukas.com/ ) Not one of them in my opinion are valid!!!!
I run a calibration laboratory and would be ripped apart if I showed any external auditor a certificate that basically says "this equipment is accurate because I say so".
I have seen some calibration certificates for speed cameras. Not one of them state what standards (calibrated equipment) were used. Not one of them includes the actual results measured. Not one of them state that "this is a traceable calibration back to National standards" (usually would be traceable to www.ukas.com/ ) Not one of them in my opinion are valid!!!!
I run a calibration laboratory and would be ripped apart if I showed any external auditor a certificate that basically says "this equipment is accurate because I say so".
dickymint said:
Theres some calibration stuff in this thread www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=249714&f=10&h=0
I run a calibration laboratory and would be ripped apart if I showed any external auditor a certificate that basically says "this equipment is accurate because I say so".
I've often thought that attacking the calibration paper trail might be worth while but anbody trying it as a defence would need an expert witness like yourself to shoot them down.
Even having proved the calibration is a pile of poo you would still have an uphill struggle. Having read what goes on in court on www.pepipoo.com, they will pull any stunt they can to find people guilty unless they are represented by a high power legal team. Most people can't afford in depth high quality representation so the authorities get away with it.
>> Edited by Godfrey H on Monday 20th March 10:51
worth having a go if you believe the camera is wrong.
i am required by law to prove that my vehicle is fit for use on the road by having a MOT completed every year - at which the mechanical integrity of the car, CO2 results etc are measured and recorded and evidence is provided. So are GATSO cameras tested every year to ensure that they are all in working order? they are machines with mechanical and electrical part etc which can fail anytime (as any TVR owners will know) so why should we just assume that they are working correctly all the time??
problem is perception - most people assume that they cameras are right and accept the 3 points and £60 as "fair cop". in some cases this is wrong and its only in these case that i think a challenge can legitimately be made. a few years ago i was caught doing 107 on the M50 (well, you know, you can) and didn't protest cos i knew i'd been breaking the law, went to court with my brief and got 6 points, 3 week ban (which wiped my licence clean - go figure) and a £300 fine.
if'd been accused of doing 38 in a 30 zone and knew that i hadn't then i'd attack that.
'fresher
i am required by law to prove that my vehicle is fit for use on the road by having a MOT completed every year - at which the mechanical integrity of the car, CO2 results etc are measured and recorded and evidence is provided. So are GATSO cameras tested every year to ensure that they are all in working order? they are machines with mechanical and electrical part etc which can fail anytime (as any TVR owners will know) so why should we just assume that they are working correctly all the time??
problem is perception - most people assume that they cameras are right and accept the 3 points and £60 as "fair cop". in some cases this is wrong and its only in these case that i think a challenge can legitimately be made. a few years ago i was caught doing 107 on the M50 (well, you know, you can) and didn't protest cos i knew i'd been breaking the law, went to court with my brief and got 6 points, 3 week ban (which wiped my licence clean - go figure) and a £300 fine.
if'd been accused of doing 38 in a 30 zone and knew that i hadn't then i'd attack that.
'fresher
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff