A90 Laurencekirk Speed Camera.
Discussion
in 2016 I represented myself at Aberdeen Sheriff court, re alleged speeding through the A90 Speed camera limit of 50mph.
The case was never heard in court once the PF representative read through my statement and reviewed my evidence.
Key facts
1. The white lines are not 2 metres apart as stated by the police in writing to me, they are a few inches less.This means the speed distance calculation for the camera is wrong. This is important as the picture taken, tends to show you having travelled a considerable distance from the start of the white lines.
2. The Police stated the camera does not depreciate re accuracy during the year. Why then does it need to be calibrated each year. The Police are wrong the camera does require calibration as per manufactures recommendation.
3. The police refused to provide the calibration certificate for the camera, however I ascertained the camera at the time of the alleged offence was in Q4 of the year, therefore the accuracy of the camera had decreased dramatically.
Anybody who was flashed and convicted by this camera, pre recent white lines being adjusted by the council. Could very well have a claim against the police for wrongful conviction.
I will share the details of my case free of charge.
The case was never heard in court once the PF representative read through my statement and reviewed my evidence.
Key facts
1. The white lines are not 2 metres apart as stated by the police in writing to me, they are a few inches less.This means the speed distance calculation for the camera is wrong. This is important as the picture taken, tends to show you having travelled a considerable distance from the start of the white lines.
2. The Police stated the camera does not depreciate re accuracy during the year. Why then does it need to be calibrated each year. The Police are wrong the camera does require calibration as per manufactures recommendation.
3. The police refused to provide the calibration certificate for the camera, however I ascertained the camera at the time of the alleged offence was in Q4 of the year, therefore the accuracy of the camera had decreased dramatically.
Anybody who was flashed and convicted by this camera, pre recent white lines being adjusted by the council. Could very well have a claim against the police for wrongful conviction.
I will share the details of my case free of charge.
Any measurement equipment which has certain requirements for accuracy, will need calibration. The environment in which the camera is located also has an impact of the efficiency of the camera.
The fact the PF recognised this and the incorrect 2m measurement, resulted in the case not even being heard by the Sheriff. Hence the council have now painted white lines on the road re correct distance apart.
The fact the PF recognised this and the incorrect 2m measurement, resulted in the case not even being heard by the Sheriff. Hence the council have now painted white lines on the road re correct distance apart.
This was the Northbound Carriage. The south bound carriage way lines have been repainted with different spacings, the old locations are still visible.
Yes the lines are secondary, however they are there to verify the speed/distance covered measurement/timing, under which the penalty notice is sent. So therefore the incorrect spacing is a key piece of evidence, otherwise why send the picture showing the back of your car and quoting the speed et al.
The calculation proved that I was not driving at 64 mph and having driven through the south bound lane/camera trap earlier that day, I clearly knew the area.
Likewise for the cops to say the camera does not need calibration is both deflection and ignorance, hence the manufacturer confirmed the cameras are sent for calibration each year. Likewise the accuracy depreciates over the timeframe - One year. This why the PF representative did not want this information in the court. Lets see what the press make of it.
No doubt the last comment is from a copper.
Yes the lines are secondary, however they are there to verify the speed/distance covered measurement/timing, under which the penalty notice is sent. So therefore the incorrect spacing is a key piece of evidence, otherwise why send the picture showing the back of your car and quoting the speed et al.
The calculation proved that I was not driving at 64 mph and having driven through the south bound lane/camera trap earlier that day, I clearly knew the area.
Likewise for the cops to say the camera does not need calibration is both deflection and ignorance, hence the manufacturer confirmed the cameras are sent for calibration each year. Likewise the accuracy depreciates over the timeframe - One year. This why the PF representative did not want this information in the court. Lets see what the press make of it.
No doubt the last comment is from a copper.
All
My email is anysluk@yahoo.co.uk if you email me, I will reply with details.
I know within the North East hundreds of drivers have been prosecuted for alleged speeding, through these cameras. The question is are all the other markings throughout the UK the same!
The road maker distance changes are within the last few months, the council are duty bound to confirm the date of the repainting if you ask them.
To clarify I was not lucky and I was not driving at 64 mph. As a Chartered Engineer, I know a great deal about calibration also root cause analysis and failure mode effect analysis, likewise RTA investigations.
The entire correspondence file is now being shared with a Journo from a National paper. If the system is wrong then that is an injustice as was the case in this instance.
Information follow request to the Police.
1. The certificate of calibration seems to indicate that the certificate references five cameras? Is this correct and which is the camera applicable to this case?
2. The certificate of calibration is dated 02 December 2014 to the 01 December 2015, this indicates that the camera has a depreciation value of accuracy of 75% based on the picture date being the 23/09/2015. This implies the camera has only a 25% accuracy rating!
3. Confirm the re-calibration date for the camera and depreciation of accuracy over a twelve month period? The police paperwork clearly stated date of calibration.
4. The images indicating three, end elevation pictures for !!!!!!!!!!! with two positions of the vehicle on the road, via time-lapse. Please confirm the actual distance between the vehicle end elevation positions, this will enable me to verify the distance against my own measurements for the actual speed calculation.
5. I travelled on the southbound carriage way at midday, on the same day. This indicates awareness of the 50mph zone and due compliance with the speed limit.
My correction replies to the Police.
Correction 1
I do not live at !!!!!!!!! as per your letter or !!!!!!!!!! as per Police Scotland correspondence. So please do explain why have these basic mistakes have been made, robot or human error?
Correction 2
The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “With regard to the accuracy within the 12 month calibration period. This is confirmed when every offence is checked in the office using photographic evidence”.
In response to this comment, I draw your attention to Appendix 1
Likewise it my understanding that the calibration process for the Gatso Cameras, requires said cameras to be returned to the Dutch factory. Furthermore the camera at the time of the incorrect activation was 75% - 9 months, into its annual period of calibration. This therefore implies that the camera at best, has 25% of working accuracy retained.
The legal definition of competency in the UK is 50% experience and 50% training. I will therefore be asking for confirmation, that whoever calibrates the Gatso cameras at the Aberdeen office, can indeed verify their competency to carry out this complex task.
Appendix 1 Short Version - Tom Magner, a forensic engineer specialising in speed cameras told the BBC that the odds were stacked against the motorist, and that Gatsos should be calibrated more frequently.
"It's a precision piece of equipment and there's a very tight tolerance on which it is operated in order to be accurate," he said. "So when you're dealing with the sort of speeds you deal with in these particular cases, it's asking a lot of that equipment to operate time and time and time again so accurately.
"I don't think one annual calibration is sufficient. I think every six months at least but every time the camera is used, it should be checked to make sure that it is working properly."
Correction 3
The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “In this case the photographic evidence shows the vehicle travelled just over 14 metres between the two photographs”
The measured distance is 6 x 76 inches = 456 inches or 38 feet. Therefore the car therefore has travelled 38 feet in 0.5 seconds, a speed of 76 feet in one second, multiple by sixty seconds = 4,560 then multiple by 60 minutes = 273,600 feet per hour. Divide this by 5,280, the number of feet in a mile, and you get 51.81mph. This is the speed you would expect of somebody who drove through the same camera area, in the opposite direction four hours previously.
Correction 4
The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “Each small white roadside marking is two metres apart”.
The measured distance is in fact 76 inches, when measured correctly.
Two metres equates to 78.75 inches, therefore this raises the question about the distance v speed ratio calibration for the Gatso based on the incorrect reference made as 2 metres v the actual ground distance, between the white markers being 76 inches.
Likewise with the accuracy depreciation factored in, it calls into question the legality of the alleged offence in the first instance.
Please reference the case study in Appendix 2
I am sure the Journo will like this scoop.
My email is anysluk@yahoo.co.uk if you email me, I will reply with details.
I know within the North East hundreds of drivers have been prosecuted for alleged speeding, through these cameras. The question is are all the other markings throughout the UK the same!
The road maker distance changes are within the last few months, the council are duty bound to confirm the date of the repainting if you ask them.
To clarify I was not lucky and I was not driving at 64 mph. As a Chartered Engineer, I know a great deal about calibration also root cause analysis and failure mode effect analysis, likewise RTA investigations.
The entire correspondence file is now being shared with a Journo from a National paper. If the system is wrong then that is an injustice as was the case in this instance.
Information follow request to the Police.
1. The certificate of calibration seems to indicate that the certificate references five cameras? Is this correct and which is the camera applicable to this case?
2. The certificate of calibration is dated 02 December 2014 to the 01 December 2015, this indicates that the camera has a depreciation value of accuracy of 75% based on the picture date being the 23/09/2015. This implies the camera has only a 25% accuracy rating!
3. Confirm the re-calibration date for the camera and depreciation of accuracy over a twelve month period? The police paperwork clearly stated date of calibration.
4. The images indicating three, end elevation pictures for !!!!!!!!!!! with two positions of the vehicle on the road, via time-lapse. Please confirm the actual distance between the vehicle end elevation positions, this will enable me to verify the distance against my own measurements for the actual speed calculation.
5. I travelled on the southbound carriage way at midday, on the same day. This indicates awareness of the 50mph zone and due compliance with the speed limit.
My correction replies to the Police.
Correction 1
I do not live at !!!!!!!!! as per your letter or !!!!!!!!!! as per Police Scotland correspondence. So please do explain why have these basic mistakes have been made, robot or human error?
Correction 2
The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “With regard to the accuracy within the 12 month calibration period. This is confirmed when every offence is checked in the office using photographic evidence”.
In response to this comment, I draw your attention to Appendix 1
Likewise it my understanding that the calibration process for the Gatso Cameras, requires said cameras to be returned to the Dutch factory. Furthermore the camera at the time of the incorrect activation was 75% - 9 months, into its annual period of calibration. This therefore implies that the camera at best, has 25% of working accuracy retained.
The legal definition of competency in the UK is 50% experience and 50% training. I will therefore be asking for confirmation, that whoever calibrates the Gatso cameras at the Aberdeen office, can indeed verify their competency to carry out this complex task.
Appendix 1 Short Version - Tom Magner, a forensic engineer specialising in speed cameras told the BBC that the odds were stacked against the motorist, and that Gatsos should be calibrated more frequently.
"It's a precision piece of equipment and there's a very tight tolerance on which it is operated in order to be accurate," he said. "So when you're dealing with the sort of speeds you deal with in these particular cases, it's asking a lot of that equipment to operate time and time and time again so accurately.
"I don't think one annual calibration is sufficient. I think every six months at least but every time the camera is used, it should be checked to make sure that it is working properly."
Correction 3
The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “In this case the photographic evidence shows the vehicle travelled just over 14 metres between the two photographs”
The measured distance is 6 x 76 inches = 456 inches or 38 feet. Therefore the car therefore has travelled 38 feet in 0.5 seconds, a speed of 76 feet in one second, multiple by sixty seconds = 4,560 then multiple by 60 minutes = 273,600 feet per hour. Divide this by 5,280, the number of feet in a mile, and you get 51.81mph. This is the speed you would expect of somebody who drove through the same camera area, in the opposite direction four hours previously.
Correction 4
The police Scotland letter dated the 25th of Nov 2015, the paragraph stating “Each small white roadside marking is two metres apart”.
The measured distance is in fact 76 inches, when measured correctly.
Two metres equates to 78.75 inches, therefore this raises the question about the distance v speed ratio calibration for the Gatso based on the incorrect reference made as 2 metres v the actual ground distance, between the white markers being 76 inches.
Likewise with the accuracy depreciation factored in, it calls into question the legality of the alleged offence in the first instance.
Please reference the case study in Appendix 2
I am sure the Journo will like this scoop.
Hi
The measurement was correct, start of white line to the next start of the white line. Therefore one white line thickness is accounted for in each section.
The police correspondence was wrong with address, distance travelled, and line distances. Then they stated calibration was annual and subsequently backtracked saying no calibration was required.
The measurement was correct, start of white line to the next start of the white line. Therefore one white line thickness is accounted for in each section.
The police correspondence was wrong with address, distance travelled, and line distances. Then they stated calibration was annual and subsequently backtracked saying no calibration was required.
Driver 101
Police Scotland verified in writing the 2m distance between the white lines, duly shared with the Procurator Fiscal. Likewise my measurements are correct and duly verified for individual distances, between white lines and overall distance.
Clearly you feel the Police and Camera arrangement and lines cannot be wrong, not an issue as we are all entitled to our respective viewpoint.
I however refuse to be prosecuted for an offence, I did not commit. I will therefore ram it up em via the Media and Press.
Have a nice day.
Police Scotland verified in writing the 2m distance between the white lines, duly shared with the Procurator Fiscal. Likewise my measurements are correct and duly verified for individual distances, between white lines and overall distance.
Clearly you feel the Police and Camera arrangement and lines cannot be wrong, not an issue as we are all entitled to our respective viewpoint.
I however refuse to be prosecuted for an offence, I did not commit. I will therefore ram it up em via the Media and Press.
Have a nice day.
Two points
1. GATSO the people that make the camera, verified the issue of calibration. You also choose to ignore the comments from other independent engineers on the matter.
2. The two metre distance between white lines, stated in writing by the Police was wrong and is very relevant in the matter of distance and time. As per penalty notice that was issued by the police.
So I suggest you write and speak to Gatsco or otherwise.
Have a nice day : )
1. GATSO the people that make the camera, verified the issue of calibration. You also choose to ignore the comments from other independent engineers on the matter.
2. The two metre distance between white lines, stated in writing by the Police was wrong and is very relevant in the matter of distance and time. As per penalty notice that was issued by the police.
So I suggest you write and speak to Gatsco or otherwise.
Have a nice day : )
A BBC TV local news programme has found there's reason to doubt the accuracy of the Gatso, the workhorse of the Government's speed camera scheme.
"Look East" revealed on Friday that Gatso speed camera calibration procedures raise an anomaly that casts doubt on the evidence from around half of the devices. About half the Gatsos sent off for routine calibration had to be repaired before the calibration process was completed.
This suggests that around half the cameras became faulty at some point during the year before calibration. As road safety campaign Safe Speed pointed out, without knowing when the faults first appeared, any camera affected can't be relied on to provide accurate evidence in court.
This came to light when Sally Chidzoy of BBC TV Look East obtained camera calibration invoices under the Freedom of Information Act. The invoices so far obtained apply to Essex and Hertfordshire cameras. It's likely that a similar situation applies to all Gatso cameras in every area.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Nothing about the incompetence of speed camera operations surprises me any more, but this particular blunder is certainly of epic proportions.
"This information casts very substantial doubts on the safety of evidence from thousands of cameras used against hundreds of thousands of motorists.
"Confidence in speed cameras is already at rock bottom, but this information will drive it down further. I can only imagine that hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of motorists are going to be asking for their money back."
Tom Magner, a forensic engineer specialising in speed cameras told the BBC that the odds were stacked against the motorist, and that Gatsos should be calibrated more frequently.
"It's a precision piece of equipment and there's a very tight tolerance on which it is operated in order to be accurate," he said. "So when you're dealing with the sort of speeds you deal with in these particular cases, it's asking a lot of that equipment to operate time and time and time again so accurately.
"I don't think one annual calibration is sufficient. I think every six months at least but every time the camera is used, it should be checked to make sure that it is working properly."
"Look East" revealed on Friday that Gatso speed camera calibration procedures raise an anomaly that casts doubt on the evidence from around half of the devices. About half the Gatsos sent off for routine calibration had to be repaired before the calibration process was completed.
This suggests that around half the cameras became faulty at some point during the year before calibration. As road safety campaign Safe Speed pointed out, without knowing when the faults first appeared, any camera affected can't be relied on to provide accurate evidence in court.
This came to light when Sally Chidzoy of BBC TV Look East obtained camera calibration invoices under the Freedom of Information Act. The invoices so far obtained apply to Essex and Hertfordshire cameras. It's likely that a similar situation applies to all Gatso cameras in every area.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign said: "Nothing about the incompetence of speed camera operations surprises me any more, but this particular blunder is certainly of epic proportions.
"This information casts very substantial doubts on the safety of evidence from thousands of cameras used against hundreds of thousands of motorists.
"Confidence in speed cameras is already at rock bottom, but this information will drive it down further. I can only imagine that hundreds of thousands - or even millions - of motorists are going to be asking for their money back."
Tom Magner, a forensic engineer specialising in speed cameras told the BBC that the odds were stacked against the motorist, and that Gatsos should be calibrated more frequently.
"It's a precision piece of equipment and there's a very tight tolerance on which it is operated in order to be accurate," he said. "So when you're dealing with the sort of speeds you deal with in these particular cases, it's asking a lot of that equipment to operate time and time and time again so accurately.
"I don't think one annual calibration is sufficient. I think every six months at least but every time the camera is used, it should be checked to make sure that it is working properly."
Experienced electrical engineer Andrew now claims to have expert evidence showing that Gatsos can give false readings when the outside temperature drops below 0*C.
He believes the cameras are only calibrated for accuracy between 0*C and 70*C, and at lower temperatures vital timing circuitry is slowed inside the unit.
Related Articles
Driving test is 75 01 Jun 2010
This means as he passed the camera, when the temperature was minus -5*C, the normal half-second pause between the two images used to measure speed was delayed.
It would then give the impression that the car had travelled further over the white lines painted on the road used to calculate distance and give a higher speed reading.
He has now taken his appeal to Cambridge Crown Court, where he hopes to push for the matter to be taken to judicial review at the High Court in London.
Mr Fowler of Shepreth, Cambs., who had held a clean licence since passing his test over 20 years ago, said the risk of thousands in legal costs is worth it if justice can be done for all drivers.
He said: ''It's me versus the system, there's no two ways about it, and it is pretty daunting to be honest.
''I'm nowhere near being a rich man but I don't mind how much this costs me because it is for a good cause, this is for all motorists.
''If I'm successful everyone will be at their crown court with speeding cases. Everyone will be able to appeal.''
He was flashed by the rear facing camera at 6.12am on February 2 last year on Trumpington Road on his way to work at Cambridge Railway Station.
Rather than accept a £60 fine and three points, he took the matter to trial at Cambridge Magistrates' Court, where he lost and was handed a £350 bill in fine and costs plus four points.
However he has now taken his case to appeal and appeared before Judge Anthony Bate at Cambridge Crown Court on Wednesday, who set a hearing date for July.
In court papers he claims the integrated electrical circuit which sets the camera timer is not guaranteed to work below 0*C, and only ever calibrated at room temperature.
Mr Fowler, who lives with wife Selina and children aged 18, 14 and 12, is representing himself in court to help keep legal costs down.
He added: "If it's so cold the capacitor on the circuit can't hold its charge or is damaged the flash will not go off in time.
"I drove past that camera every day for 12 months and it never flashed.
"I have no reason to believe I was speeding that day. I checked my speedometer and I was doing just over 30mph.
"I'm not anti-speed cameras. They are a piece of electronics on the side of the road designed to do a job. But they have to be right and they have to be correct.
"The Home Office needs to take a fresh look as to whether the Gatsos work.
"The whole thing is unfair. The motorist is being bullied."
Hugh Bladon, co-founder of the Association of British Drivers (ABD), said that the case could be an important development for motorists.
He said: ''We do feel that some of the readings from these cameras are suspect.
''An awful lot of people lose their licences, livelihoods and even jobs and mortgages because of speeding penalties.
''If the case succeeds in proving that cameras are suspect below a certain temperature then the floodgates will open for further appeals.''
Gatso cameras are manufactured by Dutch firm Gatsometer and calibrated at their head quarters in Holland annually to ensure accuracy and Home Office compliance.
He believes the cameras are only calibrated for accuracy between 0*C and 70*C, and at lower temperatures vital timing circuitry is slowed inside the unit.
Related Articles
Driving test is 75 01 Jun 2010
This means as he passed the camera, when the temperature was minus -5*C, the normal half-second pause between the two images used to measure speed was delayed.
It would then give the impression that the car had travelled further over the white lines painted on the road used to calculate distance and give a higher speed reading.
He has now taken his appeal to Cambridge Crown Court, where he hopes to push for the matter to be taken to judicial review at the High Court in London.
Mr Fowler of Shepreth, Cambs., who had held a clean licence since passing his test over 20 years ago, said the risk of thousands in legal costs is worth it if justice can be done for all drivers.
He said: ''It's me versus the system, there's no two ways about it, and it is pretty daunting to be honest.
''I'm nowhere near being a rich man but I don't mind how much this costs me because it is for a good cause, this is for all motorists.
''If I'm successful everyone will be at their crown court with speeding cases. Everyone will be able to appeal.''
He was flashed by the rear facing camera at 6.12am on February 2 last year on Trumpington Road on his way to work at Cambridge Railway Station.
Rather than accept a £60 fine and three points, he took the matter to trial at Cambridge Magistrates' Court, where he lost and was handed a £350 bill in fine and costs plus four points.
However he has now taken his case to appeal and appeared before Judge Anthony Bate at Cambridge Crown Court on Wednesday, who set a hearing date for July.
In court papers he claims the integrated electrical circuit which sets the camera timer is not guaranteed to work below 0*C, and only ever calibrated at room temperature.
Mr Fowler, who lives with wife Selina and children aged 18, 14 and 12, is representing himself in court to help keep legal costs down.
He added: "If it's so cold the capacitor on the circuit can't hold its charge or is damaged the flash will not go off in time.
"I drove past that camera every day for 12 months and it never flashed.
"I have no reason to believe I was speeding that day. I checked my speedometer and I was doing just over 30mph.
"I'm not anti-speed cameras. They are a piece of electronics on the side of the road designed to do a job. But they have to be right and they have to be correct.
"The Home Office needs to take a fresh look as to whether the Gatsos work.
"The whole thing is unfair. The motorist is being bullied."
Hugh Bladon, co-founder of the Association of British Drivers (ABD), said that the case could be an important development for motorists.
He said: ''We do feel that some of the readings from these cameras are suspect.
''An awful lot of people lose their licences, livelihoods and even jobs and mortgages because of speeding penalties.
''If the case succeeds in proving that cameras are suspect below a certain temperature then the floodgates will open for further appeals.''
Gatso cameras are manufactured by Dutch firm Gatsometer and calibrated at their head quarters in Holland annually to ensure accuracy and Home Office compliance.
Gassing Station | Scotland | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff