PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Type 24 Radar obstructions
SpeedDemon666
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 14:01
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 2 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,537



It is well known that gatso radar devices don't cope well with obstructions, given the multiple stories of stationary vans and large lorries producing return signals. What would this forum make of this situation?

Fixed Type 24 on the roadside, excellent placement with zero roadside obstructions in the field of view except a 30mm chain link fence running along the path parallel with the road.
On the 2 lane road are stationary vehicles queuing near bumper to bumper, they are all normal sized 5/3 door cars the oncoming lane is completely clear. A small two-wheeled vehicle proceeds up the oncoming lane 30 cm from the kerb and passes the camera that is to say the two-wheeled vehicle is "filtering" up the oncoming lane. The camera triggers and registers a high speed.

Is it conceivable that the reading came from the stationary vehicles and not the filtering two-wheeled vehicle
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 9)
Advertisement
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 14:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
bigbadkev
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 14:06
Post #2


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Member No.: 33,229



anything is possible, but more likley the device triggered on a doppler return from some rotating part of the "small two wheeled" vehicle.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 14:17
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,062
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (SpeedDemon666 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:01) *
It is well known that gatso radar devices don't cope well with obstructions, given the multiple stories of stationary vans and large lorries producing return signals.

You seem to misunderstand fundamentally the issue here.

Those cases were NOTHING to do with 'obstructions', they were due to an object in the field of operation vibrating and returning a signal with sufficient Doppler shift to trigger the camera in the way its intended to be triggered by a vehicle exceeding the speed limit.

Could the camera be triggered by a stationary object? Yes
Was it? Well an analysis of the distance travelled by the two wheeler will tell you one way or another, if primary matches secondary the rider would struggle to get an acquittal I'd suggest.



--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bigbadkev
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 14:38
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Member No.: 33,229



being pedantic, there is no way a stationary object can generate a doppler shift, to generate a doppler shift there must be relative movement. If a part of the "stationary" object is vibrating sufficient to generate doppler is must therefore be moving, and hence not stationary...
Turn a pushbike upside down, its stationary. spin its wheels and they may generate sufficient doppler shift to trigger a camera..the wheels are NOT stationary.

Of course you could also knock/vibrate the camera to get the same result but then the camera is the moving object....

and yes i am in that kind of mood today smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SpeedDemon666
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 16:07
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 2 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,537



QUOTE (bigbadkev @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:06) *
anything is possible, but more likley the device triggered on a doppler return from some rotating part of the "small two wheeled" vehicle.


Interesting thought and given the obtuse angle in this situation could be enough to bring the radar into doubt, which is all I'm looking for

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:17) *
QUOTE (SpeedDemon666 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:01) *
It is well known that gatso radar devices don't cope well with obstructions, given the multiple stories of stationary vans and large lorries producing return signals.

You seem to misunderstand fundamentally the issue here.

Those cases were NOTHING to do with 'obstructions', they were due to an object in the field of operation vibrating and returning a signal with sufficient Doppler shift to trigger the camera in the way its intended to be triggered by a vehicle exceeding the speed limit.

Could the camera be triggered by a stationary object? Yes
Was it? Well an analysis of the distance travelled by the two wheeler will tell you one way or another, if primary matches secondary the rider would struggle to get an acquittal I'd suggest.


Thank you for the correction my assumption was that the radar was being fooled by hearing the return from the opposite side of a large surface like a van but the vibration point still stands, in the case of "two-wheeled vehicles" it is common for the plate to vibrate excessively as the vehicle is going down the road although I can see the mags eyes glazing over on presentation of that argument and would probably require an expert witness to have any hope of swaying the radar into doubt.
As for the secondary evidence the standard measurement lines are obscured by the traffic and my guess(Having yet to see the evidence) would be that only the central dashed lines would be visable, lest plod goes out with a tape measure and pulls some ninja photogrammetry I doubt the secondary will be of much use as unless the distance can be positively proved it's hearsay. In any case given Seroka, R I would expect to see the prosecution thow out the arguments assert the infallibility of the "prescribed device" and rest their case

QUOTE (bigbadkev @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:38) *
being pedantic, there is no way a stationary object can generate a doppler shift, to generate a doppler shift there must be relative movement. If a part of the "stationary" object is vibrating sufficient to generate doppler is must therefore be moving, and hence not stationary...
Turn a pushbike upside down, its stationary. spin its wheels and they may generate sufficient doppler shift to trigger a camera..the wheels are NOT stationary.

Of course you could also knock/vibrate the camera to get the same result but then the camera is the moving object....

and yes i am in that kind of mood today smile.gif


banging the camera would be a great way of clogging up the system but then again the average british motorist would likley just sign the nip and payout presumung the infalibilty of the gatso in much the same way as the case law forces the courts
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 20:14
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31,705
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



We're in the technical discussion part of the forum - This sounds like an actual case?

For photogrammetry they won't be getting a tape measure out...

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 20:14


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 07:26
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 43,062
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



If you have both photos its not hard to work out distance travelled.... if that corroborates the radar reading then it was almost certainly correct and no amount of argument about how a radar 'could be wrong' will make one ha'peth of difference.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Charlie1010
post Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 07:38
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 263
Joined: 8 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,324



You definitely need a vibrating object.
We use laser doppler velocimetry to measure the vibrations objects make in engineering applications.
It’s a non interference method compared to the old days of plastering accelerometers all over the place.

This post has been edited by Charlie1010: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 - 07:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sparxy
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 00:05
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
From: Midlands
Member No.: 34,394





Have you tried calculating the secondary yourself? It may not be 100%, but it may put doubt onto the primary reading. Use anything that's stationary between the two pictures that you know the length of.

This post has been edited by Sparxy: Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 00:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sparxy
post Tue, 10 Sep 2019 - 00:05
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 662
Joined: 14 Dec 2009
From: Midlands
Member No.: 34,394



QUOTE (SpeedDemon666 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 17:07) *
QUOTE (bigbadkev @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:06) *
anything is possible, but more likley the device triggered on a doppler return from some rotating part of the "small two wheeled" vehicle.


Interesting thought and given the obtuse angle in this situation could be enough to bring the radar into doubt, which is all I'm looking for

QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:17) *
QUOTE (SpeedDemon666 @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:01) *
It is well known that gatso radar devices don't cope well with obstructions, given the multiple stories of stationary vans and large lorries producing return signals.

You seem to misunderstand fundamentally the issue here.

Those cases were NOTHING to do with 'obstructions', they were due to an object in the field of operation vibrating and returning a signal with sufficient Doppler shift to trigger the camera in the way its intended to be triggered by a vehicle exceeding the speed limit.

Could the camera be triggered by a stationary object? Yes
Was it? Well an analysis of the distance travelled by the two wheeler will tell you one way or another, if primary matches secondary the rider would struggle to get an acquittal I'd suggest.


Thank you for the correction my assumption was that the radar was being fooled by hearing the return from the opposite side of a large surface like a van but the vibration point still stands, in the case of "two-wheeled vehicles" it is common for the plate to vibrate excessively as the vehicle is going down the road although I can see the mags eyes glazing over on presentation of that argument and would probably require an expert witness to have any hope of swaying the radar into doubt.
As for the secondary evidence the standard measurement lines are obscured by the traffic and my guess(Having yet to see the evidence) would be that only the central dashed lines would be visable, lest plod goes out with a tape measure and pulls some ninja photogrammetry I doubt the secondary will be of much use as unless the distance can be positively proved it's hearsay. In any case given Seroka, R I would expect to see the prosecution thow out the arguments assert the infallibility of the "prescribed device" and rest their case

QUOTE (bigbadkev @ Thu, 5 Sep 2019 - 15:38) *
being pedantic, there is no way a stationary object can generate a doppler shift, to generate a doppler shift there must be relative movement. If a part of the "stationary" object is vibrating sufficient to generate doppler is must therefore be moving, and hence not stationary...
Turn a pushbike upside down, its stationary. spin its wheels and they may generate sufficient doppler shift to trigger a camera..the wheels are NOT stationary.

Of course you could also knock/vibrate the camera to get the same result but then the camera is the moving object....

and yes i am in that kind of mood today smile.gif


banging the camera would be a great way of clogging up the system but then again the average british motorist would likley just sign the nip and payout presumung the infalibilty of the gatso in much the same way as the case law forces the courts


Have you tried calculating the secondary yourself? It may not be 100%, but it may put doubt onto the primary reading. Use anything that's stationary between the two pictures that you know the length of.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 14th November 2019 - 08:24
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.