PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[NIP Wizard] Cars in both lanes caught by Gatso
Blond1e
post Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 09:45
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,168



NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - April 2009
Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 13 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A441 Pershore Road, Birmingham
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons -

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:
  • The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.

    You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:45:31 +0100



I applied and received photographic evidence as I was totally unaware of having been caught speeding. The photographs show I was caught by Gatso and there are two photos taken half a second apart. I was apparently doing 40 in a 30 mph speed limit. I was very surprised by this as a few years ago I had two speeding tickets in short succession (both now expired) but have been very careful since.

My question is that I've read on another website a one-liner saying that Gatsos need to be callibrated so that they only record traffic in on lane at a time. As the photos show two cars (with mine in the overtaking lane), can the photos be used as evidence to prosecute me or can I ask for this to be thrown out because it has caught vehicles in both lanes?

This post has been edited by Blond1e: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 10:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 09:45
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
bama
post Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 09:58
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,926
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



judging by the title of the thread we may have to see the pictures. Scrub all identifying information from them with any of the popular and free picture editors.
use Tinypic to host
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?autoco...ticle&id=16


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blond1e
post Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 10:16
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,168



I'm a bit of a technophobe so will have to get my partner to help me out with that tonight.
I just thought there would be a straightforward answer as to whether I can be prosecuted if there are cars in both lanes.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete D
post Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 10:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



True of hand held radar devices but not gatso's where there is a secondary check to identify the faster/offending vehicle. We need the photo's. Pete D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 01:05
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,397
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (Pete D @ Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 11:43) *
True of hand held radar devices but not gatso's where there is a secondary check to identify the faster/offending vehicle. We need the photo's. Pete D

Actually the opposite is more nearly true.

There are no hand-held radars approved for prosecution use in the UK (or if there are, they are very rare). Neighbourhood Speed Watch (or whatever they are called) use hand-held Radars, but these are not for prosecution - they are used only to send warning letters.

Anything hand-held is probably laser based, and should be capable of picking out a vehicle in one lane without influence from the vehicle in the other lane. This assumes that the invisible laser beam has actually been correctly aligned with the cross-hairs or aiming dot (or whatever that brand of laser device uses). That is quite a big IF. It also assumes a skilled operator who has chosen a good vantage point and is operating at fairly close range.

The GATSO has the secondary check, which in UK law is used to verify that the primary (radar) reading is correct. In some other countries, the radar reading is assumed to be correct and the secondary check is used to decide which car (if there are more than one) set the camera off. Strictly speaking, the UK does not recognise the use of the secondary check to discriminate between two cars in the field of view. For this reason, the ACPO Code of Practice (which is ignored and/or dismissed as "just guidelines" whenever it turns out the code has not been followed) says not to prosecute if there are two vehicles in the shot.

The GATSO, frankly can lock onto almost anything. It should lock on to the strongest signal, which is normally the closest, but may mean the biggest vehicle or the vehicle with the largest flat panel of steel that happens to be at the correct angle to give a perfect reflection.

We pretty much need to see the pics.

Dr.S


--------------------

Dr.S
Telephone calls may be recorded for the purpose of detection and prevention of crime.
I am an engineer/physicist, not a lawyer. My answers are based on The Laws 'O Physics (which ya' can 'ne change, Cap'n).
The law of the land is a much more slippery and changeable thing.

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete D
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 06:56
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



I believe Kustom Falcon and Speedar are type approved hand held devices, old school but still around. The ACPO code of practice only refers to multiple vehicles in section 9 which is specifically for hand held devices. There is reference in other sections regarding mobile manually operated Gatso's but not Automatic Gatso's. Pete D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 08:36
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,012
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



Section 16, on page 77 of the ACPO RPET guidelines, clearly states that "Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may be, in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded". This refers to any type of wet film processing, including unattended GATSOs.

Note that it says "must be disregarded", not may be or should be.

To the OP: as I stated on the MSE forum, you will need to post up the scanned and depersonalised images, so that we can advise you further.


--------------------
We'll fight them on the roads, we'll fight them in the courts, and we shall never, ever, surrender
Cases Won = 20 (17 as McKenzie Friend) : Cases Lost = 4. Private Parking tickets ignored: 3. Paid: 0.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete D
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 08:58
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



Yes you are spot on Bargepole but depending on the postion of the other vehicle is important, for instance if the other veicle is much further up the markings then they seem to deem that to be out of range and proceed regardless. There have been hundreds of these images on here with two cars in the frame, even a car and a faster bike. Pete D

This post has been edited by Pete D: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 09:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 09:00
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,788
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Pete D @ Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 07:56) *
I believe Kustom Falcon and Speedar are type approved hand held devices,

I agree
QUOTE (Pete D @ Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 07:56) *
There is reference in other sections regarding mobile manually operated Gatso's but not Automatic Gatso's.

Sort of, section 10 for roadside rader also says
QUOTE (ACPO RPET CoP @ Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 07:56) *
Readings should only be considered valid if the operator(s) are sure that only one vehicle passed through the beam. It is therefore important that the operators have a clear view of both the area of road covered by the beam and of the speed display.

While this refers to 'operators' as if they are active, its for roadside radar and as such should therefore apply to Gatso, even though in that case the 'operator' is back in the office looking at film, which obviously provides "a clear view of both the area of road covered by the beam".

Simon


--------------------
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
Pete D
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 09:12
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



Hi Simon, Section 10 as you say is road side radar, these do not require secondary road markings and rely on prior opinion of the 'operator' who then arms the tripod mounted gatso and if the speed limit is exceeded it flashes once. That is not an automatic unmanned Gatso. Pete D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
howiem
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 09:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33
Joined: 23 Dec 2008
Member No.: 25,032



QUOTE (Dr Science @ Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 02:05) *
...There are no hand-held radars approved for prosecution use in the UK (or if there are, they are very rare). ...
Dr.S

Have a look at the list in ACPO Code App B; there are 7 of them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 12:03
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 45,788
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Pete D @ Wed, 3 Jun 2009 - 10:12) *
Hi Simon, Section 10 as you say is road side radar, these do not require secondary road markings and rely on prior opinion of the 'operator' who then arms the tripod mounted gatso and if the speed limit is exceeded it flashes once. That is not an automatic unmanned Gatso.

That may be your interpretation (and even its intent) but that is NOT what it says, and the description of layout etc matches a static unmanned Gatso. Besides unmanned Gatso require no road markings (they are merely there for the conveniance of the scammers to check the photo's, even though they don't bother!) so that's an acedemic argument.

Simon


--------------------
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
Blond1e
post Thu, 4 Jun 2009 - 19:25
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,168






Hi guys,

Sorry for the delay - hope the images help work this out for me. Mine's the blue car.

This post has been edited by Blond1e: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 - 19:28
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete D
post Thu, 4 Jun 2009 - 19:55
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



The markings imply a speed of at least 40.26 mph. However other have suggested that two cars in the field of view would invalidate this, but do not hold your breath. The car on your inside was doing a touch under 30 mph. Pete D
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blond1e
post Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 08:02
Post #15


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,168



Hi guys,

So, what do I do next?

Do I fill in the form and return with my details and attach a letter stating what the ACPO guidelines say and hope they don't send a fine?

I'm tring to find the ACPO guidelines but there are so many websites - hasanyone got a link please?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pete D
post Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 08:18
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,748
Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Member No.: 11,456



http://www.pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm I note that link goes to an old version of the guidelines
Section 29.3 is where it mentions two or more vehicles, and the measurement field.
Yes you should complete the NIP and include a covering letter stating your case stabled to the NIP and send via special delivery around day 26. Pete D

This post has been edited by Pete D: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 08:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 09:28
Post #17


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 8,175
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



One of the FAQs has links to legislation and other information. It includes this link to a copy of the ACPO Code of Practice.


--------------------
Regards,
Fredd

__________________________________________________________________________
Pepipoo relies on you
to keep this site running!
Donate to Pepipoo now using your
Visa, Mastercard, debit card or PayPal account
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
desktop_demon
post Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 18:49
Post #18


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,236
Joined: 22 Jul 2008
From: South of the border.
Member No.: 21,303



There seems to be some presumption going on in this thread. Are the markings at the standard 2 metre separation or are they 5 feet apart? Is there any way to check that without OP going to measure?

For a vehicle to be travelling at 40mph it must be travelling at 17.88metres per second or 8.94 metres in half a second.

If the markers are 2m then the vehicle must cover 4.47 road markers
if the markers are 5 ft then the vehicle must cover 5.86 road markers

Therefore I presume that the markers are 2m apart.

Looking at the photos I am not sure the car has covered 4.5 markers. Applying the 10% error rule the car must be shown to be doing at least 36mph (if not faster) from examining the photos. 36mph = 16.09m/s = 8.04 metres in half a second. So a whisker over 4 markers. Hmmm.....

It might just be that although it might just be not. My best estimate is that the vehicle in question has moved 4.25-4.3 markers (8.5 - 8.62m). Which puts the photos about 5% out from the radar. Would need better photos to do accurate estimate. So there would seem to be no viable type approval error condition defence in this case.

The manufacturers manual also gives a method of determining which car triggered the gatso. It involves a plastic template with a triangle drawn on it. Instructions in the user manual - but it does require a full width photo - not a cropped image as often supplied by the ticket unit.

Did anyone notice the different scales of the two pictures? Top one zoomed slightly so you can't easily do an overlay! How helpful some people are....


--------------------
When your life finally flashes in front of you - let's hope there's something worth watching.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blond1e
post Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 19:49
Post #19


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 2 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,168



Hi desktop demon,

I didn't notice the scale being different between the two pictures - it looks like they did this because they wouldn't have both fitted on one page because the info in the middle between the pictures takes up quite a bit of space.

Your reply seems to say that you think my car was driving at less than 40mph. Sorry if I'm being thick here but can you explain what you mean by "there would seem to be no viable type approval error condition defence in this case".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tancred
post Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 19:55
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 602
Joined: 29 Nov 2008
Member No.: 24,463



QUOTE (Blond1e @ Fri, 5 Jun 2009 - 20:49) *
Hi desktop demon,

I didn't notice the scale being different between the two pictures - it looks like they did this because they wouldn't have both fitted on one page because the info in the middle between the pictures takes up quite a bit of space.

Your reply seems to say that you think my car was driving at less than 40mph. Sorry if I'm being thick here but can you explain what you mean by "there would seem to be no viable type approval error condition defence in this case".


I'm guessing here but I think this is in reference to the secondary check having to be within 10% of the speed the Gatso recorded otherwise it is not valid. There is a very, very long case here a motorcyclist was shown as doing around 36mph I think it was but measuring using the lines put him outwith 10% of that although still over 30mph. Eventually he successfully won the case on the basis the reading was over 10% out and therefore the camera evidence could not be used.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Saturday, 26th September 2020 - 06:23
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.