Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 13:53
Post #1362974

I was surprised to receive an NIP in the post alleging that I had been travelling at 83mph on a 70mph NSL road and photographed by a manual camera van. I had seen the van, and was travelling in the flow of traffic. I have a GPS 'satnav' map device and a GPS-linked dashcam and so downloaded the data from both. The video clearly shows the camera van on the other side of the road, and that my speed is 69.3mph. While the satnav measures in legs of a few hundred yards rather than instantaneously it is in agreement with the dashcam.

This is where it gets interesting. The safety partnership have kindly sent two stills of the car. However, the time printed on the picture is some 30 seconds after I passed the van - and the car is about half a mile away. I asked a police friend of mine what to do, and he suggested writing to the safety partnership to tell them that I had evidence from two devices that agreed with each other but disagreed with theirs. I did so, and got a rapid reply to say that GPS devices were inaccurate and affected by the weather so they were still going to prosecute. I have returned the RK form - I was driving and that is not in dispute, but I do dispute their data. Firstly, the two devices agree with each other on time, place and speed. They have no connection with each other apart from a power supply from the car. Furthermore, while I am well aware that the speed measured can fluctuate, it depends on the number of satellites used for calculation and the variation is not great - ceratinly not 14mph for a sustained peiod. 8 satellites were being used. Even more pertinently, the timekeeping by the GPS system is incredibly accurate. The devices keep good time even when not able to see satellites, but when they can see them it is accurate to milliseconds. I'm pretty confident in the time and speed records I have and have preserved. I am minded to defend this, as something has clearly gone wrong at their end. I have no idea what, and it isn't my role to speculate. Please can I seek advice on this course of action?

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:16
Post #1362982

For starters, the time of day discrepancy is not of any concern (unless was wildly out). The clock in mobile speed measurement devices will be merely directory rather than an absolute - as opposed to devices such as SPECS where it is key. The time being 'out' has no bearing on the speed measurement here. Indeed, the clock on your device is likely to be the correct one if GPS synchronised.

It also follows that you can't rely on the times to correlate the data precisely.

It is true that consumer GPS devices are not that accurate - but can be indicative of the average speed in normal circumstances. The problem is the type approved laser based speed measurement used on you is far more accurate (if operated correctly) and deemed to be so unless you can demonstrate otherwise. The GPS calculation will involve an element of smoothing/averaging.

Because you can't correlate 100% it's possible that your speed was measured at a different point, perhaps before slowing down. (I'm not suggesting you were speeding previously) Remember, the laser measurement is taken in around 1/3 second.

Having said that, if the footage/data you have shows that their device is incorrect (especially for a reasonable distance prior to the location) this may be sufficient to cast reasonable doubt. It would be best if an expert witness could analyse your information to provide their findings. Similar cases have been dropped pre-trial - if one was being cynical to avoid a potentially embarrassing result and an admission of 'error'.

Similarly, the stills they have extracted from their video may have the speed measured at a previous point. (i.e. is not the 'money shot')

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:16
Post #1362984

Thank you Jlc - but the allegation on the NIP was that the vehicle was travelling at that speed at that time on that day. My evidence is that of those three, only the day is correct. I can't see how they can then say that the time doesn't matter. It's as important as the speed, surely?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:24
Post #1362985

Are you sure that at no point in the time you were approaching you were over the speed limit? The still from the camera van should tell you what distance away they measured your speed, it will very likely be further away than the still you posted. They can measure up to 1km away especially from a vantage point.

The time difference is immaterial, yours will almost certainly be more accurate as it's set by GPS but there is no debate about whether it is the same car as it could be if it was hours apart.

If you are sure that the GPS does not show you exceeding the speed limit by a margin then of course the correct thing to do is fight it. However, be aware this
may not be an easy process. The laser gun is an approved device and is assumed to be accurate unless it is shown otherwise. Your device of course isn't approved but is a well known brand using reliable technology and should be able to cast reasonable doubt on the police's evidence - in which case you will be found not guilty.

There are three possible options in order of preference.

1. The CPS see the evidence and drop it before trial.
2. The CPS see the evidence and accept it but it still goes to trial.
3. The CPS sees the evidence and objects to it, in which case you will likely need to employ an expert to present the evidence to court. Obviously this is expensive up front although you should recover the costs subsequently.

Obviously whether you are prepared to proceed through each change depends on your time, finances and whether you appoint legal representation. It may be pertinent now to email the Chief Constable and ask them to review the case now because although potentially less satisfying it will be less hassle.

After you have received the response back from the CC make sure you contact the local press because you are "concerned others may have been caught with this inaccurate device". Bit of pot stirring never goes amiss.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:25
Post #1362986

Please don't go down that rabbit hole.

The allegation is that you were exceeding the limit. The location is not vague to you and as I noted above the time is not purporting to be an specific moment to prove the allegation, i.e. showing your correlated speed at the 'exact' moment they allege.

If you were speeding at that point (around 83mph say) within 1 minute or so then I would be taking the fixed penalty/course.

If you were cruising at no more than 70mph at time and reasonably prior then I'd fight.

Posted by: mdann52 Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:25
Post #1362987

You aren't disadvantaged by the error (you still know you were driving at the time), so unfortunately it has no bearing on this - especially, as it is seconds out rather than minutes or hours. If raised as a defence in court, you'll not get far with it!

Let's put it another way - if the time of a CCTV camera is out by 10 minutes (let's say), would a shoplifter be able to claim they were not guilty of the offence at said place if there was a clear image of them being there? In this case, they have an image of your vehicle allegedly doing a certain speed. You don't deny you were not in the area at that rough time, so I wouldn't rely on this unfortunately.

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:36
Post #1362989

Let's put it another way - if the time of a CCTV camera is out by 10 minutes (let's say), would a shoplifter be able to claim they were not guilty of the offence at said place if there was a clear image of them being there? In this case, they have an image of your vehicle allegedly doing a certain speed. You don't deny you were not in the area at that rough time, so I wouldn't rely on this unfortunately

If the alleged shoplifter has reliable evidence that he was elsewhere at the time I think that's called an alibi!

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:46
Post #1362992

Still not understanding it then...... the evidence would show a theft, an alibi for ten minutes later isn’t an alibi.

Stop grasping at straws!

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:53
Post #1362994

Never take legal advice from a cop.

Posted by: StationCat Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 14:56
Post #1362995

Since the range of the speed gun in the camera van is up to 1km, the key question is: was there a point earlier in your dash-cam footage when you were driving at the speed they alledge?

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 15:19
Post #1363000

How about posting the stills of your car here so we can see what they look like?

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 15:26
Post #1363003

Station cat - investigating now.
Mazzer - They are clearly identified as copyright of the relevant police force so I hesitate to do so.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 15:32
Post #1363005

This is the point I made earlier. You can't pull out the data from the 'exact' moment specified and say 'not guilty'. There's a much bigger picture.

Given the costs involved in prosecution will be yours to pay should you lose (guideline starting at £620) you'd need to be sure you can fully defend the allegation comprehensively.


A picture of your own car?

Posted by: Pete D Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 15:56
Post #1363015

Was the front or rear of the van facing you. I suspect the van was facing you so you would have been pinged from the rear. What range is displayed on the still and is there a - in front of the speed. Pete D

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:05
Post #1363020

Copyright applies to photographs as "original artistic works" that are the product of independent creative effort. I can assure you that does not apply in this case.

You can choose not to post them here of course, but it may help your case if we see them. You can obscure any personal information but leave the data regarding speed, distance etc.

Look through other threads on this site and you'll see plenty of examples of these photos being published without attracting threats from the camera partnerships or Police to take them down.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:08
Post #1363022

I doubt the pictures will make much difference other than to show a clean ping of 83mph. This doesn’t appear to be the thrust of the OP’s defence.

Posted by: mickR Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:09
Post #1363025

My thoughts entirely. A pic of you in a public place? As one is entitled to any cctv footage of themselves I fail to see how plod can copyright such a pic.

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:16
Post #1363028

They could give us a distance/angle/direction clue when compared to the dashcam image.

Posted by: mickR Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:26
Post #1363030

I agree the more info the better as it's a little vague at mo. Exactly where it was pinged and the relative dash cam footage at that time is important. Visability looks a bit dull in pic was it raining? Was scamvan scamming through closed window? All relative.

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:28
Post #1363031

Or post the entire dashcam video.

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:50
Post #1363037

OK - here are the images. Thank you for advice so far. It was dull and raining. I am still working out how to add the video.

Posted by: Fredd Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:53
Post #1363038

Wrong.


Just because a picture of you is of you and as a result you may have the right to obtain a copy of it, it doesn't mean that someone else can't own the copyright of the picture.

Posted by: Tartarus Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:02
Post #1363043

Not related to the case, but back on the subject of photographs and copyright, as someone who has taken a great many photos in their time, and had a fair few of them used in various publications, electronic and print, then if you take a photograph of something, doesn't matter what, you own the copyright to that photograph. Use by other persons comes under licence and permissions agreements. Now you can debate the legality and pickyness of the situation if you take a shot of an item/thing that belongs to someone else (witness plenty of fun on YouTube with Nintendo trying to take down long play videos of their games) but in essence, the photo is yours. In fact, I was asked last week by a company in Canada if they could use a photograph I took 15 years ago that is up online, as part of a video production they are making, and sent across an agreement for me to date/sign.

I suppose the next question is... if an automated camera took the photograph, who owns the copyright? We descend into similar yet not the same territory that a certain photographer did with the monkey selfie.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:02
Post #1363044

I still think the OP has to look at their own ‘evidence’ on the approach - a clean ping can not be defended by a tiny extract of an unapproved device.

I’ll repeat my advice from earlier. What stage are we at? Is it heading to court yet?

Posted by: StationCat Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:03
Post #1363045

Those images are stills from a video. The system is Concept 2 by Teletraffic. You were 251.3 metres away when the 'ping' was shot and the result was 83 mph.
That looks like a good clear shot.
What speed were you doing on the dash-cam, 251 metres prior to the van?

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:07
Post #1363046

As clean a ping as you'll ever see.

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:10
Post #1363047

Thank you. I have been sent an offer of an SAC (my licence has been clean for decades, and I have advanced training) or to go to Court. That is the debate - your view that the exact 'time' is irrelevant is interesting and an aspect that I had not previously considered, but I am surprised that the Courts tolerate such prosecution sloppiness. My scientific training here probably isn't helping, but there is an obvious error and discrepancy here and I think that if they want to proceed with a prosecution and expect it to succeed then they have to get it all right. As I see it, the speed is wrong as is the time.

How do I post video, please? The system won't let me upload anything more than 43kb at present.

Posted by: StationCat Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:14
Post #1363049

The time on that equipment is set manually by the operator so it will not match your dash-cam if it gets its time from GPS. The question then is - who's time is correct?
As the saying goes - a man with one watch knows the time.... a man with two watches is never quite sure.
It would be useful if you could tell us what speed your dash-cam shows at the point they measured it.

Posted by: Jlc Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:18
Post #1363050

You will have to host video externally - YouTube or the like.

You are still hung up on this ‘exact time’ business - i note you are not denying speeding.

You have options indeed but the course looks attractive to me.

Alternatively you could seek professional advice at a cost. You could try your defence but you could pick up an extremely large bill if prosecution use expert witnesses of their own.

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:23
Post #1363053

As a matter of law the prosecution don’t have to prove the exact time of the speeding offence, as it’s not an essential ingredient of the offence. You must simply accept this and move on.

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:23
Post #1363054

You were a lot closer than 251m from the van in your dashcam still. I think you'll find there might be a point a little earlier when you were doing 83mph, but I stand to be corrected.

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:28
Post #1363055

I stated in the original posting that the vehicle was travelling at 69.3mph by my dashcam and posted a photo of the van as seen by my dashcam. The reason I am 'hung up' on the time is that I do not have a means of measuring the distance from what I currently have available and I didn't want to get into the debate which always seems to get heated about GPS speeds. However, the van looks around 250 m away seen obliquely on the opposite carriageway. I can't say any more than that with confidence.

Thank you - I do value all these contributions. However, reducing this to the simplest, the allegation is that the car was travelling at a certain speed at a certain time and the defence is that it was not, and here is the evidence. It just seems an unexpected lacuna in the required standard of proof.

Posted by: StationCat Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:29
Post #1363057

The ping shot shows your car directly facing the van, but in your dash-cam still there would be a view of the offside of your vehicle. Presumably, this is on a shallow bend approaching the van. What is the exact location?

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:33
Post #1363059

It doesn't look 251m away in your still.

Let's make this simple - were you doing more than 69.3mph 5-10 seconds before the still you've posted from your dashcam?

As others have said, you need to disregard the fact your clock is slightly different to their clock. That will not make any difference to the outcome.

Posted by: The Rookie Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:38
Post #1363060

Copyright arises when an individual or organisation creates a work, and applies to a work if it is regarded as original, and exhibits a degree of labour, skill or judgement.

Still wouldn’t apply to a speed camera photo.

Posted by: stethoscope Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:38
Post #1363061

Pyecombe, A23. I think this link should work: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmb4ziwl1cse9om/Pyecombe24012018.mp4?dl=0

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:43
Post #1363063

Precisely. See here for a relevant case.

https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2845.asp



Start the video a bit earlier and I think you might find you were doing about 83mph...

Posted by: southpaw82 Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:53
Post #1363066

No, it’s not. The legal allegation (on a written charge) will be that on a certain date you did drive a mechanically propelled vehicle at a speed in excess of the speed limit. That’s it. The evidence will mention the time but it is not an ingredient of the offence that needs proving, particularly to an exact moment.

Posted by: Irksome Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:54
Post #1363067

The reported speed at the beginning of the clip you supply shows you decelerating from 76.5mph ... so if you expect the court to accept your device is showing an accurate record of your speed then you accept that you were exceeding the speed limit ...

Posted by: peterguk Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:58
Post #1363068

OP does not appear to dispute he was speeding - his defence, if i understand correctly, is purely based around the time issue.

Posted by: mazzer Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 18:00
Post #1363070

251m at 70mph takes about 8 seconds. We've only got 3 or 4 seconds at most prior to the camera van in that clip.

Go back another few seconds and we may have an answer...

Posted by: Irksome Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 18:07
Post #1363074

As Southpaw points out, the allegation is that he exceeded the speed limit at a given location on a given day, his own evidence proves that he did ...

Posted by: notmeatloaf Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 21:32
Post #1363120

No it doesn't and it isn't a helpful observation.

The police have an approved device which means, in simple terms, it has been tested to a degree which means the courts will see the result as almost certainly correct.

The defence to a reading from an approved device is to cast reasonable doubt on it. If the OP has a reading which is siginificantly different and the court accepts that it has cast reasonable doubt on the reading from the laser gun, then the OP should be found not guilty.

It doesn't matter if that reading is slightly above the limit because it is not assumed to be accurate, you are merely using it to cast doubt on the reading from the laser gun. For instance, most car speedos overread. If I was accused of going 50mph in a 30mph and gave credible evidence that I looked at my speedo and it was a millimetre over 30mph, the prosecution can't then go "Aha, you've admitted you've exceeded the limit by 1mph, game set and match".

On another recent example on here a poster was accused of doing over 100mph when dashcam footage showed them keeping up with traffic in lane 3. It would appear they probably were slightly exceeding the limit, but not by 30mph, so the case is immediately fatally flawed. The prosecution cannot then say "Well, we only said you were exceeding the limit, so we will amend our entire case quickly".

Either the laser gun reading is accurate, or it isn't and except by convoluted route the prosecution cannot say "Well we did originally say 83mph from a device that is meant to be highly accurate but we now say it is 76mph from a device assumed to be less accurate, as a second bite at the cherry", because by that stage reasonable doubt should have been cast that there is any accurate speed measurement before the court.

In this case unless the OP says otherwise it would appear they were driving at 83mph approaching the van.

Posted by: 122basy Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 22:46
Post #1363163

One of us is confused and I think it's you.

If the OP wants to use the video to cast doubt on the Type Approved device then he needs to convince the court that the video has speeds upon its record that are in some way reliable and accurate...otherwise there is no reasonable doubt.

If the OP shows that the speeds on his video and GPS are reliable and accurate enough to cast reasonable doubt upon the Type Approved device then the speeds in the record he has posted show him at speeds that are well in excess of the 70mph speed limit, if that is the limit at the location. The court can therefore convict him on the evidence he gives in his own defence.

It is also likely that the OP has evidence in his own video records that put him at speeds that are in excess of those that he has posted in the short clip; I will gladly eat the 2 hats I am sat next to if there are no speeds in excess of those he shows in the clip.

As far as the time is concerned, it is of little consequence and the time on the video has no affect on the accuracy of the speedmeter, the video clock has no connection to the speedmeter. Hopefully the OP's scientific knowledge will assist him working that out.

Posted by: stethoscope Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 08:05
Post #1363198

Thank you to all those who contributed. This has been educational and I now have a plan .

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 08:08
Post #1363199

I presume this ‘plan’ doesn’t involve taking the course?

Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:10
Post #1363206

No they don't.

If the CPS contest the trial then they do so on the basis that the 83mph laser speed reading is right. They could find, say, it is 90% likely that the laser reading is right and thus a 90% chance the GPS is wrong but that is still reasonable doubt.

The CPS cannot (sensibly) just jump onto a piece of evidence that they have been claiming is incorrect directly contradictory to their case if they think their ship is sinking.

There is a similar case on here, motorist was caught by a Gatso camera at 35mph. They proved that the secondary check showed they were travelling at 31mph. The prosecution then tried to prosecute for 31mph adducing the photos as "real evidence" rather than from a type approved device. The case was thrown out as you can't have an approved device which is "half right", "probably right", etc.

Posted by: stethoscope Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:11
Post #1363208

Well, my thoughts of defence have been shown to be valueless by you and others (for free) and that has been helpful. I don't want 3 points so I have little option.

Posted by: 122basy Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:55
Post #1363222

Not so. Either the OP proves the GPS device is correct or the Laser evidence stands. If he proved the GPS evidence was correct then he is proving he exceeded the speed limit.
The issue with the GPS evidence in this case and in others is that it averages the speed and the time synchronization between the GPS and the police device is not likely to be aligned. What will be of some value is the position information on the GPS records. This can be aligned to the position at which the laser speed measurement was taken. The issue that the OP is likely to have with that is the speed shown is, I would hazard, higher than in the clip he has published. The clip has his vehicle close to 80mph anyway so how does it assist him?
The police and CPS will be wise to edited GPS records and will be amused when they receive one that begins just after the position at which the laser has measured the speed of the car, I know I am.
While your theory about a defendant's evidence is interesting you may want to get a lot of those convicted on their own evidence to reopen their cases, they will be interested in what you have to offer.
As I recall in the 31/35 case the evidence you mention was prevented from being admitted under PACE s78 so couldn't have been used as proof in the way you mention anyway.
Seems the OP has made his mind up about this in any case so no further input required from either of us.

Posted by: mickR Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:03
Post #1363224

Interesting comment, Only 4 posts and telling others their opinion is no longer required.
I'd be interested to hear SP's thoughts on this one.

Posted by: MFM Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:17
Post #1363230

So you were doing 83MPH?

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:27
Post #1363232

Ostensibly but searching for potential defences is a worthy discussion.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:01
Post #1363246

Perhaps you can link to a case where a type approved device has been shown to be incorrect but the defendant has been found guilty of a lower speed on evidence provided prior to trial? I can only imagine any ones would be either in a Newton hearing or where the defendant has subsequently admitted in court they exceeded the speed limit.

I am talking about cases in real courts, not a lawyer you've seen in a film.

The idea that people are routinely PCoJ by editing GPS records and that the police are looking out for it is deranged.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:36
Post #1363253

What would you like my thoughts on?

Posted by: StationCat Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 12:08
Post #1363262

I think he was trying to point out that the dash-cam footage would have to be supplied in advance and the CPS would notice, probably as rapidly as we did, that it does not cover the point that the speed was recorded by the camera van. They would then presumably ask for the full video or at least try to have it excluded as not relevant to the offence?

Posted by: bearclaw Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 12:39
Post #1363266

Fair use would trump that.

Posted by: mickR Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 17:55
Post #1363349

The legal argument being put forward, not my comment

Posted by: Jlc Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 17:57
Post #1363350

I thought the matter had been opined:



...if you mean the time correlation?

Posted by: mickR Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:03
Post #1363354

I meant the aspect of submitting potentially incriminating footagevand wether it could be used against the OP or not.

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:20
Post #1363361

It’s an interesting concept: my evidence is good enough to undermine your evidence but not good enough to convict me with.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:49
Post #1363371

I am coming at this from a medical science background. If you're using a calibration strip to check a highly accurate machine and it fails, you don't just accept that one of them must be right.

If a calibration check fails then both the machine and check are assumed to be inaccurate. I can't see how in court something that would ordinarily be less accurate could be used to convict purely because it favours the defendant

Posted by: southpaw82 Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:50
Post #1363372

There's your problem.

Posted by: StationCat Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 14:17
Post #1363547

I'm not sure that makes sense. If the equipment and whatever you are checking it against are both assumed to be wrong when they disagree what is the point of checking? Isn't there an assumption that calibrations traceable back to national standards are correct? Eventually you get back to the original value which isn't checked against anything and is the 'standard'.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 14:36
Post #1363549

Of course if you are testing a piece of equipment you just repeat the test with a new calibrator and then that tells you if the equipment or calibration is faulty.

In this instance the test can't be repeated and so you can only conclude that at least one must be wrong. I suppose you have to ask what level of evidence would be required to cast reasonable doubt on an LTI 20-20 reading, if not a GPS speed? Digital tachos are hardly much more accurate. It would surely be a level beyond the ability of almost all motorists, which would logically mean the equipment is seen to be infallible.

If that was the case then there should be no court cases where LTI evidence has been found to be probably inaccurate. We all know that isn't the case.

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 14:40
Post #1363550

If operated correctly. Readings get overturned on operator error, not inherent problems with the device, so far as I can tell.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 15:08
Post #1363551

AFAIK the software in the LTI has never been released but to a large extent operator error is caused by the design of the device and rudimentary software.

For instance, clearly there is a balance between the beam diverging enough to make it easy to get speed readings, and the beam diverging too much meaning the software is too "dumb" to guess the operator's target and/or the maximum distance the device will take readings from being is too large.

However, from a driver's point of view it is immaterial as there is a large grey area between operator error and device deficiencies. It is in many ways not for a driver to show which is which/

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 16:44
Post #1363568

Fun as this is, the OP’s argument is pretty poor.

Posted by: mazzer Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 17:30
Post #1363574

I think he's realised that himself by now.

Posted by: stethoscope Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 18:06
Post #1363582

It is the time element that has interested me. The times do differ, and looking at the user manual for the camera device in question now that it has been kindly identified for me, the time and date are input manually by an operator. This explains the discrepancy and reinforces my view that my times are far more likely to be accurate. Remember, I have data from two independent devices and they agree with each other. However, it then raises the intriguing question of how wrong the time has to be for the case to be rendered invalid. A lot depends on the precise form of the charge, I suppose. If you are asked in Court, "You are charged with driving a motor vehicle at 83mph at 09:33 hours and 14 seconds of <date>, how do you plead?" The correct and honest answer is not guilty. However,if you are asked, "You are charged with driving a motor vehicle in excess of the statutory speed limit at 09:33 hours and 14 seconds of <date>, how do you plead?" then the answer is guilty. I have no idea what the form of words would be.

I'm very surprised that this point does not seem to have been addressed before, as I would have thought that accurate identification of time and place is key to the process especially as the law is so prescriptive and precise in many other areas. I'm also surprised at the unquestioning way this is viewed by some correspondents here and astonished that there is no calibration or cross-checking of the apparatus in therms of time.

My debate isn't about the speed - it's about when it happened.

Posted by: IanJohnsonWS14 Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 18:13
Post #1363585

Is it your car in the photograph or was your car somewhere else?

Posted by: mazzer Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 18:16
Post #1363586

The Police are often equipped these days with body-worn cameras.

If an officer with one of these cameras recorded a crime happening in front of him, would you expect that evidence to be thrown out of Court because the timestamp on the video was out by 30 seconds?

Posted by: southpaw82 Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 18:26
Post #1363589

I’ve already answered that for you. Only the date will appear in the charge, not the time.

Posted by: peterguk Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 20:13
Post #1363619

Your problem is that since all parties agree on what day it happened, that's the end of the debate.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 22:14
Post #1363645

So basically you have answered your own question. You know that the time between your and their device is set in different ways, and thus almost certainly will be different. In this case there is no need to have second-accurate time unless you are doubting whether it is your car in the frame.

FWIW a large organisation like the police will have a lot of technology which is too old, cheap or proprietary to use synchronised time. For the most part it isn't needed because, as in this case, it isn't required to uniquely identify an offence. It is, essentially, a non-issue.

Posted by: stethoscope Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 23:01
Post #1363654

Thanks again. I am beginning to understand the difference. I am expecting a different question to be asked from that which is being asked. In other words, I am expecting the proof to be that AT a certain (exact) time, IN a certain (exactly identified place) x was doing y. The point actually being made is x was doing y at some time and we spotted it happening. Cos we spotted it we don't give a monkey's about the detail.

It's all a lot more approximate than I was expecting.

Posted by: notmeatloaf Sat, 3 Mar 2018 - 23:51
Post #1363660

All you need to worry about is that the prosecution need to prove your case beyond reasonable doubt.

There is no hard and fast rule but you have to ask whether you proving that you actually passed the point 30 seconds later or that, 30seconds later on a bit of road 30 seconds further on you were do ING a different speed casts doubt on the police evidence when there is an easy and reasonable explanation for the discrepancy.

The police and CPS do not have to prove every conceivable but highly unlikely scenario didn't happen.

Posted by: Logician Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 01:35
Post #1363666

Some detail is important, some isn't. Consider some other criminal offence like shoplifting, the prosecution may say Mr X went into M&S in Anytown and walked out with a pair of trousers with the intention of keeping them for himself. If they say he left the store at 10.10am and he proves conclusively that he left at 10.15am it does not affect the essential fact that he stole the trousers, that detail is not important. If he could prove that he never went into M&S at all, or he went in and came out after paying for the trousers, or even that he came out absentmindedly and fully intended to pay, then he has a good defence.

Posted by: Spandex Sun, 4 Mar 2018 - 09:16
Post #1363684

It’s not about ‘not giving a monkeys’. It’s about proving the offence. The camera produces enough evidence to show that a car matching yours and bearing your number plate exceeded the speed limit at that location. Having an accurate time would not make that evidence any more accurate. The time is, however, useful in helping to identify the driver because it allows the RK to work out who was driving their car at that time. It is not part of the evidence of the offence itself.

My understanding is that you’re hoping there is a loophole where you can say “I wasn’t speeding at the precise (to the second) time alleged, even though I was (clearly and demonstrably) speeding when the camera operator pinged me”. Clearly that’s never going to be an effective defence, and given that the time in the camera is set manually, you can’t even hope to use the inaccurate time to cast doubt on the accuracy of the speed measurement.

Posted by: Trampilot Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 10:40
Post #1364641

I don't think the op has said what brand sat nav he has but on my Garmin when I download the data I can view it on a map and then subsequently on Google Earth Satellite. Noted speed, time and distance travelled is included at each created waypoint. Even if the speed is "smoothed" out, travelling over 80 would have significantly upped the figures. If I was in your shoes I'd go through those figures very carefully.

If he can do that and at no point did his vehicle reach 83mph then he may have a something. I wouldnt rely of times, too many variables - it's the position when the car was lasered which is key.

According to your footage you were doing 76mph. You had exceeded the speed limit.

The course is the easy and cheaper way out of this.