PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Camera van and dashcam disagree
stethoscope
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 13:53
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 1 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,812



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?
Attached Image


This post has been edited by stethoscope: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 13:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 13:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stethoscope
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:50
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 1 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,812



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.
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fredd
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:53
Post #22


Webmaster
Group Icon

Group: Root Admin
Posts: 7,117
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wokingham, UK
Member No.: 2



QUOTE (mazzer @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:05) *
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.

Wrong.

QUOTE (mickR @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:09) *
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.

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.


--------------------
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
Tartarus
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:02
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 304
Joined: 18 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,324



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:02
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,845
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



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?


--------------------
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
StationCat
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:03
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 286
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



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?


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:07
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,786
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (stethoscope @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 16:50) *
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.
Attached Image


As clean a ping as you'll ever see.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stethoscope
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:10
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 1 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,812



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:14
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 286
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



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.


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:18
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,845
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



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.


--------------------
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
southpaw82
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:23
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,576
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



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.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mazzer
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:23
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 4 Aug 2004
Member No.: 1,486



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stethoscope
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:28
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 1 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,812



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.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:23) *
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.

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:29
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 286
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



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?


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mazzer
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:33
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 4 Aug 2004
Member No.: 1,486



QUOTE (stethoscope @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:28) *
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.


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.

This post has been edited by mazzer: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:38
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 39,460
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



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.


--------------------
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 8-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stethoscope
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:38
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 1 Mar 2018
Member No.: 96,812



Pyecombe, A23. I think this link should work: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmb4ziwl1cse9om/P...012018.mp4?dl=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mazzer
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:43
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 110
Joined: 4 Aug 2004
Member No.: 1,486



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:38) *
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.


Precisely. See here for a relevant case.

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

QUOTE (stethoscope @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:38) *
Pyecombe, A23. I think this link should work: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wmb4ziwl1cse9om/P...012018.mp4?dl=0


Start the video a bit earlier and I think you might find you were doing about 83mph...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:53
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,576
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (stethoscope @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:28) *
the allegation is that the car was travelling at a certain speed at a certain time

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.


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


Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:54
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 281
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



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 ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:58
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,786
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Irksome @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 17:54) *
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 ...


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


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Sunday, 23rd September 2018 - 03:35
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.