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 (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 13:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
mazzer
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 18:00
Post #41


Member


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



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...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 18:07
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 290
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



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 ...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 21:32
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (Irksome @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 18:07) *
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 ...

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
122basy
post Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 22:46
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 21:32) *
QUOTE (Irksome @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 18:07) *
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 ...

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.

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.

This post has been edited by 122basy: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 22:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stethoscope
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 08:05
Post #45


Member


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



Thank you to all those who contributed. This has been educational and I now have a plan .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 08:08
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,445
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



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


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:10
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (122basy @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 22:46) *
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.

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.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stethoscope
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:11
Post #48


Member


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



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
122basy
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:55
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 23 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,721



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:10) *
QUOTE (122basy @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 22:46) *
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.

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.

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. smile.gif
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:03
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (122basy @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:55) *
Seems the OP has made his mind up about this in any case so no further input required from either of us.


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MFM
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:17
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 545
Joined: 5 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,550



QUOTE (stethoscope @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:11) *
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.


So you were doing 83MPH?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:27
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,445
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



Ostensibly but searching for potential defences is a worthy discussion.


--------------------
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
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:01
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,545
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



QUOTE (122basy @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 09:55) *
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. smile.gif

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.

This post has been edited by notmeatloaf: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:36
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,855
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:03) *
I'd be interested to hear SP's thoughts on this one.

What would you like my thoughts 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
StationCat
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 12:08
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:01) *
The idea that people are routinely PCoJ by editing GPS records and that the police are looking out for it is deranged.

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?


--------------------
"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
bearclaw
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 12:39
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 219
Joined: 15 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,103



QUOTE (stethoscope @ Thu, 1 Mar 2018 - 15:26) *
Station cat - investigating now.
Mazzer - They are clearly identified as copyright of the relevant police force so I hesitate to do so.


Fair use would trump that.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 17:55
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 11:36) *
QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 10:03) *
I'd be interested to hear SP's thoughts on this one.

What would you like my thoughts on?


The legal argument being put forward, not my comment wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 17:57
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,445
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (mickR @ Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 17:55) *
The legal argument being put forward, not my comment wink.gif

I thought the matter had been opined:

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.


...if you mean the time correlation?


--------------------
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
mickR
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:03
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,140
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



I meant the aspect of submitting potentially incriminating footagevand wether it could be used against the OP or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 2 Mar 2018 - 18:20
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,855
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



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


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


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

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: Wednesday, 12th December 2018 - 04:07
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.