PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Gatso in Camera Van, The final nail in the coffin
Lynnzer
post Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 - 14:53


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
25 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 18 Dec 2006 - 14:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 14:48
Post #21


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



You will find a previous version of the ACPO code here and section 26.2 is interesting:
QUOTE
A requirement of the type approval is that unmanned/automatic devices should have a second means of checking the primary speed measurement. One such means offered by manufacturers at this time is the taking of two photographs of the offending vehicle at a known time apart. Full details of the means of achieving this check are required by type approval to be included in the manufacturers instructions for the device concerned.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 18:45
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Thanks again Mika.
The one that got me was actually supposed to be Attended Actively Operated.
This means that the Gatso is supposed to be the device that confirms the prior opinion of the operator.
Now, the van is facing away from the flow of traffic taking pictures of vehicles going away from it.
The operator is in the rear of the van and I know that there is no clear view to the front to allow anyone to see oncoming traffic to form an opinion.
Northumbria Police say that the vans have been specially modified but can't or won't let me have details. I'm going to press them on this though, under the disclosure rules.
I'm out and about this next couple of weeks with my camcorder.
At least their website lets me know where the mobile locations are so it shouldn't be difficult to find one.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 22:02
Post #23


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 18:45) *
This means that the Gatso is supposed to be the device that confirms the prior opinion of the operator.
Now, the van is facing away from the flow of traffic taking pictures of vehicles going away from it.
The operator is in the rear of the van and I know that there is no clear view to the front to allow anyone to see oncoming traffic to form an opinion.
Northumbria Police say that the vans have been specially modified but can't or won't let me have details. I'm going to press them on this though, under the disclosure rules.

The prior opinion is bull sh1t the problem is that it’s also the law.

The law they rely on today hasn’t changed since 1931. As the portable Gatso can’t corroborate the measured speed (no white lines on the carriageway) it can only be used to corroborate prior opinion - Attended Actively Operated.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 20 Dec 2006 - 15:28
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Right then folk,
here goes again. I'll get to the bottom of this if it kills me, (or I have to kill someone else!!)
Eamailed the Home Office (again) on 24th Nov with the following:

Dear sir,
I refer to the CODE OF PRACTICE FOR OPERATIONAL USE OF ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY.
Can you please advise me on a few points.
1st, what is the Home Offices opinion of the meaning of Code of Practice?
Would I be correct in assuming that a "Code of Practice" is something that sets a minimum standard which must be followed in pursuance of any procedural requirements.

In the case of the Code of Practice in the context above, this was drawn up following extensive testing and validation procedures by the Home Office and its representatives.
Is it fair to assume that if any of the devices so tested and approved by the procedures followed in the Code of Practice, had not met the requirements of any of the conditions which have been subsequently documented, then those operational standards would not have been included in the document.

As it states quite clearly in the Code of Standards, in respect of the Gatso type 24, IT MUST FACE A STRAIGHT SECTION OF ROAD, am I correct in assuming that it was tested on a bend but found to be unreliable.
Was it actually tested in this manner at all? If not, then as the manufacturers handbook states that it must be used on a straight section of road, then I presume that the paragraph in the Code of Practice " MUST FACE A STRAIGHT SECTION OF ROAD" endorses their own recommedations. Am I correct in this?

As it also states, MUST NOT BE USED FROM WITHIN A VEHICLE, then am I correct that it was tested from within a vehicle but found to be unreliable.
Was it actually tested in this manner at all? If not, then as the manufacturers handbook states that it must not be used from within a vehicle, then I presume that the paragraph in the Code of Practice " MUST FACE A STRAIGHT SECTION OF ROAD" endorses their recommedations. Am I correct in this?

Could you please send me a copy of the testing procedures for the Gatso type 24, either electronically by email, or by post, or advise me on how I may otherwise obtain them, together with the recommendations for the Home Office following these tests on which it obtained Type approval.

If the Code of Standards is not supposed to be a legal requirement then why not?
Would I be correct in saying that if it had no legal standing then any prosecution based on the requirements within it would be inadmissible?

Would it be a fair assessment that if the Code Of Practice had no legal standing then it would have not been necessary to have carried out the strict testing of the devices and procedures within it? If it has no legal standing then why bother with any testing at all?

Since the testing was actually carried out anyway, then would it be fair to assume that, although not necassarily a legal requirement, the non comliance of the Code of Standards would lay open a defence of non compiance of any of the procedures that had endorsed the use of the device in the first place.
I suspect that any such non compliance will give cause for doubt on the case presented by either the police or the defendant in any prosecution. Would you agree?

As the Road Traffic Act 1999 makes the case that evidence obtained by a device not complying with the conditions of its type approval is inadmissible then would the non compliance of the conditions in the Code of Standards which led to the Type Approval also carry the same weight? If not, and if there is any discrepancy in the way any device is operated from that which it is SUPPOSED to operate why would the evidence carry any integrity.
I states that a device must not be operated from within a vehicle. What does this mean?
It states the device must face a straight section of road. What does this mean?

It doesn't state the device must be used within a vehicle. Why then will it be acceptable for it to be so used?
The same question is also placed for using it on a bend in the road. Why will it be acceptable for it to be so used?
It doesn't state, "it must operated be used by a monkey". If it actually was operated by a monkey then would this be inadmissible? If so then why apply different sets of principles to the same Code?
Further I require a copy of the Manufacturers Handbook for the Gatso Type 24 together with the Type Approval Conditions, or at the very least sight of it in any police station. Can this be arranged, and if so how?
Yours sincerely
Mr L


Received reply today which as you can see doesn't address the questions asked. Ho Hum.....
Anyway, here goes with reply:



Direct Communications Unit
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DF
Switchboard 020 7035 4848 Fax: 020 7035 4745 Textphone: 020 7035 4742
E-mail: public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk


Reference: T45551/6 20 December 2006

Dear Ms , (They got it wrong again here)

Thank you for your e-mail of 24/11/06 09:33:09 about the Code of Practice for the Operational Use of Enforcement Technology

When devices are type approved any conditions which must be complied with are either given in the type approval order or in the schedule to the type approval agreement made between the manufacturer and the home office prior to the device being approved. These are summarised for type approved devices in Appendix B of the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology which is published by ACPO on their web site http://www.acpo.police.uk. The Home Office is consulted on changes to the ACPO Code of Practice and while we expect forces to operate in accordance with it, it is only guidance, and it is not a legal requirement to have fully complied with.

When a device is approved legally binding conditions on its use may be given on the type approval order or included on a schedule to the type approval agreement made with the manufacturer. While it is our hope and expectation that devices will be used in accordance with the ACPO Code of Practice and the manufacturer's operating instructions and devices are tested on that basis, their approval is not given on the condition these are strictly complied with. They are guidance and not legally binding.
Yours sincerely
John Crozier


Although it doesn't give me quite what I want, it does however make the point that any conditions which MUST BE COMPLIED WITH are given in the type approval order or schedule which are summarised...etc.
I have the schedule and it hasn't changed magically overnight all by itself to give approval to the Gatso being used in the rear of a van.
The schedule states "tripod mounted" and since this is mentioned in the conditions of approval then this MUST BE COMPLIED WITH.
I still want an answer on where the hell they get the idea that the Code of Practice is just a set of Guidelines. Despite asking for the source of this info (which I know proablably doesn't exist) they cannot or won't answer. I think I'll throw this at the CPS next under the disclosure rules.

This post has been edited by lYNNZER: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 - 15:32


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hotel Oscar 87
post Wed, 20 Dec 2006 - 15:47
Post #25


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
From: Way, way off-shore
Member No.: 7,833



I'm grazing so forgive me if I've missed detail in a previous post.

I think an FOI application I have in at the moment will probably meet with a similar answer to your's lYNNZER which doesn't quite give us the opener we are both after. See an allied post here

If my logic escapes me then pull me up but surely if equipment is tested (for Type Appoval) whilst being operated in accordance with the ACPO Codes of Practice then any subsequent use of it which steps outside these rules/guidelines or WHY, invalidates the TA? Or are the Home Office really saying that its tested using one set of criteria but once its approved it can be used as the operator sees fit? If this IS the case then it makes a mockery of the Type Approval process.

Is there room here yet for judicial review?


--------------------
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a tu.rd by the clean end.” - R.J. Wiedemann, Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 20 Dec 2006 - 15:59
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Hotel Oscar 87 @ Wed, 20 Dec 2006 - 15:47) *
I'm grazing so forgive me if I've missed detail in a previous post.

I think an FOI application I have in at the moment will probably meet with a similar answer to your's lYNNZER which doesn't quite give us the opener we are both after. See an allied post here

If my logic escapes me then pull me up but surely if equipment is tested (for Type Appoval) whilst being operated in accordance with the ACPO Codes of Practice then any subsequent use of it which steps outside these rules/guidelines or WHY, invalidates the TA? Or are the Home Office really saying that its tested using one set of criteria but once its approved it can be used as the operator sees fit? If this IS the case then it makes a mockery of the Type Approval process.

Is there room here yet for judicial review?

I'm onto your case already.
I've posted a few pointers there which supports your case.
I expect you'll not get a definitive answer on where it states that ACPO are just guidelines. As I say, they probably don't exist in any documentary form.
With your case coming up before mine, I'm keen to help you as much as I can because this is a secondary line of defence to me too.
I suggest that as your case revolves directly around the legal position of ACPO then you submit a request under the disclosure rules to the CPS for documentation stating that the Code of Practice is nothing more than guidleines.
If they can't come up with it then they've cooked their own goose.
If they do come up with it, then the case still isn't lost due to other things I've posted on your own topic.
In my opinion there isn't anything to substantiate this opinion of them just being guidelines though.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hotel Oscar 87
post Wed, 20 Dec 2006 - 16:48
Post #27


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 23 Sep 2006
From: Way, way off-shore
Member No.: 7,833



Thanks lYNNZER.

Furtunately, its not me in the dock as I'm sitting elsewhere (and sadly the defendant is getting increasingly flakey as time is getting short). This is not our line of defence but it just irks that a set of guidelines are proferred on the one hand and, seemingly, completely ignored on the other. IME the SCP's routinely cite the excuse that the ACPO Codes of Practice are merely guidelines whenever adherence to them, or otherwise, is questioned.

It would be nice to see this matter opened up as I could foresee ample opportunity for appeals if it can be nailed. Me thinks, however, that the HO will duck this (like so many other issues) for as long as they can because they can see the BIG RED REFUND button looming in the distance!

Let's see what comes from my FOI application although I am now doubtful. Having now read your question it was, in some respects, more confining than the wording of mine and I suspect I've left them a route through which they could well dive. Here's hoping they don't.


--------------------
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a tu.rd by the clean end.” - R.J. Wiedemann, Lt. Col. USMC Ret.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 22 Dec 2006 - 14:15
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Thought I'd posted this earlier today! Must have hit the off button or something.
Anyway, here goes with the latest saga in this ACPO thingy.
Email today from the Home Office (they said they wouldn't answer any more- I suspect this is the last from them). Interesting stuff, mostly on what's not said but there are some things of use to anyone going the route on the ACPO or Type Approval use for the Gatso.
email from them as follows:
Thank you for your e-mail of 02/12/06 11:56:25 about type Approval conditions of the Gatso 24.

After having carefully considered your request and examined the information I am pleased to be able to disclose, in line with you questions, the following information to you:

1. Type Approval for the use of a Gatso 24 from within a vehicle

The Gatso radar type 24 can be used from the rear of a stationary vehicle provided the ACPO Code of Practice and the manufacturer's instructions are followed and no digital radios are transmitting on or inside the vehicle.

2. You have asked further if there is Type Approval for use in an Attended Actively Operated Mode taking pictures of receding traffic.

The Home Office definition of an "Attended Actively Operated" device is as given in section 3.1 of the HOSDB Speedmeter Handbook which can be found on their web site http://science.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb.

3. Finally, you asked whether the Type Approval is for all conditions at the same time, i.e. being used in Attended Actively Operated mode from within a vehicle and taking pictures of vehicles driving away from the camera van.
Fixed Gatso speed cameras are type approved for rear photography but the police sometimes use devices that are separate from the main unit itself for both rear and frontal photography to generate a picture that will assist the keeper in identifying the driver.

Response to this is that although I have asked whether the Gatso does have type approval for use from within a vehicle, it only says it CAN be used from a vehicle. No confirmation that it has approval. Only obfuscation here. It can probably be used from the back of a dromedary but this wouldn't have approval either I doubt.
Secondly, it says that it can be used etc, as long as it follows the ACPO Code of Practice, (which incidentally states "MUST NOT BE USED FROM WITHIN A VEHICLE") A case of twisted knickers here methinks!!!
Anyway, if you look at the website link they provide click here, you'll see that specific mention is made that the approval process is reliant on the ACPO Code of Practice. This kills off the myth about it being a guidleine. Take note moderators.
Finally although I'm asking about the mobile Gatso from a van, this lady goes into dimwit mode by revealing that the Fixed Gatso is approved for rear photography. I think this confirms my suspicion that it should only be used to take recordings of oncoming traffic on the Attended Actively Operated Mode.
If I need to use this in court I think at the very least it will provide so much doubt as to make the Mags sufficiently convinced that the case has not been proved by the CPS.
The more I look into this the more pops up from under the bushes, mostly because of the fact that everyone is stating things to try and obfuscate which are immensely useful in themselves.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 09:05
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



I need a little help from some kind person able to calculate speed/acceleration etc.
I have calculated that the distance from a roundabout where I had stopped for oncoming traffic, to the site of the camera van was 195 yards.
Given that he must be able to show prior opinion, and the necessity to be conspicuous from 60 yards which is really about as near to the camera van as I could get in order for him to form this prior opinion, this gives a distance of 135 yards in order to accelerate to the point where there might be a reasonable chance of someone thinking I was driving at an excess speed. If you get what I mean!
Anyway, given that I drive a citroen C5 which has an acceleration of 0 to 60 in 11.3 seconds can anyone give me the likely speed I would be driving at when I came into the monitoring area of plod from a standing start to a distance of 135 yards later. (this would be presuming I was actually booting the hell out of it, which I never do, well almost never)
Merry Xmas everyone.

This post has been edited by lYNNZER: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 09:19


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rallyman72
post Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 09:40
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,328
Joined: 14 Jul 2005
From: On a train
Member No.: 3,385



Assuming constant (i.e. straightline) acceleration in line with the manufacturers figures I estimate that just under 50mph is achievable in 135 yards. 0-60 mph is achieved in 11.3 seconds. Over this 11.3 seconds with constant acceleration the averaqe speed is therefore 30mph. 30mph is 44 feet per second. 44 fps for 11.3 seconds is 165.733 yards. in 135 yards the vehicle should therefore reach 135/165.733 x 60 = 48.874 mph.

As we all know, in practice, a vehicle does not achieve constant acceleration but the rate of acceleration is on an exponential basis with the strongest phase at lower speeds with it slowly decreasing as road and engine speeds rise.


--------------------
The accident was caused by cockpit thrombosis - a dangerous clot between seatback and steering wheel ...

1. Read this first
2. Nip Wizard
Parking tickets - council - 0, Rallyman - 1
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 10:05
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (Rallyman72 @ Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 09:40) *
Assuming constant (i.e. straightline) acceleration in line with the manufacturers figures I estimate that just under 50mph is achievable in 135 yards. 0-60 mph is achieved in 11.3 seconds. Over this 11.3 seconds with constant acceleration the averaqe speed is therefore 30mph. 30mph is 44 feet per second. 44 fps for 11.3 seconds is 165.733 yards. in 135 yards the vehicle should therefore reach 135/165.733 x 60 = 48.874 mph.

As we all know, in practice, a vehicle does not achieve constant acceleration but the rate of acceleration is on an exponential basis with the strongest phase at lower speeds with it slowly decreasing as road and engine speeds rise.

Bloody hell.......
Citroen's are faster than I thought.
Many thanks Rallyman, and a very happy Xmas to you.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JamieFOB
post Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 10:55
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Member No.: 6,144



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:25) *
QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:19) *

QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:15) *
Bugger me Mika!

Are you a Law Lord? blush.gif

No, BUT.
Actually with my Christian name I don't even get the recognition I should. It's well known now from the Sunderland Echo article that my name is Lynn.
When I was called into court the clerk stopped me halway down the "aisle" and said "No, It's Lynn Robson we need in court.
An explanation that it wasn't the first time someone had made that mistake and she went crimson. Told the bench that I had even been called on to attend for a smear test by the NHS at one time. I think it was their only amusement of the day, especially when I produced the Schedule and asked for a no case to answer verdict.
Didn't know it was only a hearing to set a PTR though.


Following this post with interest since it started. Now have even greater interest as we share the same christian name "Lynn"! I too suffer with the gender mix up on a regular basis. Funny when they call your name out and a 55 year old ex-marine, ex-rugby player dressed in motorcycle leathers stands up and answers!!!
Stick with it mate, we're all behind you. (In the nicest possible way!)
LYNN James. cool.gif cool.gif cool.gif


--------------------
JamieFOB
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 12:02
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



QUOTE (JamieFOB @ Mon, 25 Dec 2006 - 10:55) *
QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:25) *

QUOTE (Mika @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:19) *

QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Tue, 19 Dec 2006 - 13:15) *
Bugger me Mika!

Are you a Law Lord? blush.gif

No, BUT.
Actually with my Christian name I don't even get the recognition I should. It's well known now from the Sunderland Echo article that my name is Lynn.
When I was called into court the clerk stopped me halway down the "aisle" and said "No, It's Lynn Robson we need in court.
An explanation that it wasn't the first time someone had made that mistake and she went crimson. Told the bench that I had even been called on to attend for a smear test by the NHS at one time. I think it was their only amusement of the day, especially when I produced the Schedule and asked for a no case to answer verdict.
Didn't know it was only a hearing to set a PTR though.


Following this post with interest since it started. Now have even greater interest as we share the same christian name "Lynn"! I too suffer with the gender mix up on a regular basis. Funny when they call your name out and a 55 year old ex-marine, ex-rugby player dressed in motorcycle leathers stands up and answers!!!
Stick with it mate, we're all behind you. (In the nicest possible way!)
LYNN James. cool.gif cool.gif cool.gif


They say it's Welsh, Lynn. Maybe my mother had a weekend away during the war years that my dad never got to know about!
Actually it's my mother's maiden name. My sister didn't put in an appearance for another two years. Didn't call her Fred though.
Only the clerks in my squadron kew my real name and they were under threat of death. Coming from Durham the only name that mattered was Geordie.
Like you, ex rugby player, ex Royal Engineer with loads of experience in explosives.......
Happy Xmas mate, and I look forward to having them prove their case despite all the evidence to the contrary.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 27 Dec 2006 - 22:10
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Just been looking for "Gatso in another search engine to the one I normally use and have found this topic http://www.sussexsafetycameras.gov.uk/facts.htm
Reading the specs, it seems to suggest that the unit is operated by an attending operator ie, "Release by radar impulse via a pushbutton on photographic unit or manual by remote control impulse (optional)"
I know that the fixed Gatso is automatically operated but when it's used in the attended actively operated mode does it, or should it, be triggered by the operator after him formed his prior opinion?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bargepole
post Wed, 27 Dec 2006 - 23:46
Post #35


Member
Group Icon

Group: Bad Boyz & Girlz
Posts: 2,001
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
From: High Wycombe
Member No.: 1,353



The following extract from Hansard (25 Apr 06) confirms that Type Approval is dependent upon the device being used in accordance with ACPO Guidelines:

"Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the LTI20.20 mobile speed camera is used by (a) the police in (i) Southend and (ii) Essex and (b) the Metropolitan Police area; and if he will make a statement. [64692]

Hazel Blears: The purchase and use of speed cameras for law enforcement purposes is a matter for individual chief officers of police. I understand however that this particular device is used both by Essex police, including in Southend, and by the Metropolitan Police.

Speed cameras used by the police to produce evidence for possible use in court have to be of a type approved by the Secretary of State. The laboratory and field testing undertaken prior to the granting of type approval is designed to ensure that all type approved equipment is accurate and reliable when used in accordance with its type approval conditions, in line with the manufacturer's instructions and in accordance with the Code of Practice drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers. I am satisfied that all type approved speed cameras, including the LTI 20.20, merit their type approved status and are appropriate for police use."


This post has been edited by bargepole: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 - 23:46


--------------------
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
Lynnzer
post Thu, 28 Dec 2006 - 14:55
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Thanks Bargepole, got it in my library already but thanks for the input.
Have a very happy New Year but don't drink and drive.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Sat, 30 Dec 2006 - 10:31
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



I've been buzzing about on the police-specials forum for a couple or three days just lately and throwing the Gatso in the rear of the camera van thing into debate.
Lot's of interest. A few sarcastic remarks but generally the whole feeling was one of, it doesn't matter how fast someone is going, if the equipment isn't used correctly then it should invalidate the prosecution.
Then some smart arse came on and pointed to the "MUST NOT BE USED FROM WITHIN A VEHICLE" section of ACPO and said it didn't apply in my case as this is only for radar devices.
Reminded him that the Gatso was a radar device and guess what..........
The whole topic has disappeared from the forum.
I guess that says it all.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 10:33
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,192
Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Member No.: 4,813



Anyone got a copy of The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 (S.I 1992/1209)?
Found this mentioned in the Scientific dept of the Home Office but the article looks as if it has to be paid for.
I think it could prove very useful.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 10:54
Post #39


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



QUOTE (lYNNZER @ Sat, 30 Dec 2006 - 10:31) *
Then some smart arse came on and pointed to the "MUST NOT BE USED FROM WITHIN A VEHICLE" section of ACPO and said it didn't apply in my case as this is only for radar devices.
Reminded him that the Gatso was a radar device and guess what..........
The whole topic has disappeared from the forum.
I guess that says it all.

That summarises the position quite nicely.

Most of them haven’t got a clue what they are doing or what the law provides. If we were to make a list of all the unlawful activities that are going on, it would be quite a long list.

2007 should be fun. wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 11:15
Post #40


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,266
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 2 Jan 2007 - 10:33) *
Anyone got a copy of The Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 (S.I 1992/1209)?


OPSI have a copy...

N.B. This seems to (partially) answer the obvious s.20 question - "what is a prescribed device?" - because s.20 requires "prescribed devices" to be type approved...


--------------------
Andy

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

25 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: Friday, 22nd June 2018 - 21:08
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.