PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

gatso manual, Here it is
Lynnzer
post Tue, 18 Dec 2007 - 12:13
Post #1


Member


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



Fredd has advised me that the Gatso manual can be found here
Take a read and comment as need be. OH, it's quite a large file size, around 10mb so don't expect it to open immediately.
Maybe someone can compress it and re-post it.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 17)
Advertisement
post Tue, 18 Dec 2007 - 12:13
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
bama
post Tue, 18 Dec 2007 - 15:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,896
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



forget the compression - waste of time for a scanned pdf


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

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Tue, 18 Dec 2007 - 21:37
Post #3


Member


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



I've just come across another important point on page 13 of the manual. In the testimony of the camera operator on 8th Oct he made some sort of remark about how he set up the Gatso (albeit in a van) that he measured, I think, 20 metres from the Gatso and put in a picket then set up the Gatso to the angle of 20 degrees to the line to the picket. This is shown better on the pictures on page 14.
Now if you look at the pictures on page 13, you can see a picket mentioned which is at right angles from the face of the Gatso and is parallel to the road it's being set up against. The first picture shows the correct set up with the angle at 20 degrees and the other pictures show the Gatso badly set up and not at the correct angle thereby giving an incorrect speed reading.
So, apply this to the logic of it being set up on a bend in the road.
On the stretch of road I was caught the van was at the very beginning of a bend which turned away from the parallel, ie away from the van as would be best depicted in picture 3.1. so that the distance from the Gatso to the roadside increased over the length of the bend.
I already have this covered in my submissions but only by the pure logicality of it. Now there is definite proof.
In fact this very scenario is one which is important to Dr Science in his case. When a device is set up on a bend it cannot be giving the correct speed measurement. There is no codicil anywhere in the manual which says that a device can be on a slight bend even, so in fact if it is then it isn't being used in compliance to Type Approval based on the Gatso handbook.
Anyway, I'm sure you get the drift of the implications of it being set up on a bend. At no point on a bend can it actually be accurately aligned at 20 degrees as this is variable around the whole of the bend.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 01:02
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,396
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 - 21:37) *
At no point on a bend can it actually be accurately aligned at 20 degrees as this is variable around the whole of the bend.


My point precisely.

And chapter 12 (10 in this version) says that the angle of incidence (by which they mean the angle between the axis of the radar beam and the direction of vehicle motion) must be known with precision.

And perhaps even more important I have a Home Office FOI confirming that in type approval it was only ever tested "in straight road situations" - not on curves, not close to the transition from straight to curved. SO if it isn't tested for it then it isn't type approved for it.

Dr.S


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

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

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 09:46
Post #5


Member


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



QUOTE (Dr Science @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 01:02) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Tue, 18 Dec 2007 - 21:37) *
At no point on a bend can it actually be accurately aligned at 20 degrees as this is variable around the whole of the bend.


SO if it isn't tested for it then it isn't type approved for it.

Dr.S

GOTCHA


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 23:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (Dr Science @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 01:02) *
And perhaps even more important I have a Home Office FOI confirming that in type approval it was only ever tested "in straight road situations" - not on curves, not close to the transition from straight to curved. SO if it isn't tested for it then it isn't type approved for it.

Unfortunately, I don't think that that follows.
It is either type approved (subject to the T&Cs of TA), or it is not.
There are many cases on the subject, but DPP v Memery is probably the most recent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 13:30
Post #7


Member


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



QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 23:46) *
QUOTE (Dr Science @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 01:02) *
And perhaps even more important I have a Home Office FOI confirming that in type approval it was only ever tested "in straight road situations" - not on curves, not close to the transition from straight to curved. SO if it isn't tested for it then it isn't type approved for it.

Unfortunately, I don't think that that follows.
It is either type approved (subject to the T&Cs of TA), or it is not.
There are many cases on the subject, but DPP v Memery is probably the most recent.

Thanks for the PM JA.
There are a couple of things that spring to mind here. In the Memery case the device had been type approved and the defence was contesting the legality of the actual Type Approval which had been carried out. A bit of a shortening of the facts but that's basically the context of the case as far as I can make it out.

What we have with the Gatso is Type Approval which is dependant on the compliance to the Schedule of Conditions placed upon the use of it. If there is no compliance to the conditions, any single one of them, then the device is not being operated in accordance with the type approval given to it.
I accept that judicial notice may be given to the fact that the device is type approved and this is generally the case where such a presumption has not been challenged in court or in a prior defence statement. Roberts V DPP typifies this situation.
However the facts in this matter are that no judicial notice can be taken that a device was being operated within the conditions of its approval. Where this is challenged then there should be another way, other than by rebuttable presumption or even by unvalidated expert witness opinion, to prove this specific point.
In the case of the Gatso, the Schedule of Conditions say it is for use mounted on a tripod in the attended actively operated mode, as tested.
Now look at the RTA, section 23.24.4 which says that "“A record produced or a measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be
admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless
a. The device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State and
b. any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.”

Now, there is a condition placed on the tpe approval for it to be used "as tested" and we know already that it has not been.
Whether or not it is reliable in the configuration is purely an acedemic argument. It has failed Type Approval and the measurements made by it are inadmissable as evidence in a court.

There's only a single authority in the country who has the authority to waive this requirement and that falls to the Secretary of State.
It may well fall to the defence, as is often the case, to prove that the measurements made by it may have been unreliable due to the configuration of use. This will impact on the decision in court. However if the single question is put as to whether the device was being used in compliance with type approval, when used on a bend, or in my own case from the rear of a camera van, netiher of which have been tested, then I see that no reasonable person could say it was.
If not, then what on earth is the purpose of having a Schedule of Conditions at all. Bear in mind that these conditions weren't present when the Gatso first obtained Type Approval but were included at a later time. If the device had not needed clarification as to the modus operandii then surely they would not have drafted the conditions of use.

This post has been edited by Lynnzer: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 - 13:33


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dr Science
post Mon, 24 Dec 2007 - 03:45
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,396
Joined: 16 Oct 2006
From: S.Yorks
Member No.: 8,288



QUOTE (jeffreyarcher @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 23:46) *
QUOTE (Dr Science @ Thu, 20 Dec 2007 - 01:02) *
And perhaps even more important I have a Home Office FOI confirming that in type approval it was only ever tested "in straight road situations" - not on curves, not close to the transition from straight to curved. SO if it isn't tested for it then it isn't type approved for it.

Unfortunately, I don't think that that follows.
It is either type approved (subject to the T&Cs of TA), or it is not.
There are many cases on the subject, but DPP v Memery is probably the most recent.


The type approved device is only type approved when being operated in accordance with its type approved instructions. The breath alcohol meter cases revolve around potential errors, that in fact did not happen. The mobile phone that should not have been in the room did not ring (R-V-Wood/R-V-McGillicuddy), the error due to alcohol in the mouth could not have happened because Mr Memery had no alcohol in his mouth.

But if the GATSO is on a curve, or aligned at the wrong angle, then it WILL read incorrectly. Deviations that do not cause an inaccuracy can be wormed out of. Those that WILL cause inaccuracy, and will do so in ways that have never been subject to Type Approval testing...

Dr.S


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

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

"The only way to deal with bureaucrats is with stealth and sudden violence" - Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary General of the United Nations
NOTICE The content of this post and of any replies to it may assist in or relate to the formulation of strategy tactics etcetera in a legal action. This post and any replies to it should therefore be assumed to be legally privileged and therefore must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to outside of the PePiPoo forum on which it was originally posted additionally it must not be disclosed, copied, quoted, discussed, used or referred to by any person or organisation other than a member of PePiPoo appropriately paid up and in full compliance with the PePiPoo terms of use for the forum on which it was originally posted. The PePiPoo terms of use can be found at http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?act=boardrules. For the avoidance of doubt, if you are reading this material in any form other than an on-line HTML resource directly and legitimately accessed via a URL commencing "http://forums.pepipoo.com" then it has been obtained by improper means and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. If the material you are reading does not include this notice then it has been obtained improperly and you are probably reading it in breach of legal privilege. Your attention is drawn to the Written Standards for the Conduct of Professional Work issued by the Bar Standards Board particularly under heading 7, "Documents".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cjm99
post Mon, 24 Dec 2007 - 12:02
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,109
Joined: 16 Dec 2003
From: Manchester
Member No.: 675



QUOTE
In the case of the Gatso, the Schedule of Conditions say it is for use mounted on a tripod in the attended actively operated mode, as tested.
Now look at the RTA, section 23.24.4 which says that "“A record produced or a measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be
admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless
a. The device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State and
b. any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.”

Now, there is a condition placed on the type approval for it to be used "as tested" and we know already that it has not been.
Whether or not it is reliable in the configuration is purely an academic argument. It has failed Type Approval and the measurements made by it are inadmissible as evidence in a court.


The evidence is inadmissible via section 20 as amended( RTA s23 1991), which is by nature 'permissive'.

But a witness can adduce it as his own exhibit at a Common Law in the normal way. The weight attached may now vary as the 'Tribunal of fact' may deem fit.

PS.. This would also require the operator to give the 'primary opinion evidence', and the device becomes his corroboration.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Mon, 24 Dec 2007 - 12:32
Post #10


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,284
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



No.

A failure to comply with s. 20(8) (7 days advance disclosure) only prevents the evidence being adduced under s. 20(1) and (6) (DPP v Thornley (and friend)).
However, s. 20(4) - the requirement for the device to be type approved and comply with the conditions - applies to the admissibility of evidence for any offence to which s. 20 applies.

The issue of admissibility (as opposed to weight, reasonable doubt, etc.) would seem to be whether a condition of type approval has been breached (or if the issue means that the device is not type approved).
If not, then the evidence is admissible and the defence would have to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the use of that device on that occasion.


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Mon, 24 Dec 2007 - 21:17
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



To add to what Andy has said, ISTR there's a case (unfortunately, I can't remember it icon_redface.gif, but it revolved around whether the defence had waived their right to object to some evidence) where it was held that proof of type aproval could be waived, but not the requirement for type approval.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Wed, 26 Dec 2007 - 21:46
Post #12


Member


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



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Mon, 24 Dec 2007 - 12:32) *
No.

A failure to comply with s. 20(8) (7 days advance disclosure) only prevents the evidence being adduced under s. 20(1) and (6) (DPP v Thornley (and friend)).
However, s. 20(4) - the requirement for the device to be type approved and comply with the conditions - applies to the admissibility of evidence for any offence to which s. 20 applies.

The issue of admissibility (as opposed to weight, reasonable doubt, etc.) would seem to be whether a condition of type approval has been breached (or if the issue means that the device is not type approved).
If not, then the evidence is admissible and the defence would have to raise a reasonable doubt regarding the use of that device on that occasion.

So, the condition for it to be used "as tested" is breached and therefore the admissabilty of the measurement cannot be used in evidence, whether adduced by a camera operator or any other means. Surely??????


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Wed, 26 Dec 2007 - 22:38
Post #13


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,284
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 26 Dec 2007 - 21:46) *
So, the condition for it to be used "as tested" is breached and therefore the admissabilty of the measurement cannot be used in evidence, whether adduced by a camera operator or any other means. Surely??????


Is that an explicit condition for the gatso? I thought that was for the dodgyscope.
N.B. We seem to have 3 active threads discussing 2 active gatso cases, with a side order or largely unrelated dodgyscope paperwork, and some pseudo-hypothetical discussion.

If it isn't an explicit condition, it might be possible to establish that it's an implicit condition, but that would be far more complicated.


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 07:56
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Wed, 26 Dec 2007 - 22:38) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Wed, 26 Dec 2007 - 21:46) *
So, the condition for it to be used "as tested" is breached and therefore the admissabilty of the measurement cannot be used in evidence, whether adduced by a camera operator or any other means. Surely??????


Is that an explicit condition for the gatso? I thought that was for the dodgyscope.
N.B. We seem to have 3 active threads discussing 2 active gatso cases, with a side order or largely unrelated dodgyscope paperwork, and some pseudo-hypothetical discussion.

If it isn't an explicit condition, it might be possible to establish that it's an implicit condition, but that would be far more complicated.

Schedule of conditions for the Gatso Andy: "For use tripod mounted in the attended actively operated mode as tested"

Home Office FOI Answer: "Noo type approved devices have been tested or approved for use from within a vehicle"
Another saying that the tests as mentioned in the Schedule of Conditions are those tests carried out by the HO PSDB and ACPO. None were carried out in a vehicle.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 11:45
Post #15


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,284
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 07:56) *
Schedule of conditions for the Gatso Andy: "For use tripod mounted in the attended actively operated mode as tested"


Oops, my bad.
However, in my copy of the Schedule it says "The equipment mounted on a tripod may be used in the attended actively operated mode as a (sic) tested."
Clearly the same meaning, but I am concerned that the wording appears to have changed.


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

Millenial (noun): a person who is offended at being told "Suck it up, buttercup"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lynnzer
post Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 11:51
Post #16


Member


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



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 11:45) *
QUOTE (Lynnzer @ Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 07:56) *
Schedule of conditions for the Gatso Andy: "For use tripod mounted in the attended actively operated mode as tested"


Oops, my bad.
However, in my copy of the Schedule it says "The equipment mounted on a tripod may be used in the attended actively operated mode as a (sic) tested."
Clearly the same meaning, but I am concerned that the wording appears to have changed.

Right Andy; exactly the same in fact. I just sort of shortened it to fit. The meaning is the same in either case. As tested is defined by the Home Office as follows:
The Gatsometer type 24 radar was type approved with effect from 1 July 1992. The original agreement does not have an attached schedule. However a new approval was given on the 8 November 2000 for which a new agreement was made that included the schedule to which you refer. The phrase "as tested" in this schedule refers to how it was tested by ACPO and HOSDB. In this case, it was operated from the roadside correctly aligned with the edge of the road in accordance with the manufacturer's operating instructions.
I reckon this is pretty conclusive.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ziltro
post Thu, 27 Dec 2007 - 17:32
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,119
Joined: 21 Jun 2005
From: Poole, Dorset
Member No.: 3,211



The radar unit has a temperature range of -20 to +60 degrees. There is no mention of temprature sensors being included to shut the device down if these are exceeded, nor is the temperature recorded.
How do we know those boxes never get above 60 degrees in the height of summer or below -20 in winter?


--------------------
Andrew.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
potkettleblack
post Sun, 22 Jun 2008 - 05:42
Post #18


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 440
Joined: 6 Nov 2006
Member No.: 8,772



Back on the manuals:
The one on this thread, dated 2000, says on P15 concerning the direction switch set to receeding traffic,
"remember this last position cannot be used for mobile speed control"
Whereas the shiny but undated(?) copy now available says
"Remember that only this last position receding traffic can be used for mobile speed control".

It is clear from the manual that the unit CAN be operated manually. It beeps if it detects above threshold speed, the operator notes the confirmed speed (having prior opinion of course), presses the picture button if he wants to, has to press the reset for the next measurement. Any mileage in the device simply being set to auto, as I am sure is the case in reality?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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, 17th August 2018 - 22:47
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.