[NIP Wizard] Cars in both lanes caught by Gatso Options

[Blond1e]

NIP Details and Circumstances
What is the name of the Constabulary? -
Date of the offence: - April 2009
Date of the NIP: - 7 days after the offence
Date you received the NIP: - 13 days after the offence
Location of offence (exact location as it appears on the NIP: important): - A441 Pershore Road, Birmingham
Was the NIP addressed to you? - Yes
Was the NIP sent by first class post, second class or recorded delivery? - Not known
If your are not the Registered Keeper, what is your relationship to the vehicle? -
How many current points do you have? - 0
Provide a description of events (if you know what happened) telling us as much about the incident as possible - some things that may seem trivial to you may be important, so don't leave anything out. Please do not post personal details for obvious reasons -

NIP Wizard Responses
These were the responses used by the Wizard to arrive at its recommendation:
Have you received a NIP? - Yes
Are you the Registered Keeper of the vehicle concerned (is your name and address on the V5/V5C)? - Yes
Did the first NIP arrive within 14 days? - Yes
Although you are the Registered Keeper, were you also the keeper of the vehicle concerned (the person normally responsible for it) at the time of the alleged offence? - Yes
Were you driving? - Yes
Which country did the alleged offence take place in? - England

NIP Wizard Recommendation
Based on these responses the Wizard suggested that this course of action should be considered:

• The law requires you to provide the information requested in the Section 172 notice within the 28 day period, naming yourself as the driver. If you are considering obtaining formal legal advice, do so before returning the notice.
  
  You should note that there is nothing to be gained by responding any earlier than you have to at any stage of the process. You are likely to receive a Conditional Offer of a Fixed Penalty (COFP) and further reminder(s). If you want to continue the fight, you should ignore all correspondence from the police until you receive a summons. You need to understand from the outset that while you will receive much help and support from members on the forums, you will need to put time and effort into fighting your case and ultimately be prepared to stand up in court to defend yourself.

Generated by the PePiPoo NIP Wizard v3.3.2: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 10:45:31 +0100



I applied and received photographic evidence as I was totally unaware of having been caught speeding. The photographs show I was caught by Gatso and there are two photos taken half a second apart. I was apparently doing 40 in a 30 mph speed limit. I was very surprised by this as a few years ago I had two speeding tickets in short succession (both now expired) but have been very careful since.

My question is that I've read on another website a one-liner saying that Gatsos need to be callibrated so that they only record traffic in on lane at a time. As the photos show two cars (with mine in the overtaking lane), can the photos be used as evidence to prosecute me or can I ask for this to be thrown out because it has caught vehicles in both lanes?

This post has been edited by Blond1e: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 - 10:03

[Advertisement]

[Blond1e]

Pete,

I was looking at the 2004 version of the guidelines.

I can't find a date on the link you've sent - can you tell me where the date is please?

Thanks!

Blond1e

[desktop_demon]

The conditions of type approval specify that the speed accurately estimated from the photographs must be within 10% of the radar reading of the alleged speed. So if the radar says 40 the photos must support a speed of at least 36mph or greater. if the speed estimated from the photos is less than 36 mph then the photos could be ruled inadmissible at trial.

Unfortunately my personal estimate is a speed of 38mph. That is indeed less than 40mph but not enough less to collapse a charge. That is what I mean by there no being a type approval error condition. As alluded by other posters there have been successful defences based on such reasoning.

I have just recently seen another set of photos that seem to provide a defence based on the 10% error condition. So it may be more common that originally thought.

[Pete D]

There is no change in scale between the two photographs. You eye may think so becuase the cars got smaller but loot at the ledge on the building on the Top RHS of the shots. Identical. Pete D

[desktop_demon]

When I "cut out" the photos above in a paint package I was unable to "superimpose" the images as supplied. I had to magnify the lower image by 110% to get them to register properly. That is why I say there is a change in image size/scale in the photos supplied. It is not significant to the evidence but it makes comparison a very slightly more difficult task.

On the subject of defences I am not sure if the ACPO guidelines are "enforcible" but if the current "best estimate" of the speed of the car is 38mph then there is no actualy proof of which car is doing the 40mph alleged. it might seem obvious that the blue car may be travelling faster than the red car - so one might deduce that the blue car was the alleged offender. But there is no actual proof of that in this case.

As we are often told (and it was repeated ad nauseam by the prosecution in my case) it is quite possible for a car to slam on its brakes and slow down relatively quickly. The half second flash on the gatso is usually too quick for any real reaction in respect of braking. But it is not impossible especially if the driver was about to brake before passing the gatso itself.

If one does a quick manufacturers test (see gatso user manual) with the "template and triangle" it could even be suggested that the red car was the alleged offender. It is nearer a trigger position as defined by gatso procedures. Unfortunately these procedures are not legally binding in the UK and for them to be performed correctly we would need a full frame photo not the cropped images supplied. The police technicians often seem to crop the photos to make them easier to print.

So while it might be argued that the car nearest to 40mph speed is the offender (and 38mph is an excess speed) it might also be argued that there is no clear indication which car triggered the camera in the first place. The photos are not the primary speed reading mechanism of the gatso - the radar is. The photos are only for checking the speed reported - the prescribed device is the radar device not the camera device, so in theory the photos can not be used in evidence of speeding by themselves. This is a tricky argument but it has some substance and might be argued in a more artful way. Having two vehicles so close together in a picture must make it more difficult to establish beyond reasonable doubt who set the camera off.

good luck!

[Pete D]

If you study the bottom LH corner of the each photo you will see they are exactly the same location, if you then look at the corner of the roof line on the red brick building above the RH traffic light, you will see that both pictures are again identical. However if you are seeing an error for what ever reason it does not alter the distance travelled by the cars as measured by the markers. Pete D

This post has been edited by Pete D: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 - 09:31

[Blond1e]

Yes Pete you are right - they aren't scaled down but I was misled by the fact that the pictures were different sizes.

Any ideas anyone as to the date of the most recent ACPO guigelines and the actual link to them (I don't want to quote the section if they aren't the latest ones). I keep trawling through the ACPO stuff but a lot is the November 2004 version or even earlier.

Or can anyone see a date on the ones pete provided? perhaps I have overlooked it?

This post has been edited by Blond1e: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 - 09:39

[Fredd]

I don't know how either you or Pete_D can maintain that those images are not at different scales - their field of view is the same but as DD says the upper image is 10% larger than the lower one.

[Pete D]

Fredd gave you a link to the latest edition 2004.

Desktop_Demon, yes the photos presented are different sizes but the captures image size as I previuosly details is fixes, but I see why you had to correct the image. Pete D

[bargepole]

Hi again Toots - the 2004 version 2.3 is the latest, see link here.

On the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership website, under FOI requests, in the section titled "Guidance and Best Practice", they have reproduced the DfT circular, which states in para 37: "... enforcement is undertaken in accordance with the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology (ACPO, 2004)".

So there you have it - they are blatantly trying to scam your OH out of money and points contrary to their own stated practices.

[howiem]

Blue Car Secondary Check = 40mph
Red Car Secondary Check = 31mph

Blue car is 3m behind the red car in first picture
Blue Car is 1m behind the red car in the second picture

Blue car travels 2m further in 0.5s so is 4m/s faster than the red car.

4m/s = 9mph

The Blue car is doing 9mph faster that the red car which is doing 31mph

The radar reads 40mph

The red car at 31mph is too far up the secondary check grid to have set the radar off (I reckon)

Which car do you think set the radar off?

There doesn't seem to be a doubt that is reasonable IMHO.

[Blond1e]

Fredd - I think the scale is the same but that it is the size of the photo that is different and probably just adjusted to get onto one page.

Bargepole - thanks for your reply - you've been very jhelpful and it is much appreciated.

howiem - I think the blue car set it off but that isn't the point really. If ACPO guidelines are supposed to be followed and they state that the readings should be disregarded if two vehicles are or may be in the measurement field then an NIP should not have been sent. As bargepole has said W Mids police state that enforcement is undertaken in line with the ACPO guidelines which clearly isn't the case.

[howiem]

Fredd - I think the scale is the same but that it is the size of the photo that is different and probably just adjusted to get onto one page.

Bargepole - thanks for your reply - you've been very jhelpful and it is much appreciated.

howiem - I think the blue car set it off but that isn't the point really. If ACPO guidelines are supposed to be followed and they state that the readings should be disregarded if two vehicles are or may be in the measurement field then an NIP should not have been sent. As bargepole has said W Mids police state that enforcement is undertaken in line with the ACPO guidelines which clearly isn't the case.

It doesn't look like 2 cars have been in the "measurement field" which is quite narrow about 400mm to 500mm.

The view of the camera, as opposed to the radar measuring field, are not the same thing.

You ave made a common mistake made by many.

Hope that helps.

[Pete D]

Yes the operator who views the photo's particularly if it is questioned uses a graticule provided by GATSO that is specifically for use when there are two vehicles in the measurement field and it identifies which one triggered the camera. I quote from the Gatso manual "If more than one approaching vehicle are shown on the photo, a template can be placed over the photo ( if a negative is used, always take the complete negative and not a partial enlargement of it ). The '0' point of the scale is in the middle of the photo." For approaching read receding as this is a Dutch piece of kit and front and rear facing Gatso's are permitted.
THE ACPO code details "Clear and unambiguous evidence of the offence" in section 16 and the graticule does just that. The reason for " Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded." I believe refers to if two cars both fall inside the measurement field as denoted by the graticule. Iknow this does not help your case but that is how it is. Don't let it stop you writting a letter when you return the NIP pointing out the ACPO code of practice but do not hold your breath. Pete D

[ict_guy]

If you study the bottom LH corner of the each photo you will see they are exactly the same location, if you then look at the corner of the roof line on the red brick building above the RH traffic light, you will see that both pictures are again identical. However if you are seeing an error for what ever reason it does not alter the distance travelled by the cars as measured by the markers. Pete D

Invasion of privacy comes to mind here! Fancy having a GATSO taking pictures of your bedroom window!!!!

Certainly no zooming between the pics though.

This post has been edited by ict_guy: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 - 13:01

[howiem]

As we are often told (and it was repeated ad nauseam by the prosecution in my case) it is quite possible for a car to slam on its brakes and slow down relatively quickly. The half second flash on the gatso is usually too quick for any real reaction in respect of braking. But it is not impossible especially if the driver was about to brake before passing the gatso itself.

The deceleration would be more pronounced if the driver of a vehicle has braked before the camera and continues braking through the secondary check marks; the secondary check would therefore have a greater chance of showing a slower speed and approach or even pass the -10% allowed.

Hi again Toots - the 2004 version 2.3 is the latest, see link here.

On the West Midlands Casualty Reduction Partnership website, under FOI requests, in the section titled "Guidance and Best Practice", they have reproduced the DfT circular, which states in para 37: "... enforcement is undertaken in accordance with the ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology (ACPO, 2004)".

So there you have it - they are blatantly trying to scam your OH out of money and points contrary to their own stated practices.

That would only be the opinion of those who don't know enough about it.

[desktop_demon]

The deceleration would be more pronounced if the driver of a vehicle has braked before the camera and continues braking through the secondary check marks; the secondary check would therefore have a greater chance of showing a slower speed and approach or even pass the -10% allowed.

Hopefully you are not advocating that actually drivers try this....

The received wisdom is that the " speed/time histogram" produced and the analysis algorithm used by the gatso while collecting the speed measurements will detect and prevent any "error" situations. According to a well known Gatsometer BV expert both hard braking and hard acceleration are detected and such results eliminated from any evidence produced by the machine.

So for anyone who actually believes it, there is the proof that hard braking would not cause the system to exceed a 10% error margin allowed in the conditions of type approval. If a vehicle were to brake hard enough to significantly "distort" the speed reading that reading would be rejected by the camera controller. It says here in the small print....