I'm taking he liberty of starting a new thread to draw attention to phil's post, as it would probably get missed by most contributors due to the thread title, Unsigned forms - The Scottish Experience??.
So,
1) What is the bit of law that says a device must be type approved?
We know it to be the case, and have read about it, but where is it?
2) Likewise, what bit of law says that any conditions must have been complied with? (Also referred to in that BBC story).
3) Where can we get a type approval certificate or whatever official document says it's type approved to see what conditions (which presumably includes calibration requirements, as opposed to just ACPO guidelines) it contains?
In two trials I have seen, this was never produced by the prosecution, and it now appears that one of the devices wasn't even type approved.
BTW, Phil is particularly interested in the Kustom Pro-Laser II with video recording, which does, at least, appear to be type approved.

Jeffrey, I think your looking for Home Office Last updated Sept 2003

And this referring to the use of the device

Thanks, DW.
I'm confused now, VASCAR isn't in it either. Is this because these devices are not sufficient evidence in themselves, but only corroborate a prior opinion? Even if so, I fail to see why a corroborating device would not have to be accurate.

Even if so, I'm still confused because surely that is the case with any non static device. Or is this all tied up with the civilian operator argument insofar as the government's line (according to a letter posted on the unsigned_forms list, notwithstanding that Mika has a letter, confirming the corroboration version) seems to be that prescribed devices constitute the primary evidence?

Jeffrey,

Have you checked the latest version of the ACPO GUIDLINES Or are you missing the fact that when vascar is used there is also the coroboration by the officer and the calibrated speedometer which I would think is linked to the vascar.

PS.
Just checked the ACPO guidelines starting at page 20 (Vascar is NOT Home Office Approved but Acpo Approved). It also mentions the challenges to the correct use of the equipment
Dave

[quote]
1.5 What is the advantage of Home Office Type Approval? Section 20 of RTOA 1988 states,

‘On the prosecution for any person for any speeding offence, evidence of the measurement of any speed by a device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles shall not be admissible unless the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State’. This provision applies to radar but amendments have been made to the legislation to allow for laser and digital systems. The approval process gives the public and the courts reassurance measurements from a particular device can be relied upon as evidence. In fact some devices, such as Vascar, Police Pilot and Provida 2000 do not have Home Office Type Approval. Instead, these time/distance devices are ACPO approved. The main reason for this is their extreme level of operator interaction and attention during operation. The devices do not calculate the speed of the vehicle in its entirety. The police officer has to enter the time and distance travelled and is often in a position to correlate the derived speed with that shown on the police vehicle speedometer. With these devices, the more likely legal challenge is to the accuracy of the operator rather than that of the device. However where a device is neither Type Approved or ACPO approved the operator will have to be able to prove how the device worked, that it was working correctly at the time and was not affected by any external influence. In practice they would have to bring expert evidence to court every time and the court may still determine it will not accept the evidence adduced by the device. The defendant will be acquitted and costs will either have to be met by the Police or from central funds


[quote]11.2 Basic Principles

The detection of speeding offences using the equation: Speed = Distance divided by time is a long established practice. Initially this was carried out by the use of a certified stopwatch and the odometer of the patrol car. Whilst this principle remains, technology has allowed for the introduction of sophisticated equipment, which has proved to be far more efficient and accurate. The operation of the devices simply involves the operation of a distance switch and a time switch, in the appropriate sequence. This calls for a high level of operator accuracy and, in order to achieve it, a good deal of practical experience is required.

Where a vehicle is, in the opinion of a police officer, travelling at an excessive speed the device is used as corroboration.[/quote]

Jeffrey,

It’s completely beyond me why they don’t just discard all this complicated equipment, and invest in some deckchairs and suntan oil:

Brighty -v- Pearson [1938] 4 All ER 127

In this case the defendant was convicted on the evidence of two police officer, the second corroborating the opinion of the first as to excess speed.

The way I view it, and I think Mica will agree, is that if two officers agree you where speeding then one officer corrobarates the other ones story. But the question would always be "what was the speed and what will the penalty be?"

The 1st convictions where brought about by 2 officers measuring a stretch of road then hiding. When the target vehicle passed the first point the 1st officers made a sign to the 2nd officer and he started his timer. When the target passed the 2nd point the officer then stopped his timer and checked on a slide rule or similiar the distance/time. Because the vehicles in that day only travelled at about 20mph he would then stand in the road and stop the vehicle - would like to see afew of them try that trick nowadays

This is when we come on to one officer with no other officer to corrobarate his opinion. A laser or other type of device is then used to corrobarate his opinion, but this equipment must be used correctly and ACPO guidelines and manufacturers operating conditions applied.

In the case of Vascar etc. the officers have to undergo an exam and only pass if they successfully calculate the speed within 2mph. So if caught by one of these type of devices, and it is used correctly, then your actual speed could actually by 2mph either way!

The back of the ACPO guidelines lists all the type approved devices.

But only if the officer had calculated the speed correctly and within 2 mph in the first place.

Try it 10 times at varying speeds between 40 and 90 mph. Bet your wrong more than 50% of tries. The officer would be too. Thats why they invested in the sofisticated equipment, because they can't do simple sums let alone calculate speed at distance over time.

Good point who says that the original calculation was correct to start with! :?