Postal Speeding Notice

NoSurender wrote:

assassin wrote:These are average speed cameras and not a stand alone camera, so what does it mean?

They dont need road markings to determine the speed as this is done by at least two cameras over a fixed distance and they measure the time between them, it then comes down to distance over time taken, from this it automatically works out the average speed taken to cover a specific distance.

Average speed cameras can work in pairs or networks and they often site them on long, fast roads with a lot of hilly terrain as they know people often lift off downhill and the mass of the vehicle carries it over the speed limit, Manchester was a good example of this.

They can be used in pairs in po-lice cars and Derbyshire used a lot of them on the faster roads in more remote areas, they parked a traffic car up in a lay-by and as you passed it you triggered the system, you carried on and you came across a second plod mobile and as you passed it the cut off beam was triggered and it gave an average speed and you got a ticket in the post.
Many of us got around them very simply, we saw a plod mobile parked up and passed it, as we approached the second plod mobile we didn't go past it, we pulled up behind it in the lay-by and didn't trigger the second beam, we would do all sorts, make phone calls, have a cup of coffee, or anything else which wasted time. When we eventually puled off and passed the second plod mobile and tripped the system our average speed was lower than Steptoes horse and cart.  

Acctually they do, so I don't know who has told you this?

Average speed cameras still have to work from a point to point reference, so without that reference (a mark on the road), where is the start distance point taken from and where does it finish without reference marks..?? What is it just a guess??

Try looking up the law as nobody has told me this and then try following it up with reading the manufacturers instructions of how the cameras work.

Just about all speed cameras have road marks to prove the car in the picture is the one speeding.  Some average speed cameras have marks.  Why not all?  Maybe because they measure over a long distance, so the exact position they clocked your car (or your numberplate) doesn't make much difference.  Suppose they are 1/2 mile apart, an error of 8 metres makes only 1% error in speed.

Sometimes the easiest way to get the answer to questions is simply do a FOI request .
Do it on line ,costs nothing,then post the response in the FOI section here.

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:Just about all speed cameras have road marks to prove the car in the picture is the one speeding.  Some average speed cameras have marks.  Why not all?  Maybe because they measure over a long distance, so the exact position they clocked your car (or your numberplate) doesn't make much difference.  Suppose they are 1/2 mile apart, an error of 8 metres makes only 1% error in speed.

It all depends on the camera type, in all cases they need a trigger point and this is usually the front of the car passing a sensor which is usually an invisible radar beam and the point of detection/activation is the front of the car in most cases, but not all. As most fixed average speed cameras are overhead they can use any fixed feature such as the white line in the middle of the road, a signpost standard, the corner of a building, or in some cases the fixed metal plates in the road which are used for measuring GPS data for road monitoring purposes and as they generate a 3D map they automatically compensate for the height and width of a vehicle.

Many average speed devices are not fixed and are mobile devices carried by two vehicles such as two po-lice vehicles and they are not 3D devices as they fire a beam of lasers in an vertical arc across the road to trigger and stop a device recording an average speed, they are connected using GPS to determine their distances apart and are usually in vehicles parked in specific places which have been manually measured beforehand.

Well this was the reply I got after requesting information on the speeding cameras, supposedly the Certificate of Calibration lasts for 2 years..?
Also not to sure what to do with who was driving and whether I should take the blame, as the last time I did this, although slightly different circumstances and stating I've applied due diligence I was still found guilty, which obviously I don't want to happen again..!

Please see attached documents..!!

Please remember that the issue of providing driver's name is separate from the speeding.   Even if there is a problem with the speeding evidence, they could still prosecute for failing to name the driver.

The pictures show the offence and not the driver.

That calibration certificate the distance measuring device does not even describe the device which was supposedly calibrated.

What was this distance measuring device calibrated with?

Was it calibrated in accordance with a procedure that is trace able to a national or international standard? If so prove it.

Where is the evidence the device used to calibrate the distance measurement device met the requirements of the National Measurements Act - surly the UK would have such a law??

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:Please remember that the issue of providing driver's name is separate from the speeding.   Even if there is a problem with the speeding evidence, they could still prosecute for failing to name the driver.

So on this note, where do I go from here?

Do I just front it out in court and say, i'm still unable to clarify with complete certainty who the driver was, so unless you can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt who the driver was, I don't see that you have a case..!!

Ausk wrote:That  calibration certificate the distance measuring device does not even describe the device which was supposedly calibrated.

What was this distance measuring device calibrated with?

Was it calibrated in accordance with a procedure that is trace able to a national or international standard? If so prove it.

Where is the evidence the device used to calibrate the distance measurement device met the requirements of the National Measurements Act -  surly the UK would have such a law??

Thanks for this Ausk..!

Yeah it's just based on a location/area, which is so open to abuse it's laughable. As without the actual serial numbers of each of the cameras in those area they can be changed at will and nobody would know the difference..!

NoSurender wrote:

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:Please remember that the issue of providing driver's name is separate from the speeding.   Even if there is a problem with the speeding evidence, they could still prosecute for failing to name the driver.

So on this note, where do I go from here?

Do I just front it out in court and say, i'm still unable to clarify with complete certainty who the driver was, so unless you can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt who the driver was, I don't see that you have a case..!!

No, they are two separate issues - you could argue (and win the case) for the speeding but still be convicted for a failure to name the driver. If you didn't complete and return the form they sent you asking you to name the driver, that's all the evidence they need to convict you on that point.

assassin wrote:The pictures show the offence and not the driver.

Is it evidence of an offense or a picture of a car or private conveyance (depends on your point of view) traveling on the land?

Tiggy wrote:

NoSurender wrote:

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:Please remember that the issue of providing driver's name is separate from the speeding.   Even if there is a problem with the speeding evidence, they could still prosecute for failing to name the driver.

So on this note, where do I go from here?

Do I just front it out in court and say, i'm still unable to clarify with complete certainty who the driver was, so unless you can confirm beyond a reasonable doubt who the driver was, I don't see that you have a case..!!

No, they are two separate issues - you could argue (and win the case) for the speeding but still be convicted for a failure to name the driver. If you didn't complete and return the form they sent you asking you to name the driver, that's all the evidence they need to convict you on that point.

Some options for naming the driver.

Option 1

First off don't fill in the form, write them a letter and tell them there are often a number of vehicles parked at your address and there is an open use policy in place whereby everyone who sleeps at the address is entitled to drive any car belonging to another person who sleesps at the home; on the bases of pay for all damages.

I have, with reasoanble diligence made enquiries as to was driving the vehicle at the time of the alleged offence However I do not know who the driver was because I was not in the car on that day and and I cannot be compelled to, nor do I wish to falsely or incompletely complete the nomination statement.

Also, as there are severe penalties for providing false and misleading information and that I do not wish to exposemyself to legal action by them or another driver so I am relying on you providing me with a picture taken at the time by the speed or red light camera to further assist in the naming of the driver at the time of the alleged offence.

When you get the photos have a look and see if the driver can be identified if not tell them you cannot identify the driver can they send you a clearer image they normally give up at this stage if they threaten you then point out that they are trying to make you bear false witness and make a complaint.

Option 2

Give them the address of your Indian friend in Bombay.


Option 3

While I cannot be certain, it may have been (best mate or family member who can prove they were not driving the vehicle that day.)  

They then go into court and say "No I am afraid 'x' person is incorrect, I was not driving the vehicle that because I was at 'x' place and here is the proof.

They now face a dead end so where do they go from there? No where. I have it on good authority it goes into a great big black hole and it never sees the light of day again.

Quick caution for option 2, be prepared for the Police to ask for proof that the Indian friend was insured, otherwise they may try and charge you for permitting uninsured use.

pieintheskywhenIdie wrote:Quick caution for option 2, be prepared for the Police to ask for proof that the Indian friend was insured, otherwise they may try and charge you for permitting uninsured use.  

Perhaps a suitable reply might be "I dont know, I asked him if he did and he said yes."

If we lend our vehicle to someone; do they expect us to conduct an insurance search of that person, which most likly we would have to pay a fee for?

I like their use of the term "uninsured use." In aus, a vehicle has to 'be regsitered' for which a large fee is charged for.

The problem for the authorites is that more and more people are catching on to this fact that all motor vehciles in aus have a Vehicle Identification Nember (VIN) The VIN of all motor vehicles is regsitered on this 'regsiter' before they roll out of the assembly line. It remains on this list even after the vehicle has been crushed up into a block.

What people are now doing is asking the police officer how they know its not regsitered? The ususal reply is "because I looked it up on the computer in the car just now" So righto, it IS registerd then is'nt it?

Officer; no, its not because you have not paid the fee. Oh I see my vehcile is regsitered but I just havent paid someone some money is that it?

What can the cop say but 'yes thats right' or, invoke their right to silence. - It all about the money and nothing else.

Ausk wrote:I like their use of the term "uninsured use."

The actual wording is "a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act."

So in theory if the loan of the vehicle was conditional on the driver having iinsurance, then you didn't "cause or permit" because if it turned out there was no insurance then the car was being driven without your permission. All I'm really saying is be prepared for the question.

In the UK the po-lice have access to the motor insurance database and this gives them full access to the policy and any named drivers on it, on the few occasions where they do not have this information they will hold details of the policy and its policy number, and believe me the po-lice will ring up and check for named drivers as its much easier to make a phone call rather than do some real work.

Sorry, posted in the wrong topic

NoSurender wrote:Well this was the reply I got after requesting information on the speeding cameras, supposedly the Certificate of Calibration lasts for 2 years..?
Also not to sure what to do with who was driving and whether I should take the blame, as the last time I did this, although slightly different circumstances and stating I've applied due diligence I was still found guilty, which obviously I don't want to happen again..!

Please see attached documents..!!

Experience in aus is showing that attacking the cameras is the best way to go, by challenging the calibration of the cameras even after they have been recently calibrated.

How can they prove that a camera that was calibrated yesterday is within calibration today at the time they set it up when so many things can happen to them. They can be dropped, they can fall over, they can be mishandled and so on.

One thing that does not get brought up here is that the ISO Standards on calibration require that when a camera is found to be out of calibration, the owner is required to go back through all readings since the last known good calibration and make a discussion as to what is to be done about all those measurements right back to the last known good calibration because they must all be considered to be unreliable.

Speed cameras can be incorrectly setup, incorrectly located and so on.

You can get a copy of the operators manual for the camera by Freedom of Information or through Disclosure. This will then enable you to go through it and identify every little thing that is required for correct and accurate set up and pick holes in it or ask for proof that it was done.

Officer; can you prove with substantiating evidence that this camera was within calibration limits when it was set up at the road side or in the vehicle.

Officer; can you prove with substantiating evidence this image or reading has not been digitally altered?

Officer; can you prove with substantiating evidence this image has not been corrupted in any way by rain, hail, sleat, wind gushes from passing trucks, birds flying through the beam etc.

Officer; can you prove with substantiating evidence this camera has not been digitally corrupted by an electronic virus? (your due diligence would ensure you obtained a copy of not just calibration certs but also of virus audits logs, how old is the software? when were the latest virus scans done, show me the result of that.)

What is a DRIVER?One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
https://thelawdictionary.org/driver/

What is a DRIVER?One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle,with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 South. 344, 36 L. R. A.615; Gen. St. Conn. 1902,
https://thelawdictionary.org/driver/

This definition of a driver comes up a lot but I have yet to read of anyone ever been discharged from the court on the basis of this fact alone.

In aus this kind of thing just falls on deaf ears. Unfortunately I cant see its usefulness in court.

are there any brit high court decisions where this has played a key role in having the charge thrown out?

The courts of administration are FOR...Government employees.
the object of the exercise is, not to end up in one.

"Average speed cameras still have to work from a point to point reference, so without that reference (a mark on the road), where is the start distance point taken from and where does it finish without reference marks..?? What is it just a guess?? "

This is a key point. As I understand it, the GPS system is only accurate to within 10 meters. There lies an opportunity to claim their claimed distance is an unreliable estimation.

If they just used the speedo's in their car then what proof do they have that they are even within 100 metres accurate? When were they last calibrated?

Officer; how is the distance between the two police cars with the point to point radars measured?

Officer what degree of accuracy is used to determine this distance.

Officer; what technology is used to ensure this distance it accurate.

Officer; can you prove with substantiating evidence the distance is as accurate as you claim it is?