Safe Speed Forums

I know what you mean, but technically that isn't correct.

It's for the prosecution to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a motor vehicle was exceeding a lawful speed limit, and that the accused was driving (riding) at the time. In the process the prosecution MUST observe a number of 'legal technicalities'.

That's not to say it's easy to find a flaw in the prosecution case...

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I don’t have time right now to go carefully go through the whole thread.

a) Your missus doesn’t have to be at or below the limit to not trip the camera. Perhaps your g/f was fractionally below the trip threshold and you were fractionally above? However, ~91mph would seem high for a trip threshold so I rate this as unlikely.

b) yeah!

c) Can you elaborate on “the device was in the front of the van as i looked at this van”?
I see no reason why the flash/camera itself can’t be mounted inside the cab.

d1) “acpo guidleines for handheld radar says only 1 vehicle in field of view at time. why doesnt this apply to radar in boxes - gatsos. they state this for handhelds, because radar spreads out like ripples on a pond”
Dunno! Radar is fairly directional (only 10 times more spread than Lidar IIRC).

d2) “and the radar could bounce of me first and then missus who is further ahead and think i jumped that far in such a short time- could this bugger all gatsos with no marking on road ie mini gatsos!!!”
No! It does not work like that. Radar is based on Doppler shift; it is actually measuring relative velocity. Only laser can be fooled in that way.

e) Nah. As someone with “exceptional skill in the art’, I can tell you the timing will not be done in that fashion; the timer will be a based on a quartz oscillator and digital divider (very precise). Anyway, it is irrelevant as the second photo isn’t required for corroboration; see below.

f) If the unit was a mobile then chances are it was manually operated, the operator forming opinion of your speed then using the radar sensor as corroboration (just like Lidar). Lines on the road for corroboration of the radar sensor isn’t required. I think there’s no way you can disprove the speeding allegation

g) Good luck. Let us know how that goes.

h) Are you getting confused with laser?

i) I don’t think it’s so dubious, anyway we’ve gone to war based on less!!

Hmmm, thinking this though, perhaps it is only possible for the camera to get one of you as the flash/film cannot re-load in time, quite reasonable if your better half was “5 meters” on front of you and both of you were at speed. Given this, the operator would have to have decided which of you to “˜catch’

OR,

The position of your bike could have obscured hers; hence her plate can’t be identified!



I’m speculating with some of the above, feel free to dissect and discuss.


Edit: what on earth happened to the text? All the quotes and colons were replaced with random characters

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

i sent the summons back pleadin not guilty- got a notification that the hearing has been adjorned till 17 july. will get cracking on the phone about gettin witnesses (camera operator) whose details i dont have - do i subpeona them?? oh an i want chief of police there as he authorised it, for a cross examination.
i would like to have my case heard by crown court with a 12 man jury. im under the impression i have right to trial by jury is this correct?

I realise this is an old thread, but with reference to the visibility of speed traps, if the trap is a camera van, are you saying that the van itself must be visible from 60 metres distant in a area, or is it enough for the warning sign to be placed 60 metres ahead of the van?

The reason for asking is that where I got caught, the van was parked just around a left hand bend. Here, I'll show you. This Audi is my car, and is sitting where the camera van was parked. It doesn't look like 60 metres...




As you've probably read in my other thread(s) I actually won the case in Magistrates' Court, but not for this. The police charged me under the wrong section of RTRA(1984), and a portion of their evidence was false. Many people will have been convicted for an offence committed here, and I am interested to know what I could do to to effect restitution for drivers who have received fines and penalty points.

Excerpts from the “Department for Transport Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera Programme for England and Wales for 2006/07”





However,



To sum up: it seems the SCPs were not abiding by the rules required for netting off; however, the drivers caught there have no comeback.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign