Safe Speed Forums

The Sunday Times had an interesting article about Mr Perry who appears to be the lead solicitor who works with RSS to rebut the claims of motorists who challenge speeding tickets.

I think it is sad that this clearly very committed person is wasting his time getting trivial offences convicted. I would much rather he spent his time advising Basildon Council on traveller's rights.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Do you know what was said within the article?

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

I have the print copy but it is quite long and I don't feel like retyping it all. Unfortunately, while the index reference is on the Sunday Times website (in Ingear), the article is behind the paywall. If anyone has access then this would be the easiest way to get all the text.

Essentially, Mr Perry has been given special training by the camera makers and others to enable him to rebut the type of defence put forward by Mr Freeman in many cases. This raises the question of whether the law and its supporting requirements are now so complex that only specialists can understand it and local prosecutors are incapable.

My concern is that a lot of the "celebrity" cases reported are actually in the "they did it but are spending a lot of money on lawyers to get off" category while those cases which genuinely throw doubt on the veracity of the equipment or its use are being bulldosed by Mr Perry and RSS without proper scrutiny.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

Of course they are incapable!
The manufacturers of this equipment are multi million pound businesses, with a vested interest in protecting that business.
They are the LAST people who should be giving Andrew Perry advice! It should be somebody with the necessary expertise, who is not connected to the industry so directly.

Take REDSPEED for example.
The time interval between the two flashes that record the distance travelled, is altered for EVERY detection. This SHOULD ensure that the distance travelled in the pictures is always the SAME - but it is not! I have seen many of these pictures, and rarely has the vehicle travelled the prescribed 10 metres.
Admittedly the ones I see are usually where the driver is disputing the speed - but WHY is the recording unnecessarily complex? Why not have a fixed interval which can be easily tested like the GATSO?
Because the manufacturer (and therefore the prosecutors) can hide behind behind that technically complex operation, and reduce the chances of a driver proving their innocence.

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

@ Claire,

Thanks for your text on this subject. If you go to:

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/

and roll the mouse pointer over the sub-heading CARS below the Ingear section you will see the title. It is called"Super-brief" and is by Dominic Tobin.

If you click on it you will be taken to the pay screen. This is the standard Sunday Times on-line subscription arrangement.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

@ Ernest,

I didn't realise that Redspeed used such a convoluted arrangement. It seems obvious to use a fixed (and easily calibrated) time interval and then measure the distance travelled. What do they do then? Have two sensors a fixed distance apart and measure the time taken between them?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

I don't know too much about REDSPEED (and I've been at the ciders), but isn't this process the same as Truvelo?
Granted Truvelos use only three corroborating lines (minimum limit, ideal, maximum limit) for their confirmation, which is a bit more straightforward...


I 100% agree with you.
Added to that, they have been known to be a little coy with how their systems actually work. How can a process be a "trade secret" when it is producing evidence that affect lives?
I speak from first-hand experience (I'm looking at you Graeme Southwood [SPECS]). IMO, evidence from SPECS cameras morally should not be admitted as evidence.
Nothing to hide; nothing to fear, and all that.

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

I have sent a scan of the article to Claire and Steve by e-mail.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

All very interesting and unnerving. My understanding of science is basic, but surely if the flash times were out of kilter it could give the appearance a car was speeding? Time over distance and all that. So if the flash was recorded at a mili second interval and that margin was actually in reality a lot greater, the car woukd seemingly have travelled further in a shorter distance.

Good post Malcolm. As I have always maintained, this system of 'instant justice' has always bugged me. The right to appeal and a fair trial has always been the corner stone of British justice (well for a long while anyway) and this system seems to remove that, negate any need for accountability and disuade people from doing anything other than handing over bundles of cash. The fact we have private contractors advising legal representatives seems very dodgy as does their apparent lack of transparency. Echoing Steve's comments on trade secrets, it seems very wrong that people are denied the right to mount a proper defence, have access to all the facts or legitimately challenge speeding tickets as the manufacturers refuse to release certain infomation that could be crucial to someone proving their innocence. I presume this is because they view themselves as above the law and their systems as infallable. Not good enough. Public accountability should be mandatory.

Steve - what was your SPECS saga? Thankfully I am usually on a bike and they are forward facing. That is not to say I risk it and break the limit. Even on a hot day I usually trundle through mile after mile of empty road works but it means at least I am unlikely to ever get a false reading if they can't see my plate.

Every REDSPEED set of pictures should show 10 metres of travel.


Allegedly 67mph in a 60 limit.


Allegedly 47 in a 40 limit



This is supposedly at 47mph in a 40.

Anyone care to guess the difference in the distance travelled at say 45 mph for the same time difference?

For the very same time interval, 500mm difference travelled, would have the speed at 44.7mph - below the ACPO guideline. So judging the distance travelled ACCURATELY is critical to proving that the vehicle was speeding.

The middle case was dropped when the defendant elected to go to court instead of accepting a fixed penalty. Two hearings later, and a hefty legal bill, the CPS decided that the readings were wrong!

Given that the time interval is being constantly altered, dependent on a separate reading, the possibility of errors adding up to a false reading of the speed is much greater.
I wonder if Andrew Perry knows that?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

What Mr Perry knows is that a lot of wealthy people can hire expensive lawyers to try to get them off speeding charges. IMO, he goes after these type of cases (e.g. against Mr Freeman) rather than ones where there is actually a technical doubt as to the accuracy of the equipment.

These latter cases are generally dropped (as was the one Ernest highlights) in case the whole system is found to be corrupt.

As for Ernest's photographs, I am a bit unsure what is being shown in them. Perhaps he could explain a bit more. The cars are passing graticule markings in the road. I can't accurately judge from the pictures if the 10m is valid but what is the time interval?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.

How does this system compensate for changing speed?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

OK, now you have had the beginnings of a legend about the requirements of the Redspeed secondary check; let's get the real story and go on from there.

The secondary check is performed by taking 2 separate images of the vehicle.

When a vehicle is detected at a speed above the threshold for an offence the shutter timing for the camera is set to place the vehicle at a distance from the camera that is upon the secondary check markings. Depending upon the vehicle speed a first shutter delay time is set to place the vehicle for an identification and first secondary check position. The second shutter delay is set to place the vehicle at a nominal distance of 10m from the first position but this distance can vary by as much as +/-2m or more.

The distance travelled between 2 images is divided by the difference between the shutter delay times to reveal the secondary check speed.

Importantly, there is no requirement for the vehicle in the secondary check to travel 10m. To put it simply, that notion is bollocks and should not be considered as grounds for a conspiracy theory. If the vehicle was required to travel a fixed distance it would have a secondary check mark like a Truvelo CombiSMC but it doesn't so it hasn't.

It should also be noted that CPS do not decide if evidence from speed camera equipment is accurate or correct or not; they will however often decide that the evidence, in their opinion is not sufficient to secure a conviction and to secure the conviction within the public interest. If they had taken advice they would most probably have been given the advice that the evidence was accurate and could be used for the prosecution of an offence. Equally if that evidence was found to be faulty then they would have been advised to withdraw. Just as an expert in the equipment would not give advice on legal matters or stray into advocacy (some experts do), the CPS should not make decisions upon accuracy as they are not qualified to do so.

Carry on!

See the answer I gave some moments ago.

Hey Greenshed, as you've surfaced, would you care to address any of the points you've been dodging? How about a case where someone was convicted of speeding based solely on the evidence of civilian CSW members? You did say one or more existed, were you lying?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

What blind twat drew those cock-eyed lines on that image?

No it isn't.

I would think he was smart enough to know your premise is crap.

I did, care to answer some more!?

The answer you gave indicates that in the case of an accelerating/decelerating vehicle, the speed returned is going to be the average over the interval of the two shots. This would suggest that in these cases the primary reading and that calculated from the secondary check will be different.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Not really no.
I don't recall saying one existed; what I did say was that there is no lawful reason why the prosecution could not be made. It was other contributors that insisted on adding "has it been done" into the mix.

I am not entering into that discussion again as it was quite pointless.

It is different in about 99.9% of cases. As long as it does not differ by more than 10% either way that's fine.

The primary speed is what counts and is used in evidence, the secondary check is....well.......secondary.

I'm having a little trouble understanding the operation of the Redspeed camera. GS's post about is not exactly clear so I am paraphrasing it here for others to correct if required.

There are two speed checks: primary and secondary.
The primary check is a radar/laser which determines if a vehicle is above the enforcement threshold. (Presumably this is a calibrated device)
The secondary check is performed by two photographs of the vehicle being taken typically at 10m apart (but this is not a precise distance).
The distance travelled between the photographs is measured from the road markings.
The time between the photographs is known from a calibrated source but is not a constant.
The secondary speed is calculated from time and distance travelled.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.