'speeding' driver..

[empip]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article1774639.ece

Court gives up on 'speeding' driver who made a fuss...

A motorist accused of driving at 37mph in a 30mph zone has had the case against him dropped after the prosecution decided it wasn't worth the trouble.

Michael Ives, 68, a self-employed, semi-retired plumbing and heating engineer, had received a speeding notice in the post alleging that he had been driving his Ford Mondeo at 7mph above the limit.

Most people would have looked at the evidence with resignation: two photographs accompanied the notice, one clocking his car 260 yards (239m) from the camera, the other at 54 yards (50m).

But Mr Ives had never had points on his licence and wasn't about to start now. Determined to fight the case, he investigated, using the Freedom of Information Act to find out at what distance mobile speed cameras are guaranteed to be accurate. The manufacturer replied with some interesting information: the tripod-mounted laser mobile cameras were accurate only up to to 109 yards (100m)...

...he investigated, using the Freedom of Information Act to find out at what distance mobile speed cameras are guaranteed to be accurate. The manufacturer replied with some interesting information: the tripod-mounted laser mobile cameras were accurate only up to to 109 yards (100m)...

...the prosecution considered the number of experts it would have to call and the cost of bringing them to court and announced that it was dropping the case. Peter Tidey, the Chief Crown Prosecutor and chairman of Norfolk Criminal Justice Board, said yesterday that a 'pragmatic decision' had been taken and proceeding with the case was not worth the aggravation.

'Here was a man who was challenging everything and we were going to have to get witnesses in from all over the country,' he said.

'As far as I'm concerned, Mr Ives is the fortunate one and if it was a case that people thought that they would challenge things and would just get off with it, the public interest would soon demand a different reaction.

He was probably 50/109's guilty but not 260/109's...

 

[securespark]

Good for him.

I think this is the way to go. You can't challenge a speeding conviction by questioning the accuracy of the device (unless the device is not used correctly, as in this case), although we know fixed cams can be inaccurate & the gatso's at least can be adjusted with regard to the delay between flashes.

The only way now is to get off on a technicality, like the street lights are too far apart or the speed limit sign has the wrong colour background. I would also make a challenge if a mobile site operator was parked illegally (even though they are given dispensation) or the guy was not clearly visible or wearing hi-vis gear.

 

[Thermo]

why good for him? he was speeding simple as that. just hope its not my child or anyone elses he hits at 37mph one day...because they will most likely be dead.

 

[slick50]

I'm with you Thermo ...... Speed restriction signs are there for a reason. If he was speeding he should wear it ..... Kev

 

[Spark123]

Was he speeding though, given their is doubt over the calibration of the speed camera?

 

[nickso]

Was he speeding though, given their is doubt over the calibration of the speed camera?

thats why you always ask to tsee the calibration certificate.

my dad was "caught" by camera van at 91mph in a hire car on a dual carriageway.

he looked up the certificate posted on the police website and it was only calibrated to 69mph

my uncle was caught by a policeman and he challenged said copper in the street. the cop said he had calibrated the distance by eye to the shadow of a nearby bridge 6 hours ago.

most cops dont know the rules and most relevant websites reckon a large percentage of fines/points are unlawful in some way.

 

[securespark]

That's what I was getting at. If it's only accurate to 100m, then it should not stand. There's doubt as to whether he was actually speeding, isn't there?

 

[Steve]

An extra-wide pavement - would parking here be illegal?

as here: http://www.wikimapia.org/#y=53541131&x=-1169352&z=19&l=0&m=a&v=2

Under the crosshair - this is where speed camera vans park, where the red car is. The pavement is wide enough so its possible to park and not cause obstruction, but is this illegal? (in fact, that white van a bit further up might actually be a camera van )

 

[Softus]

That's what I was getting at. If it's only accurate to 100m, then it should not stand. There's doubt as to whether he was actually speeding, isn't there?

Not quite.

If the only evidence being offered is fundamentally flawed, or prohibited from being accepted as evidence, then the charge is dismissible without any question of whether or not the defendant is guilty.

 

[Thermo]

its not fundamentally flawed, it would just mean the cps (and the taxpayer) would need to spend an inordinate amount of money to prove the case and remove the doubt that his questions may raise in court. hes just played the system.

 

[Softus]

its not fundamentally flawed

I'd need to do some research to find the relevant legislation, but I believed, and still believe, that the results from speed measuring equipment that hasn't been calibrated for use in a given scenario are not admissable as evidence.

This would make it either fundamentally flawed, or prohibited, or both.

 

[Stulz]

its not fundamentally flawed, it would just mean the cps (and the taxpayer) would need to spend an inordinate amount of money to prove the case and remove the doubt that his questions may raise in court. hes just played the system.

The problem with that interpretation Thermo is that if the CPS played the system like this to get a conviction, and it was discovered, there would be a massive public outcry as the conviction would be unsafe.

The law is there for all, and if the evidence from a camera cannot be relied upon to be accurate, then it wold not be justice to convict on this evidence. The obvious problem is that the Force in question should ensure that it's officers are fully trained to use the equipment and that any evidence so gathered would be accurate and thus ensure convictions, regardless of any challenge.

Do not blame the messenger because you do not like the message.

 

[Thermo]

the point is it may not be fundamentally flawed. Expert witnesses may well prove the accuracy beyond resonable doubt for the distances involved, but its the cost involved to do that thats not in the public intrest. Cps wouldnt be playing the system, they would just be making use of expert witnesses, to prove the matter.

Im not shooting the messanger at all, never said i was.

 

[ellal]

But the system is 'being played' by the police as they hope people will merely accept that their equipment is working correctly and operated properly - because most people can't be bothered challenging!..

As in every walk of life, I would assume that the proper calibrations and operating procedures don't always take place!..

I've had one speeding case involving a camera where I was told the photo wouldn't be handed over unless I pleaded 'not guilty'...now I actually thought it possible I could have been speeding, but being a slightly sceptical sort ( ), I then requested the photographic evidence as I would be contesting the case..

I never heard another thing - I have always wondered why!

 

[Thermo]

they probably dont all the time, however if they were prepared or considering bringing expert witnesses that implies that they were willing and able to prove the case, just that the cost was prohibitive. If not they would simply have offered no evidence.