BBC News - Speed Cameras and Motorbikes

[cbr11xx]

A motorcyclist from North Worcestershire is trying to prove that speed cameras are not accurate for motorbikes.
Miles Pilling reports.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_wm_fs.stm?&news=1&bbwm=1&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4582402

Home Office document states no speed detecting equipment has been reliably tested on motorcycles - Test Case going to court....

 

[Fat Bert]

Pissed myself laughing!!!!

It's a BM rider - with a fooking beard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?10 says he's in the IAM!!!

ROFLMAO

Best laugh I've had in weeks!!

 

[solorider]

one problem with hi argument is the 2 pictures taken,that can prove or disprove his guilt and that cannot be falsified,his speed can be accuratly worked out

 

[Cyclops]

It's a BM rider - with a fooking beard!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

?10 says he's in the IAM!!!

ROFLMAO

Best laugh I've had in weeks!!

Well no chance of you getting caught speeding is there,



Your Fudgy mobile anit seen the out side of your garage for the past 6 or 7 weeks man8um

 

[Fat Bert]

Correct Ian

and haven't fallen off it either!!

Will stay in the garage until the dryer/warmer weather returns as I see little point in getting on the bike if you can't "give it some berries" and in this weather that just aint safe

Anyway I haven't got a pressure washer!

Hows the beard coming along?

 

[Jaws]

one problem with hi argument is the 2 pictures taken,that can prove or disprove his guilt and that cannot be falsified,his speed can be accuratly worked out

Actually this is wrong as the whole system depends on the accuracy of the timing device used to take the two pictures..

There seems to be some evidence that the device used in the common GATSO may, in certain circumstances, not be terribly accurate ..

This is at the moment just a whisper doing the rounds but we all know that a whisper has to be started from a rumour which MAY have some footing in a realm that is not based in fantasy..

Thing is, if this IS shown to be true then the govt is in very very VERY deep shite...

Anyone who has been nicked by a GATSO will have grounds to ask for leave to appeal.. and it would only take a couple of cases to bring the whole house of cards down.

Just a stab in the dark and purely a personal guess .. but if I was in a position of power I think I would make sure that any proof that might exist got buried quick and deep !

 

[Duck n Dive]

JAWS... you might well be right. Problem is the folks that take these decisions deal in statistics, targets and performance indicators. To them an error rate of 0.25% might well be acceptable... to the poor bugger that gets fined/points it's not.

Thinking about what you said I started wondering what the difference might be between their performance hot/cold. I guess the "bog standard" gatso uses a mechanical device for actually taking the photo..... so can it get slowed down when it's very cold?? If the shutter does cycle at a slower rate you'll have covered a greater distance on the ground and so will appear to be faster??

Looking at the video though he's not saying the measurements show he wasn't speeding.... just that the camera hasn't been tested on 'bikes. I hope he succeeds but I won't hold my breath. If they're sure they can win it'll get to court... if not there'll be a "review of the evidence" and the case will get dropped to avoid a precedent being set. If it's dropped then the case is no good to anyone else.

 

[R2B2]

I guess the "bog standard" gatso uses a mechanical device for actually taking the photo..... so can it get slowed down when it's very cold?? If the shutter does cycle at a slower rate you'll have covered a greater distance on the ground and so will appear to be faster??

From what I've learned on the Pepipoo forum recently, that wouldn't make any difference anyway Gerry......... it's the Dopler Radar that calculates and evidences your speed in a Gatso, from the point of law, not the pictures.

However, the pictures, IF you can get them, can be used as a defence aid, yes.

 

[Duck n Dive]

From what I've learned on the Pepipoo forum recently, that wouldn't make any difference anyway Gerry......... it's the Dopler Radar that calculates and evidences your speed in a Gatso, from the point of law, not the pictures.

However, the pictures, IF you can get them, can be used as a defence aid, yes.

I thought the idea was that yes the radar measures/triggers but for a prosecution to succeed legally there has to be two pieces of evidence?

The radar triggering provides the primary evidence with the secondary being the picture taken. If you challenge the prosecution the only evidence that can be produced in court to "prove" you were speeding is the photos showing the distance travelled in a know time frame???

If it's just accepted that the fact the radar triggered means you were speeding then you've no chance of ever defending.

Surely if you go to court saying I wasn't speeding and they can't show two piccies with the distance measured between lines to prove the speed then there's no actual evidence???...... what does the fact that the thing went off prove??......... Maybe that's what this chap is out to try and show??

If it's only the radar what is the evidence that's produced??

I thought that's why a police officer first "forms the opinion that you're speeding" and then "confirms that opinion with a measurement device" - thus providing two forms of evidence........ ACPO guidelines (I know not legally binding) say that an officer should not as a matter of course simply check every vehicle but only those believed to be speeding.... they also say that any reading should be discounted if believed to be compromised in any way...i.e. slippage etc.

 

[R2B2]

I hear what you're saying Gerry, and I thought exactly the same way! Trouble is, your dealing with an automated device and not an operator.

A few months ago I joined the Pepipoo Forum for support and advice because I received an NIP after passing a Gatso for an alledged 36 in a 30. I joined Pepipoo because the Gatso was clearly seen to only flash once (tree canopy, low light conditions, witness following behind).... I was CONVINCED I had a case because I was only photographed once, and these are people to get you off if there is anything wrong.

However, I was wrong it seems! The primary evidence comes from the Dopler Radar which calculates and evidences your speed. The picture(s) is/are secondary evidence and are only referred to to evidence your number plate. The guys on Pepipoo have picked my case apart looking for an error in procedure which I could use to negate my case, but there is nothing it seems. They have checked everything, dates correct postcode, first class stamp etc, etc Unless they have it all wrong of course.......

It surprised me I can assure you. As I said in the other post, the photo's can be used in defence IF you can obtain them. Many forces make it very difficult and will only release them for evidence purposes if you FIRST opt to take the case to court......... and you need to be very sure you were not speeding to do that because the penalty in court is much harsher. But of course, you've not seen the photo's yet! Loose/loose. Great innit?!

 

[Pugwash]

When they had roadworks on my route to work a couple of years ago, the speed limit was dropped to 20mph. I think I was flashed by a head-on camera about 4 times in 3 months whilst doing about 10mph in traffic through it!

There IS a serious problem at slow speed on bikes. If you reckon they could convict on that alone I'm just glad it wasn't rear-facing.

 

[R2B2]

From what I understand, this is what's happening: The Dopler Radar calculates, records, and evidences your speed. And triggers the camera, once or twice. Your nicked, basically. The photo is referred to for identifying your number plate, and out goes the NIP.

If you are sure you wern't speeding you can sometimes get to see the photo's to use as evidence, but you have to opt to go to court and plead not guilty in order to obtain them. If the photo's prove you are not speeding, great! - you win your case. If not, bigger penalty for taking it to court!

The only time the photo's get used as evidence is by you! The SCP/Police simply do not have the time or the resources to check each pair of pictures and manually measure/calculate your speed. If they did, they wouldn't send out NIP's that are very obviously wrong, like the Carlyon case example, and others of course.

This is the whole argument. The NIP's go out on the Radar evidence and sometimes there is no doubt that that is wrong, but they still go out 'cos the pictures haven't been checked! But, how do you know which ones are wrong? As mentioned above, there's only one way to get the pictures. (apparently, there are a small number of SCP's/forces which will release photo's beforehand, but most will not).

As i've said, this is what I've been told on the Pepipoo forum by their admin. I didn't know any better before, so I just hope they are right.