Laser speed camera - distance could be wrong

Aylesbury_Duck

98mph? At that recorded speed, most speedometers would be registering well over 100mph. That’s not a transgression that goes on all the time. I can see how someone might end up at 80mph through a lapse in attention but to get to 98mph is wilful and deliberate speeding.

No sympathy. Hope your friend gets a suitably serious penalty.

Car_54

a.turner wrote: »

To answer your question you'd need an expert witness rather than relying on google maps. No doubt that expert will cost more than any fine your friend is facing.

And the CPS would also call an expert witness. Should your friend’s defence fail, he’d be liable for the CPS costs as well as his own. Well into four figures.

Nearly_Old

Yesmilady wrote: »

Hello

Someone I know was caught speeding using a LTI 20.20 Ultralyte laser speed camera some time ago. The officer was on a motorway bridge, and snapped the victim coming towards him on the motorway, at a specified distance of 521m (presuming the second number down in the top right corner of the evidence photo is the distance). It was under 100mph but too high for a fixed pen.
:beer:

The location is fairly typical as the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte has an operational range of 610m, so 521m is fine, and at that range at that location the driver cannot see the "trap". The speed is recorded when the camera sounds the signal and the operator presses the trigger the photograph is taken at a shorter distance to get a clear picture of the number plate. So sorry but banged to rights.

Yesmilady

How's he going to accurately measure the motorway?

Hmm. Good point. FOI request perhaps? For the line markings, they're meant to be a standard length (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/773421/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-05.pdf). Would there be any documentation able to prove this was kept to? Or maybe a blueprint-type thing with the road's measurements and angles?

And what standard of proof is required to cast reasonable doubt on the equipment/measurements taken? Presumably we can't just say "this seems a bit far" and leave it at that, but do we have to prove definitively that the angles make the quoted distance impossible?

98mph? At that recorded speed, most speedometers would be registering well over 100mph. That’s not a transgression that goes on all the time. I can see how someone might end up at 80mph through a lapse in attention but to get to 98mph is wilful and deliberate speeding.

No sympathy. Hope your friend gets a suitably serious penalty.

I don't necessarily disagree with you in some part, but I do think the premises of your argument are flawed.

It is a transgression which goes on all the time, although it may only be by the faster 10% of motorists on a clear road in good conditions.

I wasn't saying everyone does it - like everyone does 80 in a 70. But 10% of drivers on some days is still a lot of people. Who gets caught is arbitrary.

The national speed limit is also arguably unnecessarily low now. Sure, if 70 is the right speed then 98 seems high. But if it were 80, as it very happily could be, then 98 is still over but not by such a big chunk.

But like I said, it's not me trying to argue. I said I'd try and gather some info and frankly now I'm just interested. Law is interesting.

Anyway, if the distance is wrong as we're trying to prove, then perhaps the speed was too.

Yesmilady

The location is fairly typical as the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte has an operational range of 610m, so 521m is fine, and at that range at that location the driver cannot see the "trap". The speed is recorded when the camera sounds the signal and the operator presses the trigger the photograph is taken at a shorter distance to get a clear picture of the number plate. So sorry but banged to rights.

Ah, that all sounds fair enough.

What, so the camera just sits there watching the traffic, then takes a measurement and beeps when someone speeds past it, then the operator has to manually photograph the measured car afterwards?

Every day's a school day.

Nearly_Old

Yesmilady wrote: »

Anyway, if the distance is wrong as we're trying to prove, then perhaps the speed was too.

More interesting is that the date appears to be very wrong - like about 7 years!!!!
Very well known local location so a quick check on street view and the OP's image was taken in May 2012. A6055 crossing the A1(M) near Boroughbridge in North Yorkshire.

a.turner

Yesmilady wrote: »

Ah, that all sounds fair enough.

What, so the camera just sits there watching the traffic, then takes a measurement and beeps when someone speeds past it, then the operator has to manually photograph the measured car afterwards?

Every day's a school day.

No, I've already said how it works, the operator forms the opinion you're speeding and operates the gun.

Yesmilady

More interesting is that the date appears to be very wrong - like about 7 years!!!!
Very well known local location so a quick check on street view and the OP's image was taken in May 2012. A6055 crossing the A1(M) near Boroughbridge in North Yorkshire.

I'm confused! The date of what?
The image I posted was just a screenshot of street view at the location.

Good spot though! That's the one.

Yesmilady

No, I've already said how it works, the operator forms the opinion you're speeding and operates the gun.

Ah yes, excuse me. You put the following:

It will be an instantaneous reading, pulling the trigger on the gun timestamps the video which is constantly running through out the time they are conducting the checks.

So is the photograph which we've seen as evidence just a still from the video, taken from a later frame than the one shot at the time of the laser operation?

Nearly_Old

Yesmilady wrote: »

I'm confused! The date of what?
The image I posted was just a screenshot of street view at the location.

Good spot though! That's the one.

North Yorkshire have always used cars on that stretch of the A1(M), at the POP (Police Observation Post) SB south of J49, SB and NB entry slip roads at J48, SB entry slip road at J47. All well known locally.

So where is the photograph of the actual offence? Without seeing that I think that the offence must have occured somewhere else.