Laser speed camera - distance could be wrong

Aylesbury_Duck

Yesmilady wrote: »

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.

I agree, who gets caught is arbitrary and I'm sure the majority get away with it. That doesn't make it unfair though because those who speed do so knowing there's a chance of being caught.

The problem with raising the limit to say, 80, is that those who regularly do 80 already will I'm sure then regularly do 90. As well as the problem of reaction time being constant as velocity rises, there's the issue of kinetic energy which squares with velocity so that a modest increase in velocity disproportionately raises the energy of the moving vehicle, the stopping distance and if things go wrong, the energy dissipated in a crash. Is it really a good move to raise the limit when doing so only reduces journey times by a small amount but adds to the risk? In my opinion, it isn't.

Yes, the law is interesting and I'm enjoying the discussion.

Yesmilady

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.

The photo of the offence is on the letter my friend has, I can't remember what title but not a NIP. The road does look pretty different in the photo. But then I guess it would due to the different cameras used anyway.

Nearly_Old

The image posted by the OP is a Google Street View taken in May 2012 and so has no relevance whatsoever in respect of the alleged speeding offence.

To avoid any doubt this how the UltraLyte 1000 is used;

Measuring a Moving Vehicle
Refer to the instructions below to use the UltraLyte 1000 to measure the speed of a moving vehicle.
1. Ensure that the UltraLyte 1000 is powered ON and that the Speed Mode is active.
2. Use the sighting scope to aim the instrument at the target’s vehicle’s license plate area and press the TRIGGER.
3. Continue to press the TRIGGER and keep the instrument sighted on the target.
• A low-pitched growl means that the instrument is attempting to lock onto the target
• A low-pitched beep means that a measurement error occurred. An error code will be displayed.
• A high-pitched beep means that a speed was captured. The measured speed will be displayed on the LCD screen and will
be projected on the scope, just below the aiming dot.
While the instrument is attempting to lock onto the target , as long as the TRIGGER is kept pressed, it will retry the speed
measurement.
• Depending upon it’s configuration, the instrument will try to 10 times or more. Information is accumulated until it gets a
good measurement or generates an error code.
• Consequently, it is very important that the aiming point on the target remain constant for the entire measurement time. If
you move the instrument off the aiming point, it will generate an error code instead of capturing a speed reading.
After you release the TRIGGER the instrument will display the speed reading and the distance at which it was captured or an error code. When the speed reading is displayed, the display screen will look similar to Figure 17.


The only photograph of any significance is the one taken at the time of the alleged offence and the OP has not produced this.

a.turner

Yesmilady wrote: »

Ah yes, excuse me. You put the following:



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?

Who knows, we've not seen it.

AdrianC

So the image says 520m, and the driver guesstimates 2-300m.

At 100mph, the difference between 520m and 300m is less than three seconds. And that's assuming the guesstimated distance is right.

Nearly_Old

Yesmilady wrote: »

The photo of the offence is on the letter my friend has, I can't remember what title but not a NIP. The road does look pretty different in the photo. But then I guess it would due to the different cameras used anyway.

To avoid any further waste of time please post a copy the actual photograph received by your friend even though a) they have not received a NIP+S/172 so; b) the police do not know who was driving; but c) they have issued a photograph which is highly unusual because the NIP generally contains the PIN to allow the photograph to be viewed on the police website.

Yesmilady

I agree, who gets caught is arbitrary and I'm sure the majority get away with it. That doesn't make it unfair though because those who speed do so knowing there's a chance of being caught.

I agree that it's not unfair. But it's a heavy-handed way to lump out justice.

I would argue that if one motorist racks up two of these in a few years, or plenty over a lifetime, and an equivalently right-foot-heavy motorist goes a lifetime without getting caught, then the luck of the draw has been discriminatory.

I don't really know enough about the penalties, nor about the effect of losing a license/getting convicted on one's life. But I imagine it would not feel like an appropriate punishment for doing a speed which, although admittedly illegally fast, doesn't feel at all unsafe to do in most cars. Not saying it's not objectively unsafe if a crash occurred, but it would surprise me if speed alone was often a factor in losing control at 98.

I was once told all UK motorways are built to be safe up to 120 in dry conditions. I really don't know - is losing control at 100 or so a common thing (presuming a straightish stretch without complications)?

The problem with raising the limit to say, 80, is that those who regularly do 80 already will I'm sure then regularly do 90. As well as the problem of reaction time being constant as velocity rises, there's the issue of kinetic energy which squares with velocity so that a modest increase in velocity disproportionately raises the energy of the moving vehicle, the stopping distance and if things go wrong, the energy dissipated in a crash. Is it really a good move to raise the limit when doing so only reduces journey times by a small amount but adds to the risk? In my opinion, it isn't.

Yes, the law is interesting and I'm enjoying the discussion.

I'm not necessarily in favour of raising the speed limit, for the crash-related reasons you've stated. But when I'm out on the road, I "know" (ie feel like) 70 is piddling granny speed and anybody with eyes could safely do above it - utterly subjective though that might be. And I know I'm wasting my own time to sit there and get overtaken by buses.

I guess my own self-perceived odds of a crash below 80 are so low that I don't particularly consider the potential severity. And that could be down to bravado, idiocy or the safety of modern cars - take your pick.

I've typed out about 15 different answers here, and the truth is it just comes down to how you see one's relationship with the law. I guess if a certain law makes the world a better place then who's fussed about its objectivity. But at the same time, by making the law a bit of a white lie, you end up wasting good people's time and I think it corrupts the relationship between individual and state a bit. When I was a kid, that was one of several examples of laws which made me doubt the legitimacy/authority of government. But then I suppose it's bigger than theory when lives are at stake...

Yesmilady

To avoid any further waste of time please post a copy the actual photograph received by your friend even though a) they have not received a NIP+S/172 so; b) the police do not know who was driving; but c) they have issued a photograph which is highly unusual because the NIP generally contains the PIN to allow the photograph to be viewed on the police website.

I don't have it. Apologies for confusion, NIP was issued correctly previously. Think this latest letter might be a court summons or something, I wasn't really listening.

I have no stake in this, I just had an offhand idea and wanted to see how quickly it'd get shot down.

Thank you for your help so far and feel free to ignore this post if it's wasting your time.

The original image was for illustrative purposes. If the evidential photograph will be useful then I will ask for it tomorrow.

Mercdriver

Yesmilady wrote: »

Ah yes, excuse me. You put the following:



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?

Yes precisely that. You may get the actual evidential shot as part of the legal pack before court if you choose to contest it beyond the Single Justice Procedure. I advise you not to do so, as it will be expensive day in court. You or your friend will likely get 6 points and a fine based on your earnings through the SJP.

Do you think that burglars should get off because lots of other people burgle because they didn't actually hurt anyone?

It is still a criminal offence and minimising it will not help your case and certainly isn't part of any defence.

Scrapit

If you want to continue clutching at straws for your clearly guilty friend you could use the posts at the side of the road. They are evenly spaced and give a good this to distance as they are clearly marked..