Speed awareness course

[Deleted User]

Manxman_in_exile said:

[Deleted User] said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

[Deleted User] said:

ontheroad1970 said:

[Deleted User] said:

SpudGunPaul said:

grandadgolfer said:

rollingmoon said:

Pennylane said:

I would still have preferred a classroom based course.

Been there and, believe me, you've missed nothing. Well done for not getting three points.

When you do a classroom you realise what a racket it is......20 odd people paying £100 and they do 2 sittings a day 5 days a week.
Its like being back at school when you go in everyone heads for the tables at the back and always somebody asking to many questions and trying to be a smart  alec

Best way to beat their racket is by not committing criminal offences. 

Sadly no guarantee, those mobile speed traps are pretty unreliable. It's usually easier to just take the course than proving that in court.

You've made this allegation before.  Do you perchance have any evidence of this, because if people use your 'advice' some may challenge the offence in court to their great expense.  

https://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/23452613.speeding-ticket-error-said-driver-going-57mph-tybridge-street/

Fortunately the victim had proof they were not speeding, probably a dash cam with GPS speedometer.

The mobile ones don't have the secondary measurement, the two photos with white lines on the road. They also aren't fixed and the van moves when other vehicles go past it, gusts of wind hit it etc.

As the article notes, the police are well aware that radar based speed cameras are unreliable.

But that article is irrelevant regarding the point that was being put to you, isn't it?

You'd said that "those mobile speed traps are pretty unrelible" and ontheroad1970 challenged you if you had any evidence of that.

The article you link to is about a fixed radar speedtrap that (because of the nature of the radar measurement) requires a secondary speed check to confirm the indicated speed.  In the newspaper case that secondary check wasn't carried out because of human error.

In the case of mobile speed traps (which is what you were being challenged about) the measurement is, I understand, by laser, so the problems experienced in radar measurement are irrelevant - aren't they?  (And don't require a secondary check).

As I said, I don't have all the links to hand at the moment. There has been extensive testing of the laser ones to show that they are dodgy though. There was a great video demonstrating how they could fail, but I can't find it now.

The point I'm making is that you need to have your own evidence to demonstrate that theirs is at least questionable. Ideally two different instruments measuring your speed. GPS and OBD-II, or GPS and camera that can see your speedo. At a pinch you could also use dashcam footage, measuring time between two points, but it's more work because you have to show accurate measurements for those two points. The police are rarely held to such a high standard.

If all that you say is true, why isn't your advice reflected in any of the threads on pepipoo?

Even on the board dedicated to these sorts of questions there hasn't been a relevant post since 2017(!) and nothing more recently to suggest that current mobile speed traps are unreliable...

FightBack Forums -> Technical Discussion of Enforcement Devices (pepipoo.com)

Things haven't changed much I guess. They use old equipment as long as it still appears to be working. Bizarre question.

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

I must disagree. 

There is a general principle, supported by case law, that an approved device operated in the correct manner can be relied upon to be accurate. If the prosecution produces evidence to support that, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that it cannot be relied upon. It is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the device was accurate on each and every occasion nor is it their task to show that there are no circumstances in which it may be erroneous. 

Leaving aside Mr Pickup, who I believe was simply trying it on, aided and abetted, disgracefully in my opinion, by his counsel, all Mr Pickup had was his absolute belief that he had not exceeded the speed limit. His brief’s attempt to show that the device “could have” been triggered by another vehicle was never going to fly. He may have been right – but he had to show not merely that it could have produced an erroneous reading, but that it actually did. Showing that it “could have” malfunctioned does not cast sufficient doubt on the reliability of the device.

The general principle is that the case must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Since the police are unlikely to cooperate by e.g. allowing you to do your own tests on the device, the best option is to have your own contradictory evidence. If you can show that you have multiple, reliable, proven devices showing you were not speeding then there is doubt.

Of course it can be expensive if the prosecution tries to attack the reliability of your devices, and it can be difficult to recover your costs even if you do win.

There is plenty of case law around the use of GPS to prove speed. It's the best option because it doesn't require calibration and is well understood. It only needs to introduce doubt, remember.

TooManyPoints

If you can show that you have multiple, reliable, proven devices showing you were not speeding then there is doubt.

How many people will have a multitude of such devices?

There is plenty of case law around the use of GPS to prove speed.

The only case I can think of is that of Marrable. Are there any more that you know of?

[Deleted User]

TooManyPoints said:

If you can show that you have multiple, reliable, proven devices showing you were not speeding then there is doubt.

How many people will have a multitude of such devices?

There is plenty of case law around the use of GPS to prove speed.

The only case I can think of is that of Marrable. Are there any more that you know of?

Too few, sadly. That said, even one is sufficient if you make a good case. It just helps to have two.

Cracknell v Willis [1988] is also relevant, as it established that despite a device being type approved and having a valid calibration certificate, it can still be challenged with contradictory evidence. That was demonstrated in practice in DPP v Marrable [2020], but there are other cases, e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7033353.stm

That was all the way back in 2007, with different speed detector equipment, and a GPS device designed by the victim.

Note how the police tried to claim that if the operator of the camera hadn't retired they could have won, which is nonsense.