Speed camera calibration

Car_54

forgotmyname said:

If the ticket said 46mph the actual speed would have been higher. They already deducted a set amount to avoid the cases where its
so close that the calibration comes into it.

Nonsense. If the ticket says 46, then the police must be able to produce evidence that it was 46.

There is a guideline , where no action is taken at speed below 110% of the limit plus 2 mph. That avoids "the  cases where its so close that the calibration comes into it.".

facade

Car_54 said:

forgotmyname said:

If the ticket said 46mph the actual speed would have been higher. They already deducted a set amount to avoid the cases where its
so close that the calibration comes into it.

Nonsense. If the ticket says 46, then the police must be able to produce evidence that it was 46.

There is a guideline , where no action is taken at speed below 110% of the limit plus 2 mph. That avoids "the  cases where its so close that the calibration comes into it.".

The charge laid before the Court will be exceeding the speed limit. They must provide evidence that the limit has been exceeded, which will be the camera result of 46MPH, ( and likely the TRO that creates the limit and the location.)

The 46MPH will be used to decide the severity of the sentence.

If they were charged with travelling at 46MPH, then the case would fall over if the accused could demonstrate that they were in fact only travelling at 45.5, and would "get away" with speeding, whereas they actually have to prove that they were travelling below the limit, because they are charged with exceeding it.

ElefantEd

[Deleted User] said:

Unfortunately, unless you have evidence that you were not speeding, like GPS logs or a dashcam that shows your speedometer, you are screwed.

The court won't care about missing certificates, they will assume the speed camera is infallible. The normal "beyond reasonable doubt" standard doesn't apply in practice.

No, the fact that they don't prosecute until the recorded speed is well over the actual speed limit is how they take into account that the speed camera isn't guaranteed perfect. If they were assuming the camera was infallible they would prosecute at 1mph over the limit. Not doing so until 46mph in a 40 mph limit is giving a very wide margin for error - speeds recorded at between 41 and 45 are given the benefit of reasonable doubt.

Okell

forgotmyname said:

If the ticket said 46mph the actual speed would have been higher. They already deducted a set amount to avoid the cases where its
so close that the calibration comes into it.

At least another 2mph if they put 46mph the actual speed would have been at least 48mph.

What?!?!     

ontheroad1970

[Deleted User] said:

Unfortunately, unless you have evidence that you were not speeding, like GPS logs or a dashcam that shows your speedometer, you are screwed.

The court won't care about missing certificates, they will assume the speed camera is infallible. The normal "beyond reasonable doubt" standard doesn't apply in practice.

Give up and ask for the course, and buy yourself a GPS dashcam.

Encouraging people to use their GPS as evidence would be a very expensive route to try and get a defence in court.  They are not accepted as reliable.

TooManyPoints

Encouraging people to use their GPS as evidence would be a very expensive route to try and get a defence in court.  They are not accepted as reliable.

Indeed not. 

All mechanical devices are presumed to be accurate unless otherwise shown (which is the basis on which most of the Post Office "Horizon" convictions were secured). This stems from a 1999 Act which repealed c69 of PACE, which said the prosecution had to prove the reliability of any mechanical device if they relied on evidence produced by it.

However, if you ask a court to consider your dashcam evidence, you would be asking them to find that evidence from a device approved by the Home Office and presumably operated in the correct manner was trumped by evidence from a device you bought for twenty quid on e-Bay. 

[Deleted User]

I've explained this before. You ideally want two measurements to rely on, but even if you only have one, it's been established that you must have the possibility of challenging the police evidence.

And as we all know, the Home Office is far from infallible.

You can win, but you need strong evidence and a good defence.

In other words, it's a scam and the only safe thing to do is about 10 MPH under the limit, to offset errors in the police equipment.

maxmycardagain

My dashcam saved me, the ticket gave time, date and speed, the dashcam showed i was not yet in the 30, thier camera was detecting into the 60 before the 30 even started and i was doing 36(in the 60) then 28 in the 30....

TooManyPoints

it's been established that you must have the possibility of challenging the police evidence.

I don't think anybody is arguing about that. That possibility is provided when the defendant goes to court. What is important is that the defendant understands where the "burden of proof" lies. The police do not have to prove that their device is reliable. The defendant has to cast doubt on its reliability. That doubt does not have to be beyond any doubt at all; it has to be beyond "reasonable doubt". A court may find that it is reasonable to doubt that an unapproved and uncalibrated satnav, operated by somebody who was driving at the time, was more reliable than a Home Office approved device operated correctly.

ElefantEd

And don't forget that you'd have to demonstrate that not only was the speed camera inaccurate, it was inaccurate by nearly 15% (46 in a 40), because the offence is exceeding the speed limit, not going at whatever speed the device says.