Variable speed fine

drjohn67

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others) and people finally be proved correct. It's very hard if not virtually impossible to be able to dispute these fines without access to the original source records as otherwise it's your word against the system.

They could have simply checked the fines issued in the 2-3 minutes before mine. They didn't bother to respond.

It is further complicated because if they couldn't ensure that the camera activated at the correct time, how can we trust that the time of the sign changing and the time on the camera were correctly synchronised? 

There needs to be an effective system to raise concerns.

Okell

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

drjohn67

Okell said:

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

I can afford the £95 that I spent on the motorway safety course and the time wasted. When I get my refund, I will give it to the Salvation Army.

There has been a cancellation of speed awareness courses and refunds given without explanation. Someone has provided irrefutable evidence, so they had to own up that the system is flawed.

I recall the glitch that 'disappeared' money from Post Office balances.

There will be a similar incompatibility issue with this. If the system time on the signs is in advance of the system time on the camera, then it will activate immediately rather than waiting the 10 seconds. I highlighted that the time for the sign change was 3 minutes too early, leading to the camera being active immediately. Nobody believed me. Luckily for me, there was a comparatively very minor adverse consequence

Car_54

Okell said:

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

There are apparently about 2,300 errors, out of "over 6 million" cases. That's about 0.4%.

There are no infallible systems, but this one seems to be 99.6% accurate, which is getting close.

drjohn67

Car_54 said:

Okell said:

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

There are apparently about 2,300 errors, out of "over 6 million" cases. That's about 0.4%.

There are no infallible systems, but this one seems to be 99.6% accurate, which is getting close.

Do you trust that they can be relied on to fully recognise those affected and to provide accurate numbers?
It is not a conspiracy, just incompetence.

I don't believe that they are competent enough to have identified all of those affected, and this is just a provisional number that they have had to own up to. 

victor2

Car_54 said:

Okell said:

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

There are apparently about 2,300 errors, out of "over 6 million" cases. That's about 0.4%.

There are no infallible systems, but this one seems to be 99.6% accurate, which is getting close.

That's 0.04%. So 99.96% accuracy, but not certainty! 

Car_54

victor2 said:

Car_54 said:

Okell said:

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

There are apparently about 2,300 errors, out of "over 6 million" cases. That's about 0.4%.

There are no infallible systems, but this one seems to be 99.6% accurate, which is getting close.

That's 0.04%. So 99.96% accuracy, but not certainty! 

Oops!

I did two years of maths at university. They must have covered percentages in the third year.

forgotmyname

Within the smart motorways is every speed camera on or very near the gantry with the variable speed limit signs?

A couple of years back I was thinking a ticket was on the way after a journey on the M6 (N),  speed limit changed just
as I passed under the gantry but there was enough space for me to slow quickly.

Thought all good on that one, but further up the speed limit changed to the national limit and I accelerated to 70mph
and just as I passed a truck in the left lane I spotted a roadwork sign that said 50mph.

Even though there were no cones or any roadworks going on at that point, I wrongly assumed the national limit
change was also the end of the roadworks the same as the signs when you exit via a sliproad and the they show
the national limit now applies.

Thinking if a camera is before the next speed change you could end up in stop start traffic for several minutes
between the speed change and the camera. So you pass under the gantry the speed drops to 50mph and
you sit for x minutes not moving and then think it's still 70mph but the next camera is already set to 50mph
because x minutes have elapsed?   Possible or not?

TooManyPoints

“It is amazing the amount of trust that people have in the organisations of the state despite numerous examples of incompetence.”

 That may be so. 

But my advice was nothing to do with trusting the authorities. It was based on what I know to be the legal position. 

I explained your options and left it to you.  However, if you had taken your case to court before this issue was identified, and pleaded not guilty, there is no doubt in my mind that you would have been convicted. I believe taking the course was the right decision. 

Unless here was evidence to show that you were one of those effected, I would say the same now because although this fault in the system will aid a small number of drivers it will not be a “get-out-of-jail-free” card for everyone. It is insufficient to show that  a device might be subject to error (because that could be said about anything). It must be shown that the particular device on that particular occasion was subject to error. That must be shown – by the defendant – “on the balance of probabilities” (i.e. more likely than not). If this is successful the court cannot rely on the assumption that the device was working correctly and so cannot be sure the offence was committed. 

The danger here is that drivers accused of speeding will cite this problem as a defence when in fact their transgression was not influenced by it. That would be unwise – and could be expensive.

jimjames

Car_54 said:

Okell said:

jimjames said:

drjohn67 said:

The Police now admit that there is an "anomaly between how the signs interact with the cameras".

Just like I experienced.    

As soon as I saw that article this morning I thought of this thread (and possibly others)...

I can recall several threads on here and on FTLA where posters have been assured by many (including me probably) that they must be mistaken in their recollection and that the "system" can't be wrong.

So much for that "certainty"...

There are apparently about 2,300 errors, out of "over 6 million" cases. That's about 0.4%.

There are no infallible systems, but this one seems to be 99.6% accurate, which is getting close.

Yes despite being 99.6% accurate the police are not making any prosecutions until they are satisfied it's working correctly. That doesn't sound like confidence