Illegal speed traps ?
Discussion
When is a speed trap illegally placed?
We all need to know this for future reference.
I suggest the following to be of dubious nature, but can anyone shed light on the truth?
Hypothocation area
a) unmarked van: illegal
b) copper without fleuro jacket: illegal
c) marked van/fleuro jacket used without warning signs
d) any trap not within 1 mile of signs
Non-hypo, plus general illegalities;-
e) laser used in rain/fog
f) radar used when more than 1 vehicle present
g) radar used within "certain" radius of airport
h) radar OR laser used at more than 15 degrees from parrallel with road
i) SPECS system used without warning signs posted
Equally nasty;-
j) being "goaded" into a race by unmarked car
k) any speed trap set where there are side roads
l) any speed trap set on a curved road
m) radar trap set near traffic lights, or in town where there is a lot of road furniture
Unsound convictions;-
n) enhanced photographs of plates
o) video footage without approved time stamp
p) Forced ID via post (article 6)
q) any combination of the above.
Ok, I think this is my list of dodgy "nicks" - can anyone enlighten me. I am sure that not every speed trap is legal, and that if we were to fight more often, we'd get off more often as well.
Carl
We all need to know this for future reference.
I suggest the following to be of dubious nature, but can anyone shed light on the truth?
Hypothocation area
a) unmarked van: illegal
b) copper without fleuro jacket: illegal
c) marked van/fleuro jacket used without warning signs
d) any trap not within 1 mile of signs
Non-hypo, plus general illegalities;-
e) laser used in rain/fog
f) radar used when more than 1 vehicle present
g) radar used within "certain" radius of airport
h) radar OR laser used at more than 15 degrees from parrallel with road
i) SPECS system used without warning signs posted
Equally nasty;-
j) being "goaded" into a race by unmarked car
k) any speed trap set where there are side roads
l) any speed trap set on a curved road
m) radar trap set near traffic lights, or in town where there is a lot of road furniture
Unsound convictions;-
n) enhanced photographs of plates
o) video footage without approved time stamp
p) Forced ID via post (article 6)
q) any combination of the above.
Ok, I think this is my list of dodgy "nicks" - can anyone enlighten me. I am sure that not every speed trap is legal, and that if we were to fight more often, we'd get off more often as well.
Carl
I'd be interested in the position re enhanced photos. I got a series of them with my summons (Northampton), of which only one had anything like a legible number. The one preceding and the one after were totally illegible. It was pretty clear the one they used as evidence had been digitally enhanced, and I wondered at the time if this was legal.
'Fraid I rolled over and took it up the arse though.
'Fraid I rolled over and took it up the arse though.
I am afraid you misunderstand the meaning of legal and illegal.
None of the methods described are illegal. They are all allowed in law to calculate speed and to offer evidence to a court.
What the crux of this is. Is the particular method used, complying with the Home office and ACPO guidelines for the use of that particular method, or indeed the manufacturers advice for the particular device used.
To be caught by one of these methods does not make the method illegal just because the officer was not complying with an instruction from the home office or ACPO.
The officer concerned may well be criticised for the actions he took to gain the evidence but it would not make the evidence inadmissable.
That would actually take a change in the relevant statutes governing speeding offences. There is no law in the statute books that says evidence of speeding must be obtained in the following manner which is .....
All that is covered is the actual offence of exceeding the limit, whether a restricted limit, temporary order, NSL or indeed the vehicle type or class.
Many of the restrictions placed by ACPO and the Home office are in relation to health and safety issues for the people that operate the devices and those that are stopped or travelling through the check area.
I understand that part of the Home office guidelines are to lessen the alienation of the Police and courts to drivers generally but their main cause for concern is a civil claim from someone who may have been injured carrying out one of the checks , or a member of the public that was injured or their property damaged as a result of a public authority acting even lawfully.
Under the HRA (Human Rights Act), All public Authorities have a duty of care towards those people that they have contact with. If they fail to excercise that duty of care and are negligent then they can be brought to the courts, now in this country rather than Strasborg and sued for that breach of care or negligence.
Dont be fooled into thinking that the guidelines are anything more than a cover your arse type of policy to stop the Police and home office being screwed to the floor if they mess up.
You only have to think about how the Govt continue to crack down on speed but on the other hand say that they do not want to antagonise the law abiding (except in their cars) Public. If you look at it there is more than a touch of hypocrisy going on!
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 19th August 16:54
None of the methods described are illegal. They are all allowed in law to calculate speed and to offer evidence to a court.
What the crux of this is. Is the particular method used, complying with the Home office and ACPO guidelines for the use of that particular method, or indeed the manufacturers advice for the particular device used.
To be caught by one of these methods does not make the method illegal just because the officer was not complying with an instruction from the home office or ACPO.
The officer concerned may well be criticised for the actions he took to gain the evidence but it would not make the evidence inadmissable.
That would actually take a change in the relevant statutes governing speeding offences. There is no law in the statute books that says evidence of speeding must be obtained in the following manner which is .....
All that is covered is the actual offence of exceeding the limit, whether a restricted limit, temporary order, NSL or indeed the vehicle type or class.
Many of the restrictions placed by ACPO and the Home office are in relation to health and safety issues for the people that operate the devices and those that are stopped or travelling through the check area.
I understand that part of the Home office guidelines are to lessen the alienation of the Police and courts to drivers generally but their main cause for concern is a civil claim from someone who may have been injured carrying out one of the checks , or a member of the public that was injured or their property damaged as a result of a public authority acting even lawfully.
Under the HRA (Human Rights Act), All public Authorities have a duty of care towards those people that they have contact with. If they fail to excercise that duty of care and are negligent then they can be brought to the courts, now in this country rather than Strasborg and sued for that breach of care or negligence.
Dont be fooled into thinking that the guidelines are anything more than a cover your arse type of policy to stop the Police and home office being screwed to the floor if they mess up.
You only have to think about how the Govt continue to crack down on speed but on the other hand say that they do not want to antagonise the law abiding (except in their cars) Public. If you look at it there is more than a touch of hypocrisy going on!
>> Edited by madcop on Monday 19th August 16:54
Agree pretty much with madcop. Some types of evidence may be deemed inadmissable, from the cases you outline do not prevent the police from collecting and presenting that evidence in court. Possible exception in relation to goaded, or entrapment, but short of a big sign on a marked panda flashing "Race me" and its a fair cop.
Hertsbiker,
I know what you mean by "illegality" or, shall we say, the "inappropriate deployment and/or operation of a speed measuring device". As you imply, "illegality" can be split into two sections, technical (Type Approval compliance) and political (hypothecation condition compliance). This is my interpretation of matters with respect to speed cameras.
Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) is fully enforceable and recognised in law whereas the hypothecation and (surprisingly) ACPO guidelines are not. The Dwight Yorke case is perhaps the most recent publicised speeding trial involving HOTA.
Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act (which amends Section 20 of the 1988 RTA) is VERY clear on Type Approval:
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23
"(4) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless-
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied."
Now here's a good one. Most (if not all) radar based fixed installations are Serco Systems Type 1 units (manufactured by Gatsometer BV). A condition of their Type Approval is that they must be used singly to avoid interference from other radar sources. But what do we find on the M25? 3 to 4 cameras side by side per gantry! And how about this pair of revenue generators: www.speedcam.co.uk/g3.jpg If you apply paragraph 4(b) above it looks like someone could be having a laugh.
This particular failing has been used successfully as a defence in the Magistrate's court. Goto www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Gadgets/Gadgets_Home.htm , scroll down to "A Loophole in the UK Law about GATSOs" and read the account of Stefan Schulz. If a case like Mr Schulz's was to succeed in a Crown Court, specifically on a Type Approval compliance failure, then it could throw the speed camera system into utter chaos.
As for photographic evidence - the only evidence admissible is actually that generated by the camera i.e. the original negatives. Refer to the above links again.
For speed cameras placed on bends have a read of the story of "Michael" at www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm
What is needed is a copy of the document that details ALL the Type Approval conditions that speed cameras must comply with. This would help greatly with the "weeding out" of these "illegal" cameras and the compensating of their victims.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Monday 19th August 21:41
I know what you mean by "illegality" or, shall we say, the "inappropriate deployment and/or operation of a speed measuring device". As you imply, "illegality" can be split into two sections, technical (Type Approval compliance) and political (hypothecation condition compliance). This is my interpretation of matters with respect to speed cameras.
Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) is fully enforceable and recognised in law whereas the hypothecation and (surprisingly) ACPO guidelines are not. The Dwight Yorke case is perhaps the most recent publicised speeding trial involving HOTA.
Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act (which amends Section 20 of the 1988 RTA) is VERY clear on Type Approval:
www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23
"(4) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless-
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied."
Now here's a good one. Most (if not all) radar based fixed installations are Serco Systems Type 1 units (manufactured by Gatsometer BV). A condition of their Type Approval is that they must be used singly to avoid interference from other radar sources. But what do we find on the M25? 3 to 4 cameras side by side per gantry! And how about this pair of revenue generators: www.speedcam.co.uk/g3.jpg If you apply paragraph 4(b) above it looks like someone could be having a laugh.
This particular failing has been used successfully as a defence in the Magistrate's court. Goto www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Gadgets/Gadgets_Home.htm , scroll down to "A Loophole in the UK Law about GATSOs" and read the account of Stefan Schulz. If a case like Mr Schulz's was to succeed in a Crown Court, specifically on a Type Approval compliance failure, then it could throw the speed camera system into utter chaos.
As for photographic evidence - the only evidence admissible is actually that generated by the camera i.e. the original negatives. Refer to the above links again.
For speed cameras placed on bends have a read of the story of "Michael" at www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm
What is needed is a copy of the document that details ALL the Type Approval conditions that speed cameras must comply with. This would help greatly with the "weeding out" of these "illegal" cameras and the compensating of their victims.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Monday 19th August 21:41
Thanks chaps, good detailed replies. Still seems a grey area, and I can't yet figure out who it is in favour of... interesting how single use of radar is recomended. I think we can see that this is having an effect somewhere - otherwise the rising popularity of laser wouldn't be happening.
C
C
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff