GATSO calibration - and the rules are?
Discussion
Because I'm considered innocent of any crime until proven guilty I was wondering how I could be proven guilty of exceeding the statutory speed limit using the evidence from a fixed enforcement camera. It seems to me that to do so could require that the following evidence be produced by the prosecution:
1. That the device is type approved by the Home Office. See www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppd/oppu/radar.htm and this www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppd/oppu/speed.htm Who would have known that the GATSO BV TYPE 24+AUS is only approved for the "enforcement of speed limits of 30 miles per hour or above". I wonder if anyone has been done in a 20mph limit by a GATSO? I wonder what would happen if you got done by a type 23 or a type 25? they probably don't exist, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the police to produce evidence that the device which snapped you was beyond doubt an approved device. There's probably a slim to non-existent chance of getting off a speeding charge due to this but you never know how many corners get cut in implementing new technology like this to save costs and meet deadlines.
2. That the operational guidelines described in the ACPO Enforcement Technology Guidance Manual have been adhered to. The problem here is that we don't generally have access to this document so it's hard to challenge in court, but it's now available online www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/acpo.htm
There some very interesting stuff in there, such as this:
"4.7 It is therefore an important requirement to check a site before starting measurements. The operator should always select a site with a clear view of the oncoming traffic which is free of any large objects such as:-
(a) bus shelters
(b) large road signs
(c) metal fences/crash barriers which are close to the radar."
this says to me that there is scope for a prosecution failing if there is a metal fence or a bus stop near the camera site. Surely we can find a few of these, but perhaps I'm being over optimistic.
Under the section Annual Calibration we have the following:
"8.1 Any repair or calibration shall be carried out by the manufacturer, his appointed agent, or a suitably qualified technician offering appropriate evidence of technical and professional competence. Such persons shall keep accurate records which shall be open to inspection by the Home Office
8.2 The speed meters shall be annually calibrated and a certificate should be issued to this effect and held by the police. A visible sticker showing the date of calibration should be fixed to the meter."
Right, so where's the annual calibration certificate and is there a visible sticker on the device (presumably inside the box). You could ask to see evidence that any technical staff who have serviced the equipment are competent - I doubt you'd get very far with this really, but another tack might be to ask if the home office carries out any checks on the contractor (i.e. Serco Technology).
There's more:
"14.3 Internal checks as per manufacturers instructions should be carried out at each site prior to and after operation. In addition to the checks recommended by the manufacturer, the display/test display button should be operated to ensure that the digital display on the device is in perfect working order.
14.4 The accuracy of the meter should be checked by driving a vehicle with a calibrated speedometer through the beam at a predetermined speed, at the commencement and completion of operations at each location (the speed being compatible with the site being checked)."
As part of the disclosure of evidence rules is there any reason why you can't request a copy of the manufacturers instruction manual? I'd love to get my hands on one of these (anyone?). Were the procedures followed? was the display test button operated? what is meant by prior to and after operation? (when camera kit loaded into the box/removed would be my guess). The device has to be in "perfect" working order.
What was the identification of the vehicle driven past the device and where is the proof of the results?
I've been flashed by a GATSO and I wish to make absolutely sure that no failure to follow the required procedures could have contributed to any margin of error being introduced in the recording of my speed. Could be an interesting court case, although I have to say that it's unlikely to get anywhere.
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 14:58
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 15:05
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 15:07
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 15:09
1. That the device is type approved by the Home Office. See www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppd/oppu/radar.htm and this www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ppd/oppu/speed.htm Who would have known that the GATSO BV TYPE 24+AUS is only approved for the "enforcement of speed limits of 30 miles per hour or above". I wonder if anyone has been done in a 20mph limit by a GATSO? I wonder what would happen if you got done by a type 23 or a type 25? they probably don't exist, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to ask the police to produce evidence that the device which snapped you was beyond doubt an approved device. There's probably a slim to non-existent chance of getting off a speeding charge due to this but you never know how many corners get cut in implementing new technology like this to save costs and meet deadlines.
2. That the operational guidelines described in the ACPO Enforcement Technology Guidance Manual have been adhered to. The problem here is that we don't generally have access to this document so it's hard to challenge in court, but it's now available online www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/acpo.htm
There some very interesting stuff in there, such as this:
"4.7 It is therefore an important requirement to check a site before starting measurements. The operator should always select a site with a clear view of the oncoming traffic which is free of any large objects such as:-
(a) bus shelters
(b) large road signs
(c) metal fences/crash barriers which are close to the radar."
this says to me that there is scope for a prosecution failing if there is a metal fence or a bus stop near the camera site. Surely we can find a few of these, but perhaps I'm being over optimistic.
Under the section Annual Calibration we have the following:
"8.1 Any repair or calibration shall be carried out by the manufacturer, his appointed agent, or a suitably qualified technician offering appropriate evidence of technical and professional competence. Such persons shall keep accurate records which shall be open to inspection by the Home Office
8.2 The speed meters shall be annually calibrated and a certificate should be issued to this effect and held by the police. A visible sticker showing the date of calibration should be fixed to the meter."
Right, so where's the annual calibration certificate and is there a visible sticker on the device (presumably inside the box). You could ask to see evidence that any technical staff who have serviced the equipment are competent - I doubt you'd get very far with this really, but another tack might be to ask if the home office carries out any checks on the contractor (i.e. Serco Technology).
There's more:
"14.3 Internal checks as per manufacturers instructions should be carried out at each site prior to and after operation. In addition to the checks recommended by the manufacturer, the display/test display button should be operated to ensure that the digital display on the device is in perfect working order.
14.4 The accuracy of the meter should be checked by driving a vehicle with a calibrated speedometer through the beam at a predetermined speed, at the commencement and completion of operations at each location (the speed being compatible with the site being checked)."
As part of the disclosure of evidence rules is there any reason why you can't request a copy of the manufacturers instruction manual? I'd love to get my hands on one of these (anyone?). Were the procedures followed? was the display test button operated? what is meant by prior to and after operation? (when camera kit loaded into the box/removed would be my guess). The device has to be in "perfect" working order.
What was the identification of the vehicle driven past the device and where is the proof of the results?
I've been flashed by a GATSO and I wish to make absolutely sure that no failure to follow the required procedures could have contributed to any margin of error being introduced in the recording of my speed. Could be an interesting court case, although I have to say that it's unlikely to get anywhere.
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 14:58
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 15:05
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 15:07
>>> Edited by Oversteer on Wednesday 16th October 15:09
Innocent until proven guilty is no longer valid. I am very sorry to say...
Not quite - you just have to know your stuff.
There is so much here it is difficult to know where to start but here goes...
If that was the case there would be no need to calibrate the device. The requirement to calibrate is to prove that the time between the photos is half a second. It's time aspect of the time/distance that would be called into dispute.
Hear hear. Go to www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm , scroll down to the section entitled "A textbook case, and how it was overturned" and read the story of "Michael". Here is someone who challenged a speeding allegation on that very basis and had the against him case dropped. It also interesting to note how the location of the Gatso in question failed to comply with a number of Type Approval conditions.
ACPO guidelines are not recognised in law but Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) conditions (from which many of the guidelines are derived) are recognised and Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act is very clear on this. From 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."
Thanks to the 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, it is a rule of law that any party (including the police) who wishes to rely on evidence at a Court hearing must disclose the content of that evidence, whether written statement, photographic evidence or other, to their opponent. Although only applicable in England and Wales, defendants in Scotland could argue that, under the ECHR, why should they be treated any differently from the rest of the UK.
Section 23 also points out that only the evidence generated by the camera i.e. the original negatives, is admissible as evidence. Manipulated video prints are not. So you are perfectly within your rights to ask for all evidence supporting the allegation that is relevant to Section 23. Are they really going to commit time and resource to dig that lot out, assuming they have it...?
Very often requests for evidence supporting a speeding allegation are denied. The reply from the Police will probably state words to the effect that photographic evidence can only be seen when a decision is made to prosecute and summons the driver to appear before a Court. Some specialists in Criminal Law now argue that this is tantamount to demanding money with menaces and is itself illegal. See www.pepipoo.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?p=124#124 for full details.
On the subject of Type Approval, there are probably hundreds of Gatsos whose positioning fails to meet the necessary HOTA conditions and thus generate evidence that could be argued as inadmissible under Section 23. One condition is that they must be located singly to avoid interference from other radar sources. However on the M25 we have Serco Type 1 Systems (Gatsos) located 3 to 4 per gantry. Goto www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Gadgets/Gadgets_Home.htm and scroll down to "A Loophole in the UK Law about GATSOs". Imagine the chaos if this case had been heard in a Crown Court...
The key to successful defence with a speeding charge is knowing the facts. As pointed out previously if you roll over or don't challenge a speeding allegation properly then the Magistrates and CPS will squash you into the dirt.
Hope this helps.
Good luck.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Wednesday 16th October 22:17
Not quite - you just have to know your stuff.
There is so much here it is difficult to know where to start but here goes...
If that was the case there would be no need to calibrate the device. The requirement to calibrate is to prove that the time between the photos is half a second. It's time aspect of the time/distance that would be called into dispute.
Hear hear. Go to www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Rules_useage/The_Law.htm , scroll down to the section entitled "A textbook case, and how it was overturned" and read the story of "Michael". Here is someone who challenged a speeding allegation on that very basis and had the against him case dropped. It also interesting to note how the location of the Gatso in question failed to comply with a number of Type Approval conditions.
ACPO guidelines are not recognised in law but Home Office Type Approval (HOTA) conditions (from which many of the guidelines are derived) are recognised and Section 23 of the 1991 Road Traffic Act is very clear on this. From 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."
Thanks to the 1996 Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act, it is a rule of law that any party (including the police) who wishes to rely on evidence at a Court hearing must disclose the content of that evidence, whether written statement, photographic evidence or other, to their opponent. Although only applicable in England and Wales, defendants in Scotland could argue that, under the ECHR, why should they be treated any differently from the rest of the UK.
Section 23 also points out that only the evidence generated by the camera i.e. the original negatives, is admissible as evidence. Manipulated video prints are not. So you are perfectly within your rights to ask for all evidence supporting the allegation that is relevant to Section 23. Are they really going to commit time and resource to dig that lot out, assuming they have it...?
Very often requests for evidence supporting a speeding allegation are denied. The reply from the Police will probably state words to the effect that photographic evidence can only be seen when a decision is made to prosecute and summons the driver to appear before a Court. Some specialists in Criminal Law now argue that this is tantamount to demanding money with menaces and is itself illegal. See www.pepipoo.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?p=124#124 for full details.
On the subject of Type Approval, there are probably hundreds of Gatsos whose positioning fails to meet the necessary HOTA conditions and thus generate evidence that could be argued as inadmissible under Section 23. One condition is that they must be located singly to avoid interference from other radar sources. However on the M25 we have Serco Type 1 Systems (Gatsos) located 3 to 4 per gantry. Goto www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/Gadgets/Gadgets_Home.htm and scroll down to "A Loophole in the UK Law about GATSOs". Imagine the chaos if this case had been heard in a Crown Court...
The key to successful defence with a speeding charge is knowing the facts. As pointed out previously if you roll over or don't challenge a speeding allegation properly then the Magistrates and CPS will squash you into the dirt.
Hope this helps.
Good luck.
>> Edited by Deadly Dog on Wednesday 16th October 22:17
Thanks Deadly Dog, that's very informative and I'll do some reading up. In fact I've still to receive the NIP (3 weeks after the event) as the garage had registered the vehicle in someone else's name (I got a cancelled order, last minute thing etc...). I know this doesn't help me and I expect to still receive it, but who knows how easily they give up!
On the face of it you might argue that measuring time isn't all that difficult, after all digital watches have been around for a long time. But the point is that a number of discrete components have been integrated to build a system, and as those with experience of doing this will know the sum of the parts doesn't always equal the whole.
They must have found that siting cameras close to metal fences causes some interference with the accuracy of the measurements or they would presumably not be telling people to not put the cameras near them.
You can't really argue with the calibration lines on the road (as long as they are the prescribed distance apart) so if you take distance out of the equation there's only time left. Quite how the proximity of a metal fence affects the oscillation of a quartz crystal ten feet away I don't know, but then I didn't make the rules. If they find it too expensive to adhere to their own rules they should change them, not ignore them and rely on the fact that 99.999% of people blindly pay up like sheep.
They must have found that siting cameras close to metal fences causes some interference with the accuracy of the measurements or they would presumably not be telling people to not put the cameras near them.
You can't really argue with the calibration lines on the road (as long as they are the prescribed distance apart) so if you take distance out of the equation there's only time left. Quite how the proximity of a metal fence affects the oscillation of a quartz crystal ten feet away I don't know, but then I didn't make the rules. If they find it too expensive to adhere to their own rules they should change them, not ignore them and rely on the fact that 99.999% of people blindly pay up like sheep.
[quoteQuite how the proximity of a metal fence affects the oscillation of a quartz crystal ten feet away I don't know, but then I didn't make the rules.
Perhaps they're afraid people will use the metal fence to stand on when the spray paint over the lense....ACPO work in mysterious ways
Rob
Perhaps they're afraid people will use the metal fence to stand on when the spray paint over the lense....ACPO work in mysterious ways
Rob
I was reading on a motorcycle club website the alarming news that mindless vandals have been attacking GATSO fixed cameras using TETRASYL car body undersealant. Apparently this bonds to the glass and is impossible to remove. I hope the authorities are successful in their efforts to apprehend the perpetrators.
TETRASYL is available from Halfords.
Now this is so much better !!!! Less of the "Shock new speed limits paranoia" and more of the practicalities of trying to wind the authorities round in circles so they give up as a bad job!
Let me tell you a story.
Once upon a time, on an 18th October some years ago, I was followed by plod into a car park. I know immediately what was up - I'd forgotten to tax the car and I'd been spotted.
Young WPC gets out of the car (you know the sort- long white socks, sucking a lolly) and I own up, explain that I'd forgotten, and that I'd be up the Post Office first thing in the morning. She told me that should be all right as long as I did, and the following day I was street legal again - no "skipped month," all in order.
Fortnight or so later, a letter from DVLA. "You were reported driving your untaxed car etc etc and we're going to prosecute - unless you pay this £10 fixed penalty .....
Working on the basis that I'd get at least £10 worth of admin costs out of 'em before they got a farthing out of me, letters were fired off to the Chief Constable, the Minister of Transport (George Young at the time), my local MP and, of course, to the DVLA to tell 'em what I was doing.
After three weeks or so I had two replies, one of which, from the MP, was reasonably supportive (George Young apparently couldn't be arsed to put pen to paper). Another letter went to DVLA, enclosing a copy of the MP letter, telling them that I was waiting to hear from the Minister before I paid their tenner.
A couple more weeks went by, and a letter arrived from DVLA, the subtext of which was: "OK, we'll let you off this time, but don't do it again !!!"
OK, I know it was only a tenner, but it was the principle of the thing. I suspect 99.9% of people in my position would have shrugged their shoulders and paid up. I suspect that 99.9% of people nicked for other motoring offences do the same thing.
If they stopped meekly accepting the rap, and tried to get the buggers on a technicality, then I also suspect that a lot of cases would be withdrawn.
Keep up the good work !!!!!!
PS. Tetrasyl, you say ..........!!!
>> Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th October 20:25
Let me tell you a story.
Once upon a time, on an 18th October some years ago, I was followed by plod into a car park. I know immediately what was up - I'd forgotten to tax the car and I'd been spotted.
Young WPC gets out of the car (you know the sort- long white socks, sucking a lolly) and I own up, explain that I'd forgotten, and that I'd be up the Post Office first thing in the morning. She told me that should be all right as long as I did, and the following day I was street legal again - no "skipped month," all in order.
Fortnight or so later, a letter from DVLA. "You were reported driving your untaxed car etc etc and we're going to prosecute - unless you pay this £10 fixed penalty .....
Working on the basis that I'd get at least £10 worth of admin costs out of 'em before they got a farthing out of me, letters were fired off to the Chief Constable, the Minister of Transport (George Young at the time), my local MP and, of course, to the DVLA to tell 'em what I was doing.
After three weeks or so I had two replies, one of which, from the MP, was reasonably supportive (George Young apparently couldn't be arsed to put pen to paper). Another letter went to DVLA, enclosing a copy of the MP letter, telling them that I was waiting to hear from the Minister before I paid their tenner.
A couple more weeks went by, and a letter arrived from DVLA, the subtext of which was: "OK, we'll let you off this time, but don't do it again !!!"
OK, I know it was only a tenner, but it was the principle of the thing. I suspect 99.9% of people in my position would have shrugged their shoulders and paid up. I suspect that 99.9% of people nicked for other motoring offences do the same thing.
If they stopped meekly accepting the rap, and tried to get the buggers on a technicality, then I also suspect that a lot of cases would be withdrawn.
Keep up the good work !!!!!!
PS. Tetrasyl, you say ..........!!!
>> Edited by rs1952 on Friday 18th October 20:25
The reason why Gatsos are located away from material such as Armco is because it can reflect the radar signal and interfere with the camera operation.
Whilst on the subject, the Gatso below clearly failed to comply with this specific Type Approval condition. However vandals appear to have decommissioned it on behalf of the local council:
Still, as Mr Clarkson has just proven, drive in excess of 170 mph and you won't even set the bastard off.
Whilst on the subject, the Gatso below clearly failed to comply with this specific Type Approval condition. However vandals appear to have decommissioned it on behalf of the local council:
Still, as Mr Clarkson has just proven, drive in excess of 170 mph and you won't even set the bastard off.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff