[Merged] - The Road Traffic Act (inc Speeding)

01-02-2005, 14:20

Someone posted on here a few weeks ago about a electronics consultant in Walsall who was challenging the accuracy of these GATSO cameras in Court?

The case was heard last week I just wondered if anyone had heard anything on how he case went on??

zoombini · 01-02-2005, 14:40

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...p?storyId=9723

Pierre · 01-02-2005, 14:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoombini

http://www.pistonheads.com/speed/def...p?storyId=9723

So it looks like the filth will get off on a technicality and we wont here this guys evidence in court.

Halcyon · 01-02-2005, 15:30

Typical.

**Chris** · 01-02-2005, 15:36

Sorry, but after reading that article the guy just comes over as a self-important, arrogant, puffed-up idiot who would have done himself no favours in the witness box in any case.

Gareth · 01-02-2005, 15:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris T

Sorry, but after reading that article the guy just comes over as a self-important, arrogant, puffed-up idiot who would have done himself no favours in the witness box in any case.

I agree, but I would be interested to hear his arguments and see this so-called proof he has.

Stuart · 01-02-2005, 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

So it looks like the filth will get off on a technicality and we wont here this guys evidence in court.

Technicality? They sent him a Notice of Intent to Prosecute (to find out who the driver was). He refused to answer. He refused to go to court. Then,

Quote:

The Crown Prosecution Service has consequently ruled that the Gatso evidence is not relevant to the case until the matter of who was driving has been determined.

I don't understand why he will not reply to this. They can then proceed with the case, he can present his evidence and the court will rule either for or against him.

I personally think he should be charged with Contempt of Court.

**Chris** · 01-02-2005, 16:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by scastle

Technicality? They sent him a Notice of Intent to Prosecute (to find out who the driver was). He refused to answer. He refused to go to court. Then,

I don't understand why he will not reply to this. They can then proceed with the case, he can present his evidence and the court will rule either for or against him.

I personally think he should be charged with Contempt of Court.

Agreed. At the moment it's just looking like he's exploring all the technicalities that might get him off the charge. Refusing to identify himself as the driver is a bit lame if he is genuinely interested in contesting the camera evidence. Kind of looks like an insurance policy in case he loses.

**Paul** · 01-02-2005, 16:13

He might have done better if he had identified himself as 'possibly' being the driver, and then ignoring the "conditional offers" they send out. In this case the police often just forget about it as it's too much trouble to proceed with a court case.

01-02-2005, 16:34

I asked a mate of mine who's a traffic cop, he said the cameras are set at 38MPH in a 30 and 48 in a 40 and so on, the settings are to give the public some leway because your speedo is not a true reading, I think he said it's 10% out on the true road speed.

zoombini · 01-02-2005, 16:56

Not in all cases.

In Burnley they have been set as low as 33MPH.

Nugget · 01-02-2005, 17:05

According to my brother (who, I admit, isn't exactly the keeper of all knowledge), they're set at 35mph etc around the West Bromwich / Wolverhampton area.

Having said that, he does lie a lot

01-02-2005, 18:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by zoombini

Not in all cases.

In Burnley they have been set as low as 33MPH.

Just been on the phone to him again about the settings, he said all cameras across the UK should be set at 8MPH above the set limit, this is to give you the amount your speedo is out.

Xaccers · 01-02-2005, 21:13

As someone who has been on the recieving end of Humberside's incompetence I know how he feels.
Twice I requested proof that they had sent my a NIP within the 14day period.
Twice they ignored me.
They claimed on their statement to court that I had not sent them a letter which thankfully I had proof that I had.
When the CPS asked the police about this, they failed to give a satisfactory (or even relevant!) response.
The guy from the CPS and the clerk of the justices were actually dismayed that the police had pushed for it to go to court.
*huge hugs to debs for coming with me too!*

Charlie_Bubble · 01-02-2005, 21:29

Cameras are normally set to 10% + 3mph. So in a 30 zone they would be set to 36mph, in a 40 zone they would be 47mph.....