News1 min ago
Mobile Speed Camera Calibration Certificate ...
14 Answers
I asked for a calibration certificate for the camera device that is alleged to have caught me speeding and the (very helpful) chap on the 'phone could not find the serial number of the device. Do they have to provide this by law if asked ?
I'm hoping the certificate was not in date at the time of the offence (a long shot, but worth a try!)
I'm hoping the certificate was not in date at the time of the offence (a long shot, but worth a try!)
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Beware how you go with this! Simple statements on this site (and others) such as “insist on proof” are sometimes less than helpful. Firstly, a practicality
20:47 Mon 16th Dec 2013
Police forces normally only provide details of speed cameras if the (alleged) offender has turned down the offer of paying a fixed penalty (if such an offer was made) and pleaded 'not guilty' to the speeding offence. Further, there is no statutory requirement for cameras to be calibrated.
See this page from the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership for further information:
http://
See this page from the Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership for further information:
http://
The commonest type of camera does not need calibrating it takes 2 photos and the position of the car relative to the painted lines on the 1st and 2nd photo gives the speed. Only calibration would be the timing of the 2 photos which is easy to check . Why is it so important? it is only 3 points, or are you on 9 or 10 points now?
I am astonished that fixed speed cameras are not required to be calibrated, traceable to National Standards. Given the revenue generated by the cameras, calibration would be a small price to pay for assurance, where a recorded speed may result in significant financial penalties for those accused of exceeding the speed limit.
I deal with calibration certificates in my work; I am far from impressed by the Gatso certificates shown on Buenchico’s link. Although the instruments used in the calibration are not given/accessible (on the link), it is almost certain (based on the limited information given) that the claimed secondary check of recorded speed is flawed – and therefore of no use whatsoever.
If Gatso tried to tell me that the correct operation of the camera can be verified/assured by agreement with the secondary check – I would just laugh at them.
I deal with calibration certificates in my work; I am far from impressed by the Gatso certificates shown on Buenchico’s link. Although the instruments used in the calibration are not given/accessible (on the link), it is almost certain (based on the limited information given) that the claimed secondary check of recorded speed is flawed – and therefore of no use whatsoever.
If Gatso tried to tell me that the correct operation of the camera can be verified/assured by agreement with the secondary check – I would just laugh at them.
Beware how you go with this! Simple statements on this site (and others) such as “insist on proof” are sometimes less than helpful.
Firstly, a practicality. The idea of a fixed penalty offer (FPO) is for the registered keeper (RK) (or somebody who he nominates as the driver) to accept guilt and incur a reduced penalty. The paperwork sent with a FPO asks the RK to either accept the fixed penalty himself or to nominate a person who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. The RK has 28 days to respond to this request. Although some may do so, there is no obligation for the prosecuting authority to enter into any correspondence or to provide any information or evidence. The danger is that if you fanny about asking for this and that you may exceed the 28 day limit. The prosecuting authority may get fed up and may find yourself facing a S165 prosecution (failing to provide driver’s details). This is a more serious offence (minimum six penalty points) and is not too difficult to prove.
To move on, if, before deciding whether to accept the FPO, you ask for the calibration certificate and they refuse you will have to opt for a prosecution and you will have to plead not guilty to speeding in court. Before trial day there will be a “case management” hearing and at this you will be asked to provide the basis for your not guilty plea. You are not obliged to do this but if you “hijack” the prosecution by revealing your defence only at the trial the prosecution is entitled to ask for (and will probably be granted) an adjournment to enable them to produce the documents needed to rebut your defence.
At the trial the prosecution will state your alleged speed to the court and say that it was measured by a mobile camera. (They will probably give some details of the location and camera type and some other details to support their allegation). The onus then shifts to you to prove that the camera was inaccurate (which you will have to do to the lower standard of “on the balance of probabilities“). You may be able to convince the court that the camera may be inaccurate because it had not been calibrated for a while (if indeed it had not) but you should not depend on it by any means. You will almost certainly be required to show some other evidence to cast doubt in the Magistrates’ minds that your speed was inaccurately recorded.
You may be successful in securing details of the calibration certificate before any of this takes place, in which case all well and good. But if you do not it may cost you dearly. It is not a simple matter and unless you are genuinely not guilty (i.e. you were not exceeding the speed limit) the risk you are taking (of a higher fine as well as prosecution costs) is, in my view, not worth the effort.
Firstly, a practicality. The idea of a fixed penalty offer (FPO) is for the registered keeper (RK) (or somebody who he nominates as the driver) to accept guilt and incur a reduced penalty. The paperwork sent with a FPO asks the RK to either accept the fixed penalty himself or to nominate a person who was driving at the time of the alleged offence. The RK has 28 days to respond to this request. Although some may do so, there is no obligation for the prosecuting authority to enter into any correspondence or to provide any information or evidence. The danger is that if you fanny about asking for this and that you may exceed the 28 day limit. The prosecuting authority may get fed up and may find yourself facing a S165 prosecution (failing to provide driver’s details). This is a more serious offence (minimum six penalty points) and is not too difficult to prove.
To move on, if, before deciding whether to accept the FPO, you ask for the calibration certificate and they refuse you will have to opt for a prosecution and you will have to plead not guilty to speeding in court. Before trial day there will be a “case management” hearing and at this you will be asked to provide the basis for your not guilty plea. You are not obliged to do this but if you “hijack” the prosecution by revealing your defence only at the trial the prosecution is entitled to ask for (and will probably be granted) an adjournment to enable them to produce the documents needed to rebut your defence.
At the trial the prosecution will state your alleged speed to the court and say that it was measured by a mobile camera. (They will probably give some details of the location and camera type and some other details to support their allegation). The onus then shifts to you to prove that the camera was inaccurate (which you will have to do to the lower standard of “on the balance of probabilities“). You may be able to convince the court that the camera may be inaccurate because it had not been calibrated for a while (if indeed it had not) but you should not depend on it by any means. You will almost certainly be required to show some other evidence to cast doubt in the Magistrates’ minds that your speed was inaccurately recorded.
You may be successful in securing details of the calibration certificate before any of this takes place, in which case all well and good. But if you do not it may cost you dearly. It is not a simple matter and unless you are genuinely not guilty (i.e. you were not exceeding the speed limit) the risk you are taking (of a higher fine as well as prosecution costs) is, in my view, not worth the effort.
Eddie51, the alleged speed was 84 in a 70mph zone. I don't debate this allegation, I am just a stickler for accuracy and official things to 'be right' so I always like to check facts.
I have challenged a few parking tickets and had them cancelled due to errors, there is no way that a speed camera and its operating team are faultless !
(and my CV states a clean licence, I would have liked to keep it that way...)
I have challenged a few parking tickets and had them cancelled due to errors, there is no way that a speed camera and its operating team are faultless !
(and my CV states a clean licence, I would have liked to keep it that way...)
Then my view is to take the fixed penalty of £100 and three points.
You are guilty and to risk a higher fine (which will be about half a week's net income) plus prosecution costs (which will be about £350 as the matter had to be prepared for trial) and a victim surcharge (10% of the fine, subject to £20 minimum) is simply not good odds. In addition you are risking being able to secure an acquital on purely technical grounds which you are unlikely to be able to do easily - if at all.
You are guilty and to risk a higher fine (which will be about half a week's net income) plus prosecution costs (which will be about £350 as the matter had to be prepared for trial) and a victim surcharge (10% of the fine, subject to £20 minimum) is simply not good odds. In addition you are risking being able to secure an acquital on purely technical grounds which you are unlikely to be able to do easily - if at all.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Crosswords9 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Shopping & Style20 mins ago
If You Protest You Must Be Mentally Ill.
News23 mins ago