Page 2 of 2
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2022 8:48 pm
by userLeft1
Horse wrote:
Local camera van crew actually did him for 'in a 30'. He went 'not guilty', proved it was actually a 40 limit, and showed his gps trace (quite a few years ago, he was off geocaching).
Magistrates said yep 40. But as you've told us '41', have a conviction.
The Police acknowledge their equipment has a margin of error of 2mph for speeds below 66 mph. On that basis the court could only be sure the speed was, at most 39 mph, I think.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Wed Jul 20, 2022 9:56 pm
by Horse
mainbeam wrote:Horse wrote:
Local camera van crew actually did him for 'in a 30'. He went 'not guilty', proved it was actually a 40 limit, and showed his gps trace (quite a few years ago, he was off geocaching).
Magistrates said yep 40. But as you've told us '41', have a conviction.
The Police acknowledge their equipment has a margin of error of 2mph for speeds below 66 mph. On that basis the court could only be sure the speed was, at most 39 mph, I think.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 7:26 am
by dvenman
My own experience of Police speed measuring equipment - especially that used by Police Scotland in their unmarked cars which patrol the A832 - is that it's surprisingly accurate.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 12:23 pm
by Gareth
Horse wrote:;)
I think userLeft1 was suggesting that magistrates are generally protected from having to understand technology, by prosecutions generally only being taken forward when the margin of error means the offence is clear cut, but in this case the magistrates mislead themselves into thinking they could rely on the 41 shown by the person's own GPS equipment which, presumably, wasn't guaranteed to be as accurate as police equipment. On that basis, and if it was as reported, it should have been challenged.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Thu Jul 21, 2022 2:32 pm
by Horse
Gareth wrote:Horse wrote:;)
I think userLeft1 was suggesting that magistrates are generally protected from having to understand technology, by prosecutions generally only being taken forward when the margin of error means the offence is clear cut, but in this case the magistrates mislead themselves into thinking they could rely on the 41 shown by the person's own GPS equipment which, presumably, wasn't guaranteed to be as accurate as police equipment. On that basis, and if it was as reported, it should have been challenged.
The key points were that:
- friend wanted to (and did) demonstrate it was a 40 limit
- the magistrates then took friend's admission of guilt as demonstrated by the evidence he presented - although that wasn't his intent or expectation! I think he expected the usual leeway to be granted.
Who would have challenged it to get him off? Speed camera people wanted him nicked. Magistrates presumably wouldn't want to (could they even?) put any effort into overturning his inadvertent guilty admission.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:33 am
by Gareth
Horse wrote:- the magistrates then took friend's admission of guilt as demonstrated by the evidence he presented
Did the friend admit guilt, or did the friend merely present the evidence of their own GPS tracks? If the latter, then the magistrates may have misled themselves into thinking it was accurate enough to constitute evidence of infringement, even though it's reasonably well known that GPS speeds don't carry that much a guarantee of accuracy.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2022 8:46 am
by Horse
Back then (over 25 years, probably), pre-dashcams and smart phones with gps, there would not have been that awareness of the accuracy issues.
From what I can remember, he said that they said "... and on the basis of what you have told us ... "
I only became aware in 2010 when, for work, had 3 small gps loggers in a bag. But, supposedly, one was 11 metres away. I put one in my car and drove home. It took a different route.
Re: Once is careless, 5 times...?
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2022 10:37 am
by crr003
Horse wrote:Back then (over 25 years, probably), pre-dashcams and smart phones with gps, there would not have been that awareness of the accuracy issues.
From what I can remember, he said that they said "... and on the basis of what you have told us ... "
I only became aware in 2010 when, for work, had 3 small gps loggers in a bag. But, supposedly, one was 11 metres away. I put one in my car and drove home. It took a different route.
That's clearly a miscarriage of justice and his 'uman rights have been infringed.
Why would they accept an uncorroborated reading from an uncalibrated device?