...as bloody liars:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/notso.html

Apparently a bloke with a 30-year blemish-free licence got flashed and decided to investigate the accuracy of the camera. As he is an electronics engineer, he found it relatively easy to measure the supposedly super-accurate 500mS gap between the two flashes upon which the speed measurement depends. He found the camera that flashed him was set to 630ms, a 20% error. So he checked a few others and they were all the same.
This error would record a car travelling at 30mph as exceeding the limit by 6mph. The secret is out!

TAKING A STAND

A Walsall motorist who holds a 35 year unblemished driving record is being prosecuted by West Midlands police for allegedly driving 41 mph in a 30 mph zone. David Edgar who has pleaded not guilty to the driving offence will be defending himself in the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on Thursday 13th January 2005.

Mr. Edgar (52) who is a retired Consultant Electronics Engineer and a former Professional Inventor has come up with a laser aligned, optically triggered digital timer that is capable of measuring the time lapse between the two flashes which are produced by a Gatsometer speed camera to within 1/100th of a second.

Mr Edgar first became concerned about the accuracy of the Gatso speed camera when his requests for disclosure of how the speed cameras were calibrated for accuracy were ignored by the Police and Crown Prosecution Service in addition to Gatsometer in the Netherlands and UK, so too was his formal Application to the Birmingham Magistrates’ Court to force disclosure. Mr Edgar said, “I really felt they had something to hide so I decided to investigate the critical timing accuracy.

NOTSO ACCURATE

Having tested the opto digital timer on a number of Gatso speed camera sites including Newtown Birmingham, Walsall and Cannock area Mr Edgar soon discovered that well over 80% of them are inaccurate, in particular there are serious timing errors between the two flashes which are supposed to flash at exactly half a second apart (500 milli seconds) thus the recorded distance a vehicle has travelled relative to the parallel road markings are inaccurate. In the tests which Mr Edgar has conducted the timings are anything but accurate, typically 0.63 seconds, needless to say this inaccuracy then reflects on the distance a vehicle has travelled thus creating the illusion (for the benefit of the prosecution) that a vehicle has travelled much faster than it actually did, for instance a vehicle travelling at 35 mph would have travelled an extra 2.03 metres when the timing between the two flashes is 0.63 seconds and that puts the vehicle in the next set of parallel line markings which are spaced 2 metres apart. 
 

BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

Since these serious inaccuracies clearly affect the reliability of the actual recorded speed of a vehicle the photographic evidence cannot be relied on by the prosecution as there is reasonable doubt concerning the accuracy of the photographic evidence.
 

OTHER CONCERNS

Having now investigated and researched the Gatso method of speed camera entrapment the police and CPS are relying on Mr Edgar said “ I have also discovered some other disturbing facts that affect the accuracy and reliability of the entire measuring system, these will be brought to the attention of the Birmingham Magistrates Court on Thursday 13th January 2005, come along it should be an interesting day in Court”

David Edgar: 01902 410 642       silverstealth@blueyonder.co.uk

 

Posted: Tue Jan 18, 2005 4:11 pm    Post subject:
The Following just in from David Edgar: PRESS RELEASE 4 Since a small minority of people have posted some less than helpful comments that I apparently know nothing about the law and I have allegedly ignored dealing with an NIP I would be obliged if I could be allowed set the record straight. I have been a litigant (unpaid) for almost 11 years in both civil and criminal law, this also includes intellectual property law with respect to inventions and designs, in that time I have successfully represented myself in many Courts winning 80% of my cases, the other 20% would have been won if I were not up against an old boy network that is both bent and incompetent. I have won (and lost), in many Courts where I have appeared alone with no support or funding including the County Courts, Magistrate’s Courts, High Courts, Appeal Courts including the High Court which is regularly seen on TV and is otherwise known as the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand. Currently I have three cases on going in the Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, I have had numerous complaints upheld by the Ombudsman and received compensation, I have also received compensation from the Law Society as result of bent and incompetent solicitors and this does not include the countless cases I have won for my self and others at many tribunals. I successfully saved my elderly mother’s life last year when the NHS tried to kill her by way of involuntary euthanasia (caught on camera doing it), sadly I was less successful with my elderly father who was neglected to death last by the local authority, needless to say those responsible for his death will be introduced to an out of court settlement in due course. Whilst the satisfaction of restoring some justice is very rewarding it has badly affected my health, last year I had a heart attach as a result of the relentless pressure. So for those of you out there who think I know nothing of the law I would respectfully ask you to revise your statements as I feel I have earned my law degree the hard way. With respect to the current RTA Section 172 (3) case it should be noted that I do not have to prove that the Gatso’s are failing to meet Type Approval as I already have a robust defence to that charge. So I do not have to crusade for anyone and can abandon it at any time but I choose to do so because I know from bitter experience that the only way to change things is to fight it and keep fighting it until they listen. I have used this Court case as a platform to expose the scam that we all know is criminalizing millions of innocent motorist but very few of us are willing to fight the bent establishment for the greater good of the motorist. To correct the obvious legal misunderstanding with respect to my case please see an extract from my formal defence statement: The police served an NIP stating that pursuant to Section 1 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 I had allegedly exceeded the speed limit, this being 41mph in a 30mph zone [The allegation]. They then stated on the same NIP that pursuant to Section 81 RTRA 1984 they had photographic evidence in support. [The material evidence] in addition pursuant Section 172 (3) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 I was obliged to identify the driver. Since it is well know that "he who alleges must prove" I then continued.... I then responded to the NIP by stating on the form that the driver was unknown to me and in a covering letter I had no recollection of the alleged incident and make no admission of guilt, I then asked for sight of the photographic evidence the police claimed they had in their possession thus complying with the statutory defence of using reasonable diligence as in Section 172 (3) to identify the driver. Having received the photographic evidence from the police I then responded by letter and stated that inter alia, the photographic evidence failed to identify the driver and it was my contention that the evidence was inconclusive and therefore would not support a successful conviction, furthermore I was not the driver of the vehicle at the material time of the alleged offence and could not reasonably identify the driver as their identity was unknown to me. The police then sent another identical NIP to complete however I returned the same stating that I was not aware of any requirement in the RTA 1988 which compels me to duplicate the same statement of facts which I had previously made, I therefore returned the form and asked the officer to identify which section of which Act requires me to do so, strangely enough he never did! I then stated that should the police commence a prosecution I would defend the same and apply for a Defendant's Costs Order I also stated that I would be relying upon material evidence in support including the case: Regina v Detective Superintendent Adrian Roberts, Head Middlesborough CID 2001 whereby he was not charged following an alleged speeding charge because he couldn't remember who was driving his car due to the photographic evidence conveniently being "inconclusive". The police then commenced the prosecution and I received a Magistrates' Summons which was subsequently dealt with by entering a plea of NOT GUILTY. I would point out that at this time I was not aware of the serious inaccuracies of the Gatsometers. Whilst I am reasonably confident that I can defeat the Section 172 (3) charge I am also confident that I can rely upon the Crown's documentary evidence which they have already filed and served, this being a witness statement by a member of the West Midlands Police Camera Enforcement Unit who has stated that pursuant to Section 20 of the Road Traffic Offences Act 1988 as amended by the Road Traffic Act 1991 the Gatsometer BV Type 24 AUS was Type Approved and was working correctly at the material time since I am of course permitted under Human Rights law to question any Witnesses the prosecution bring against me therefore I will be exploiting the failures of that particular Gatsometer to comply with the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook the likes of which I now have in my possession and the same being relied upon when the Calibration Certificate is signed, this also being disclosed as evidence for the Crown. Allow me to quote from the PSDB Speedmeter Handbook, in particular section 3.4 under "Terminology" A speedmeter will be considered to fail a type approval test if it displays an incorrect reading of speed outside the tolerance range of error" The "Measuring Accuracy" being a positive error no larger than 3mph (or +3% above 100mph) and since my evidence will prove a wapping 26% error I rest my case! There are also a number of other serious matters which the PSBD Speedmeter Handbook has identified. I would also agree with Paul Smith's (Safe Speed) argument that this case is very much in the public interest with regards to speedmeter accuracy so I will be inviting the Crown to reintroduce the speeding charge in order that I can deal with it legally and technically. David Edgar _________________ Best Regards, Paul Smith

From:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1500&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

 

The start of the thread:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1500&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

 

Thanks for that, Bogush.
Now, what dirty tricks will the WMP get up to? What's to stop them going around to each and every Gatso in the area, setting them up correctly? After all, I'm sure the court will not accept this bloke's assurance that the cameras were wrong when he tested them, so they'll insist on a 'live' test - and hey presto - they'll all measure correctly.
Just a thought. After all, the speed camera partnerships will do anything to protect their empires.