Here's how "fair" speed cameras are

[expat]

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/...ill.4224713.jp

Basically a man (a university physics lecturer) challenged his wife's conviction for speeding on the grounds that the camera had not been installed according to the manufacturer's instructions, and that its incorrect position on a bend would give it erroneously large readings.

The court accepted his findings but convicted her anyway.

Worse, they imposed costs of £15,000.00!

As a final insult:

Philip Gwynne, of West Yorkshire Casualty Reduction Partnership, said: 'In speeding matters, it is the law of the land not the law of physics that matters.'

Does this moron have any idea what physics is? Or is he just delighted that they can punish drivers in spite of physical fact?

[Pogle]

That judge deserves to be shoved head first down the The Large Hadron Collider and bombarded with protons! That'd show him the laws of physics eh!

[chicane]

Does this moron have any idea what physics is? Or is he just delighted that they can punish drivers in spite of physical fact?

Unfortunately, the entire "justice" system surrounding speeding is based upon bullying drivers into pleading guilty, because the potential penalties for arguing the case with perfectly valid mitigating points are considerably more extreme.

[EternalOptimist]

Unfortunately, the entire "justice" system surrounding speeding is based upon bullying drivers into pleading guilty, because the potential penalties for arguing the case with perfectly valid mitigating points are considerably more extreme.

Agreed. And when did anyone vote for any of this sh1te ?

[minsky1]

Take a look on pepipoo - the guy is on there fairly often, goes under the username of "Dr Science" I think, his unedited story is very interesting if you read through his posts.

[original PM]

whilst I do not agree with cameras fines etc it seems this guys case was pretty shaky

having read the artiucle it seems that although he was trying to say the camera was not put up according to specifications at no point did he actually say that changing the way it was put up would have altered the reading it gave his wife.

so regardless of what he says she was still doing 36 in a 30 zone.

I think they probably gave him such a large fine for being a cocky smug arrogant jockey

probably.

[BrilloPad]

whilst I do not agree with cameras fines etc it seems this guys case was pretty shaky

having read the artiucle it seems that although he was trying to say the camera was not put up according to specifications at no point did he actually say that changing the way it was put up would have altered the reading it gave his wife.

so regardless of what he says she was still doing 36 in a 30 zone.

I think they probably gave him such a large fine for being a cocky smug arrogant jockey

probably.

So they can just change the specs willy-nilly? Let them do that - the next thing it will be retrospective tax legislation.

[TheFaQQer]

whilst I do not agree with cameras fines etc it seems this guys case was pretty shaky

having read the artiucle it seems that although he was trying to say the camera was not put up according to specifications at no point did he actually say that changing the way it was put up would have altered the reading it gave his wife.

so regardless of what he says she was still doing 36 in a 30 zone.

I think they probably gave him such a large fine for being a cocky smug arrogant jockey

probably.

Indeed - the article doesn't say that she wasn't speeding, just that the camera was installed not according to the instructions.

The article doesn't say whether this would have made any difference (and unless you read the court transcript, you probably won't find out whether they even argued that point or not!).

[TheFaQQer]

So they can just change the specs willy-nilly? Let them do that - the next thing it will be retrospective tax legislation.

[expat]

whilst I do not agree with cameras fines etc it seems this guys case was pretty shaky

having read the artiucle it seems that although he was trying to say the camera was not put up according to specifications at no point did he actually say that changing the way it was put up would have altered the reading it gave his wife.

so regardless of what he says she was still doing 36 in a 30 zone.

I think they probably gave him such a large fine for being a cocky smug arrogant jockey

probably.

The article didn't say that but his case did. It's essentially quite simple AIUI: since you can't put the camera right in front of the car, you put it off the road, but then it is measuring at an angle, so the measured speed is less than the actual speed: it is proportional to the cosine of the angle. So what the camera manufacturers do is specify the angle, and multiply the measured speed by a fudge factor = 1 / cos (angle) to get the true vehicle speed. The problem comes when, contrary to the specs, you mount the camera on a bend, in such a way that a vehicle can be coming straight at the camera at the moment of measurement: then the fudge factor will exaggerate the speed, rather than correcting it.

Aside from the physics, there is the simple legal point that if the thing has specs that must be adhered to, and they weren't, then you don't have to keep going in the scientific pursuit of truth: the setup is dud and the case is broken.

The judge actually accepted the guy's argument but punished her anyway.

My particular point BTW was the mediaeval moron saying that the law of the land takes precedence over the law of physics. I feel like John Galt among the looters.