GoSafe van cameras

cencglob

Fell down a rabbit hole and ended up looking at the operating manual for the handheld laser guns the Garda use and spotted some usage limitations which appear not to heeded to by some of the Garda users I've seen on the road side.

Following on from that, I' really like to see the operating manual for the cameras installed in the GoSafe vans and see if any obvious no no's are being broken.
GoSafe seem to make an effort to hide the units in shrouds, at least when they are display at RSA fairs etc.

One for potential issue, is that I heard someone state that it's ok for them to shoot through the factory glass of the vans, however looking at the FAQ's of a possible candidate camera (made by the same manufacture who makes the Ultralyte which the Garda use) there is a statement that says,

"When measuring through glass, it is recommended the face plate of the sensor be 3mm or closer to the glass. Light passing through the glass will create reflections and larger gap could result in measurement error."

Now from what I have seen the glass in these curved which may cause deflection, it also has inductive heating strips which may cause additional signals to be incorrectly deflected, and I'm not sure the the face plate of the GoSafe sensors are 3cm from the glass. They seem in passing further away.

Looking at a UK supplier of this equipment who install it in vans very similar to the GoSafe vans, this supplier removes the factory glass as can be seen in photos here https://www.teletrafficuk.com/products/turnkey-enforcement-solutions/concept-van/.
They also raise the van onto fixed legs which may or may not be an operator welfare thing.

There may of course be many other potential areas where GoSafe are improperly using the equipment, so could anyone confirm the model or supplier they are using.
Better to be prepared in advance than have someday to go looking for this.

Seth Brundle

Does it really matter when the law says that the assumption is that they work perfectly?

cencglob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Does it really matter when the law says that the assumption is that they work perfectly?

The law is open to challange by everyone.
Given that the soundness of the evidence entered in such a case by a GoSafe agent may be unsound, then yes it matters.

Better we are fully informed citizens and capable of defending ourselves from erroneous penalties wouldn't you say?...actually no, you don't need to answer, I'm just looking for the model number thanks...I don't want someone to derail this thread before it even starts.
I'd appreciate you not commenting further.

Seth Brundle

cencglob wrote: »

The law is open to challange by everyone.
Given that the soundness of the evidence entered in such a case by a GoSafe agent may be unsound, then yes it matters.

So where the law (Road Traffic Act 2010 section 81) says...

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

...means that it is open to challenging the evidence?
I never disputed whether the evidence could be unsound. I challenged the usefulness given that the law as it stands allows for errors to be made and go unchallenged.

As for me not posting on your thread, its a public forum and if you dont want anyone having an input then maybe you should have considered posting elsewhere. Feel free to use the report post function if you think me discussing the lack of ability to challenge the evidence is derailing your thread on challenging the evidence.

mikeecho

Garda hand held speed guns operate laser.
GoSafe vans operate radar
Garda speed vans operate radar

UK speed vans are a hand held laser gun ,

The operating manual for the radar unit used in gosafe vans was posted (a link to pdf) a while back on boards.

cencglob

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So where the law (Road Traffic Act 2010 section 81) says...

...means that it is open to challenging the evidence?
I never disputed whether the evidence could be unsound. I challenged the usefulness given that the law as it stands allows for errors to be made and go unchallenged.

As for me not posting on your thread, its a public forum and if you dont want anyone having an input then maybe you should have considered posting elsewhere. Feel free to use the report post function if you think me discussing the lack of ability to challenge the evidence is derailing your thread on challenging the evidence.

I did not say I did not want "anyone" posting on this thread. I stated that I was seeking information on the model of device used, I also explained why, and asked that you not further derail the thread.

The scope of the allowable operation of the device may include factors not considered by the act.

I went ahead and laid out a motive for seeking the information, clearly this was mistake as to have someone come in with an attempt to troll and lay waste to my request by seeking to undermine the usefulness of my motive.

If I just asked outright for the model name, maybe I'd have faired better.
Yes I though this was forum, but not a destructive one. Now since I can't see a way to block you please leave this alone and allow this thread stay on topic, which is simply the topic of seeking the model of camera/radar equipment used in the GoSafe vans.

Thank you.
Cencglob

cencglob

mikeecho wrote: »

Garda hand held speed guns operate laser.
GoSafe vans operate radar
Garda speed vans operate radar

UK speed vans are a hand held laser gun ,

The operating manual for the radar unit used in gosafe vans was posted (a link to pdf) a while back on boards.

Great, thanks, I've been through a few related threads I didn't see it, I'll go look again.

mikeecho

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057633648/1/#post100642414

The link to the doc is no longer valid

cencglob

mikeecho wrote: »

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057633648/1/#post100642414

The link to the doc is no longer valid

Super Thanks !

I'll drop an update link here and in your other post for anyone who is looking again.

https://www.agd-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/product-manual-342.pdf

mikeecho

Here's the manual

https://www.agd-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/product-manual-340.pdf

I haven't read this .. so I don't know if it differs from the one that was previously linked to

GM228

mikeecho wrote: »

Here's the manual

https://www.agd-systems.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/product-manual-340.pdf

I haven't read this .. so I don't know if it differs from the one that was previously linked to

GoSafe vans use RedFlex Traffic Systems cameras, not AGD Systems cameras.

The Road Safety Operations Ireland Limited consortium consists of Spectra Photo, Egis Projects and Redflex Traffic Systems.

Egis manages and runs the operation, Spectra deals with processing related to the images and Redflex supply the camera equipment.

Mintoe

cencglob wrote: »

The law is open to challange by everyone.
Given that the soundness of the evidence entered in such a case by a GoSafe agent may be unsound, then yes it matters.

Better we are fully informed citizens and capable of defending ourselves from erroneous penalties wouldn't you say?...actually no, you don't need to answer, I'm just looking for the model number thanks...I don't want someone to derail this thread before it even starts.
I'd appreciate you not commenting further.

Just don’t speed.... staying under or at the speed limit would be easier than proving the cameras are inaccurate

Charlie-Bravo

Yes, sensible approach would be not too speed. But if the system was set up incorrectly, and you were caught slightly over the speed limit when you were slightly under it, I'd have a bone to pick with the operator.

GM228

Seth Brundle wrote: »

So where the law (Road Traffic Act 2010 section 81) says...

It is not necessary to prove that the electronic or other apparatus was accurate or in good working order.

...means that it is open to challenging the evidence?
I never disputed whether the evidence could be unsound. I challenged the usefulness given that the law as it stands allows for errors to be made and go unchallenged.

The law does not say that errors can not go unchallenged, rather what you quoted from S81 (1) says the state is not required to prove it was accurate or in good working order.

Any statutory presumption can be rebutted, failure to allow for such is unconstitutional, there has been plenty of cases on this matter all the way to the Supreme Court dealing with various statutory presumptions including one specifically dealing with S81 which is the reason why S81 had to be amended with:-

(6) In proceedings for an offence referred to in subsection (1) it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown, that —

(a) the electronic or other apparatus used for tendering of evidence was provided, maintained and operated by a member of the Garda Síochána, or a person authorised under an agreement under subsection (7),

(b) the development, production and viewing of records produced by such apparatus was carried out by a member of the Garda Sìochána, or a person authorised under an agreement under subsection (7), and

(c) subsection (3) has been complied with.

The important part is "until the contrary is shown", without such the presumption would be unconstitutional. Such presumptions create what is known as a reverse legal burden on the accused, in order to rebut the presumption the accused must prove (on the balance of probabilities) it was not maintained etc.

Rebuttal of such presumptions is not an easy thing to do and are very rare to achieve.

cencglob

Mintoe wrote: »

Just don’t speed.... staying under or at the speed limit would be easier than proving the cameras are inaccurate

Thanks for your "advice", surprisingly I have already considered this on a few occasions as I drive about 40K pa.
If you have not grasped one component of what I've said so far, I'll explain again. While I am traveling at or below the stated speed limit, it may be possible due to poor operation of the detection equipment to be accused of breaking such limit.

Ignorance of the functioning of tools which may be used to penalise me should not be a reason to suffer, in a sense the detection equipment is part of the road infrastructure, and as a driver it should be my duty to understand as many aspects of the operation of the road infrastructure as is possible, and when you drive as much as I do and are always interested in learning, understand the fine detail of these pieces of equipment, make me a more aware driver, and also better in a position to defend myself should a detection operator make an error.

Thanks for your lesson, but it's misplaced.

mikeecho

GM228 wrote: »

GoSafe vans use RedFlex Traffic Systems cameras, not AGD Systems cameras.

The Road Safety Operations Ireland Limited consortium consists of Spectra Photo, Egis Projects and Redflex Traffic Systems.

Egis manages and runs the operation, Spectra deals with processing related to the images and Redflex supply the camera equipment.

Can you please tell us what componants the Redflex Radar-Cam consists of.

I'm sure you'll find that the radar part is made by AGD., and is the 340 Series of radar unit.

ironclaw

I know I comment a lot about this and personally, I'd love to see it challenged but there are a couple of reasons I can see this never happening:

- You'd need enormously deep pockets or the backing of someone who'd be up for a legal slog at a pretty high level for a very long time. Going to life for murder? Probably worth it. Getting out of an 80EUR fine? Not really. We have it very easy in Ireland when it comes to speeding tickets, comically so. In the US and Canada, you risk on the spot arrest, car seized and the book thrown at you for being marginally over limits that are lower than ours. I've personally seen and held, a $30k ticket for speeding.

- It would cause a ripple in the system on two sides. Firstly on the legal side of things as I'd imagine some people would want their records cleared and tickets quashed, and secondly on the insurance side as you'd probably be due a refund for any loading from penalty points.

- Engineering isn't perfect. Its generally accepted everything has a tolerance, be that nanoscale in spacecraft, to centimetres in road construction. The flaws of all this equipment are well known. I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a legal eagle, but if someone implements a procedure to the best of their knowledge and the equipment passes muster, it has to mean something. Imagine if we had to check and verify each NCT operator doing an emissions test each and every time. We can't, so we have to accept a reasonable tolerance.

- Which leads me to the tolerance question. Assuming a piece of equipment is used flawlessly, it's still going to have a range of accuracy. For laser, it's pretty good, more radar is a little wider. No one in this country is prosecuted for being one km/h over. You need to exceed the tolerance. Which if we then reflect, is also on your side in terms of your speedo. So, to sum up, you need to be pretty aware you are speeding (As your speedo will read marginally higher than your true speed) and the equipment needs to clock you above its tolerance. The equipment and operator would need to be fairly out of wack to get it wrong.

- There are a number of test groups (Guys of Lidar comes to mind) that have attempted in my ways to undermine the accuracy of a laser through some pretty rigorous tests. It's pretty hard to get it wrong to be honest, the systems are fairly foolproof and their technical tolerance is good. The UltraLyte, for example, can account for rain and fog, the RedFlex systems can track multiple cars. These are not simple systems, they are high-end pieces of engineering.

cencglob

ironclaw wrote: »

I know I comment a lot about this and personally, I'd love to see it challenged but there are a couple of reasons I can see this never happening:
.

Good post ironclaw, many valid points raised.

Regarding consequences of a misread speed, I would say it reasonably serious, of course not in the same category as like you example being falsely accused of murder, but in my case and maybe in many others the possibility of being put off the road through either a single major error (although unlikely) or more possible a series of "catches" by the same incorrect device set up, would have very serious consequences for my livelihood.
I would have to have to to hire at least two drivers day/night shift to get me from A to B, in short if I lost my licence I would loose almost everything.
If for example my car failed the NCT like you also suggest, it can only be at the most the cost of a replacement car and rental car in the interim.

I have a lot of experience in the use of similar types of equipment a (a very specific industrial used of a kinda of analogue to digital time based counters) and I absolutely understand the kinds of complexities and good design which goes into them.
In some respects this can also be their Achilles heel, in that they are complex to correctly operate. Many an operator can be trained for a specific scenario, but move to another location, and are all of the variables properly accounted for?

More links in the chain means more risk of failure.

I would just like to have confidence that the deployment of these pieces of equipment is being done correctly save I'm ever unsure of any charge made against me.

When like last week I saw one of these vans parked in hard shoulder of a motorway under a bridge, causing all of the traffic to anchor on breaks on sight of it, I'm not convince that their deployment is fully thought out and executed.

eusap

I assume you should also include the operating manual of the operator to use the equipment. I often see the Go Safe operator setting up and they always take out a tripod with a scale on top and place about 6-10 ft from the van to I guess calibrate the camera. They adjust this quite a bit before removing to start detection.

ironclaw

I respect your desire to enact change cencglob. What I will say is that you are taking an engineers mindset to this problem (I'm a professional engineer myself) which can be a good and bad thing. As a good thing, it's challenging the technology, on the bad thing it is not really mirroring the law. The law doesn't call for something to be absolutely black and white, grey exists both in innocence and guilt. The systems we have are in use worldwide and are generally accepted as accurate. You'd be climbing a mountain, albeit it not impossible, to claim otherwise.

Your example about losing everything based on speeding, you'd need to be caught 3 or 4 times in rapid succession. The chances of all of those times being inaccurate to the point of wrongful conviction? Astronomical. The cost of being a little more vigilant and slowing down until the points expire? Far lower than this form of legal challenge.

Once again, my post history here would reinforce my position that I'm not a fan of their implementation and I highly criticise their effectiveness but I'm not too bothered in proving or disproving their accuracy. Why? Because the vested interest is such that any challenge will never be successful in my view.

Keep us posted on your progress, I'd be keen to help if I could.

Del2005

cencglob wrote: »

Good post ironclaw, many valid points raised.

Regarding consequences of a misread speed, I would say it reasonably serious, of course not in the same category as like you example being falsely accused of murder, but in my case and maybe in many others the possibility of being put off the road through either a single major error (although unlikely) or more possible a series of "catches" by the same incorrect device set up, would have very serious consequences for my livelihood.
I would have to have to to hire at least two drivers day/night shift to get me from A to B, in short if I lost my licence I would loose almost everything.
If for example my car failed the NCT like you also suggest, it can only be at the most the cost of a replacement car and rental car in the interim.

I have a lot of experience in the use of similar types of equipment a (a very specific industrial used of a kinda of analogue to digital time based counters) and I absolutely understand the kinds of complexities and good design which goes into them.
In some respects this can also be their Achilles heel, in that they are complex to correctly operate. Many an operator can be trained for a specific scenario, but move to another location, and are all of the variables properly accounted for?

More links in the chain means more risk of failure.

I would just like to have confidence that the deployment of these pieces of equipment is being done correctly save I'm ever unsure of any charge made against me.

What calibrated device are you going to use to show that their equipment was faulty and how will you prove that you operated it correctly? There's a reason why the legislation was changed to not require the state to prove the speed detection devices were working correctly. So you now have to prove something which the state couldn't, that the device you used to check your speed was properly calibrated and used correctly.

cencglob wrote: »

When like last week I saw one of these vans parked in hard shoulder of a motorway under a bridge, causing all of the traffic to anchor on breaks on sight of it, I'm not convince that their deployment is fully thought out and executed.

That's just stupid motorists. I've been behind people who stood on their brakes doing 60km/h on a national route with a 100km/h limit when they see a speed check, the worse are the fools who do it for every van they see parked.

cencglob

Del2005 wrote: »

What calibrated device are you going to use to show that their equipment was fa.

I never stated a specific scenario, you are thinking very linearly.
I did say about chains and links it only takes one to be wrong.
Are you aware of the full operational procedures required to attain readings with one of these devices? I am not, but I want to know.

Second calling people "stupid" for anchoring on their brakes on sight of a GoSafe van is completely disingenuous.
In this case the van was in 5pm rush hour traffic about 10km outside of a provincial city. The spacing in both lanes was about on the 2 second limit as is common in this type of traffic.
It is the instinct of many, including myself on seeing a GoSafe van to first hit the brakes and then confirm that I have not drifted over the limit.

I will easily take the consequence of someone rear ending me, rather than risk 3 points associated with a draconian system of motor licence penalties.

In the EU country where I learned to drive, we were taught if there was no danger, when at the outside of a town and the limit signs are insight with a clear road, that we were expected to drive on and not hold up traffic. In Ireland you can loose you licence for it.

So rant over, you can take you "stupid" comment and remember it if you ever so happen to rear end someone due a GoSafe van and someone anchoring up.

I'd say your driving skills are too good for that though..

Aston martin

There are two AGD radars in the back of GO Safe van both pointing backwards can track cars in either direction

Aston martin

cencglob wrote: »

I never stated a specific scenario, you are thinking very linearly.
I did say about chains and links it only takes one to be wrong.
Are you aware of the full operational procedures required to attain readings with one of these devices? I am not, but I want to know.

Second calling people "stupid" for anchoring on their brakes on sight of a GoSafe van is completely disingenuous.
In this case the van was in 5pm rush hour traffic about 10km outside of a provincial city. The spacing in both lanes was about on the 2 second limit as is common in this type of traffic.
It is the instinct of many, including myself on seeing a GoSafe van to first hit the brakes and then confirm that I have not drifted over the limit.

I will easily take the consequence of someone rear ending me, rather than risk 3 points associated with a draconian system of motor licence penalties.

In the EU country where I learned to drive, we were taught if there was no danger, when at the outside of a town and the limit signs are insight with a clear road, that we were expected to drive on and not hold up traffic. In Ireland you can loose you licence for it.

So rant over, you can take you "stupid" comment and remember it if you ever so happen to rear end someone due a GoSafe van and someone anchoring up.

I'd say your driving skills are too good for that though..

Agree If you drive a lot you have a chance of getting caught in the wrong , And if you go to court 3 points and 2 for saying your not guilty. go twice to court that's 10 points at that rate your nearly off the road in two cases , and your insurance company will have a field day with 10 points. If you go to court minimum defence to win 3,500 for a specialist from UK for the day he will prove plenty of possible problems with radar...

The Radars are AGD what are the cameras ??
\

Aston martin

with everything you can be caught in the wrong , by many different ways..

If you think the operator will say he made a mistake he wouldn't as if he does he gets fired, the company have already had a whistle blower who said he made a mistake and that people were fined in the wrong did they get their points back and their insurance increase or their cost...

to pose a questions ,Will go safes company say that made a mistake over a six month period with hundreds of people caught in the wrong ?

Leo Varadkar is an Irish politician who is Taoiseach / prime minster said he would investigate why the whistle blower was fired and about the points
that was the end of it....

Aston martin

GM228 wrote: »

GoSafe vans use RedFlex Traffic Systems cameras, not AGD Systems cameras.

The Road Safety Operations Ireland Limited consortium consists of Spectra Photo, Egis Projects and Redflex Traffic Systems.

Egis manages and runs the operation, Spectra deals with processing related to the images and Redflex supply the camera equipment.

Go Safe vanes use two AGD radars one is a tracking radar the other is a speed radar, Go Safe put the in a box and call it a Red flex system.. they are AGD radars the same company that supply the " indepedant " calibration certs

bobbyy gee

gatso vans use 24 ghz low k signal mrcd you can read it on their website


http://www.gatso-usa.com/files/Gatso_GS11.pdf

Aston martin

thanks are you taking Gosafe Van or Garda van , the GoSaFE Van has two AGD radars they are made in the UK by AGD

bobbyy gee

Aston martin wrote: »

thanks are you taking Gosafe Van or Garda van , the GoSaFE Van has two AGD radars they are made in the UK by AGD

should be 24ghz

https://www.rdforum.org/threads/86803/

mikeecho

bobbyy gee wrote: »

gatso vans use 24 ghz low k signal mrcd you can read it on their website


http://www.gatso-usa.com/files/Gatso_GS11.pdf

No GATSO radar vans or cameras in use here anymore, they've all been retired.

The Garda vans use a robot multanova system, and gosafe use AGD radar

bladespin

Aston martin wrote: »

they are AGD radars the same company that supply the " indepedant " calibration certs

Yes, they are an independent calibration house for radar systems, UKAS accredited.

pah

You don't get penalized for doing 51 in a 50, I think the tolerance is 54 which accounts for any minor discrepancies?

StonedRaider

The 'latest' systems used here in Ireland are actually some years behind. Op you seem an intelligent person, as I have advised some on here before, if you drive for a living/do big mileage, there are products out there to let's just say 'keep you safe'.
A bit of research with model make and numbers that are currently in service put in a short email to some detector manufacturers will give you plenty options. I used to update my kit every 3-4 years. Never got points or into any trouble with the law. It was the easiest option.

mikeecho

StonedRaider wrote: »

The 'latest' systems used here in Ireland are actually some years behind. Op you seem an intelligent person, as I have advised some on here before, if you drive for a living/do big mileage, there are products out there to let's just say 'keep you safe'.
A bit of research with model make and numbers that are currently in service put in a short email to some detector manufacturers will give you plenty options. I used to update my kit every 3-4 years. Never got points or into any trouble with the law. It was the easiest option.

Those products to keep you safe, are fairly ineffective when you're approaching the radar from the rear .

Yes . You should be able to use your eyes, but at night with oncoming traffic.. that beep will be too late .

Also all the cars with blind spot warning and adaptive cruise control.. it can get very noisey... Even running filters, or apps like yav1 etc

I gave up on the tech.. just use common sense now .

StonedRaider

You get what you pay for

Aston martin

bladespin wrote: »

Yes, they are an independent calibration house for radar systems, UKAS accredited.

The Radars are not independently calibrated , the radars are made by AGD they are put in a wooden box and now called a Redflex radar system , then AGD come along and give a calibration cert for to Reflex so AGD are calibrating their own AGD radars ... not independent.

mikeecho

StonedRaider wrote: »

You get what you pay for

I'm not forking out for a stinger.

bladespin

Aston martin wrote: »

The Radars are not independently calibrated , the radars are made by AGD they are put in a wooden box and now called a Redflex radar system , then AGD come along and give a calibration cert for to Reflex so AGD are calibrating their own AGD radars ... not independent.

It is an independent calibration, they wouldn't be UKAS accredited if they were taking shortcuts like that - you would not get away with it even once.
Many companies own calibration labs that operate independently from the parent company.

biko

Please use https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057948322