What is the legal situation surrounding speed camera calibration and proof thereof?

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Is the onus in the prosecution to prove the camera was calibrated or is the onus on the defendant to prove it wasn't?

What would constitute reasonable doubt of the calibration?

I'm just wondering if, hypothetically I received a summons for doing 200 km/h in my car (a 1.2 litre Hyundai i20) when I was only doing 120 km/h. You'd never reach that speed in my car going downhill with a hurricane behind me so could you argue that the camera was faulty?

Or would the word of the Garda or camera reading be taken as sacrosanct?

If it was proven that my speed was incorrectly read would that cast doubt on all other speed readings that day?

Mods may see fit to move this to legal discussion. It might be better suited there.

bladespin

Nope, legislation done away with that a while back, for something like that it might be worth questioning, sounds like they may have got a reading error of some kind (or a misprint on the summons).

Garda evidence is accepted.

No, other readings would have to be questioned separately afaik.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

bladespin wrote: »

Nope, legislation done away with that a while back, for something like that it might be worth questioning, sounds like they may have got a reading error of some kind (or a misprint on the summons).

Garda evidence is accepted.

No, other readings would have to be questioned separately afaik.

Even if the record from the speed van was reviewed and it did indeed record me at 200 km/h? And it was wasn't a misprint or transcription error?

Surely if my reading is called into question then all others should be too.

CiniO would be a good contributor to this discussion..

bladespin

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Even if the record from the speed van was reviewed and it did indeed record me at 200 km/h? And it was wasn't a misprint or transcription error?

Reading error/operator error - still possible even with today's tech.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Surely if my reading is called into question then all others should be too.

CiniO would be a good contributor to this discussion..

They could be but it would be down to the other drivers to challenge.

biko

Motors >> Legal forum

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

No insight here?

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

No insight here?

what more do you want to know? There is no requirement for the gardai to prove the camera was calibrated. the onus is on you to prove otherwise. To do that you have to go to court and present your evidence and leave it to a judge to decide. This is the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/81/enacted/en/html

coylemj

Don't they calibrate or check the machines with tuning forks as part of the daily setup procedure? Or was that a previous generation of machines?

Expecting the Gardai to prove that the machine is accurate for every case is the same as having a requirement that someone from the Medical Bureau come into court for every case of drink driving based on a blood or urine sample to prove that their machines were calibrated and/or maintained to the manufacturer's specifications. It would make the system unworkable.

In cases of drink driving, all of this sort of nonsense went on in the years after the breath and blood tests were introduced in 1968. It took several amendments to the RTA and a lot of cases stated to the High Court to root it out.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what more do you want to know? There is no requirement for the gardai to prove the camera was calibrated. the onus is on you to prove otherwise. To do that you have to go to court and present your evidence and leave it to a judge to decide. This is the relevant section of the Road Traffic Act

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/25/section/81/enacted/en/html

If my car was clocked at 200 km/h (it'd struggle to do 150) would that no cast doubt on the reading?

ohnonotgmail

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

If my car was clocked at 200 km/h (it'd struggle to do 150) would that no cast doubt on the reading?

maybe, maybe not. you would have to take your chance in court

nuac

Mod
We seem to be going around in circles

Stihl waters

Much like the rest of ops threads, it's like a broken pencil, pointless

Claw Hammer

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

If my car was clocked at 200 km/h (it'd struggle to do 150) would that no cast doubt on the reading?

You would have to do two things.
1. Give evidence as to the speed you were doing.
2. Produce a suitably qualified engineer to say that your car was not capable of doing the speed claimed. It would be then up to the prosecution to seek to rebut your evidence and for the judge to make a decision.

Most likely the cost of bringing in an engineer would be more than the fine and there is no guarantee that you would be acquitted.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

Claw Hammer wrote: »

You would have to do two things.
1. Give evidence as to the speed you were doing.
2. Produce a suitably qualified engineer to say that your car was not capable of doing the speed claimed. It would be then up to the prosecution to seek to rebut your evidence and for the judge to make a decision.

Most likely the cost of bringing in an engineer would be more than the fine and there is no guarantee that you would be acquitted.

Very Draconian.

If I'm not mistaken, if someone else was speeding in your car it's also not enough to prove you weren't driving .... You have to prove who WAS driving.

Claw Hammer

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Very Draconian.

If I'm not mistaken, if someone else was speeding in your car it's also not enough to prove you weren't driving .... You have to prove who WAS driving.

You either have to prove the car was stolen at the time or identify the person to who m you gave the car.

bladespin

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Very Draconian.

If I'm not mistaken, if someone else was speeding in your car it's also not enough to prove you weren't driving .... You have to prove who WAS driving.

Think you just have to name the driver who was, not necessarily 'prove' they were driving but as the owner you should have a record of some sort as to who's driving your car anyway really.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

I'm thinking of a situation where a family member or friend uses your car and they deny having driven it when they are presented with a FCPN.

Speeding is endemic in Ireland, it's a disease that must be eradicated. You can be guaranteed that if someone borrows your car, they'll speed in it.

bladespin

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I'm thinking of a situation where a family member or friend takes your car and they deny having driven it when they are presented with a FCPN.

It's a good question, form I had just asked if the registered owner was not driving for the name of whoever was.
Not sure how a family member of friend could take your car without some sort of agreement they could deny, especially when insurance etc comes into it.

Allinall

As far as I'm aware, if you nominate a different driver, you have to provide name and address, and the FPN goes to them.

If it remains unpaid, it comes back to the registered owner. They are ultimately responsible.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

bladespin wrote: »

It's a good question, form I had just asked if the registered owner was not driving for the name of whoever was.
Not sure how a family member of friend could take your car without some sort of agreement they could deny, especially when insurance etc comes into it.

By "take" I mean use with permission.
My insurance allows me to drive any vehicle (I'm licenced to drive) with the owner's permission.

Del2005

coylemj wrote: »

Expecting the Gardai to prove that the machine is accurate for every case is the same as having a requirement that someone from the Medical Bureau come into court for every case of drink driving based on a blood or urine sample to prove that their machines were calibrated and/or maintained to the manufacturer's specifications. It would make the system unworkable.

Why shouldn't experts prove that they calibrated their equipment properly and used it correctly? In my job we have to keep records that our equipment is maintained as scheduled and working correctly, that the operators have the required training. We still constantly monitor them to ensure they are working correctly. But somehow are law enforcement officers don't seem to be capable of doing this so instead of fixing the problem they ignore it.

The only reason why they would have made a change to the statutes is if they lost too many cases because of it. You'd hope that someone potentially loosing their licence was convicted on sound evidence not by passing a law not to need to provide evidence that the device was working correctly.

bladespin

Del2005 wrote: »

Why shouldn't experts prove that they calibrated their equipment properly and used it correctly?

They do, but they're not legally obliged to. Law was changed for a multitude of reasons, some good (illegible cal labels, smudged etc) to the bad (past due - though the owners set the recal date themselves).

Claw Hammer

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

I'm thinking of a situation where a family member or friend uses your car and they deny having driven it when they are presented with a FCPN.

Speeding is endemic in Ireland, it's a disease that must be eradicated. You can be guaranteed that if someone borrows your car, they'll speed in it.

How is the family member going to use your car without your knowledge? You keep control of your keys and note the name of anyone you give the keys to, the date and time. Its not rocket science.

Marcusm

Del2005 wrote: »

Why shouldn't experts prove that they calibrated their equipment properly and used it correctly? In my job we have to keep records that our equipment is maintained as scheduled and working correctly, that the operators have the required training. We still constantly monitor them to ensure they are working correctly. But somehow are law enforcement officers don't seem to be capable of doing this so instead of fixing the problem they ignore it.

The only reason why they would have made a change to the statutes is if they lost too many cases because of it. You'd hope that someone potentially loosing their licence was convicted on sound evidence not by passing a law not to need to provide evidence that the device was working correctly.

I think there is an unwritten presumption behind the law that the equipment which is used has been appropriately selected, regularly maintained (including calibration) and secured for use. If each speeding ticket was challenged based on calibration then the FPN system would be unworkable. There should not be a situation where any old shoddy equipment was used.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

bladespin wrote: »

They do, but they're not legally obliged to. Law was changed for a multitude of reasons, some good (illegible cal labels, smudged etc) to the bad (past due - though the owners set the recal date themselves).

In my workplace (pharmaceutical) we have to calibrate at regular intervals all our equipment, each piece of equipment has a daily verification to ensure the calibration is still effective (daily verification only takes a few minutes), we have 6 monthly external calibration done by external contractors, operators of equipment have to prove that they are trained.

NSAI certify some of our reference standards or calibration weights.

If a reading is taken by an untrained staff member or on uncalibrated equipment then the reading is invalidated.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

The solution is simple.

All calibration and verification activity is published on a publicly visible website.
When a person is caught speeding, a camera equipment number is given.

You can then search the calibration list to confirm it was calibrated on that day.

When we calibrate equipment in work, the data is ported to a database, all results generated will have to reference this calibration data.

seamus

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

Very Draconian.

If I'm not mistaken, if someone else was speeding in your car it's also not enough to prove you weren't driving .... You have to prove who WAS driving.

You don't have to prove who was driving, you just have to nominate them.

In essence, you either know who was driving, or the car was taken without consent. So you should either be able to furnish a name, or a stolen vehicle report.

"I don't know who was driving my car, but it was taken with consent", is a contradiction in terms and this is why it's not a defence.

Obviously fleet cars/pool cars may be an exception to this, but there would be an insurance obligation on the fleet manager to keep a log of who is driving which vehicle and when, as well as to ensure that only authorised staff are taking the vehicles.

Claw Hammer

Marcusm wrote: »

I think there is an unwritten presumption behind the law that the equipment which is used has been appropriately selected, regularly maintained (including calibration) and secured for use. If each speeding ticket was challenged based on calibration then the FPN system would be unworkable. There should not be a situation where any old shoddy equipment was used.

There is no such unwritten presumption.

ohnonotgmail

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is no such unwritten presumption.

correct. it is specifically stated in the relevant act

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

bladespin

Eleven Benevolent Elephants wrote: »

In my workplace (pharmaceutical) we have to calibrate at regular intervals all our equipment, each piece of equipment has a daily verification to ensure the calibration is still effective (daily verification only takes a few minutes), we have 6 monthly external calibration done by external contractors, operators of equipment have to prove that they are trained.

NSAI certify some of our reference standards or calibration weights.

If a reading is taken by an untrained staff member or on uncalibrated equipment then the reading is invalidated.

That's your workplace implementing their own equipment management procedures, interpreted from FDA requirements (it sounds like), not the same thing.

Calibration intervals are set by the owners, there is no magic interval, they're supposed to judge from performance and the data what an effective interval should be, for some equipment it could be a day for others it could be a decade.

17025 - you'll understand that.

Del2005

bladespin wrote: »

That's your workplace implementing their own equipment management procedures, interpreted from FDA requirements (it sounds like), not the same thing.

Calibration intervals are set by the owners, there is no magic interval, they're supposed to judge from performance and the data what an effective interval should be, for some equipment it could be a day for others it could be a decade.

17025 - you'll understand that.

If industry has to keep a record to prove that their equipment is working correctly why can't the people supposed to enforce our laws? Surely correctly kept records is the basis of law.

It's not like it's difficult to calibrate a tool and provide a record that the operator is trained on it, every manufacturer manages it, but a force that can't count how many breath tests its done isn't required to improve its processes they change the law to make inaccurate record keeping OK!

ohnonotgmail

Del2005 wrote: »

If industry has to keep a record to prove that their equipment is working correctly why can't the people supposed to enforce our laws? Surely correctly kept records is the basis of law.

It's not like it's difficult to calibrate a tool and provide a record that the operator is trained on it, every manufacturer manages it, but a force that can't count how many breath tests its done isn't required to improve its processes they change the law to make inaccurate record keeping OK!

why do you assume they don't keep those records?

bladespin

Del2005 wrote: »

If industry has to keep a record to prove that their equipment is working correctly why can't the people supposed to enforce our laws? Surely correctly kept records is the basis of law.

They don't have to, if they want FDA approval then it's part of the deal but there's nothing forcing them to do so, also, what makes you think the gardai don't calibrate their equipment, aren't trained in operation and don't keep records - they certainly do, it's just not a legal requirement for prosecution.

Atlantic Dawn

If it was me I'd go to court with the user manual for the car and its logbook and show there's no possible way the car could achieve that speed.

Claw Hammer

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

If it was me I'd go to court with the user manual for the car and its logbook and show there's no possible way the car could achieve that speed.

How would that prove anything? You would have to lead expert evidence. The user manual is hearsay. The logbook doesn't prove anything about the potential speed of the vehicle.

bladespin

EEK! Might have a chance though.

Del2005

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why do you assume they don't keep those records?

Why would they make it a law that they don't have to provide them if they did?

bladespin

Del2005 wrote: »

Why would they make it a law that they don't have to provide them if they did?

To stop time wasters constantly looking for calibration certificates etc, time and money, think they were also caught with their pants down on a breathalyzer in Swords (think) several years back.

Eleven Benevolent Elephants

It can be easily done.

The calibration details should be published online on a publicly visible database.

Each camera should have an equipment number.
If you're issued a fine the camera number should be detailed on the FCPN.

So you can reference the calibration data online.

Del2005

bladespin wrote: »

To stop time wasters constantly looking for calibration certificates etc, time and money, think they were also caught with their pants down on a breathalyzer in Swords (think) several years back.

Someone potentially loosing their licence is a time waster? Our courts are full of time wasters yet its only motorists who are penalised by moving the goalposts instead of fixing the system.

Why would providing a calibration certificate take time? I can find the information for any tool in my company in a few seconds.

bladespin

Del2005 wrote: »

Someone potentially loosing their licence is a time waster? Our courts are full of time wasters yet its only motorists who are penalised by moving the goalposts instead of fixing the system.

Why would providing a calibration certificate take time? I can find the information for any tool in my company in a few seconds.

That's Irish government for ya, not my policy, but as someone who provides calibration services, I questioned it many years ago and am just sharing what I've learnt, if you have an issue you should raise it with your local TD.

Re, providing the calibration certificate, so can I, for over a thousand pieces of equipment, but that's pretty amazing tbh, most large companies (and government bodies) have different departments that cover calibration, then another for records etc so it gets to the point where it can take an age to get anything (personal experience with large medical multi's and govt bodies). Again, we're talking Irish CS here so toi get that cert would take a lot of time and money and would have to be done for literally every case, and if someone did get off due to that technicality then everyone would look for it (Me too btw) so they cut that one off at the knees.