gps tracks admissable as evidence?

[Jake_Bullit]

Does anyone know if GPS tracks would be admissable as evidence to dipute a speeding fine?I havn`t had one but just wondered if anyone had gone down this route.

[missing_user]

I cannot answer your question but I make a point of 'HotSyncing' my iQue with 'tracks' to the PC regularly. I then keep each 'track' on the PC for several months in case!

This gives me exact locations,exact time and fairly accurate speed.
The accuracy on the unit is sometimes down to 6 feet.
The speed of my car says 80mph but two different GPS units indicated 73mph.

On one occassion I thought I was caught on camera at 45mph in 40mph area but the GPS showed 41mph. No problem!
But on looking at a section of the track 5 minutes earlier it showed my speed on the Motorway as 85mph [90+ on the car].

I looked at the possibility of removing and saving sections of the track and found this was easy.
I could not find a way of decreasing the speed of the track!

Have you been keeping your tracks?
Note:- a 'saved' track on the iQue is reduced to 500points[keep it as an open track until HotSync]-a saved track on the PC is the original!

[tchart]

Yeah, ive always wondered about this too.

Generally the GPS speed reading is more accurate than the speedo in a car but Im not sure how that would stand up when disputing a ticket since there are many factors that could affect the GPS speed reading.

Here in New Zealand the speed limit on the open road is 100km/h and my GPS shows 100km/h when me speedo is between 105 and 110. I normally cruise along at that speed. I normally cruise past highway patrol cars at this speed and they dont seem to mind

However if you got nabbed by a camera it might be a bit hard to prove that the data you are providing hasnt been "fiddled" as its pretty easy to edit a track/log file to suit.

If you got pulled over you may be able to produce the evidence on the spot then it may be a different story.

I guess its the same as if you get nabbed by a cop with a speed gun and he cant show you the reading of your speed then its pretty easy to contest the ticket since its your word against theirs.

Trevor

[WiRED]

[missing_user]

I looked at my last saved track on the PC 250mile round trip to Cardiff:-
One of the Points[3000 in total]:-

635 - 30/07/2005 - 11:25:06 - 0.3 miles - 0:00:13 - 76 mph - 86° true - N51 50.839 W4 21.463

In .3 of a mile taking 13 seconds @ 76mph may not be accurate enough for Court! [This was the longest interval shown - some were much shorter]

749 - 30/07/2005 - 22:52:08 - 392 ft - 0:00:05 - 53 mph - 0° true - N51 53.970 W4 58.222 Far more accurate!


I could not 'doctor' the readings but I could remove sections and create smaller tracks with the corresponding map!

However, within the iQue I found that 'track recording interval' was set to 'normal'.
I have the option to change the interval to 'More Often' and 'Most Often'

I have now selected 'Most Often' to see the new 'interval'.
Will post results in the near future!

[LiveLifeGoJump]

I would not like to put my money on a GPS tracklog being accepted in court as an accurate speed recording. As far as I am aware the only units that MAY be accepted would be a Tachograph disc but I would think that even this could be disputed as, unless it was tanen by the police at the time, there is no proof of which vehicle or what day/time/area it was used in.

Even if the GPS tracklog had speed, area, date & time & was UNEDITABLE the recorded speed is not 'across the ground' but 'across a flat map' following a fairly accurate path taken.

Experience (not mine personally but that of a number of drivers) suggests that speed cameras allow a margin of error of 10% (& posibly +3 i.e. 30 limit, error 3, +3 =36. 70 limit, error 7, +3 =80). Police can be more or less forgiving depending on various things (time of day, mood, traffic conditions & wether the police 'person' fancies the speeding driver to name but a few).

Drivers can complain all they want, speed camera will continue to be used as long as driver exceed the limits.
The problem is that it is not speed that is the major factor in the majority of accidents (though it does increase the effects/injuries).

Everyday you will see numerous examples of bad driving such as incorrect lane disipline, tailgating, incorrect use of sliproads, failure to use mirrors, cutting in, in car fighting/argueing, phoning,applying makeup/eating etc. lack of or incorrect indicating & EVEN DRIVING TOO SLOW.

Accidents caused by speeding ALONE are not as common as reports would suggest but speeding is probably the easiest one to detect. Rather than the speed, I believe it is the DIFFERENCE in speed that causes these accidents (one daft driver at 100, the rest at 70 or one daft driver at 45, the rest at 70).

Reports show that the number of accidents in the area of speed (sorry accident blackspot [huh]) cameras have increased due to drivers suddenly slowing down when they spot one.

Figures show that County Durham has the lowest number of accidents, seems funny when County Durham police don't use Gatso (fixed) cameras. Does this prove a point?

I do believe that some of the speed limits should be increase and in the past though nothing of exceeding the limits (almost went through a radar gun in a 30 zone at 100mph once, have averaged 100mph on journeys 25% of which were in areas less than 40 & a further 25% on country roads), it's not big & it's not clever. It's only now that I'm older & wiser (well older anyway) that I realise how daft it was but it was fun at the time. My only saving grace was that the traffic was light or non-existant at the time.

I tend not to speed these days, not because of the risk of accidents, purely because I don't want the fine, points or ban that may be incurred.

I appoligise for the length of this post but the driving standards of a large number of drivers today & the number of 'knee jerk' motoring regulations imposed (speed, seatbelts etc.) on drivers ranks alongside with the 'fleece the motorist' attitude of the government as one of my pet hates.

How many accident blackspot camera would be installed if ALL speeding stopped but there was still the same number of accidents at these so called 'blackspots'.
_________________
If riding in a plane is flying then riding in a boat is swimming. If you want to experience the feeling
GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE

[mikealder]

I have thought long and hard about the GPS in a court of law, I think the best approach would be to question the callibration of the camera, not relative to speed, but time. As your GPS unit uses UTC time it is a callibrated tracable standard, the GATSO isn't therefore you can prove you were "somewhere else" at the time recorded by the camera, once a degre of uncertainty creeps in it should be thrown out. You might not even need to produce your GPS evidence - just claim un-callibrated and proove it on the day. I would love to see this one win in court as it would cost em millions to fit GPS units on the cams - can't think of any other way of syncro - anyone any thoughts?? mike

[Darren]

They may be admissible if they were still stored in the GPS unit where they could extracted by a forensic investigator. But tracks extracted by a user would not be admissible, it is far too easy to tamper with that data.

Indeed GPS tracks stored in hand-held units have been accepted as evidence when attributing criminal negligence to both drivers and pilots after serious accidents but these were hand-held GPS units whose internal memory could not at that time be easily modified and the units were seized shortly after the incidents.
_________________
Darren Griffin

We see you’re using an ad-blocker. We’re fine with that and won’t stop you visiting the site.
Have you considered making a donation towards website running costs?.
Or you could disable your ad-blocker for this site. We think you’ll find our adverts are not overbearing!