Currently In a situation defending a "red light speed" Ticket in NSW. I have been fortunate to act as an expert witness for the court in other "radar" related cases, so I am not a novice.
The issue that I have raised today with the court in my preliminary report goes to the heart of recognizing and then validating a system, as opposed to a default bureaucratic and thus legal viewpoint that a single system element is indeed a system, and once calibrated it is accurate forever.
I merely wish to put a small brake on the burgeoning nature of these systems, not overturn the road "safety" ideology.
Peer review please of my assertion "that an isolated system element can not be authoritative outside of its own domain."
--------------Extract from my preliminary report----------
Estimation of vehicle speed from an unknown system
5. No evidence has been provided which would allow capture of a system level description of operation.
6. Similarly, no analysis of the system behavior at the interfaces of the involved elements can proceed.
“Validation determines that a system does all the things it should and does not do what it should not do.”
- INCOSE Systems Engineering Handbook 4.8.2.1
7. For each system element the verification process provides a description of the simulation model used to establish calibration and system element integration with external calibration controls.
8. A further verification process describes the integration of the system measuring elements and the algorithms used to identify, measure, recognize and compensate for failure of a measurement system element, or the total system.
9. In my opinion, It would be reckless to allow a single isolated system element to be authoritative on a measurement outside of its own domain. Similarly, a measuring system would be unreliable if its limitations were not identified and acknowledged.
----------------
