PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Great Speed Gun Scandal
blackdouglas
post Fri, 14 Oct 2005 - 22:01
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



Good evening,

Looks like we'll all be buying a copy of the DAILY MAIL tomorrow. The FRONT PAGE has the headline "Great Speed Gun Scandal" - as shown just now on the ITV News review of tomorrows papers.

http://img82.imageshack.us/img82/6500/mail159py.jpg

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/5329/mail258hr.jpg

http://img447.imageshack.us/img447/5119/mail350zv.jpg

icon_eek.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Fri, 14 Oct 2005 - 22:01
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Insider
post Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 22:04
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



QUOTE
edit: No, a SafeSpeed posting says it wasn't a police-spec device.


That's contrary to what I understand  :wink:


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clear Skies
post Fri, 21 Oct 2005 - 16:53
Post #42


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,869
Joined: 17 May 2004
Member No.: 1,213



QUOTE (g_attrill)
QUOTE (BikerPaul)
Didn't the daily mail use an LTI 20 20 Ultralyte with type approval?

It had a very clear (and obvious) Tele-Traffic UK sticker on the back, and I think I read that it may have even been the property of a UK police force.

edit: No, a SafeSpeed posting says it wasn't a police-spec device.

Gareth


U know if I were the american produce of these  20 20's , I would be very worried.

if ONLY  the uk version is good enough for a conviction, what ever are they selling over there.. 2nd rate goods ???   I think I would get really p*ssed off if i were them..

red refund cost a lot more in america, than in good old blighty.

rgds
bill


--------------------
QUOTE
God always has a custard pie up his sleeve....
Georgy Girl



Carbon Offset & support PePiPoo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackbird
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 12:50
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,181
Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Member No.: 200



all gone!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
avonne
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 16:36
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 371
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
From: East Anglia
Member No.: 3,488



What a load of waffle.  :evil:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarrassedDriver
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 20:08
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Member No.: 295



Sorry for coming to this so late.  Amazingly, I've only just seen the article.
I am surprised, though, that no-one seems to have picked up on one point in particular.

With reference to Frank Garrett being used as an expert witness, the article states:

"...The Home Office said it was normal to ask a supplier of public service equipment to give evidence in court on behalf of the Goverment...."

I thought that Garrett had been giving "expert" opinion and had implicitly denied being a prosecution witness by stating his independence.

Doesn't - or shouldn't - that change status in Court.  How ethical is it to pay a prosecution witness?  

Mind you, how he can he possibly be accepted as an "expert" with his compromising business interest and with no apparent technical expertise beats me.  I guess ethics plays little part in the exercise.


--------------------
______________
HarrassedDriver
I'm supporting the fight.  Are you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 21:19
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



QUOTE (HarrassedDriver)
Doesn't - or shouldn't - that change status in Court.  How ethical is it to pay a prosecution witness?

Mind you, how he can he possibly be accepted as an "expert" with his compromising business interest and with no apparent technical expertise beats me.  I guess ethics plays little part in the exercise.


Of course ethics plays no role, but you might find this interesting.

Apparently, Tele-Traffic are legally obliged to provide an "expert witness" free of charge. Anybody on here think they've paid costs that include Garratt's fees?

As part of the same agreement, the Home Office are legally obliged to protect the confidentiality of Tele-Traffic's "sensitive" information.

So, all this "lack of ethics" appears to be written into a contract.  :shock:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Insider
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 21:27
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



QUOTE
Apparently, Tele-Traffic are legally obliged to provide an "expert witness" free of charge. Anybody on here think they've paid costs that include Garratt's fees?


That's changed in the 4th Edition handbook though  :roll:  :evil:


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 22:53
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



QUOTE (Insider)
QUOTE
Apparently, Tele-Traffic are legally obliged to provide an "expert witness" free of charge. Anybody on here think they've paid costs that include Garratt's fees?


That's changed in the 4th Edition handbook though  :roll:  :evil:


I don't think changes to the Speedmeter handbook can "undo" legally binding contracts. Both parties would have to agree to any change in contract, and probably write another contract confirming their intentions.

AFAIK The speedmeter handbook does not contain any TeleTraffic signatures.

laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarrassedDriver
post Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 23:09
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Member No.: 295



QUOTE (blackdouglas)
QUOTE (Insider)
QUOTE
Apparently, Tele-Traffic are legally obliged to provide an "expert witness" free of charge. Anybody on here think they've paid costs that include Garratt's fees?


That's changed in the 4th Edition handbook though  rolleyes.gif  icon_evil.gif


I don't think changes to the Speedmeter handbook can "undo" legally binding contracts. Both parties would have to agree to any change in contract, and probably write another contract confirming their intentions.

AFAIK The speedmeter handbook does not contain any TeleTraffic signatures.

laugh.gif


There's also the interesting conflict between a 'legally binding contract' and The Freedom of Information Act.   As far as I am aware, the FOI should take precedence.  It is up to the requested party - in this case I suspect it would be the Home Secretary - to show that an exemption not to disclose would be in order.  In practise, I am sure he wouldn't think too hard before refusing to supply any such information but I can't see why a refusal could be justified.  The next step should then be an appeal to the Information Commissioner.


--------------------
______________
HarrassedDriver
I'm supporting the fight.  Are you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
jeffreyarcher
post Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 00:31
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,639
Joined: 5 Jul 2003
Member No.: 134



QUOTE (HarrassedDriver)
I can't see why a refusal could be justified.

Commercial contracts again. Also, they will say that if they were to give notice that the contracts were going to be terminated, and new more open ones proposed, that the manufacturers would pick up their toys and leave.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Clear Skies
post Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 09:28
Post #51


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 2,869
Joined: 17 May 2004
Member No.: 1,213



QUOTE (BikerPaul)
QUOTE (anton)
Would that mean that by ignoring the errors, this press statement shows malfeasance behavoir?




I think it does.

I really am not sure, but  I think the people are personally responsible.. By all accounts Mrs porter's (mrs tesco's  ) £35 million was extracted from her using the laws relating to  malfeasance .

Personal responsibility when your house is on the line make bottoms twitch..

It's all a bit of a red herring, .  One of these days someone who knows about these things may just take the relevent action having just had a speeding ticket.

rgds
bill


--------------------
QUOTE
God always has a custard pie up his sleeve....
Georgy Girl



Carbon Offset & support PePiPoo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Insider
post Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 12:31
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



QUOTE
I don't think changes to the Speedmeter handbook can "undo" legally binding contracts. Both parties would have to agree to any change in contract, and probably write another contract confirming their intentions.

AFAIK The speedmeter handbook does not contain any TeleTraffic signatures.


You are right, unfortunately for Mr.G the Lti kit was tested and is covered under the older versions of the speedmeter handbook.

The Approval applies to the version of the handbook the equipment was tested to, updates to the handbook only apply to equipment retested to that "standard"


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarrassedDriver
post Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 15:16
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Member No.: 295



QUOTE (jeffreyarcher)
QUOTE (HarrassedDriver)
I can't see why a refusal could be justified.

Commercial contracts again. Also, they will say that if they were to give notice that the contracts were going to be terminated, and new more open ones proposed, that the manufacturers would pick up their toys and leave.


I think we all know what they would say.  However, the Home Office would theoretically have to prove to the satisfaction of the Information Commissioner that not releasing the information was in the greater public interest.  Just being part of a commercial contract is not, in itself, a good enough reason to withold.


--------------------
______________
HarrassedDriver
I'm supporting the fight.  Are you?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Blackbird
post Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 15:21
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,181
Joined: 10 Aug 2003
Member No.: 200



Is there perhaps an mileage in chasing the lack of testing on Motorcycles when Type Approval tests were carried out?  Perhaps a way in?

Regards


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 17:52
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



QUOTE (Blackbird)
Is there perhaps an mileage in chasing the lack of testing on Motorcycles when Type Approval tests were carried out?  Perhaps a way in?

Regards


laugh.gif

They hardly did any testing for anything.

There was no testing for slip, no testing for beam spread effects and no testing for reflection effects.

AFAIK all they did was test a few hundred vehicles - some in one direction, some in the other direction. These were tested in nice quiet, uncomplicated and clean conditions - not, for example, on a very busy motorway.

It's a bit like only ever testing your new aeroplane on a calm, dry day and claiming it works in all conditions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OU812
post Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 08:45
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 966
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
From: ..and not from Guildford afterall!
Member No.: 1,120



The Information Commissioner is currently investigating the disclosure of the 20/20 operations manual under the FOI act. I'm afraid I dont have any more news than that right now

Bear in mind this is different than getting the manual disclosed during a trial (which the Information Commissioner and FOI would have nothing to do with)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 10:35
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



QUOTE (Insider)
You are right, unfortunately for Mr.G the Lti kit was tested and is covered under the older versions of the speedmeter handbook.


It is my understanding that Mr. G's kit was tested in connection with a specific, legally binding agreement that was totally separate to the Speed Meter Handbook.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stunnauk
post Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 10:46
Post #58


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Member No.: 4,045



QUOTE (Blackbird)
Is there perhaps an mileage in chasing the lack of testing on Motorcycles when Type Approval tests were carried out?  Perhaps a way in?

Regards


I have just had a case dismissed in the Magistrates' Court for lack of evidence - I was on a bike and the laser gun was an LTI 20:20 Speedscope.

I am convinced that the erroneous reading was to do with the multi-faceted nature of a bike and therefore the number of possible targets for the laser across its diameter at 200m+, particularly when the bike is targeted from behind.

I would have loved to have taken the case to a higher court to be able to set a precedent and disprove the technology with regards to bikes at least, but they caved in pretty easily.

The speed reading was 7mph over the limit which, not coincidentally I think, is pretty much exactly the additional speed that would be realised by taking the length of the bike into account when calculating distance over the 1/3 second I understand is used for the measurements.

Daniel
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Insider
post Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 10:51
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,410
Joined: 14 Nov 2004
From: Inside somewhere ;-)
Member No.: 1,871



QUOTE
It is my understanding that Mr. G's kit was tested in connection with a specific, legally binding agreement that was totally separate to the Speed Meter Handbook.


Of course it is, I've got a copy of it - However the "standard" that the equipment MUST meet is the relevant Speedmeter Handbook edition, which is why all of the test results refer to "the version".

The "legally binding" contract is somewhat different in that it refers to the conditions that he must "stick to" once approval has been granted. Also IIRC the "contract" is not signed until approval is ready to be given.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdouglas
post Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 11:35
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 685
Joined: 8 Mar 2005
Member No.: 2,524



QUOTE (Insider)
QUOTE
It is my understanding that Mr. G's kit was tested in connection with a specific, legally binding agreement that was totally separate to the Speed Meter Handbook.


Of course it is, I've got a copy of it - However the "standard" that the equipment MUST meet is the relevant Speedmeter Handbook edition, which is why all of the test results refer to "the version".

The "legally binding" contract is somewhat different in that it refers to the conditions that he must "stick to" once approval has been granted. Also IIRC the "contract" is not signed until approval is ready to be given.


Yes. So what's your point?

My point was that there exists an agreement between TeleTraffic and the Home Office. As part of this, TeleTraffic must provide expert witness services free of charge, and the Home Office must protect the confidentiality of TeleTraffic's "informaiton".

Apart from the fact you can argue that this agreement is in itslef "unethical", it leads to a direct conflict of interests with the Freedom of Information act. On the one hand the Home Office are meant to provide freedom of information, and on the other, behind the scenes, they are agreeing to do exactly the opposite!

It goes further than that. Consider a case in Court. You have a right to a fair trial. You have a right to information. The Home Office SHOULD be subcribing to these basic rights. But they have agreed to protect the flow of information from TeleTraffic to a defendent. It's appalling. Do the Home Office believe in fair trials or not?

It's all a total mess.

The Speedmeter Handbook has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 22nd June 2018 - 07:27
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.