PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Mobile Vans - LTi 20-20 Speedscope, The most commonly used mobile speed camera
Mika
post Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 09:14
Post #1


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



This link will take you to a page which explains the information that appears on the LTi 20-20 Lastec traffic videos.

UPDATE 21st January 2009

Motorist beats 98mph charge

UPDATE 7th February 2007

MCN has the following.

QUOTE
Frank Garratt admitted the speed meter can make a host of errors including ‘slip’ error.


UPDATE 12th September

BBC Inside Out broadcast a follow-up program about the accuracy of the LTi 20-20 and a RealPlayer video of the relevant part of the programme is available for download here (38Mb).

There is a lower resolution WMV file available here. (3.68Mb)

There is also an article about this program on the BBC Inside Out Website.

Inside Out – BBC South West: Monday February 28, 2005:

NOTE A 16Mb RealPlayer clip from the programme, can be downloaded from this link.

“Mobile speed cameras are increasingly being used by the police to enforce speed limits, but how accurate are they?

We look at these cameras and see if their claims of accuracy are themselves accurate.

You may also find this recent Wiltshire case of interest - the Crown dropped the charge, rather than disclosing the traffic video.

Watch the video in this case carefully and decide for yourself. Did the motorcycle decelerate from 107 mph to 87 mph, without braking?

You may also find this US case of interest – “Laser Loses a Legal Test

We can also provide the recording as a SVCD, which will play in most DVD players.

The result of the case was as follows:

Guilty of travelling at 107 mph

Disqualified from driving for 28 days

£500 fine and £1000 costs - the prosecution asked for £2000 costs.

The defendant couldn't afford to go to appeal and in any case, at the time, Mr Garrett was the only recognised "expert" on the LTi 20/20 in this country. That may have changed now. icon_wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
9 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 09:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
TonyOut
post Mon, 12 Apr 2004 - 22:10
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 12 Jan 2004
Member No.: 769



QUOTE

Surreal!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 10:08
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Everyone is blaming the Lti2020 including me...

The fact of the matter is that even if this unreliable 'Distance Measurer' is seen as such another will come in its place.. The biggest msitake we are all making is that the Cops have a lawful duty to WRITE down every detail that occurs when they catch a so called offender. So in essence instead of catching 1,500 plus speeders a day they would only have the time to catch about 30, "The Coppers own words!" and then they would have to write unequivocable and corrolating evidence of the Video film. This is the obvious way to go forward and I will be using my own appeal against a speeding conviction to do just that.

Appeals cost money and I ask you supporters of Anti-entrapment to help me in this. Visit my site The Orange Pages.com and click on the top banner on my front page. I get paid a few pence each time a unique British visitor clicks on it. I make this pledge now....Whatever I generate that doesn't get used on appeal will go directly to the Forum, I will be asking Mika's advice on this. Notwithstanding this I plan to ask Mika if he would be prepared to allow me to pay for the hosting of this Forum as it is the least I can do. I believe that this cause and all the other speed and traffic related queries dealt here are in Pepipoo are in desperate need of being supported as we are at this minute being made to look mugs by the legal process. What I mean by this is..

Speeding = Absolute Offence
Absolute Offence = NO legal Aid.
No legal Aid = no help in Court.
Defending using a Lawyer = beyond most means.
Appealing is even dearer! = You need a Barristor.
If you plead NOT GUILTY and get found guilty which is the case 98.9% of the time = 'you will get double or, in my case, TREBLE the fine'.

We simply cannot win in this situation. I plan to throw my weight, and not just my 17 stone rolleyes.gif behind these causes. The best way to fight injustice is with money, as this will allow us to employ the best Defenders. I will kick-start this off with a donation to Pepipoo of £100 just to set the ball rolling, plus any and all proceeds visitors to my site can generate. I need to ask Mika and whomever else is in charge of Pepipoo if this is okay, and if it is I say to the so called Justice departments on this matter, if you want a fight, you got it!

I genuinely hope I haven't spoken out of turn and apologise now if I have. I simply feel that 'Enough is Enough' and we should do more than discuss the matter!

Regards,

K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 10:17
Post #23


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Kev,

We can discuss your ideas tomorrow, and your timing could be impeccable. icon_wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 11:05
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Hi Mika,

As is expected of a good old Welshman, my timing might be the quirk of fate needed! I look forward to meeting you tomorrow, and even more to seeing Justice done. I forgot to mention to the Forum that I asked my Brother who is a Civil Engineer and is well versed with Laser measurement equipment as this is his Job! We had an interesting discussion regarding the validity of the LTi2020 of which he said that the only time this could really be of use is when setting out Car Parks etc. Laser to the Point man, and back! (That's the guy that holds the Piece of wood the Laser takes its reading from.) In other words, it is only meant to measure "STATIC" points, not moveable, even vibrating Number plates! I hadn't told him of that so it was spooky that he instantly picked up on this anomoly. Rembering that a car might be travelling at 100 mph, a simple vibration of a Number Plate combined with many other independant variables made the use of the LTi2020 absolutely unreliable. Using his words he said that "the cars in the car park are required to move, not the car park itself!" laugh.gif The question I'd like to know is how did the Copper in the Motorcycle case even procede with the case knowing there was so many 'Time outs' and so many other static objects in the way?. I've analyzed it time and again and there are so many times that other 'OBJECTS' or road signs get in the way that the Copper was duty bound to either note them or to dismiss the readings as set out in the guidlines we discussed and linked to earlier in this topic. Is this the case in appeal tomorrow?

K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 11:13
Post #25


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Kev,

You may be able to ask “the Copper in the Motorcycle case” yourself tomorrow. biggrin.gif

See you there, and I will be the chap with the gentleman who looks as though he could have a PhD in lasers and be Europe’s leading expert on the design of traffic detectors. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 11:43
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Look forward to it.

K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 12:10
Post #27


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Kev,

The defendant in the case has just informed us that the appeal hearing is off tomorrow because the police officer is apparently “unwell”.

We will let you have the new date for the hearing as soon as possible. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 13:55
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Convenient excuse there,

I will still be toddling down there just in case to check out if it is one of the oldest tricks in the Book. They often play down cases like this as they don't want to look like tits! Will let you know if there is anything happening.

K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fireblade
post Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 20:31
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 158
Joined: 19 Jul 2003
From: nottinghamshire
Member No.: 165



Obviously crapping himself laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Thu, 29 Apr 2004 - 12:01
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Hi there,

Well after a quiet week my request to lodge an appeal against my conviction for speeding and the encompassing request for access to the FULL tape of the incident I received a letter from a Senior Crown Prosecutor! saying..."I cannot currently acceded to your request for a copy of the entire tape." "I will consider your request further if you confirm in writing what it is you percieve to to be of likely relevance in the tape to the presentation of of your case."

What the F***? I will consider>? Has this man adopted the role of God or what? They can't deny me surely? My head is up my A853 for other reasons so I don't have time for this crap, they have my dander up now and that is something they simply should not have done icon_evil.gif Look out CPS here I come!!!

P.s. Will speak to those who I need to speak to as soon as I get other things sorted! You will know who you are! icon_wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Captain A
post Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 09:05
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 925
Joined: 1 Feb 2004
Member No.: 836



"I will consider your request further if you confirm in writing what it is you percieve to to be of likely relevance in the tape to the presentation of of your case."

George Orwell couldn't have made this up ! What this guy is saying is that 'in order for me to allow you to see the video you have to tell me what it is in the video which makes you want to see it'. Surely they can't get away with that, otherwise no disclosure would ever need to take place.

Incidentally the CPS can't spell perceive, but never mind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 09:30
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Hi,

I was as amazed as you however Mika had warned me what to expect so I was kind of prepared. What they don't realize is that it is not the duty of the defence to disclose their madness oops I mean methods laugh.gif The CPS are in their own code honour bound to pass on all evidence to the defence. Quting EXACTLY from their Code of Conduct....

“Whilst there appears to be no duty on the Crown to assist a defendant with an appeal, failure to provide information in response to a reasonable request would not be in accordance with the principles of fairness, independence and objectivity set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors.”

I used that in my reply to them yesterday. There is more chance of rocking horse dung being found on the moon than me giving up on this one, especially as the prats gave my name to the papers so they could put "Look who's been in Court" in.... icon_evil.gif Looks like they wanna kick you when your down as well as gloat on excessive unwarrented fines.

Will keep you all posted.... P.S . Get every Brit to click the banner on my directory as it helps to go toward pepipoos fighting fund. I intend to join proper when I get certain other matters out of the way. Lets all beat these people as this is not funny any more!

K

For you Mika, I'm not beig rude, I simply have to sort out the other issues ok,, they are making the ride rougher than I thought. It never rains it pours! icon_cry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 10:23
Post #33


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Hi Kev,

You may also wish to politely remind the CPS of their legal obligation under Section 3 of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996:

3. - (1) The prosecutor must-

(a) disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused, or

In my opinion the CPS in South Wales has material in their position that could undermine their case in any LTi 20-20 prosecution.

The CPS may be about to have a problem explaining their “independence” - how are they going to explain trying to deprive you of your legal right to the crucial evidence, in a mere speeding prosecution icon_question.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 14:20
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Hello Mika,

I hope you understand that I cannot discuss my own problems online and you are aware to a degree that they are fairly big ones! (Problems that is!) With regards to the information you have just given I have to say that I genuinely did not think of this approach but will most certainly apply this to my amended request for the FULL tape. I havn't forgotten to join up as a member either I simply have certain things I need to concentrate on for a second or three. One thing for sure though, is that I will most certainly be making time for the appeal and will be fighting to get a mutual date when we can meet up.

Speak soon,

K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kevin Green
post Wed, 5 May 2004 - 10:30
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 99
Joined: 8 Apr 2004
Member No.: 1,077



Surprise, Suprise!!

For the second time I have been denied access to the full video tape. Here's the basis of their main 'Reason'....

"You will appreciate that the entire tape made by the police on the day of the incident in question would potentially involve images of other vehicles that that have nothing to do with your case! It would not be appropriate for the proecution to disclose that to you unless it is necessary to do so..."

Tut Tut, what are they hiding?

I'm gonna have one final pop at them before making application to the Court to Subpoena the tape, I am going to make it clear this time that the Lti2020 is in question as well as the position of the Video etc...

Watch this space....

K
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NigelO
post Wed, 5 May 2004 - 10:53
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 58
Joined: 24 Feb 2004
Member No.: 921



why is it a problem for them to show you a tape that "may have images of other vehicles"?

Were all these vehicles secret government cars, piloted by anonymous SAS types who don't want to reveal their identity?

I doubt it - I can stand on a motorway bridge with my camcorder and take footage of cars going past - am I doing something wrong? There will be nothing to identify the driver (us mere mortals can't get access to the Police National Computer to find out the identity from a reg number) so as has already been mentioned above, what are they hiding?

My guess is that the scamera operator just targeted every car until he found one that was over the limit. There would have been no "forming of opinion", which is clearly against the law.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Wed, 5 May 2004 - 11:03
Post #37


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Nigel,

My guess is that this could be much more serious than: “the scamera operator just targeted every car until he found one that was over the limit.”

Do I hear the sound of the desperate clutching of straws by the CPS - just can’t wait to find out where this is all going to end?....£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££. icon_wink.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
OU812
post Wed, 5 May 2004 - 11:18
Post #38


Member


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



QUOTE (Mika)
My guess is that this could be much more serious than: “the scamera operator just targeted every car until he found one that was over the limit.”


Thats certainly the case in my video (which they let me view to 'identify the driver').

Since I was caught twice 6 minutes apart I got to see the 'fast forward' version of the 6 minutes in between - very interesting viewing

zap zap zap zap, got one, zap zap zap

On my second incident he took 3 reading until he got one over the limit (prior observation and opinion formed indeed!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
FastShow
post Fri, 7 May 2004 - 23:04
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Member No.: 455



The case on PePiPoo with the motorcycle being clocked at 107mph, then 87mph all within a few seconds and without braking is being discussed in this thread over at Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership's forum.

Steve (one of the CSCP guys) has commented on it so far and claims that it looks credible to him with some figures to back that theory up. Just thought it might interest some of the people here - could be interesting to discuss the workings of the LTi 20/20 with someone closely tied to the thing,
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mika
post Sat, 8 May 2004 - 11:43
Post #40


Member
Group Icon

Group: Administrators
Posts: 9,760
Joined: 30 Mar 2003
From: Wiltshire, UK
Member No.: 4



Carl,

You may wish to inform Steve that the last person who was prepared to present that 'interesting theory' to a court has subsequently become a bit ‘shy’. icon_redface.gif

We know how fast the motorcycle was actually travelling and, although it may be an anathema to those in the business of prosecuting motorists, ‘the doctor’ and I believe that we can prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

In our opinion, it is the 87 mph that is an erroneous speed measurement and not the 107 mph – but unreliable is unreliable and that is why this ‘fiasco’ may end up costing a small fortune, and why they may not wont to disclose any more traffic videos. rolleyes.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

9 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: Monday, 22nd October 2018 - 06:37
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.