PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

A Review Of Laser Speed Meters, A critical look at Laser Speed Meters
Paul D. Lee
post Thu, 10 Jul 2008 - 21:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: 14 May 2008
Member No.: 19,550



For ease of reference, here is the latest copy of my Laser Speed Meters Report.

Attached File  report_v1_2_rqp.pdf ( 2.18MB ) Number of downloads: 2176


Attached File  beam_spread_wrong_clip_1_small.mpg ( 3.48MB ) Number of downloads: 1587

Attached File  beam_spread_wrong_clip_2_small.mpg ( 3.43MB ) Number of downloads: 761

Attached File  beam_spread_correct_clip_1_small.mpg ( 2.91MB ) Number of downloads: 759


(Edited 15 July 2008, with latest version of report, and example "Beam Spread" Clips)

This post has been edited by Paul D. Lee: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 - 22:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 10 Jul 2008 - 21:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
StationCat
post Sun, 6 Jul 2014 - 18:55
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



Sorry for bringing up an old thread, and I don't know if the author still monitors, but I was curious about the parallax issue in the 'aligning the red dot' section of the report. I understand that the red dot on the laser gun appears in a head-up display and through the clever use of optics appears much further away. Clearly this would be necessary otherwise the dot would appear out of focus to the operator and impossible to view (being a few cm away) at the same time as the target vehicle (possibly hundreds of metres away). Is it therefore the case that that diagram in the report should have the 'sight' position much higher therefore producing triangles which are much more elongated? Furthermore, in the example given if the red-dot is optically a few hundred metres away then how does this affect the target error?


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andy_foster
post Sun, 6 Jul 2014 - 19:56
Post #42


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 20,400
Joined: 9 Sep 2004
From: Reading
Member No.: 1,624



QUOTE (StationCat @ Sun, 6 Jul 2014 - 19:55) *
Sorry for bringing up an old thread, and I don't know if the author still monitors, but I was curious about the parallax issue in the 'aligning the red dot' section of the report. I understand that the red dot on the laser gun appears in a head-up display and through the clever use of optics appears much further away. Clearly this would be necessary otherwise the dot would appear out of focus to the operator and impossible to view (being a few cm away) at the same time as the target vehicle (possibly hundreds of metres away). Is it therefore the case that that diagram in the report should have the 'sight' position much higher therefore producing triangles which are much more elongated? Furthermore, in the example given if the red-dot is optically a few hundred metres away then how does this affect the target error?


No.


--------------------
Andy

If you're going to try to contradict me, please at least try to get your facts straight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nomadros
post Mon, 7 Jul 2014 - 09:23
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,380
Joined: 11 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,089



this...

http://dragoneyetech.com/

...is as bad ass as it gets.
Been out for a couple of years but it's still a pant wetter.


Review complete
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StationCat
post Mon, 7 Jul 2014 - 16:45
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 13 Nov 2013
From: UK
Member No.: 66,671



QUOTE (andy_foster @ Sun, 6 Jul 2014 - 20:56) *
QUOTE (StationCat @ Sun, 6 Jul 2014 - 19:55) *
Sorry for bringing up an old thread, and I don't know if the author still monitors, but I was curious about the parallax issue in the 'aligning the red dot' section of the report. I understand that the red dot on the laser gun appears in a head-up display and through the clever use of optics appears much further away. Clearly this would be necessary otherwise the dot would appear out of focus to the operator and impossible to view (being a few cm away) at the same time as the target vehicle (possibly hundreds of metres away). Is it therefore the case that that diagram in the report should have the 'sight' position much higher therefore producing triangles which are much more elongated? Furthermore, in the example given if the red-dot is optically a few hundred metres away then how does this affect the target error?


No.


Thanks for the concise answer. Can you please expand to explain why when looking through the scope, and the red dot is in sharp focus and appears to be much further away, there is not much apparent movement in its position on the target vehicle when your eye position moves?


--------------------
"Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things" - Isaac Newton
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TonyS
post Mon, 25 Aug 2014 - 18:21
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 806
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
From: Scotland
Member No.: 60,732



If you look through a telescopic sight the cross-wires are in sharp focus, and their position relative to the target doesn't change if you move your eye away from the centre line. I don't know how that's done optically, but presumably the same may be done with this speed gun.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 23 Sep 2014 - 16:45
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,909
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



A couple of current threads appear to query the cosine effect. The attached LIDAR theory manual has a table which will be of interest.

I've also uploaded the old Ultralyte LRB Manual if anyone needs this.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yvan Dutil
post Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 21:10
Post #47


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
From: Québec
Member No.: 81,812



Hi, I am a physicist with a background in instrumentation.

I am consulting on a case using a Ultralte LTI LR100. I a trying to gather as much information as possible on this device. Unfortunately, my request are rather precise. Hence, the local distributor (I am living in Quebec) can't answer and the company refuse to answer.

Maybe someone here can answer my question.

Is the field of view is limited by the detector of the laser beam. If it is the laser beam what is its half power beamdwidth. This may look symmetrical but behaviour is different.

Does anyone know why the uncertainty is 1 MPH for a device that can measure distance to within 6 in. This look a simple limitation of the display, but the conversion in metric is 2 km/h, which eitehr say the truth or a demonstration of the incompetency of the analysis.

Third, what is the official claim about how the anti-sweep error algorithm works. I have got different version of it. IMHO the parameters are relaxed in difficult operating conditions (long distance, small target, non perpendicular target, large road reflection) leading to erroneous measurements.

I will try to build a full model of the instrument including atmospheric propagation. Off course, more I know before, the best it is.

Thanks for your help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 14:38
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,470
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



As you will know the accuracy of the device will far exceed +/- 1mph (or equivalent rounded km/h) but one would guess for simplicity that the display only displays integers so with rounding (down) and the possible cosine reduction due to a non-perpendicular measurement then the manufacturer would be a hostage to fortune in listing a more accurate headline accuracy.

In the UK we have quite a generous threshold before enforcement anyway. Such accuracy makes no difference whatsoever in the real world - I don't see any lines of 'attack' here.

I don't know how Canadian law works but here the devices are 'Type Approved' and the measurement is assumed correct unless the defendant can show otherwise - which in reality is near impossible. (But of course the reading is more likely than not to be correct). Additionally, the enforcement officer should be using the device to corroborate their opinion - in most circumstances it's easy to spot a speeding motorist.

The 'anti-sweeping' (or slip as it's known here) algorithm is obviously proprietary (and thus why difficult to get hold of) but I've never heard that it was adaptive depending on external factors. I did come across a document before which, from memory, gave an overview of the algorithm - that is the multiple delta's from the pulses were effectively 'plotted' and if a preset percentage of points deviated by another preset amount then the whole measurement was voided.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 14:39


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
justforthepictur...
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 15:12
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 893
Joined: 23 Aug 2010
From: Louis Walsh's bathroom
Member No.: 40,004



QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 21:10) *
I will try to build a full model of the instrument including atmospheric propagation.

Can I ask what you plan to charge your client for such an exercise?


--------------------
'Speed Kills' simply means, hit something or someone fast enough and it will result in a fatality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yvan Dutil
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 15:50
Post #50


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
From: Québec
Member No.: 81,812



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 10:38) *
As you will know the accuracy of the device will far exceed +/- 1mph (or equivalent rounded km/h) but one would guess for simplicity that the display only displays integers so with rounding (down) and the possible cosine reduction due to a non-perpendicular measurement then the manufacturer would be a hostage to fortune in listing a more accurate headline accuracy.

In the UK we have quite a generous threshold before enforcement anyway. Such accuracy makes no difference whatsoever in the real world - I don't see any lines of 'attack' here.

I don't know how Canadian law works but here the devices are 'Type Approved' and the measurement is assumed correct unless the defendant can show otherwise - which in reality is near impossible. (But of course the reading is more likely than not to be correct). Additionally, the enforcement officer should be using the device to corroborate their opinion - in most circumstances it's easy to spot a speeding motorist.

The 'anti-sweeping' (or slip as it's known here) algorithm is obviously proprietary (and thus why difficult to get hold of) but I've never heard that it was adaptive depending on external factors. I did come across a document before which, from memory, gave an overview of the algorithm - that is the multiple delta's from the pulses were effectively 'plotted' and if a preset percentage of points deviated by another preset amount then the whole measurement was voided.


Here, police speedometer is assumed to by a prima facie proof if it has been checked to work properly and if the policeman is qualified. In theory, you can counter that by saying that you have checked your car speedometer or that your car could not go to this speed. IN that case I could help. In practice, however, this is very dependant of the judge feeling. Nevertheless, in a previous case, I have found a non documented failure mode of the radar. In consequence, the case was closed outside the court to not create any new jurisprudence.

Anyway, I am VERY interested in any document describing how the algorithm work. The patent of LTI describe an adaptive window methodology to find the peak. This indicates that in less permissive environment the error bar of the measurement will increase. The lidar must use the first «strong» return to trig the clock. The less sharp is this return the larger are the error.

I know it must pass a NTSA test, but this is done in a lab environment. In real life, measurement are much noisier. If the anti-slip algo is statistical it will be much more prone to error that in the lab where it is qualified. I am diffing trough all previous brought to court to understand the specific failure more of lidar.

By the way, does any one know the description fo the pulse train of this radar. I am under the impression there is one pulse, 100 ms wait, then a train of pulse each 8 ms for 0.3 s. It this is right?





QUOTE (justforthepictures @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 11:12) *
QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 21:10) *
I will try to build a full model of the instrument including atmospheric propagation.

Can I ask what you plan to charge your client for such an exercise?


The answer is yes, but not enough! I do charge some time, but it is much less that the true time I am speed on the case. Hopefully, overtime I will be able to reuse my knowledge and get some payback on my effort.

Also, I need to do some technical analysis just to stay mentally in shape. I have no official job right now, and this work help me to keep my skill. Simple differential (Vis vs IR) refraction analysis is not that hard to do. I would like to do the phase screen also, but I must find the adequate scientific literature reference.

By the way, does anyone in tried to used the video as an alternate speed measure? This should by a straight forward prima facie proof.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 16:03
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,470
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 15:50) *
By the way, does anyone in tried to used the video as an alternate speed measure? This should by a straight forward prima facie proof.

Video, using points of reference with a simple time over distance measurement could be employed - either by the defence or prosecution. However, the person doing this would have to meet certain criteria to be considered an 'expert witness'. But bear in mind such a measurement would be a mean and not an 'instantaneous' measurement like the laser.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 16:04


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 16:22
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,470
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



This link is worth a read.

This thread has some interesting nuggets.


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yvan Dutil
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 17:41
Post #53


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
From: Québec
Member No.: 81,812



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 12:03) *
QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 15:50) *
By the way, does anyone in tried to used the video as an alternate speed measure? This should by a straight forward prima facie proof.

Video, using points of reference with a simple time over distance measurement could be employed - either by the defence or prosecution. However, the person doing this would have to meet certain criteria to be considered an 'expert witness'. But bear in mind such a measurement would be a mean and not an 'instantaneous' measurement like the laser.


Well, there is open source video analysis software used for physics teaching that can provide frame by frame speed estimate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 19:31
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,244
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 21:10) *
I am consulting on a case using a Ultralte LTI LR100.


Out of interest, is this a speeding case? If so, what was the alleged speed and limit?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yvan Dutil
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 19:57
Post #55


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
From: Québec
Member No.: 81,812



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 15:31) *
QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 21:10) *
I am consulting on a case using a Ultralte LTI LR100.


Out of interest, is this a speeding case? If so, what was the alleged speed and limit?


179 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. Clocked at 262 m and it is a motorcycle. The police dis a very large sweep to catch the motorcycle. The target is small, far and there is a large sweep. Everything is place for a slip error.

This post has been edited by Yvan Dutil: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 20:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 20:06
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,470
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



...and the rider is alleged they weren't exceeding 100km/h?


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yvan Dutil
post Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 21:32
Post #57


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
From: Québec
Member No.: 81,812



QUOTE (Jlc @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 17:06) *
...and the rider is alleged they weren't exceeding 100km/h?


About that! There was two motorcycles. He claim that he has seen the police officer and slowed down while the other guy escaped. There was actually another moto that has escaped. The guy seams honest ans a confusion is possible but this is hard to demonstrate. It might be a lidar failure also. Anyway, legal contestation of speeding ticket is disappearing in Quebec. There is roughly 20 cases per year for over 600 000 tickets and roughly 1700 extreme speeding. Ticket number have been cut by a factor 3 in 5 years due to an increase repression. Probability of winning is roughly 10%. Just to say, I am not making a living from this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jlc
post Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 08:24
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,470
Joined: 25 Aug 2011
From: With Mickey
Member No.: 49,223



QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 21:32) *
He claim that he has seen the police officer and slowed down while the other guy escaped.

As you know the speed measurement is usually made by the time the officer was spotted and deceleration occurred... Although I agree a bike is a harder target with a very different profile to a car.

This post has been edited by Jlc: Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 08:24


--------------------
RK=Registered Keeper, OP=Original Poster (You!), CoFP=Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty, NtK=Notice to Keeper, NtD=Notice to Driver
PoFA=Protection of Freedoms Act, SAC=Safety Awareness Course, NIP=Notice of Intended Prosecution, ADR=Alternative Dispute Resolution
PPC=Private Parking Company, LBCCC=Letter Before County Court Claim, PII=Personally Identifiable Information

Private Parking - remember, they just want your money and will say almost anything to get it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yvan Dutil
post Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 14:52
Post #59


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
From: Québec
Member No.: 81,812



QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 05:24) *
QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 21:32) *
He claim that he has seen the police officer and slowed down while the other guy escaped.

As you know the speed measurement is usually made by the time the officer was spotted and deceleration occurred... Although I agree a bike is a harder target with a very different profile to a car.


Well, in that specific case my client said he had seen the police officer when he was nearing him. The police officer has taken is measurement when I was moving away. It was the noise of the motorcycle that has attracted is attention as he was doing some radar in the opposite direction. This is why there is a large sweep and that the pointing might now have been as stable as in a normal situation.

Off course, nothing is black and white. Nevertheless, I never take a case when I don't think it might have a technical issue involved. Also, my client are warned from the beginning that the physics is useless if they lied.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CL22
post Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 16:38
Post #60


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 22 Jan 2016
Member No.: 81,944



QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 14:52) *
QUOTE (Jlc @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 05:24) *
QUOTE (Yvan Dutil @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 21:32) *
He claim that he has seen the police officer and slowed down while the other guy escaped.

As you know the speed measurement is usually made by the time the officer was spotted and deceleration occurred... Although I agree a bike is a harder target with a very different profile to a car.


Well, in that specific case my client said he had seen the police officer when he was nearing him. The police officer has taken is measurement when I was moving away. It was the noise of the motorcycle that has attracted is attention as he was doing some radar in the opposite direction. This is why there is a large sweep and that the pointing might now have been as stable as in a normal situation.

Off course, nothing is black and white. Nevertheless, I never take a case when I don't think it might have a technical issue involved. Also, my client are warned from the beginning that the physics is useless if they lied.

I think the pysics will be useless if the physicist is confused about the technologies involved. Is it radar or laser?

If you don't already know anything about the laser device, it is clear you know very little about it, the court is unlikely to consider you an expert in these devices. You may be encouraged to know that the court will at least listen to you but do not be too surprised if they discard your evidence. They are likley to do that if you reference some handy and free garbage you picked up online.

An expert witness for a laser speed gun will be aware of how it manages the physics before that witness examines and comments on the case. Even someone who has a very good knowledge of physics is unlikely to be an expert in laser speed guns. Your questions about the physics involved shows your client is not being well served, indeed and expert witness trawling web forums for tuition in his expert subject, oh dear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
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: Sunday, 16th December 2018 - 21:14
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.