Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: blackdouglas Fri, 14 Oct 2005 - 22:01
Post #76844

Good evening,

Looks like we'll all be buying a copy of the DAILY MAIL tomorrow. The FRONT PAGE has the headline "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=365563&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5" - 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

Posted by: MrsMiggins Fri, 14 Oct 2005 - 23:24
Post #76859

Paper review on News 24 just now.  The newsreader gave a summary which went something like "thousands of drivers, including me, have been caught"

Posted by: g_attrill Fri, 14 Oct 2005 - 23:49
Post #76860

Courtesy Sky News:



Anything do do with "our" investigations?  Apparently there was a video on BBC Look East tonight, just trying to download it so haven't looked yet:

http://www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=48328

edit: Looks very interesting, he is recorded at 84 JUST BEFORE overtaking a lorry and afterwards is at 20mph less.  The realvideo is quite blocky but it doesn't seem possible to perform such a manoeuvre. If I can read the distances I will work out the average speed between the readings.

Gareth

Posted by: firefly Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 00:23
Post #76864

Notice the Error03 reading?

AIUI, Error03 means the operator has an unstable reading due to poor aim or panning off of target.  Wonder why the CPS dropped it?  :roll:

Posted by: Insider Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 05:40
Post #76882

You absolutely MUST buy, beg, borrow or steal a copy of the Daily Mail today, talk about hilarious.

I'm sad and went to the local early rag shop (the garage) at 5am for mine  :shock:

Frank must be looking at leaving the country  :shock: It's not very complimentary...  :lol:

Posted by: ^Qwerty^ Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 07:45
Post #76885

Ouch....I'll be on my way in a minute...

Posted by: blackdouglas Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 08:55
Post #76887

Hi guys,

Can somebody get me a copy of this video. I have some contacts in the BBC who should be able to get it but just in case. The higher quality the better. We need to look at it.

Thanks.

Posted by: Mika Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 09:37
Post #76889

The crystal ball predicts the largest civil litigation for damages, in British motoring history.

Mendacious individuals always get found out in the end.

Posted by: flopper Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 12:01
Post #76908

shine up your BIG RED buttons guys, i feel they will be getting a lot of action!  :twisted:

Posted by: g_attrill Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 13:59
Post #76913

Answering myself: Yes  :D  

Good work chaps, excellent excellent article, very thorough and damning report by the DM!

Gareth

Posted by: Orac Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 14:13
Post #76914

Nobody's mentioned the best bit, you can get a free copyof a SuperTed DVD with the voucher on page 41  :)

Posted by: Orac Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 15:54
Post #76918

I love the photo's, nice big calibration sticker.

If anyone can't be bothered to look up Teletraffic's address, its there on the back of the gun.

Don't forget to address any supportive letters "Dear Millionaire Frank Garrard"

Posted by: anton Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 18:37
Post #76926

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

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

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

and Cuddlewok can't see it 'cos he is in Spain


I believe that superted had somthing to do with the eronious readings due to his sky scooter.

Posted by: Radar Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 19:48
Post #76935

Can't we just get Frank banged up
for perverting the course of justice??

Radar

Posted by: Mika Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 20:25
Post #76943

Perhaps his apparent millionaire status will not be an affliction that troubles him for too much longer.

Posted by: Orac Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 20:31
Post #76945

What do you think, £5 a go?  

Posted by: andy_foster Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 20:37
Post #76946

I think we may have found a victim^wvolunteer to organise the fundraising t-shirts.

Posted by: stive gonzales Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 20:51
Post #76949

This can't be true. I'm sure that Garrett's magic lasers know that the only direction they are permitted to bounce is straight back to the LTI.  :lol:  :lol:

Common sense and a GCSE level understanding of physics should be sufficient to have these items consigned to the bin.  I find it difficult to comprehend how (presumably|allegedly|supposedly) educated people can ever have arrived at the conclusion that these things were ever going to stand up to scrutiny.

Posted by: BikerPaul Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 22:45
Post #76962

I think I'll haver two please. One for me, and one for Sniper.

Posted by: sniper Sat, 15 Oct 2005 - 23:20
Post #76967

That's very decent of you Stalkerpaul, but I was told never to accept gifts from strangers and they don't come any stranger than you!!

Posted by: anton Sun, 16 Oct 2005 - 06:26
Post #76980

I am going to run off a few 3 page wall posters. Any one who wants a copy pm me a postal address.


I can blow it up to A0 if required

Posted by: broadsword Sun, 16 Oct 2005 - 09:59
Post #76988

Hi everyone

Back to the Mail article, I believe the most crucial part of the whole lot was the reference to the ACPO guidelines by Mr Garratt (page 25 top of 5th column) and I quote it as follows:-

"The equipment is Home Office Type Approved and when used in accordance with manufacturer's instructions AND ACPO'S CODE OF PRACTICE, presents no problems."

Oh dear me! (Does anyone know how to treat a bullet wound to the end of a leg?)[/b]

Posted by: smiffyz Sun, 16 Oct 2005 - 10:49
Post #76994

Very supprised there's no feedback to the articleon the Mail's web site.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=365563&in_page_id=1770

Perhaps if enough people refuse to pay fines then the courts will realise the feeling amongst drivers about the 20/20 and do something about it.

Posted by: anton Sun, 16 Oct 2005 - 11:08
Post #76997

That is because they dont usualy put it on the web till the next day. I am sure they will recieve some comments now

Posted by: Blackbird Sun, 16 Oct 2005 - 14:33
Post #77002

Too true Anton, and it is there now so time to add some comments, look
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=365563&in_page_id=1770
Regards

Posted by: anton Sun, 16 Oct 2005 - 22:10
Post #77033

One thing that has come out is that you can get a reflected speed. We have been concentrating on slip error, but when a LTI20/20 is pointed at an angle on to a shiny car or even hits some chrome. you can get a speed reading from another car.

This is not an insignificant discovery as I am sure it affects all laser devices.

Posted by: Blackbird Mon, 17 Oct 2005 - 05:00
Post #77038

I notice that there are still only 3 comments on the article at 5.53am today  :shock:

I would suggest that this is our chance to put our experiences, with the LTI20-20,  Mr Garrett, the Crown witholding evidence etc etc

Exposure of an issue like this is hard fought for - make the most of it!

Link  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=365563&in_page_id=1770

Regards

Posted by: BikerPaul Mon, 17 Oct 2005 - 09:48
Post #77050

Hmmm... if I am in fact a Stalker, why have I not yet had that Knock on the door?

Posted by: Bob_Sprocket Mon, 17 Oct 2005 - 11:29
Post #77073

Hi,

We need to keep this ball rolling.

The LTI 20:20 is not the only dodgy laser. Many forces are moving to Pro-Laser III which is equally flawed.

Can we find a University Department willing to do a proper evaluation of these things and publish an authoritative paper which can be used in court? I would be happy to chip in to fund this research and I'm sure that motoring organisations, newpapers and magazines would stump up.

Bob

PS please ignore the trolls they don't know any better.

Posted by: Clear Skies Mon, 17 Oct 2005 - 11:36
Post #77076

if there really is going to be a court case for damages , then all of the various councils/partnerhsips, MUST  reserve their rights to claim against the importer  now .. failure to do so MIGHT  result in the company being cleaned out of funds and turning up it's toes when the first claim comes  in.. thus protecting the USA producer.

Then the ratepayer has to pay all the bills whilst the link with the producer has been lost..


Bill

SNIPER/SHELBY ..  make your selves  usefull,  suggest  the claim for your partnership is lodged now.. PDQ
IF U dont... The angry rate payers will  hold u  liable for not looking after tax payers fund.. gross negligence or similar.. who knows..

Posted by: TINBASHER Mon, 17 Oct 2005 - 19:47
Post #77157

Bill beware! youve seen Shelbyville now look out for Sniperville.

http://www.svsnipers.com/home.html
 :ANAL:  :ANAL:  :thumbright:

Posted by: Clear Skies Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 09:52
Post #77233

I believe this is a very very very important word for everyone to know in future .. Some of us may wish to use it.  

http://tinyurl.com/b44ew

rgds
Bill

Posted by: avonne Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 09:54
Post #77235

Whats the word Bill, the link is kaput :?

Posted by: Clear Skies Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 09:59
Post #77236

works now

Posted by: anton Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 16:00
Post #77301

Would that mean that by ignoring the errors, this http://www.safetycameraswiltshire.co.uk/pub.asp?newsid=95 shows malfeasance behavoir?

Posted by: BikerPaul Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 16:02
Post #77303

Didn't the daily mail use an LTI 20 20 Ultralyte with type approval?

Posted by: firefly Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 18:44
Post #77322

You can almost hear their knees knocking at the prospect of more money being re-directed to the courtroom rather than straight to scammer HQ.  

Does this amount to a threat?  :roll:

Posted by: TINBASHER Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 18:59
Post #77324

Yes FF it certainly looks  thinly veiled  doesnt it.CONTEST AND YOUR FOR IT.....

Posted by: anton Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 20:02
Post #77338

Wiltshire are still able to remember refunding and u-turning from Folly Bottom  :lol:

Posted by: g_attrill Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 21:17
Post #77363

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

Posted by: Insider Tue, 18 Oct 2005 - 22:04
Post #77367

That's contrary to what I understand  :wink:

Posted by: Clear Skies Fri, 21 Oct 2005 - 16:53
Post #77928

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

Posted by: Blackbird Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 12:50
Post #78021

all gone!

Posted by: avonne Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 16:36
Post #78047

What a load of waffle.  :evil:

Posted by: HarrassedDriver Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 20:08
Post #78071

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.

Posted by: blackdouglas Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 21:19
Post #78078

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:

Posted by: Insider Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 21:27
Post #78079

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

Posted by: blackdouglas Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 22:53
Post #78090

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.

Posted by: HarrassedDriver Sat, 22 Oct 2005 - 23:09
Post #78093

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.

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 00:31
Post #78104

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.

Posted by: Clear Skies Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 09:28
Post #78116

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

Posted by: Insider Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 12:31
Post #78127

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"

Posted by: HarrassedDriver Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 15:16
Post #78136

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.

Posted by: Blackbird Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 15:21
Post #78137

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

Posted by: blackdouglas Sun, 23 Oct 2005 - 17:52
Post #78147

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.

Posted by: OU812 Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 08:45
Post #78198

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)

Posted by: blackdouglas Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 10:35
Post #78216

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.

Posted by: stunnauk Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 10:46
Post #78221

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

Posted by: Insider Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 10:51
Post #78222

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.

Posted by: blackdouglas Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 11:35
Post #78228

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.

Posted by: Insider Mon, 24 Oct 2005 - 14:50
Post #78264

I beg to differ, products approved under the 4th edition will have a "contract" signed that only says that the company must provide expert witness support - it says nothing about "for free" They've clearly learnt their lessons.....

However I don't disagree with you about that it is plainly wrong, which is why i'm shortly going to upset a few people at the home office (again)  :wink:

Posted by: blackdouglas Tue, 25 Oct 2005 - 09:58
Post #78418

Hi Insider,

I think I'm with you now. I think we got our wires crossed.

What you are saying is that agreements and testing are done in accordance with the current (at the time) version of the Speed Meter Handbook.

I agree with that.

However, what I was saying is that "legally" the agreement is standalone from the Speedmeter Handbook, unless it specificially refers to it. The parties to the contract are free to add additional clauses over and above the minimum standard laid down by the handbook.

What I was saying is that once those agreements are signed, the Handbook pretty much becomes irrelevant. The Handbook is not a legally binding contract because the two parties have not signed it. The agreement on the other hand is, because they have.

What you are saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that the agreements are driven by what the Handbook says in the first place.

So if I've got this right I don't think we really disagree, we've just got our wires crossed a little.

Posted by: Insider Tue, 25 Oct 2005 - 17:24
Post #78537

Aye  :wink:

That's it in a nutshell

Posted by: Blackbird Tue, 25 Oct 2005 - 19:19
Post #78553

 Good to have that one sorted!

Posted by: TomP Thu, 10 Nov 2005 - 14:44
Post #81709

[quote="Clear Skies"][quote=Mika][quote=g_attrill]Courtesy Sky News:

The crystal ball predicts the largest civil litigation for damages, in British motoring history. :wink:

Mendacious individuals always get found out in the end.[/quote]

if there really is going to be a court case for damages , then all of the various councils/partnerhsips, MUST  reserve their rights to claim against the importer  now .. failure to do so MIGHT  result in the company being cleaned out of funds and turning up it's toes when the first claim comes  in.. thus protecting the USA producer.

Then the ratepayer has to pay all the bills whilst the link with the producer has been lost..


Bill

SNIPER/SHELBY ..  make your selves  usefull,  suggest  the claim for your partnership is lodged now.. PDQ
IF U dont... The angry rate payers will  hold u  liable for not looking after tax payers fund.. gross negligence or similar.. who knows..[/quote]


I think the way to to sue is under the term "joining" therefore the Civil case would be against all parties including the manufacturer, this would force the CPS/Partnership etc to make subsequent claim against the manufacturer if the court found it the main culprite!

TomP

Posted by: Clear Skies Thu, 10 Nov 2005 - 14:51
Post #81711

thankyou kindly, at least u can answer a question the acpo  are unable to..

I asked every cc in the uk, as it's surely an issue local people need to know.. I.E. are we going to have to pay more rates, or more tax ,  if any piece of equipment used is wrong and there is a huge payback as in Australia.  

The acpo said, it's hypothetical and instructed all the cc's not to answer..The mind boggles, at such severe, almost devine , intervention on what is a fair question.

Tom P for CC  :lol:

rgds  & thnks
Bill

Posted by: Clear Skies Thu, 8 Dec 2005 - 18:58
Post #86196

re vamp of uk articles, publishe din the usa..

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/07/713.asp

rgds

Posted by: Clear Skies Wed, 22 Feb 2006 - 18:07
Post #96578

maybe they changed the rules in the 4th edition and set the chap up who ended up having to pay
4 grand costs this week.

when were the rules changed before or after he started his case, if after , a note to his solicitor may assist him .

rgds
bill

Posted by: Dr Science Tue, 21 Nov 2006 - 00:22
Post #149288

This is called a "specular reflection". ALL laser based devices will be susceptible to them. All it takes is to hit a mirror-like surface. E.G. chrome trim, glass (if hit at a shallow angle), gloss paint (if hit at a shallow angle), or a wing mirror at any angle.

Look at any car under bright, low-in-the-sky sunlight. Walk around it. You will soon see which bits create specular reflections and at what angles.

Dr.S