A MOTORCYCLIST who successfully contested a speeding charge is telling other drivers and riders that their convictions could be on shaky ground.

Mark Lindsay, from Windmill Hill, was cleared after a day-long trial in Taunton.

Just confirms what we already know about the LTI 20:20 but I wonder where RSS and their team of expensive, vested interest 'expert' witnesses were on this occasion?

RSS may well have looked at the video and decided they would be on a loser, but the local plod and CPS might have been arrogant enough to think they could get a conviction anyway.

Whatever, a nice result for Mr Farrow, and another crack in the veneer of LTi "infallibility".

A good result indeed. I hope he got costs.

I strongly disagree with that statement.

The crosshairs that appear on the recorded video are not in any way connected to the positioning of the laser, other than being aligned by eye and by turning a couple of thumbwheels.

The LTI Speedscope is not the camera and vice versa, so whilst a NIP being sent to the wrong recipient is wholly unacceptable, the accuracy of the LTI cannot be brought into question by citing the crosshairs as being ‘out of alignment’. If the operator used the red-dot as the primary sighting aid (as should be), then the speed of the vehicle the laser struck is not being questioned, the video apparently recorded the wrong vehicle, NOT the LTI returned an incorrect speed reading.

The bits that are bolted to the LTI are not made by LTI, they are sourced and custom made to suit by Tele-Traffic. The Concept system (versions 1 and 2), is just a collection of optical bits and pieces and the LTI’s output is recorded by them, adding a few numbers for future reference, but this is only ever going to be accurate if the alignment process is done to an acceptable standard.

Without viewing the entire session, it is impossible to state what precisely what took place, but from what information we have access to, this is not an LTI fault, more a potential red-dot/crosshair alignment one.

I do not see how this impacts the accuracy of the LTI, other than in the eyes of those with a very limited understanding of the principles of the equipment in use.

It doesn't, everybody knows it's rubbish. How old is yours?



And thank god for that. I think they're called magistrates.

Whilst it may not (or may) highlight an inherent problem with the device itself, it would appear to highlight a problem with the way that it is used.

When a real policeman uses such a device to measure the speed of an individual vehicle, and then proceeds to stop that vehicle, there will not be a camera attached and he will know which vehicle he intended to ping. He will then deal with the driver of that vehicle. Simples x.

However, when the gnomes point them out of the back of the talivans, a session video is created, which I understand the backroom boys then 'process' and generate statements for the operator to sign. The backroom boys won't know which vehicles the operator intended to ping, only what the video appears to show. As you know, the backroom boys processing the video won't be able to see the red dot on the sighting scope.

I have been involved in a case where the operator of an LTI 2020 signed a statement describing how he loaded and unloaded the wet film cartridge in a Gatsometer BV Type 24 + AUS, and his colleague signed a statement describing how he processed the wet film from that cartridge showing the accused's vehicle speeding. The operator's excuse was that he was simply given 700 pre-written statements to sign and didn't bother reading them.

And, of course, the BiB /CPS are always more than willing to release the full session video to allow any 'errors' to be identified by independent scrutiny.

Yeah right.

Your final paragraph regarding ‘an LTI operator’ who is involved in Gatso evidence collection is mystifying.

What is the connection to what is being discussed?

You say the ‘operator's excuse', excuse for what?

I stand by my original assertion that this case weakens the reputation of the equipment.

I fully realise that the Speedscope isn't part of the camera, and is there only to record the output. I am also aware that the crosshairs aren't the same thing as the red dot, which only the operator sees.

However, we are concerned here with how the equipment - and that includes the LTi, the camera, and all other items - is used as a means of detecting alleged speeding offences, and the subsequent generation of NIPs.

Unless we can be sure 100% that every vehicle "pinged" and sent a NIP is exceeding the limit, forums like this, and cases like the instant one will continue to exist. Clearly we can't have that 100% certainty, as has been demonstrated time and again here and elsewhere.

The fact that many US States no longer accept LTi evidence, and others will only accept it at much shorter ranges than in the UK, is another indication that the output of this equipment does not match the claims made by Tele-Traffic, ACPO and the so-called "experts" from RSS.

It is an example of the fact that the evidence given by operators is often 'generated' by the backroom boys, and in that particular case the fact that the backroom boys got it utterly wrong didn't stop him signing the witness statement.

You do not seem to think that someone operating an LTI 2020, but giving detailed evidence of how he 'operated' a gatso is indicative of a problem. But then you are probably paid lots of money to say under oath that nothing that the scamerati do wrong is actually ever a problem.

I do not question or challenge anything you have outlined, with the obvious exception that you originally stated '..and another crack in the veneer of LTi "infallibility".' You now replace 'LTI' with 'equipment'. Your original contribution was most specific.

Without access to the recorded pre/post alignment checks (assuming they were done) and examples of other pings, it is impossible to say definitively what has taken place, but the LTI's accuracy has not been challenged by the outcome of this particular case, the issue is potential crosshair alignment/laser and subsequent usage and incorrect VRM identification.

If the person behind the kit does not do as required, then that is strictly operator error. However, the information we have access to is very limited;

'Video and speed measurement expert Tim Farrow told the court in his opinion the laser device and camera were not aligned properly and the laser had clocked the nearby car. He surmised that either camera enforcement officer Mr Walsh accidently clocked the car, or was deliberately aiming for the car, but as the cross hairs on the video recorded were fixed in the motorbike, the fine was sent to Mr Lindsay.'

Upon what is Mr Farrow's opinion based exactly? We can only guess.

Putting aside your assumptions, I am still none the wiser regarding what the connection to collecting Gatso evidence has to being an 'LTI operator', or what excuse is being made? What is that excuse? What evidence is being generated? Do you mean film processing - what?

The point Andy is making, is that operators will sign s9 witness statements which then form part of the Prosecution evidence, without checking that the statement actually relates to the case in question. Clearly, an LTi operator signing that he "operated" a Gatso is a nonsense, but if the accused wasn't clued up on such matters, he may well have folded and pleaded guilty in the face of such "evidence". The excuse is that there were hundreds of statements to sign, and there wasn't time to check them all - but that isn't acceptable by any standards.

I had a similar occurrence a few years back, when I made a s8 request to the CPS for the video footage from a LTi ping. Nothing was forthcoming, and when I telephoned the CPS 48 hrs before trial date, some floosie in their office told me "there is no video, the pictures were taken from a Gatso". Needless to say, I wiped the floor with them in Court, case dismissed and defence costs awarded.

Lets see if I can make this any simpler...

On this particular occasion, an operator was manually operating an LTI 2020 with Lastec Local Video system. The backroom boys produced a still from the Lastec Local Video system showing a vehicle and a speed (albeit with the "TIMEOUT" message showing, so we cannot be certain that the speed recorded was measured from the vehicle in the centre of the picture.
The prosecution disclosed s. 9 witness statements purporting to have been written by 2 operators. In the first witness statement, the operator who was operating the LTI 2020, gave a detailed account of how he loaded/unloaded the wet film cartridge from a fixed gatso. In the second witness statement, another operator gave a detailed account of how he developed the wet film cartridge and produced the still image. The still image, allegedly produced from the gatso, contained crosshairs and a datablock exactly like the images on the Lastec Local Video it was taken from. The statements were materially and demonstrably false.
When asked to explain how he came to provide such a false statement, the first operator (or the actual operator) explained that he had never read 'his' statement - he had been given 700 statements to sign and simply signed them.
We do not know exactly how the backroom boys got it so wrong, but what is of far more general relevance is that the operator's statement was not in any meaningful way his own evidence.

The relevance of the above is that in all areas where the procedures are similar to the above, the operator - who is the only one who can see which vehicle the red dot is on - does not materially give evidence as to which vehicle he targeted - he merely adopts whatever the backroom boys infer from the tape. If the crosshairs aren't necessarily aligned with the red dot, are the backroom boys going to rely on the red dot (which they can't see) or the crosshairs (which they can see) to determine which vehicle was targeted?

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

Thanks for the detailed account, however you originally stated;

‘I have been involved in a case where the operator of an LTI 2020 signed a statement describing how he loaded and unloaded the wet film cartridge in a Gatsometer BV Type 24 + AUS, etc……’

What you don’t realise is that over the years, many constabularies no longer employ dedicated gatso duty staff, instead crews double up on a rota system of LTI and static camera work. Hence, there is nothing odd about someone working mobile enforcement one day, then doing gatso duties the next. So your statement regarding someone being an LTI operator who emptied and reloaded static camera film cassettes made perfect sense.

I myself have been to court for both and there was nothing in what you supplied that indicated that both tasks didn’t fall within the brief of LTI operator in question. To regularly receive statements for signings for both LTI and static cameras is quite normal for a percentage of enforcement staff.

Now you’ve added more detail, I understand what the issue is, but up until that point, it still made no sense given I have an operational perspective you do not.

I see no mileage in people keep continually reiterating the crosshair/red-dot issue, but only to highlight that this exonerates the LTI Speedscope as the innocent by-stander. This is not to say I am holding the LTI aloft as being not without its issues - but in this particular case, its accuracy has not been brought into question by the defence and it is quite incorrect to suggest that the 'LTI' was at fault.

If the crosshairs are out of alignment as much as we are lead to believe, then the weak link can only be the human element.



This post has been edited by justforthepictures: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 - 18:10

I tend to agree. What this case demonstrates is that an LTI and its accompanying video system can be misaligned. Nothing more, nothing less. This problem would be eliminated if enforcement was carried out by constables at the roadside with hand held or tripod mounted devices stopping offenders there and then (as I used to do). No issues with NIPs being late or lost, no issues over s. 172 and the ability to use discretion - worked for me and worked for the public I served. Cameras don't seem to have the same support.

what gets me is witness statements signed by people who aren't witnesses.

The more I look at the accompanying still, I find it very difficult to accept that the person behind the lens wasn't aware that if the dot/hair were that much out of synch, then every time the trigger was pulled, unless there was actually another moving vehicle plonked in either the crosshairs if he was using the red-dot to sight, or in front of the laser if he was using the crosshairs, then there would always be an erroneous error message.

If this was the case (ongoing error messages), then this would mean that both the person pulling the trigger and the member of the viewing team who subsequently processed the data, would have to have been snorting coke to miss such a recurring and repetitive anomaly.

One possibility is that the image in question was captured very early into the session and the dot/hairs aligned shortly afterwards.

Failing that, I am genuinely amazed that such a jarring disparity could go unnoticed, especially as it got as far as The Big House.

What did Tim Farrow spot that generated sufficient doubt, or was his two pronged opinion enough to raise doubt even though the motorcyclist was doing the indicated speed and the dot and 'hairs were perfectly aligned?

This post has been edited by justforthepictures: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 - 19:49

Without questioning the abilities of Tim Farrow, he seems to be the same sort of "expert witness" provided by the likes of RSS, aCPO, Brunstrom and the like. when "expert witnesses" are used by "our side" to their benefit, the "dark side" don't like it because it exposes their faults and failures of which there are many.

Having to agree with comments made by mr Picture, the public do not like the camera system; as has ben stated above, statements are generated by backroom staff, probably those recently off ther dole with few brain cells; the cameras and recording device usually operated by those with simila IQ levels who just click away at eveything that moves, no prior opinion as to whether a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit.

Surely any operator who simply signs 700 statements is guily of PCOJ?