Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

FightBack Forums _ Technical Discussion of Enforcement Devices _ Mobile Vans - LTi 20-20 Speedscope

Posted by: Mika Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 09:14
Post #7841

http://www.pepipoo.com/LTi2020_screen.htm.

UPDATE 21st January 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7840369.stm

UPDATE 7th February 2007

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page=motorcyclenews.articles.articleCategory.article&resourceId=6462338&articleCategory=NEWS_OTHER-NEWS.

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 http://www.pepipoo.co.uk/files/inside_out_12-sep-05.rm (38Mb).

There is a lower resolution WMV file available http://homepage.ntlworld.com/julie.denton2/insout.wmv. (3.68Mb)

There is also an article about this program on the http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml.

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

NOTE A 16Mb RealPlayer clip from the programme, can be downloaded http://www.pepipoo.co.uk/files/inside_out.rm.

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/speed-cameras.shtml”

You may also find this recent http://pepipoo.com/Case_file_19.htm.

Watch the video http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_11.htm Did the motorcycle decelerate from 107 mph to 87 mph, without braking?

You may also find this US case of interest – “http://www.geocities.com/speeding@sbcglobal.net/lidarcase.html”

We can also http://www.pepipoo.co.uk/Products_Services/Video.htm, 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, http://www.pepipoo.com/CF11_Expert_Opinion.htm was the only recognised "expert" on the LTi 20/20 in this country. That may have changed now. icon_wink.gif

Posted by: sjpage Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 14:40
Post #7870

Wow!
that to me, proves beyond any doubt that it sure is a dodgy scope

I hope you can prove this in court mika

you wouldnt think it would be that difficult with that video, but then we are dealing with the law !

is there anything the motorcyclist could do now to reclaim his losses or we can do to reclaim ours if (when) you win ?

Posted by: Mika Wed, 25 Feb 2004 - 14:56
Post #7871

Stef,

Yes, we believe that we can prove it, but whether or not a British Court will take any notice is another matter. This may have to go ‘all the way’ to Strasburg.

Put it like this, once the doctor’s report is published, there shouldn’t be any more arguments in court about why you need a copy of the traffic video in your case:

“Have you read this?” icon_eek.gif

And Yes, I think that there could be something that the motorcycle rider, and everyone else that can be bothered, may be able to do regarding redress.

You shouldn’t underestimate how serious this could be.

Posted by: The Rookie Tue, 2 Mar 2004 - 13:17
Post #8199

Just had a good look, its obvious that after the truck has cleared the dodgy scope has a problem with the motorbike and getting a bounce back in front of a moving car, at a range where not all the laser light will be stopped by the bike, but some will bypass it and hit the car, couldn't freeze frame with my viewer but wouldn't be surprised to see the range go funny as well!, Why is no aiming 'pip' transfered to the video, you have to stop and check the X-hairs!

Simon

Posted by: dave99 Tue, 9 Mar 2004 - 18:06
Post #8624

sounds like fun - what exactly is a "mention hearing"?

Posted by: FastShow Thu, 11 Mar 2004 - 19:28
Post #8726

Did anyone get a chance to drop in?

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Sat, 13 Mar 2004 - 02:03
Post #8804

Probably old hat to the experts here, however, just in case, see: http://www.geocities.com/speeding@sbcglobal.net/lidarcase.html

Posted by: Boro Tue, 16 Mar 2004 - 15:59
Post #9085

That makes interesting reading, how old is it? Has anyone questioned the LTi 20/20 to that extent in the UK?

Posted by: cas Wed, 17 Mar 2004 - 16:59
Post #9185

any update to this?

Posted by: Mika Wed, 17 Mar 2004 - 17:34
Post #9188

Hi,

The LTi 20-20 appeal is listed at Cardiff Crown Court on Tuesday 20th April, for an all day hearing, and it is not to be missed. biggrin.gif

Posted by: cas Wed, 17 Mar 2004 - 17:57
Post #9192

Mika - if the appeal goes the wrong way, does that mean the CPS will start sending out the videos and asking for them to be disclosed will no longer work as a method to get a speeding charge dropped on no case to answer?

Posted by: Kevin Green Thu, 8 Apr 2004 - 00:32
Post #10931

Hello there,

Before I go to Court tomorrow to defend HAVING to speed up I can tell you I managed to get my Video tape after mega fuss! The CPS even told me that someone from their office stole it! Nice try! laugh.gif I sacked my Lawyer and will argue myself. No good me trying to change the law on the LTi as its too late for me but if my Video does any good to you good people out there it is yours!

P.S, will tell you all if I did get justice later today....

Kev

Posted by: cas Thu, 8 Apr 2004 - 12:29
Post #10958

Kevin did you get it at least 7 days before trial?

Posted by: Kevin Green Thu, 8 Apr 2004 - 12:47
Post #10962

Yes,

I phoned the CPS myself and they tried to send it to my Lawyer who I then sacked. They sent it in plenty of time but the fun thing was today, that they presented an entirely different version of events! Their tape made it look totally restrictive and showed naff all about the cause for speeding. I lost by the way as I expected and was walloped with a massive £200 for a first offence of 41 in a 30 zone on a dual carraigeway by the way! I will be appealing but I have to tell you that going in front of the muppets in a magistrates is a waste of time. The only way you are going to win is on appeal when you are talking to a Judge who likes to know what he's on about! By the way, you can use http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet_code_of_practice_update_v21.pdf as an aid in defense as the coppers NEVER write down the evidence they are supposed to! I found that out today. I only lost because of my arrogant attitude and I concede to that. But the prosecutor was a prick and it was either hit the mother or talk in a bad mood :x

I'm gonna win the appeal no doubt as I am prepared to pay for it but can wait til the 20th and visit Cardiff as it is down the road. Gonna jump for Joy as there is no question as to the falibility of the video evidence. WAY FLAWED!

K

Posted by: Traffic Cop Sat, 10 Apr 2004 - 10:45
Post #11063

Kevin Green posted

The only way you are going to win is on appeal when you are talking to a Judge who likes to know what he's on about! By the way, you can use http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet_code_of_practice_update_v21.pdf as an aid in defense as the coppers NEVER write down the evidence they are supposed to!

One thing to pointout is that ACPO policy is not law! If a police officer does not follow a Policy, it does not mean that you are off the hook. Policy is there to advise, NOT a set of rules that MUST be followed.

Posted by: Mika Sat, 10 Apr 2004 - 11:35
Post #11067

Traffic Cop,

Whilst I agree that in theory the ACOP code is not legally binding; one may be able to make a compelling argument that the current version is in fact “http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23” that is referred to in the law.

On Page 3 of the ACPO Code, the Chief Constable of the North Wales Police and Head of the ACPO Road Policing Business Area, stresses the importance of the ACPO Code:

The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.

While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.

The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously – each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.

These standards are in your hands
.”

Can you make it to Cardiff Crown Court on the 20th? icon_wink.gif

Posted by: Kevin Green Sat, 10 Apr 2004 - 12:54
Post #11069

I understand that the ACPO Code is not quintessentially legally binding but if the recommendations were not enforcable in a Court of Law and the recomendations not adopted by the Courts it would be fair to say that the ACPO Code is a waste of time and we could question WHY is the panel in existence? The ACPO Code is deemed as the "Experts" guide and, as most Magistrates 'Muppets' are far from experts, as was evident in my own case, these guidelines simply have to be followed? The argument that I pose on speeding is the 'Mens Reus' or 'Intent' of the offence which in law HAS to be present for an offence to take place. The simply fact of the 'Actus Reus' the 'ACT' of the offence being evident is not sufficient and cannot be relied upon. Because the Radar/Laser only picks up the 'ACT' and not the cause or 'REASON' is why the ACPO Code is in place. They recognise that there is often a reason behind speeding and thus advise that evidence of the offence MUST be supported by observation.

That is why I most definately will be in Cardiff! I have already put my towel on the seat I chose! I have also held back my appeal until then for obvious reasons! icon_idea.gif Look out for the Big Bald man in a suit, "A bit like Willy Thorne the snooker player!" That will be me! 8)

P.S. Your forum is exceptional and your cause even better, I own The Orange Pages and will be making my many followers wise to this forum! icon_wink.gif

Yours,

Posted by: davleigh Mon, 12 Apr 2004 - 19:24
Post #11238

I hope you don't mean this... http://www.orange-pages.fsnet.co.uk/

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Mon, 12 Apr 2004 - 21:44
Post #11246

QUOTE (davleigh)
I hope you don't mean this...http://www.orange-pages.fsnet.co.uk/

Hehe.
If you look under the tab on his posts, you'll find that it's these http://www.cantufind.com/.

Posted by: Kevin Green Mon, 12 Apr 2004 - 22:09
Post #11248

laugh.gif

Sorry, I certainly don't and the only reason we havn't closed it down for infringement is the possible consequences! icon_cry.gif

No I am fortunate to own www.cantufind.com better known as The Orange Pages.com I genuinely think your forum is one of the most productive of forums I have had the pleasure to read. The topics are/is meaningful and dealt with in an Adult fashion. There is very little abuse or tasteless repost even though the subject matter warrants such. I know I had the £200 fine!

I genuinely say in my position of CEO of my Group of search engines and directories that you should be proud of your quest for justice and the very adept way you use your skills and the power of the web to cross reference. There is a powerful tool at your hands and I am only to happy to be part of that. I will indeed be in Cardiff on the 20th and have also held back on my appeal for the outcome, one challenge I make that is ignored on speeding is that the victim is almost certainly being Blackmailed into accepting the "Offer" of a fixed fine and points knowing that if they dare contest the so far "uncontestable" they face a far heftier penalty as did I. I might just choose to go to Jail for my beliefs if I lose my appeal for whislt I am all for safety measures I am as eqally against a revenue generating process and illegal method of implimenting such. Perhaps we could open a new forum then, 'Free Kevin Campaign'. laugh.gif

Right I will get of my high horse for new and hope to speak soon. Are you going to Cardiff yourself?

Regards,

K

Posted by: TonyOut Mon, 12 Apr 2004 - 22:10
Post #11249

QUOTE
http://www.orange-pages.fsnet.co.uk

Surreal!

Posted by: Kevin Green Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 10:08
Post #11678

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

Posted by: Mika Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 10:17
Post #11681

Kev,

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

Posted by: Kevin Green Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 11:05
Post #11687

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

Posted by: Mika Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 11:13
Post #11690

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

Posted by: Kevin Green Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 11:43
Post #11692

Look forward to it.

K

Posted by: Mika Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 12:10
Post #11696

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

Posted by: Kevin Green Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 13:55
Post #11711

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

Posted by: Fireblade Mon, 19 Apr 2004 - 20:31
Post #11737

Obviously crapping himself laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif

Posted by: Kevin Green Thu, 29 Apr 2004 - 12:01
Post #12436

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

Posted by: Captain A Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 09:05
Post #12522

"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.

Posted by: Kevin Green Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 09:30
Post #12524

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

Posted by: Mika Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 10:23
Post #12525

Hi Kev,

You may also wish to politely remind the CPS of their legal obligation under http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1996/96025--a.htm#3:

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 http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm icon_question.gif

Posted by: Kevin Green Fri, 30 Apr 2004 - 14:20
Post #12546

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

Posted by: Kevin Green Wed, 5 May 2004 - 10:30
Post #12743

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

Posted by: NigelO Wed, 5 May 2004 - 10:53
Post #12745

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.

Posted by: Mika Wed, 5 May 2004 - 11:03
Post #12746

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

Posted by: OU812 Wed, 5 May 2004 - 11:18
Post #12749

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!)

Posted by: FastShow Fri, 7 May 2004 - 23:04
Post #12946

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 http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=490 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,

Posted by: Mika Sat, 8 May 2004 - 11:43
Post #12962

Carl,

You may wish to inform Steve that the last person who was prepared to present that 'interesting theory' to a court has subsequently http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_Expert_Opinion.htm. 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 http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: Homer Thu, 3 Jun 2004 - 13:26
Post #14719

Any news? Did the 28 May date go ahead?

Sorry if I've missed something but I can't visit as often as I would like due to this site (and a number of others) being blocked by the webfiltering software we have at work. :x

Posted by: Kevin Green Thu, 3 Jun 2004 - 18:17
Post #14760

Why would this site be blocked by web filtering? There is not one keyword that a filter program would ban on this site! Out of interest where do you work? Perhaps I can advise you on why you are not being allowed to see this page. Also don't you have a Computer at home icon_question.gif

K

Posted by: broosta Fri, 4 Jun 2004 - 11:37
Post #14814

I'm in the same boat as Homer on this, as my work (NHS) stops me from viewing this site. My money is on the word 'poo' being the culprit! I can't view sites such as Virgin Wines either!
One slightly odd factor though, is that for about the first week I was able to view this site and then suddenly no longer. :?

Posted by: Kevin Green Fri, 4 Jun 2004 - 16:31
Post #14844

Hello there,

It looks like you are being monitered by the IT department who are checking your internet cache either as you use it through a network or by hand after you leave your desk. The word poo is very unlikely to be blacklisted as it includes Winnie the Pooh, is that illegal material?

My own Company The Orange Pages.com suffered with the education department as I had games on there for the children. Understanding that as my site is the World's official number 1 family safe search directory on the entire internet I found this typical of the namby pamby pinko liberals of this country (UK) who think that playing games is bad for children! These people need to get a life and are ususally the ones who have actually got one, a secret life on clapham common or peadophile place!

Complain to your bosses that you should be able to access the internet as long as it is in your own time. Don't be afraid to ask why these sites are restricted. Freedom of speech is not against the law and neither is the freedom of search. My own eductated guess is that the software they have is so semantically flawed that it cannot differentiate words sufficiently so as to allow relevant material through. Although Virgin? isn't that a slang word for an untouched 'vagina', can you access that medical term? I don't mind these filters being crap as it is the reason why my Directory is so succesful. We use Human Editors who review with the Human Eye and not words or skin tone, this is the ONLY way to keep a search safe, period, and then even we have difficulty keeping pace with the constant change.

Buy a P.C. at home and view this site that way your interests are private and do not impinge on your work. Also sign up as a registered user as you never know when you will want these guys help. Even NHS Staff can get caught speeding by BIG BROTHER!

K

BIG BROTHER IS DEFINATELY WATCHING YOU! icon_eek.gif

Posted by: OU812 Mon, 7 Jun 2004 - 14:32
Post #14984

Or see if you can access the site via an [anon] Proxy

Posted by: thamesvalley Tue, 15 Jun 2004 - 09:31
Post #15803


Posted by: HissingSid Wed, 16 Jun 2004 - 09:59
Post #16026

Hi,

One reason that they may not wish to release the full tape is because some operators record on tape their pre and post "shift" distance and alignment checks. If these show an error which the operator failed to notice then the whole tape would be invalidated.

Some operators do not record the checks on video and only note that they have been done them in a "note book" (If they remember). I get the impression, from a serving traffic constable, that the Police are aware that the LTI 20:20 is not infallible..

If/when you get access to the whole tape make sure you look to see if the alignment and static distance checks have been done correctly. If you think that they may have been get an expert to look at it.

Good luck

Sid

Posted by: Mika Fri, 18 Jun 2004 - 07:53
Post #16274

Hi Sid,

I have just looked in the meaning of the phrase “not infallible” in my ‘police’ to English translation dictionary, and found the following:

“completely unreliable piece of junk” icon_redface.gif

Incidentally, that may not be the reason that they don’t want to disclose the whole tape. Can you make it to Cardiff Crown court on Monday? icon_wink.gif

Posted by: HissingSid Fri, 18 Jun 2004 - 09:19
Post #16286

Hi Mika,

Sorry I'm up in North Yorkshire and can't get down to Wales on Monday.

Best wishes

Sid

Posted by: DW190 Sun, 20 Jun 2004 - 23:08
Post #16485

http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=544&view=findpost&p=8026

Sit Sit Fetch It

Posted by: Glacier2 Mon, 21 Jun 2004 - 09:45
Post #16500

Mika, Sign Him Up Now!

Posted by: Homer Thu, 24 Jun 2004 - 20:50
Post #16946

QUOTE (Kevin Green)
Why would this site be blocked by web filtering?  There is not one keyword that a filter program would ban on this site!   Out of interest where do you work?  Perhaps I can advise you on why you are not being allowed to see this page.  Also don't you have a Computer at home icon_question.gif  


It's not a one-word thing, there has been a creeping block on anti-scamera sites. And I don't think it is being done by my employer. I think the webfiltering software is controlled from outside. Big Brother may well be watching. icon_eek.gif

As for asking why. Knowing the jobsworths who have control it wouldn't be worth asking. Besides which I'm not supposed to be using it for personal use, even though business use probably accoubts for .0001% of internet usage.

I work for a financial organisation for what it's worth.

I do have internet access at home but very little spare time. At work I have plenty of spare time.

Posted by: ianfusa Fri, 6 Aug 2004 - 08:39
Post #20460

What does an LTi 20/20 operator have to do to get rid of an Error 03 message. Is simply holding the scamera steady enough to do it?

Ian

Posted by: sjpage Wed, 11 Aug 2004 - 09:21
Post #20794

May be of some use or interest

Some states limit or restrict laser radar use. A New Jersey Appeals Court upheld (in a 2-1 decision) a lower court ruling (based on the LTI Marksman 20-20 lidar) that leaves in place restrictions on laser radar use. New Jersey Troopers can only use laser radar in clear weather and for targets less than 1000 feet.
Sources:
-- National Motorists Association NEWS, Jan/Feb 2000, vol 11, issue 1.
-- STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EMAD A. ABESKARON, A-107-98T2F, 24 Nov 1999

http://planet.nana.co.il/4x4xm/LTI_20-20/psika-USA.htm#summary

Posted by: Mika Fri, 27 Aug 2004 - 17:10
Post #21974

Hi all,

Do you think there's any chance that they were using the “dodgyscope”? icon_eek.gif .... icon_redface.gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3605446.stm

Posted by: DW190 Fri, 27 Aug 2004 - 18:56
Post #21980

QUOTE
West Yorkshire Police declined to comment.


Perhaps Mr Brainstorm would like to make a comment. After all his bib cop for more than any other force for a comparable area.

Posted by: Mika Wed, 1 Sep 2004 - 10:05
Post #22206

Halleluiah,

Guess what?

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=2612 - he was requesting technical assistance.

Wait for it….

The police were indeed using the LTi 20-20 dodgyscope in this case. icon_redface.gif

Does anyone need any further evidence rolleyes.gif..... icon_wink.gif

Posted by: Bob_Sprocket Wed, 1 Sep 2004 - 11:53
Post #22208

Hi Mika,

Is there any way that we can get evidence of this which is admissible?

Best wishes

Bob

Posted by: matt1133 Wed, 1 Sep 2004 - 14:25
Post #22219

in my opinion they will just claim that maybe that particular camera was at fault/policeman did something wrong in operating it etc, could the motorist order an independant investigation or something similar

Posted by: anton Wed, 1 Sep 2004 - 15:23
Post #22230

You could write to the CPS and ask for all LTi 20-20 dodgyscope cases to be reviewed. Copying it, of course to a load of news papers. even better if you can get the fiat punto in on a press conference!
that should bring more cases out of the woodwork

Posted by: Mika Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 08:07
Post #22324

Chaps,

I don’t think that you will need any additional evidence because the Crown withdrew the prosecution.

Just printing out the BBC story and hand it to the clerk of the court, should do the job:

“The LTi 20-20 was proved to be unreliable in this case and that is why I require a copy of the complete traffic video in my case.”

There is also a copy of the DVD from Paul Lee’s case. icon_redface.gif

If you then stick to your guns, it should be http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm. icon_wink.gif

Posted by: Andy L Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 11:00
Post #22348

Isn't this a good case for a HRA redress??

Andy

Posted by: bulletmagnet Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 16:59
Post #22396

QUOTE (Mika)
Chaps,

I don’t think that you will need any additional evidence because the Crown withdrew the prosecution.

Just printing out the BBC story and hand it to the clerk of the court, should do the job:

“The LTi 20-20 was proved to be unreliable in this case and that is why I require a copy of the complete traffic video in my case.”

There is also a copy of the DVD from Paul Lee’s case. icon_redface.gif

If you then stick to your guns, it should be http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm. icon_wink.gif


Mika,

Printing out the BBC story and taking it to Court for your defence, would it be acceptable as evidence?

Posted by: Mika Fri, 3 Sep 2004 - 17:23
Post #22397

Bulletmagnet,

In my opinion, it would be admissible as evidence and, if you get any trouble, why not call the Chief Constable and head of the traffic department of West Yorkshire constabulary as witnesses. icon_idea.gif

Furthermore, I spoke to Robert Dobson this afternoon and, in his opinion, we now have a precedent that can be used against the LTi 20-20.

That's why I said that everyone who sticks to their guns, should find that it's http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm. icon_wink.gif

Posted by: darkness_uk_79 Sat, 4 Sep 2004 - 09:12
Post #22424

Hey all,

First of all, congratulations on a fantastic site Mika. Wonderful to read and a pleasure to know there are people out there who despise the cash generators as much as I do.

Secondly, I have a question regarding the placement of a police officer with a camera. I believe I read somewhere (the site escapes me but I will try to find it again) that a laser site is only valid for prosecution if a) the police officer operating the camera is visible to road users (i.e. wearing a reflective jacket, not hiding up some git's driveway, etc) and B) the clearly marked police vehicle is parked close to where the officer is 'operating' the camera, in full view of traffic. Recently my partner was caught out (we think, still waiting for the NIP) doing about 35 in a thirty, though slowing down. The officer in question was hiding down a side street, poking the camera above a bush and the car was parked also down the same side street hidden to traffic (until you were level with the side street). I'm of the opinion that if that is the case and she has been caught, I will be buying her a laser diffuser (I have one, in conjunction with a Road Angel II - excellent devices) to stop this kind of pathetic cash grabbing attitude the police seem to have. I am in the unfortunate position of living across the way from the Cheshire Police Headquarters and thus being subjected to the attitude of "This is the area where the headquarters are, we must make ourselves known, and clean the area up". So far, speeding fines are up. Crime figures are up too...

Posted by: artisan Sat, 4 Sep 2004 - 15:20
Post #22436

The ACPO guidelines state that

" Except in exceptional operational circumstances, devices should normally be operated from positions where they will be clearly visible to the public"

"When operating hand-held devices from the roadside the operator should be within 10 feet of the edge of the carriageway and beyond the minimum operating range (ie 50feet)"

Posted by: darkness_uk_79 Mon, 6 Sep 2004 - 19:19
Post #22534

Fantastic news, although I read on another post that the police don't necessarily have to stick to the ACPO. Nice when you can work to whatever set of rules suit you that day!

Thanks again for your advice, you all really seem to know your stuff.

Best regards,

Pete

Posted by: anton Wed, 22 Sep 2004 - 07:18
Post #23990

QUOTE
bike video http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_PVA.rm


Why is the LTI 20-20 infalable?

OK my theory is that as the device requires a flat surface to measure on most cars the only flat surface is the number plate.

At 200 meters, if the operator wobbles the camera by only 2.5 mm this wobbles the laser beam at the other end by 1000 mm assuming the device is tripod mounted and the device is about 500mm long.

To stay within the number plate the operator must wobble less than 4.5” (113 mm)

At the camera end that is 0.28mm. I would suggest that even with a tripod this is not possible bearing in mind that this is a light weight van parked next to moving traffic.

On my car, most of the front is raked at 45 degrees. The bumper is raked towards the wheels at 15 degrees. Only the number plate is flat.

Whilst I agree a laser device can measure speed at 200 meters or even a mile, only if the operator can keep the beam on a flat surface. (Like a lorry container)

So experiments for you, put a ruler up the wall, get a tin of beans (approx. 400 grams) and line it up with your eye and see how still you can keep it 1 inch from the ruler. After 20 seconds see how much you are wobbleling. I couldn’t keep it under 2mm.

Most home video cameras have anti wobble software to stop this happening!


The thing I don’t know is how quick the LTI 20-20 makes its measurement.
We would also need to know the frequency of wobble. I would guess between 1 & 2 hertz.

If the operator scans from the top of my people carrier slides down the windscreen to the number plate he has added 1.5 meters of travel to my actual speed. The quicker the sample time, the bigger the in accuracy if the measurement.

Looking at the motorbike video shows how hard it is to track as the distance increases.

also see this article about LTI 20-20 in USA
http://www.geocities.com/speeding@sbcglobal.net/lidarcase.html

I hope this sparks some understanding and debate
Anton

Posted by: matt1133 Thu, 7 Oct 2004 - 13:42
Post #25588

can anybody tell me what type of beam the lti 2020 produces? is it a thin beam or a wide type of beam?

the university which i attend recently did some experiments with speed cameras, a wide beam as well as a thin beam gun were used, i was told the following:

the thin beam was difficult to target accurately and many times did not give any readings whatsoever icon_eek.gif

the wide beam would only be accurate with a car on its own as other cars in shot would give an inaccurate reading/error/speed of other vehicle in shot or target range icon_eek.gif

Posted by: Captain A Thu, 7 Oct 2004 - 16:08
Post #25594

Matt, in answer to your question:

QUOTE
In 1995, three German engineers at the university in Erlangen tested the LTI 20-20 and two European laser guns. They found that the LTI had three beams side by side instead of a single beam, which raises doubts about what spot on the car is actually being tracked


Well now..... rolleyes.gif

Posted by: matt1133 Thu, 7 Oct 2004 - 16:17
Post #25596

how much is an LTI 20-20?

were the guns used in the german experiment the same as ones used by scameras today?

Posted by: Clear Skies Thu, 7 Oct 2004 - 16:39
Post #25597

QUOTE (Mika)
Bulletmagnet,

In my opinion, it would be admissible as evidence and, if you get any trouble, why not call the Chief Constable and head of the traffic department of West Yorkshire constabulary as witnesses. icon_idea.gif

Furthermore, I spoke to Robert Dobson this afternoon and, in his opinion, we now have a precedent that can be used against the LTi 20-20.

That's why I said that everyone who sticks to their guns, should find that it's http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm. icon_wink.gif



see page 240 disclosure, home office guidlines, the prosecution have a duty to disclose anything that is of use to the defence.http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs3/manualofguidance04.pdf



if pepipoo wrote to all of the chief constables advising them of the problem , they REALLY have no option but to uphold the law and to warn anyone who pleads not guilty , they have unreliable evidence. icon_hang.gif

thoughts ?? Mika

rgds
Bill

Posted by: Clear Skies Tue, 12 Oct 2004 - 10:01
Post #25952

QUOTE (thamesvalley)


just reading the history of the 2020..

If u havent, plsse start on page one and then all the links before, like me, you ask a stupid question !


blo*d* big think to hold steady isn't it..

rgds
bill
some links..

http://www.radar.co.nz/usa/gallery.htm

Due to the very narrow beam width of the Lti 2020, it is a difficult unit to operate with out some form of steady. The Lti 2020 is effected by bright sunlight and Vehicle high beam headlights.

http://www.njptoa.com/August_2002.pdf


http://www.autovelox.net/autovelox-laser.html
italian anyone ?

Posted by: eXOBeX Thu, 21 Oct 2004 - 17:45
Post #26872

Does rain have a serious impact on the LTI 20-20's performance? I came round a corner on Tuesday to see a Dyfed-Powys scamera van lurking at the side (most likely far too close to the bend to form "prior opinion" before pulling the trigger). It was raining.

Works van, I expect an NIP once the lease company passes on the details, even though I braked sharply upon spotting the camera (locking the back wheels as I did so - so much for "safety" cameras).

Posted by: Tamara-D Thu, 21 Oct 2004 - 18:41
Post #26877

Of course it would! Any light source passing through water will refract. I suppose it would depend on how heavy the rain was, but there is no doubt it would change the size of the laser beam.

Posted by: Clear Skies Tue, 9 Nov 2004 - 11:03
Post #28890

QUOTE (Tamara-D)
Of course it would! Any light source passing through water will refract. I suppose it would depend on how heavy the rain was, but there is no doubt it would change the size of the laser beam.


are you SERIOUS tamara ???? will it make a difference, anyone any idea of how much difference ???

If this really does happen then of course it is outragous they continue to use dodgy scopes.

rgds
bill

Posted by: Tamara-D Tue, 9 Nov 2004 - 21:28
Post #28987

The only way to find out is to give it a try! laugh.gif

Is there anyone with a laser handy who can perform this simple experiment? Its the right time of year for it. biggrin.gif

Posted by: flyin flea Wed, 10 Nov 2004 - 19:33
Post #29080

QUOTE (Tamara-D)
Of course it would! Any light source passing through water will refract. I suppose it would depend on how heavy the rain was, but there is no doubt it would change the size of the laser beam.


Year 1 A-level physics: red single beam laser + defraction grating = scatered laser beam!

Posted by: peteturbo Wed, 10 Nov 2004 - 19:55
Post #29083

Refraction is when a wave changes direction due to a change of velocity, such as when a wave travels from one medium to another of different refactive index. ie air to water.

Diffraction is the apparent bending and spreading of waves when they meet an obstacle.

Anyhow, didn't Anton try to get hold of a laser recently?

Can we ask him to step outside and test this idea next time it rains, no matter what we would like to attribute it too?

What happened to the slip tests?

Posted by: Tamara-D Wed, 10 Nov 2004 - 20:02
Post #29087

QUOTE (peteturbo)
Refraction is when a wave changes direction due to a change of velocity, such as when a wave travels from one medium to another of different refactive index. ie air to water.

Diffraction is the apparent bending and spreading of waves when they meet an obstacle.

I knew it was some kind of fraction! icon_redface.gif tongue.gif

QUOTE (peteturbo)
Can we ask him to step outside and test this idea next time it rains, no matter what we would like to attribute it too?

It would be easier (and probably a bit safer) to use the shower head in the bathroom! laugh.gif

Posted by: DW190 Tue, 16 Nov 2004 - 01:22
Post #29582

I don't know if this has been placed elsewere but it is http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/eveningchronicle/eveningchronicle/tm_objectid=14856537&method=full&siteid=50081&headline=sorry--but-you-were-not-speeding-name_page.html

Posted by: bbmaj Tue, 16 Nov 2004 - 10:12
Post #29594

Do we know what type of device was in use? The usual 2020 mistakes?

Posted by: g_attrill Tue, 16 Nov 2004 - 12:47
Post #29606

QUOTE (bbmaj)
Do we know what type of device was in use?  The usual 2020 mistakes?

http://www.safespeedforlife.com/mobile_how.asp

Seems they use Mobile Gatso's and 20/20's.

Considering they talked about "triggering the device" I presume a mobile gatso was in use.

It's also interesting to read their comments about the devices on that page:

"Lastec 20/20....The equipment is so accurate it can take a reading from just the wing mirror of a targeted moving vehicle.... speeding motorists will not be able to claim that the beam was affected by another vehicle just in front, just behind or just at the side of them..."

"Mobile Gatsos... is also capable of taking single frontal images of oncoming vehicles"

icon_redface.gif icon_redface.gif icon_redface.gif for both paragraphs

If they operate in forward-facing mode it might not be legal anyway:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/pr140.html

Gareth

Posted by: flyin flea Thu, 18 Nov 2004 - 21:35
Post #30005

Slightly off topic but..... Lti20-20 .... bad for YOUR eye sight???....
http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet_code_of_practice_v2.2_01x07x04.pdf, then scroll down to page 67, item 14.5 a....
"Do not stare directly in to the beam"
...... now when some 'person' is pointing the thing at you and triggering bursts of laser radiation... you (the accused) have no choice in this matter.... you are staring directly in to the beam!
Is there not some grounds here for our health? :?

Posted by: flopper Sun, 21 Nov 2004 - 02:26
Post #30307

Quote:Scammers
The equipment is so accurate it can take a reading from just the wing mirror of a targeted moving vehicle, meaning that innocent motorists need not fear triggering the beam by mistake. By the same token, speeding motorists will not be able to claim that the beam was affected by another vehicle just in front, just behind or just at the side of them.

The cameras operate effectively in poor light conditions, including at night, in fog, and also in rain and snow without the beam being refracted by water drops. This enables the roadside patrols to be available to assist motorists more often and for longer during winter months when road conditions are generally more hazardous, road surfaces are often slippery and driving at a safe and slower speed becomes even more important.

End quote

I'd like to see the supporting data to prove this, or are we just going on the word of a manufacturer whose product has already been proven to be innacurate?

Posted by: Tamara-D Sun, 21 Nov 2004 - 10:01
Post #30319

QUOTE (flopper)
Quote:Scammers

The cameras operate effectively in poor light conditions, including at night, in fog, and also in rain and snow without the beam being refracted by water drops.

End quote

So they are also claiming to defy the laws of Physics now? icon_eek.gif biggrin.gif

Posted by: MrsMiggins Sun, 21 Nov 2004 - 12:03
Post #30322

QUOTE (Tamara-D)
So they are also claiming to defy the laws of Physics now? icon_eek.gif biggrin.gif

[scotty-mode] Ye cannae change the laws of physics![/scotty-mode] laugh.gif

Posted by: Captain A Sun, 21 Nov 2004 - 21:25
Post #30356

QUOTE
The cameras operate effectively in poor light conditions, including at night, in fog, and also in rain and snow without the beam being refracted by water drops. This enables the roadside patrols to be available to assist motorists more often and for longer during winter months


I am so relieved to know that 'roadside patrols' are there to 'assist' motorists like me during those cold dark winter months.

Posted by: anton Thu, 25 Nov 2004 - 18:47
Post #31037

QUOTE
Anyhow, didn't Anton try to get hold of a laser recently?


Anton did try to get hold of a LTI20-20
some one agreed to it
then he decided £50 an hour
I agreed to drive 200 miles and pay £50an hour and he has stopped talking to me

So I am still looking for a bit of kit to test.
I notice that they dont display the speed untill the car reads above the target speed. this hides low speed errors like moving stationary objects

I also noticed that most people get caught over 300m away when the number plate cant be read. pull over wait for a lorry and then tailgate him passed the camera and dont let him see your reg plate laugh.gif

Posted by: Insider Fri, 26 Nov 2004 - 09:08
Post #31118

Was it a guy up in our northern cousins patch anton?

Posted by: anton Fri, 26 Nov 2004 - 13:14
Post #31158

No it was a gps/jammer firm in Huntington.
I dont know the full story except e-mails and mobile calls don't work to him any more...

So I am still looking to get my mits on the kit... anyone...

Posted by: flyin flea Thu, 2 Dec 2004 - 13:41
Post #32028

icon_idea.gif Ive been ponderin.......

We know these things are based on the Lti20 measuring device and fire more than one laser beam from the front.
Is the speedscope device called a Lti20-20 becuase it utilises TWO Lti20 devices?? (thinkin along the lines that it was maybe designed mid-90s.... when electronics wernt so fast) ....because (maybe) a singular Lti20 could not make succesive measurements quick enough.

In which case then you have two distance measuring devices firing two lasers which could bouce off of two completely different objects! And therefore, the sights for the device do not identify exactly what the laser(s) are targeting.



Moving on......
You must have all seen football on telly.... now think of the moment when the home team scores and the crowd errupts.... one effect of this (sometimes) is for the TV camera gantry to bounce around..... resulting in very shakey close ups of the goal scorer.

So?
The cameras used to get the shakey picture only have an 80:1 lens at most, are only taking pictures of something maybe 60 metres away, have a professional camera operative behind them, and are firmed bolted to the camera gantry.

And......
Lti20-20s are NOT operated by professionals, frequently target vehicles well over 200m away, and are (usually) inside a van (even sat inside a van next to a road). Now, its no doubt the camera inside the lti20-20 is a fairly top end domestic single CCD camera..... in which case.... it (just like so many others) features image stabalising hardware... to remove shakey pictures. BUT.... the lti20 measuring devices... will not. Thus... the far end of the laser will be bouncing in what I can only imagine to be a very erratic manner.


I know I may have re-itterated what we already know.... Im just adding the opion of a broadcast engineer!

Posted by: andypandy Thu, 2 Dec 2004 - 14:15
Post #32033

Hi flyin flea

I am not that sure they use image stabilising on the video camera. Have you seen spongles dvd. The video image bounces and rocks with the movement of the van. If they do have image stab then its a low quality version. And as for the laser who knows what degree of error is induced through vibration and movement.

Posted by: g_attrill Thu, 2 Dec 2004 - 15:59
Post #32057

I think it depends on the system - I have seen some systems with a separate commercial grade CCTV camera mounted bare on the top (with a large manual lens)

This pic is from Teletraffic's site:



The lens mounted is a standard Canon 70-200 35mm SLR lens, which they must have adapted to fit a camera. It is available with image stabilisation (IS) which is mechanical based and in the lens itself.

edit: The Canon IS reduces camera SHAKE (ie. blur) - it won't stop a large motion cause by a juggernaut draught or loose bolts icon_redface.gif

I think the equipment in Spongle's video is an older system - it's probably an older system - even though it has been copied onto VHS the colours are terrible.

Gareth

Posted by: Clear Skies Thu, 2 Dec 2004 - 16:35
Post #32064

QUOTE (flyin flea)
icon_idea.gif Ive been ponderin.......

. Thus... the far end of the laser will be bouncing in what I can only imagine to be a very erratic manner.


!


how erratic, how many miles an hour and as an engineer , can u prove it ?

rgds
bill

Posted by: flyin flea Thu, 2 Dec 2004 - 17:42
Post #32075

speed of light in vacuum= 300,000,000m/s (as defined by Standards Institute)
Loss of velocity due to air is negligable.

3,000,000,000 x 2.25 (conversion to mph) = 675,000,000 mph tongue.gif

G_attrill..... domestic image stabilisers are also part of the lens system....
AFAIK..... its a perfectly clear gel between two pieces of flat glass. Servos, guided by movement sensors, then move one of the pieces of glass in varying directions.... thus, making the gel in to a tiny lens, which then alters the path of the light passin through it, resultin in a steady(er) picture.
As you say, it can reduce shake, but not motion.... such as that caused by a passing truck.... or a dough nut eating officer moving around inside a Sherpa van without bracing jacks at each corner.
Even BT use hydraulic stabalising jacks on their satellite links trucks! ...same analagy.... were the BT engineer to jump out the van for (lets say) a call of nature.... the uplink beam then shoots right past the satellite in to outer space! .....thus taking the programme off air!

Posted by: flyin flea Thu, 2 Dec 2004 - 22:40
Post #32138

Ive just sought the opinion of an expert marksman.... one of Her Majesties very own...... with the intent of finding out what its like to aim and shoot at something 500metres away..... just as our traffic cops are doing.....

QUOTE (Her Majesties armed forces)
"To shoot something 500 metres away is not easy. To get a perfect shot you need to lay down, steady your riffle on something, and make sure your sights are zeroed in correctly. To shoot a number plate 500 metres away, would be ****in difficult! And if its moving too....... If these things dont even have a propper cross wire, how on earth do you know where you're aiming?! And then you've no idea if the sights are any good as you cant see the where lasers reflecting because its infra-red!"


So, to shoot something 500metres away, you need perfect sights, and to be perfectly still. Our man in a van is wobbling around on standard van suspension with no definition of what the laser is locking on to.

* 'zeroed in' : is to calibrate and set up the riffles sights so that it actually shoots exactly what you are targetting with the crosse wires.

Posted by: flopper Mon, 6 Dec 2004 - 19:48
Post #32636

[quote=Her Majesties armed forces]
"To shoot something 500 metres away is not easy. To get a perfect shot you need to lay down, steady your riffle on something, and make sure your sights are zeroed in correctly. To shoot a number plate 500 metres away, would be ****in difficult! And if its moving too....... If these things dont even have a propper cross wire, how on earth do you know where you're aiming?! And then you've no idea if the sights are any good as you cant see the where lasers reflecting because its infra-red!"[/quote]

So, to shoot something 500metres away, you need perfect sights, and to be perfectly still. Our man in a van is wobbling around on standard van suspension with no definition of what the laser is locking on to.
[/quote]

And that is just one rifle, imagine two bolted together? (i.e multiple beams on LTI20 /20) I remember from my shooting days that even the smallest breath meant the difference between bull's eye and a miss!! Do the scammers get recruited from the SAS? Are they super marksmen? I would happily stand the other side of no man's land and let them take pot shots at me. icon_eek.gif

Is there a way of making the IR beams visible? (A level physics seems so long ago) Then recording the spread over increments of, say 20-50 metres, you can build up a pattern of what is likely to interfere at certain distances, be it other vehicles, street furniture or even the road itself.

Would the beam be affected by puddles of standing water?

I'm hoping this topic is covered in the Christmas lectures. icon_wink.gif

Posted by: fossil Mon, 27 Dec 2004 - 22:21
Post #35024

I am interested in this story and applaud the effort put in by everyone so far.

I'm trying to see if any of it can be applied to a case in Scotland.

My son has to appear in court to answer a charge of driving at 67 in a 40.

We are not sure what equipment he was captured on... how does one tell ?

From knowledge of the place he was captured I suspect there was a Traffic Safety Van with doors opened at back sitting in a layby at side of dual carriagway in the Edinburgh area.

Can someone tell me if that is likely to be one of these LT 20 20 machines.

Posted by: firefly Mon, 27 Dec 2004 - 22:37
Post #35026

Hi fossil,

More details required. Has your son got a court date through?

Posted by: fossil Mon, 27 Dec 2004 - 22:46
Post #35027

Yes he has .. its next week.

He has not responded to the charge yet... just wondering if he should plead not guilty and ask for the video evidence.

Depends if its one of these types of camera though

Posted by: firefly Mon, 27 Dec 2004 - 22:59
Post #35028

QUOTE (fossil)
Yes he has .. its next week.

Pleading diet then.

Out of curiosity, is this Gogar? Lothian & Borders (as far as I am aware) use the LTi20/20 routinely, so the chances are it was that device.

Until your son pleads not guilty you haven't much of a hope of finding out what device it is for sure. Is your son intent on putting up a fight, or is he going to capitulate and take the points?

Posted by: fossil Tue, 28 Dec 2004 - 00:42
Post #35032

I wouldn't say he was intent no... first offence... he thinks he should plead guilty and take the rap.

area is Ratho east bound... about 10am... probably quite busy at that time... lots of things for lasers to bounce off of smile.gif

I'm just wondering what the outcome would be to plead not guilty and call for the evidence to see what it shows. Would it make much difference to the punishment.

I'm sure the L&B have plenty of experience with this.

Posted by: oligoon Sat, 15 Jan 2005 - 14:34
Post #37392

is the operator manual for the lti20-20 in the public domain?

Posted by: Mika Sat, 15 Jan 2005 - 14:40
Post #37395

QUOTE (oligoon)
is the operator manual for the lti20-20 in the public domain?


If you send me your e-mail address, I will have another chat with the ‘tooth fairy’. icon_idea.gif .... icon_wink.gif

Posted by: Mika Mon, 28 Feb 2005 - 15:45
Post #43900

Hi all,

The BBC will transmit the following program in the South West this evening.

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

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/speed-cameras.shtml”

Posted by: anton Mon, 28 Feb 2005 - 21:20
Post #43952

contact the inside out team via this web page with your story
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/presenter/contact-us.shtml


Inside Out – BBC South West: Monday February 28, 2005:
If you live up north- sky chanel 957

Posted by: Mika Wed, 2 Mar 2005 - 09:22
Post #44121

QUOTE (anton)
Inside Out – BBC South West: Monday February 28, 2005:
If you live up north- sky chanel 957


NOTE A 16Mb RealPlayer clip from the programme, can be downloaded http://www.pepipoo.org/files/inside_out.rm. icon_wink.gif

Posted by: REG OLIVER Thu, 7 Apr 2005 - 12:43
Post #48616

QUOTE (Traffic Cop)
Kevin Green posted

The only way you are going to win is on appeal when you are talking to a Judge who likes to know what he's on about! By the way, you can use http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet_code_of_practice_update_v21.pdf as an aid in defense as the coppers NEVER write down the evidence they are supposed to!

One thing to pointout is that ACPO policy is not law! If a police officer does not follow a Policy, it does not mean that you are off the hook. Policy is there to advise, NOT a set of rules that MUST be followed.

Please note that Code is defined as "A set of laws" and these are emphisised to be strictly adherd to by the great CPO Brainstorm himself. As usual being a police officer you will no boubt use laws which are benificial to yourself and not to the general public and why so many of the public are turning against any form of policing today. My experience is one of total disgust at the claims which have been supplied to me by our police HQ which have turned out to be lies in first class order. From top to bottom they refuse to correspond on the points I have raised and have no answers. At 70 years of age I now have a totally different outlook on life and the police in general, my father having served 34 years on the force. My time now is spent on Road safety" and related matters and I am amazed at the lies that are given from such officers. Alienated

Posted by: REG OLIVER Thu, 7 Apr 2005 - 13:01
Post #48618

As posted previous the ACPO Code of conduct on speed camera enforcement should be adhered too as these are regulations which are needed to bring prosecutions and they can be challenged if they are not in use at the time of an alleged offence. My police HQ (2 people)  has claimed that only  officers returning to full time operations are deployed on camera operations and yet their high profile campaign in the local paper shows a traffic officer of 15 years claiming that MOST OF HIS TIME is spent on such operations. How big can lies be?This shows what a deplorable situation one has to contend with and I keep plugging away at those pathetic idiots in uniform who claim to be policing the public. What trust does anyone have these days in this uniform. Alienated

Posted by: Pete2906 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 - 07:29
Post #50280

icon_question.gif

I'm currently awaiting a court date for allegedly doing 79mph on the M6 in Cumbria. I was "caught" by the Cumbria Safety Camera Partnership. I'm a bit pi**ed by this as I knew he was there and was doing between 65 - 70 mph max.

I'm advised that these vans are manned by Civilians, not Police Officers. Is there any place in the ACPO Guidelines or RTA that state that the Primary evidence should be the opinion of an Officer that you are exceeding the speed limit prior to the secondary evidence, which is the camera taking the reading ?

If so, could the fact it was a civilian, who is legally unable to make prior opinion of speed be used as a defence.

I'd love to challenge the accuracy / deployment of the LTi 20/20, but as it is Home Office approved, I feel my chances would be slim on this one.

Thanks for any advice !!

Posted by: jimmy ferrari Tue, 19 Apr 2005 - 08:33
Post #50286

Pete, you should read this http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1614&highlight=civilian+operators

Posted by: Pete2906 Tue, 19 Apr 2005 - 10:08
Post #50298

Jimmy,

Thanks for your quick reply.

Did the test case ever go to the High Court or is it still pending ?
Link was approx. 1 year old.

Even if it did, it'll be good to challenge the thieving buggers with it plus a few more stuff on the skeleton argument.

I'm also going to try and get a copy of the video when the time presents itself, as I suspect there was not prior opinion at all, just pot shots at every car on the carriageway. It was near the end of the month, so what better place to reach the revenue targets than a motorway bridge.

I also wonder if it's worth asking for the monthly profile of offender and locations under the freedom of information act. Could blow them apart if they have a big bolus of offenders at the end of each month on the M6 ? Newspapers may find this interesting too.

Posted by: jimmy ferrari Tue, 19 Apr 2005 - 14:09
Post #50327

Pete,
As it stands at the moment Matts case is still progressing towards Europe!! The uk Justices have quite cleverly ignored the civilian argument by saying Matt was done for failure to ID driver and not speeding. This will be rectified in Europe as they play fair :!: If you join as a member you will be able to access the members section that has alot more 'juicy' bits in :!:  :wink:
I believe the revenue is done quartley so I doubt end of month will show up. I will put a link in.
Here's the http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_foi/documents/divisionhomepage/035233.hcsp

Posted by: rsv1000 Tue, 24 May 2005 - 15:56
Post #55193

How relistic is it to try and prove that the LTI20-20 is inaccurate?

The reason I am asking this is that it can be proved with calculations that in certain instances any speed device that uses more than one laser is inaccurate due soley to manufacturing tolerances - the individual laser beams diverge and this can increase or decrease the distance measurement and therefore the accuracy that is claimed.

This divergence causes problems when vehicle speeds are checked at an angle to the laser and the inaccuracey far outweighs any benefit from cosine crap as quoted in police handbook

Posted by: anton Tue, 16 Aug 2005 - 06:04
Post #67301

BBC inside-out are re-visiting this news story on 12th of September 2005 in the W region and a week later in other regions.

you can view BBCw on channel 957 on sky sat dish

I had to wash my car icon_eek.gif

Posted by: g_attrill Tue, 16 Aug 2005 - 11:21
Post #67362

QUOTE (anton)
I had to wash my car icon_eek.gif


Not winding certain people up again are you?


Posted by: anton Tue, 16 Aug 2005 - 17:03
Post #67433

I think cameron sent them an e-mail

Posted by: anton Tue, 23 Aug 2005 - 06:24
Post #68293

We know that the sample time of the lti20-20 is 1/3 of a second. it then needs to calculate that and convert it to a speed. Once a speed has been supplied it needs to generate the video graphic to display on screen.

How long does this process take?

a nano second, a tenth of a second, more than that?

remember this is all fairly old technology

this makes a differance to a couple of cases

Posted by: andy_foster Tue, 23 Aug 2005 - 06:28
Post #68294

And is the distance displayed measured at the start, middle or end of the 1/3sec burst?

Posted by: g_attrill Tue, 23 Aug 2005 - 19:56
Post #68387

QUOTE (andy_foster)
And is the distance displayed measured at the start, middle or end of the 1/3sec burst?

The patent says it's the midpoint:

d = c/2 * (sum(yi)/n

...where n= number of samples, yi = flight time for ith pulse, c = speed of light.


Gareth

Posted by: blackdouglas Tue, 30 Aug 2005 - 10:05
Post #69204

QUOTE (g_attrill)
The patent says it's the midpoint:

d = c/2 * (sum(yi)/n

...where n= number of samples, yi = flight time for ith pulse, c = speed of light.

Gareth


Careful. This is not the midpoint. It is, effectively, the average of the calculated distances. This is the midpoint, if, and only if, the target is travelling at a constant speed.

Posted by: T20Driver Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 15:54
Post #70035

I've got a few questions .... sorry if there's answers elsewhere, I have trawled but can't find them ...

Is there a pulse to be detected as the scope is being swung from vehicle to vehicle prior to any attempt to target a specific vehicle ?

Indeed, is there something that has to be done by the operator to specifically target/get the speed of a vehicle, or is it all automatic ie the operator simply points at a vehicle at the scope does the rest ie there is no trigger pulling/ button pressing ?

I've seen somewhere that the dodgyscopes take 1/3 sec to 'lock on' .... at what distance and under what condition is this ? Does this mean that there is a pulse to be detected during this (short) 'aquiring' time and that as soon as lock on is achieved, you're knicked if over the limit ?

Does it say anywhere (Type Approval for eg) the max distance at which these units can be used for speed detection in a prosecution ?

I also read somewhere that the speed quoted on any NIP is the 3rd reading .... What is the interval between the readings ... or is this misinformation ? Perhaps a better question is ... how do the scamerati determine the speed to place on the NIP ?

The purpose of my questions is to understand better whether there is any point in purchasing a laser detector.

If my understanding is correct (ie I might if I am lucky have 1/3 of a sec to re-act to a laser detection before being done) then I am not sure of their usefulness as I'm pretty sure I'd only be able to mentally process the fact that I've been targeted and start moving my foot off the accelerator to the brake in 1/3 sec. I'm certainly not sure how much I'd have hit the brakes and scrubbed off further speed in that time. However, if (for example) I'd be able to detect the laser at 1000ft plus and they're readings are inadmissable over 1000ft then I can perhaps see a point ... although feet do go past pretty quickly .. whatever the speed.

Any input appreciated.

Posted by: Clear Skies Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 16:21
Post #70045

QUOTE (T20Driver)
Does it say anywhere (Type Approval for eg) the max distance at which these units can be used for speed detection in a prosecution ?

.


I am not sure where u are going with your questions,

but believe it's approved for quite a long distance say 1000 m, but when they calibrate  them, they only ever test them on three distances, and I think they are 50.75 and 100 m... which to an uneducated moron like myself seems like complete b*ll*cks.


no idea if this rough info  is of any use to you , in your quest..

rgds
bill

Posted by: g_attrill Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 16:49
Post #70052

QUOTE (T20Driver)
Is there a pulse to be detected as the scope is being swung from vehicle to vehicle prior to any attempt to target a specific vehicle ?


QUOTE (T20Driver)
Indeed, is there something that has to be done by the operator to specifically target/get the speed of a vehicle, or is it all automatic ie the operator simply points at a vehicle at the scope does the rest ie there is no trigger pulling/ button pressing ?

The operator needs to press the trigger to commence the speed reading.


QUOTE (T20Driver)
I've seen somewhere that the dodgyscopes take 1/3 sec to 'lock on' .... at what distance and under what condition is this ? Does this mean that there is a pulse to be detected during this (short) 'aquiring' time and that as soon as lock on is achieved, you're knicked if over the limit ?

The time the device takes to produce a reading is 0.3sec. A detector will sound an alarm when this pulse is detected, so by the time the alarm goes off it is way way too late to take evasive action.

QUOTE (T20Driver)
Does it say anywhere (Type Approval for eg) the max distance at which these units can be used for speed detection in a prosecution ?

Not that I am aware.


QUOTE (T20Driver)
I also read somewhere that the speed quoted on any NIP is the 3rd reading .... What is the interval between the readings ... or is this misinformation ? Perhaps a better question is ... how do the scamerati determine the speed to place on the NIP ?

I've not heard of this, the interval between reading can be as quick as the operator can press the button.

QUOTE (T20Driver)
The purpose of my questions is to understand better whether there is any point in purchasing a laser detector.

Laser detectors are useful to a point. It is quite common for an error code to be produced on a laser device and for the operator to take several readings before a valid speed is produced.

I haven't had chance to play with a detector and see what it's capabilities are, but it is also possible that one might detect the "overspill" where an operator is targetting a vehicle in front.

Unfortunately most installers seem to be pretty crap. I went with my boss to a local dealer and he showed us his car. The sensor was on the rear view mirror but ABOVE the tint line on the windscreen. I queried whether this would adversely affect the operation and his reply was "a Nokia phone on IR sets it off" while holding his phone up to the windscreen.  I have no idea how he thought this had any bearing on an LTI 20:20 being fired at it from 500m!

(We were also put off by general attitude and talking about he would "rip off the dash" and "you don't want to be here when it's installed"). Not the sort of words you want use in relation to a £60k Italian sports car!)

Gareth

Posted by: the fast lane Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 21:28
Post #70100

QUOTE (T20Driver)
The purpose of my questions is to understand better whether there is any point in purchasing a laser detector.

The only valid purpose of a laser detector is to indicate to you that your car is being subjected to infra-red radiation.  To put it another way, to indicate when you have had your speed measured.
Even if it took 2 or 3 seconds to measure the average speed of your car you are very unlikely to be able to reduce your vehicle speed a significant amount.  In 0.3 seconds, the time it takes for the most popular laser speed measuring device to acquire your speed, you have no chance of changing your speed after the alarm in time to make a difference to the measured speed.
Ask any laser detector sales person "What should I do when I get an alarm to prevent my speed being measured within one second"?  If the answer is anything other than NOTHING, then the salesperson is a liar.

You could always use it to note if your speed is over the speed limit when it goes off, that way you will know when to expect a letter in the post.

Save your money and buy some wax for your Italian job.

Posted by: Insider Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 21:50
Post #70103

Of course, Laser Jammers deal with the problem of detecting and evading..  :wink:

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 22:38
Post #70112

QUOTE (Insider)
Of course, Laser Jammers deal with the problem of detecting and evading..  icon_wink.gif

That may bring you more serious legal problems, however.

Posted by: Insider Mon, 5 Sep 2005 - 22:44
Post #70114

QUOTE
That may bring you more serious legal problems, however.


True, however I'm not doing so bad  :lol:

Posted by: anton Tue, 6 Sep 2005 - 03:39
Post #70127

reminder... next monday BBC inside-out are re-visiting this news story on 12th of September 2005 7:30 pm in the SW region
you can view BBCsw on channel 957 on sky sat dish

more info will apear on thier web site http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series8/week_one.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series8/week_two.shtml

edited to change it to SW

Posted by: blackdouglas Tue, 6 Sep 2005 - 17:34
Post #70209

I'm not sure you've got this quite right.

I think it will be on in the *South West* and *London* regions on 12 September 2005. Possibly also the *South* region.

QUOTE (anton)
reminder... next monday BBC inside-out are re-visiting this news story on 12th of September 2005 7:30 pm in the W region and a week later in other regions.

you can view BBCw on channel 957 on sky sat dish

more info will apear on thier web site http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/west/series8/week_one.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/west/series8/week_two.shtml

Posted by: anton Tue, 6 Sep 2005 - 19:59
Post #70231

ok I was chanel hopping I got the number right just the name thats wrong

BBC REGIONS
941 BBC1 Scotland
942 BBC1 Wales
943 BBC1 Northern Ireland
944 BBC1 London
945 BBC1 North East & Cumbria
946 BBC1 Yorkshire
947 BBC1 East Yorkshire & Lincolnshire
948 BBC1 North West
949 BBC1 West Midlands
950 BBC1 East Midlands
951 BBC1 East (East
952 BBC1 East (West)
953 BBC1 South East
954 BBC1 South
955 BBC1 South
956 BBC1 West
957 BBC1 South West 7:30 pm monday
958 BBC1 Channel Islands (from the autumn)
959 BBC2 England
960 BBC2 Scotland
961 BBC2 Wales
962 BBC2 Northern Ireland

Posted by: anton Mon, 12 Sep 2005 - 22:06
Post #71117

http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml

QUOTE
Julian Hewitt
The camera has been rigorously tested by the home office as part of the type approval process. This applies to all similar equipment such as breathalysers. If exhaustive testing has already been done and the equipment has been found to be accurate there is no reason to give it to any self appointed expert with an axe to grind to test again. A good journalist will always be able to find some one from the modern day equivalent of the flat earth society to oppose the majority view but the BBC should have the integrity to present a balanced picture based on the facts rather than take the tabloid route of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
Did Julian Hewit not declare he was press spoksperson from Hants Scammers?

Posted by: Mika Tue, 13 Sep 2005 - 10:09
Post #71205

UPDATE 13th 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 http://www.pepipoo.org/files/inside_out_12-sep-05.rm (38Mb).

There is a lower resolution WMV file available http://homepage.ntlworld.com/julie.denton2/insout.wmv. (3.68Mb)

There is also an article about this program on the http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml.

Posted by: Rallyman72 Wed, 14 Sep 2005 - 14:01
Post #71401

I have seen Cambs using the LTI a bit recently on the A1 at Alconbury. Up until yesterday always hand held but braced on an open patrol car door nearest to traffic - yesterday the LTI was mounted on a tripod to the nearside (i.e. side furthest away from traffic) of the patrol car.

I wonder if the recent BBC programme has prompted a change of instructions for using these.

Posted by: Quattro Wed, 14 Sep 2005 - 21:55
Post #71474

QUOTE
You could always use it to note if your speed is over the speed limit when it goes off, that way you will know when to expect a letter in the post.


or

You could always use it to note if your speed is over the speed limit when it goes off, that way you will know if the scammers are lying when you get a letter in the post.

Rule #1 - scammers lie
Rule #2 - if in doubt, refer to rule #1.

Posted by: jeffreyarcher Thu, 15 Sep 2005 - 01:07
Post #71490

QUOTE (Rallyman72)
I have seen Cambs using the LTI a bit recently on the A1 at Alconbury. Up until yesterday always hand held but braced on an open patrol car door nearest to traffic - yesterday the LTI was mounted on a tripod to the nearside (i.e. side furthest away from traffic) of the patrol car.

I wonder if the recent BBC programme has prompted a change of instructions for using these.

Why don't you ask them?

Posted by: anton Sat, 1 Oct 2005 - 11:35
Post #74417

BBC inside out program is going out in south region this monday it might make the rest of the network too

Posted by: REG OLIVER Thu, 17 Nov 2005 - 11:51
Post #82911

Regarding ACPO Code of Conduct. If anyone cares to read the English dictionary they will find that Code is defined as LAW and as such should be implimented by those who operate such codes. They are only used when it suites the Police but when quoted by others are only guidelines. Even if they are guidelines they should be adhered too and implimented and the Police taken to task over these guidelines. What good for the goose is also good for the gander and the Police should not be above the law,regulations or even guidelines. R Oliver

Posted by: Dakota Thu, 17 Nov 2005 - 13:04
Post #82924

Nice try but it doesn't work like that. Not only do they ignore the ACPO guidelines they "bend" the law to suit themselves. In one recent case on here, a district judge was doing the prosecuters job for them. Hardly justice is it?

Posted by: Orac Sat, 17 Dec 2005 - 19:16
Post #87545

http://www.geocities.com/stop_abuse/LTI2020/OpinionE.htm

Posted by: anton Tue, 27 Dec 2005 - 11:11
Post #88784

In the angle where one person were shot the road is covered in white lines and and beam spread would also reflect. some of those lines would be further away and some nearer.
Also the speed was aquired by pointing at the windscreen and upper bonnet of the car which is less reflective than the numberplate or white lines.

This is the frame before the speed is displayed
http://www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/white-lines.jpg

Posted by: avington Thu, 16 Feb 2006 - 23:09
Post #95810

QUOTE (Traffic Cop @ Sat, 10 Apr 2004 - 10:45) *
Kevin Green posted

The only way you are going to win is on appeal when you are talking to a Judge who likes to know what he's on about! By the way, you can use http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet_code_of_practice_update_v21.pdf as an aid in defense as the coppers NEVER write down the evidence they are supposed to!

One thing to pointout is that ACPO policy is not law! If a police officer does not follow a Policy, it does not mean that you are off the hook. Policy is there to advise, NOT a set of rules that MUST be followed.


[b] I've tried opening the link http://www.acpo.police.uk/policies/rpet_co..._update_v21.pdf without success, does anyone have any solution. By the way most of the links on this post is not available, any ideas what is going on?

Posted by: andy_foster Thu, 16 Feb 2006 - 23:23
Post #95814

avington,

As clever as the mods and admins on this site might be, we don't actually have any control over ACPO's website, or any other sites in the police.uk domain.

You might like to try this link and see where it takes you.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=ACPO+RPET

Posted by: anton Mon, 27 Feb 2006 - 13:59
Post #97018

It seams that Paul Goggins MP has been asked afew questions in parliment
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=goggins+type+approval&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051215/text/51215w15.htm

QUOTE
Speed Cameras
John Penrose: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there are plans to introduce a test for slip effect in respect of mobile speed guns. [33681]Paul Goggins: There are no plans to introduce such a test. To ensure accuracy, all equipment already undergoes very rigorous laboratory and field testing prior to the grant of type approval. The code of practice for the Operational Use of Road Policing Enforcement Technology issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers includes guidance on the avoidance of any potential problems arising from slippage.

Mrs. Dunwoody: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 29 November 2005, Official Report, column 328W, on speed cameras, how many (a) convictions and (B) fixed penalty notices there were for speeding offences in each year from 1994 to 2004. [37015]

15 Dec 2005 : Column 2230W
Paul Goggins: Available information on court convictions and fixed penalty notices issued for the offence of speeding detected by camera from 1997 to 2003 (latest available) is given in the table. 2004 data will not be available until March 2006.

Convictions and fixed penalty data for speeding offences detected by cameras(14), England and Wales, 1997 to 2003 Number
Type of action
Court proceedings (Findings of guilt(15)) Fixed penalty
(Number of tickets(16))
1997 20,800 288,600
1998 25,700 338,800
1999 32,600 423,000
2000 32,000 599,200(17)
2001 40,800 877,500
2002 46,700 1,135,400
2003 61,900 1,657,000

(14) Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.
(15) Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.
(16) Only covers tickets paid where there is no further action.
(17) Following publication of 2000 data, Northamptonshire police force revised their 2000 figures for the number of fixed penalty notices issued for speeding offences from 70,300 to 34,800 (a decrease of 35,500). In consequence, national data has been revised.


http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051220/text/51220w65.htm
QUOTE
Mobile Speed Cameras
Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the mobile speed camera LTI 2020; and if he will make a statement. [33008]Paul Goggins: The version of the LTI 20.20 speed meter that is type-approved for use by the police underwent very rigorous field and laboratory testing prior to the grant of type approval. It is self-calibrating and has an internal fault reporting system. All speed cameras are also subject to an annual check to ensure their continuing reliability.

I am satisfied that the device operates to a high degree of accuracy when used in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers.


http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060117/text/60117w27.htm
QUOTE
LT 12020 Speed Measuring Device
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the accuracy of the LT 12020 speed measuring device. [40451]Paul Goggins: All speed measuring devices type approved for use by the police, including the LT 12020, are subject to laboratory and field testing before they receive type approval. I am satisfied as to the accuracy and reliability of the LT 12020.

Keep the pressure up tongue.gif

Posted by: Blackbird Mon, 27 Feb 2006 - 14:42
Post #97020

and another

QUOTE
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reliability of evidence produced by the LTI20/20 light-weight hand held speed camera. [29289]22 Nov 2005 : Column 1935W
Paul Goggins: The LTI 20.20 is self-calibrating with an internal fault-reporting system, but as with all devices, it is in addition required to undergo regular calibration checks. I am satisfied that evidence obtained from the LTI 20.20 is reliable.

Posted by: flogger Thu, 6 Jul 2006 - 16:51
Post #117991

Hi mate, I'm sure I got caught by the camera as I passed going East....and like a Wally when I returned an hour later going West (Other things on my mind) Can you tell me if they have two cameras on board? the van was above the M4 Pencoed traveling East, could he then catch me when I was traveling West? when it was across the other side of the bridge. Do you know the distance they can zapp you from? or is it that if you see them before you brake your nicked

Kind Regards

Flogger

Posted by: anton Sun, 9 Jul 2006 - 12:30
Post #118551

I thought it a good idea to bring http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=12580&hl= to your attention

to summerise:

QUOTE
The law surrounding the detection equipment used to catch speeding motorists was very specific, but some of the provisions appeared to have been ignored. He said that under the Road Traffic Act 1991, a "prescribed device" such as a camera or radar had to be used before evidence from it was admissible in court, and the act must have a specific description of the device that was being used.

"The specific description must be the subject of an order made by the secretary of state for transport," he said. "In other words, the secretary of state has to place an order known as a 'statutory instrument' before parliament, detailing the equipment that has been approved to monitor motorists' speed."The statutory instrument is like a mini act of parliament. Every time a new machine is introduced to catch speeders, a statutory instrument should be set out for it and laid before parliament. If no one objects, the machine comes into force two weeks later. The order should name each new device and describe it specifically."


RTA act 1991
QUOTE
(9) In this section "prescribed device" means device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.

(10) The powers to make orders under subsections (3) and (9) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.


Now there is no statutory instrument. however it is mentioned in :
QUOTE
1. This Order may be cited as the Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 and shall come into force on 1st July 1992.
2. A device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles is a prescribed device for the purposes of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


and later ammended to include laser kit

It is hardly a detailed discription, and I know the type aproval exists for each bit of kit, but it has not been laid before parliment for inspection. and that is not what the law says. the law says "a statutory instrument"


Any way I didn't want any one missing this potentialy important bit of information.

Posted by: anton Wed, 12 Jul 2006 - 04:23
Post #119152

No one was available for comment at the Cabinet Office. A spokesman for the Department for Transport said: "Speed cameras are there for a reason. Cameras have been shown independently to save lives. If Mr Pict wants to liaise with this department then I am sure we would answer any queries that he raised."

So If I/we send of a few F.O.I. requests to the department they will be happy I am sure to point out the missing ling between the folowing legislation.

Department for Transport
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DR

Fax: 020 7944 9643


QUOTE
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm
Section 20 RTA
(4) A record produced or measurement made by a prescribed device shall not be admissible as evidence of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies unless—
(a) the device is of a type approved by the Secretary of State, and
(b) any conditions subject to which the approval was given are satisfied.


(9) In this section "prescribed device" means device of a description specified in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(10) The powers to make orders under subsections (3) and (9) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Does paragragh 4 constitute "an order made by the Secretary of State."?

QUOTE
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1992/Uksi_19921209_en_1.htm

exercise of the powers conferred upon me by section 20(9) and (10) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988[1], I hereby make the following Order:
1. This Order may be cited as the Road Traffic Offenders (Prescribed Devices) Order 1992 and shall come into force on 1st July 1992.
2. A device designed or adapted for measuring by radar the speed of motor vehicles is a prescribed device for the purposes of section 20 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.


Kenneth Clarke

One of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State Home Office

21st May 1992


this was updated to include laser here:

QUOTE
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_2.htm#mdiv23

23. For section 20 of the [1988 c. 53.] Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (admissibility of measurement of speed by radar) there shall be substituted—
"Speeding offences etc: admissibility of certain evidence.

20. — (1) Evidence (which in Scotland shall be sufficient evidence) of a fact relevant to proceedings for an offence to which this section applies may be given by the production of—
(a) a record produced by a prescribed device, and
(b) (in the same or another document) a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced signed by a constable or by a person authorised by or on behalf of the chief officer of police for the police area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed;

Posted by: bigcats30 Mon, 28 Aug 2006 - 10:29
Post #128856

I wonder if i could be classed as an expert with the USE of lasers

as since we are trained on them in the army and i have spent the last 16 years of my life working on the army's last 3 main battle tanks that use a laser range finder (which includes not only operating the laser as a gunner/commander but all so maintence)

far more training than one of the talivan operators have

we have to learn about what does and doesn't work with them (ie mist smoke rain moving target etc etc )

any ideas

Posted by: trick911t Thu, 7 Sep 2006 - 07:11
Post #130724

QUOTE (bigcats30 @ Mon, 28 Aug 2006 - 11:29) *
we have to learn about what does and doesn't work with them (ie mist smoke rain moving target etc etc )


A little bit of info about them, firstly the laser used in these devices are weaker than thoses used in your local supermarket, they have trouble with dark cars as dark colours absorb the laser more hence a black car is probably the best colour to have and keeping your car dirty also helps to absorb the laser again helping to stop the reflection.

I will post more when I have more although I am investigating the effects of heat haze (heat rising from a road) becuase I think this might explain my excessive speed reading. :-)

Cheers

Posted by: pom Thu, 5 Oct 2006 - 14:34
Post #137721

what eventually happened in this case ?

Also i see Kevin hasn't posted in ages (Wednesday, 5th January 2005 - 01:49) hope he hasnt been banged up ??!

cheers

Pom

Posted by: Whizz Wed, 8 Nov 2006 - 13:27
Post #146302

QUOTE
I will post more when I have more although I am investigating the effects of heat haze (heat rising from a road) becuase I think this might explain my excessive speed reading. :-)


Does heat haze have an effect?

Posted by: Maersk2 Fri, 17 Nov 2006 - 12:44
Post #148619

What specifically are the effects of spray and mist. Refraction of the beam potentially but what effect does this have on the reading?

Posted by: Emby Sun, 7 Jan 2007 - 21:54
Post #158902

Are you there Kevin?

What happened in the end? Its like watching Lord of the rings one and two and never seeing the third

Posted by: Clear Skies Thu, 25 Jan 2007 - 09:49
Post #163239

looking for somewhere to dump this.... from tele web site.

QUOTE
Digital Vs. Analogue

The Digital Age of traffic safety solutions has many advantages over the currently used analogue systems. These include:

Storage of wet film and video cassettes - forces have to keep these items for up to 7 years to comply with legal needs whereas the Digital systems burns straight to DVD and can be saved on hard drive
Unwanted Data – recording onto VHS means large amounts of unwanted data whereas DVD allows you to go straight to the offence
Broadcast Standard - Digital provides broadcast standard footage that can be presented in a flexible way
Accuracy of LTI is a given – this is now complemented by the accuracy of digital recording and presentation
so they must keep the evidence..
rgds

Posted by: g_attrill Fri, 2 Feb 2007 - 16:34
Post #165304

I note Essex are sending LTI 20.20 information leaflets out with all NIPs:

http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk/communicate_page04.html

QUOTE
"The leaflet aims to reassure the public that all the safety camera equipment by the Essex Safety Camera Partnership is accurate and operated by highly trained police officers."

LTI 20/20 LASTEC SPEEDSCOPE DEVICE - CLARIFICATION

Over the past 18 months there have been a number of news articles relating to the accuracy of laser speed detection devices. These articles have questioned the accuracy and reliability of the Home Office Type Approved LTI 20/20 Lastec Speedscope device - as a result raising a number of concerns among motorists.

The Essex Safety Camera Partnership (ESCP) would like to reassure the public that all devices used by the Partnership are accurate and correctly calibrated. All ESCP operators are police officers and are highly trained in the use of the device, and strictly follow both the manufacturer's instructions and the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) Codes of Practice.

Media articles about incorrect readings being obtained from the device are misleading. These so called incorrect readings only obtained by using the device in an unapproved manner, outside of operating guidance.

ACPO and the Home Office endorse the accuracy of the device when used correctly. The ESCP has confidence in the accuracy of the device and its operators and will continue to use it to help reduce casualties on roads in the Partnership's area.

If you have any further concerns regarding any of the issues surrounding these articles please do not hesitate to contact ESCP at: www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk

Posted by: Mika Wed, 7 Feb 2007 - 14:20
Post #166408

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page=motorcyclenews.articles.articleCategory.article&resourceId=6462338&articleCategory=NEWS_OTHER-NEWS.

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

The full court transcript is available by http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page=motorcyclenews.articles.articleCategory.article&resourceId=6462350&articleCategory=NEWS_OTHER-NEWS.

Posted by: flearider Fri, 23 Feb 2007 - 21:26
Post #170484

the lti 20/20 speed scope does it still come under hand held device ??even if its on a tripod in a car ?

check this post out plz http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=13975 ...just got fined £600 because they say the apco sec 14.4 does not cover the 20/20 speed scope ??

Posted by: The Rookie Sat, 3 Mar 2007 - 13:33
Post #172277

Yes the 20.20 is a hand held device even when its ...well erm not as its on a tripod.

Also read this one http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=15755 about the fines/costs levied.

Simon

Posted by: trb Sun, 19 Aug 2007 - 20:27
Post #204872

Can someone clarify as I have the same question as flearider, I was zapped by an Lti on a tripod in a van. Does ACPO 14.4 still apply?

Posted by: blackdouglas Mon, 8 Oct 2007 - 15:25
Post #214667

Was this an LTI 20.20? Funny how the "retired" officer wasn't able to come and give evidence eh? I know of one case where a retired officer came back to give evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7033353.stm

Posted by: Quattro Mon, 8 Oct 2007 - 18:07
Post #214707

QUOTE (blackdouglas @ Mon, 8 Oct 2007 - 16:25) *
Was this an LTI 20.20? Funny how the "retired" officer wasn't able to come and give evidence eh? I know of one case where a retired officer came back to give evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7033353.stm


The camera operator in my case was NOT investigated for perjury because he was ill!

Funny that he still works Wiltshire Police but has still not been interviewed regarding the perjury accusation.

This officer probably signed an S9 statement saying that he formed a prior opinion, and will notbe investigated for making up the evidence.

Posted by: DW190 Wed, 30 Jul 2008 - 16:42
Post #279323

Lastec Local System in conjunction with LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope

Can someone answer a simple question.

Can this device be activated without the intervention of the operator?. ie can it be set up and left to operate itself ?.

Posted by: Paul D. Lee Wed, 30 Jul 2008 - 22:04
Post #279416

No. And it is only type approved as such.

QUOTE (DW190 @ Wed, 30 Jul 2008 - 17:42) *
Lastec Local System in conjunction with LTI 20.20 TS/M Speedscope

Can someone answer a simple question.

Can this device be activated without the intervention of the operator?. ie can it be set up and left to operate itself ?.

Posted by: v105 Sun, 28 Sep 2008 - 16:25
Post #295443

Does anyone know what happened to Kevin?
I read through 9 pages of very interesting material, clicked on all the links and was expecting a result!

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)