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.
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 ?
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?”
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.
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
sounds like fun - what exactly is a "mention hearing"?
Did anyone get a chance to drop in?
Probably old hat to the experts here, however, just in case, see: http://www.geocities.com/speeding@sbcglobal.net/lidarcase.html
That makes interesting reading, how old is it? Has anyone questioned the LTi 20/20 to that extent in the UK?
any update to this?
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.
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?
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! 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
Kevin did you get it at least 7 days before trial?
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
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.
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?
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! 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!
Yours,
I hope you don't mean this... http://www.orange-pages.fsnet.co.uk/
Sorry, I certainly don't and the only reason we havn't closed it down for infringement is the possible consequences!
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'.
Right I will get of my high horse for new and hope to speak soon. Are you going to Cardiff yourself?
Regards,
K
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 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
Kev,
We can discuss your ideas tomorrow, and your timing could be impeccable.
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!" 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
Kev,
You may be able to ask “the Copper in the Motorcycle case” yourself tomorrow.
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.
Look forward to it.
K
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.
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
Obviously crapping himself
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 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!
"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.
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 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.... 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!
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
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
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
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.
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?....£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££.
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,
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.
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.
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
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
K
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. :?
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!
Or see if you can access the site via an [anon] Proxy
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
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”
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?
Hi Mika,
Sorry I'm up in North Yorkshire and can't get down to Wales on Monday.
Best wishes
Sid
http://www.cumbriasafetycameras.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=544&view=findpost&p=8026
Sit Sit Fetch It
Mika, Sign Him Up Now!
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
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
Hi all,
Do you think there's any chance that they were using the “dodgyscope”? ....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3605446.stm
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.
Does anyone need any further evidence .....
Hi Mika,
Is there any way that we can get evidence of this which is admissible?
Best wishes
Bob
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
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
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.
If you then stick to your guns, it should be http://pepipoo.com/Case_Files/Case_file_19.htm.
Isn't this a good case for a HRA redress??
Andy
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.
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.
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...
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)"
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
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
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
Matt, in answer to your question:
how much is an LTI 20-20?
were the guns used in the german experiment the same as ones used by scameras today?
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).
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.
The only way to find out is to give it a try!
Is there anyone with a laser handy who can perform this simple experiment? Its the right time of year for it.
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?
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
Do we know what type of device was in use? The usual 2020 mistakes?
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? :?
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?
Was it a guy up in our northern cousins patch anton?
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...
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!
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.
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
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
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
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!
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!"[/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.
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.
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.
Hi fossil,
More details required. Has your son got a court date through?
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
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
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.
is the operator manual for the lti20-20 in the public domain?
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”
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
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
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 !!
Pete, you should read this http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=1614&highlight=civilian+operators
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.
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
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
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
I think cameron sent them an e-mail
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
And is the distance displayed measured at the start, middle or end of the 1/3sec burst?
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.
Of course, Laser Jammers deal with the problem of detecting and evading.. :wink:
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
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.
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
http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml
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.
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.
BBC inside out program is going out in south region this monday it might make the rest of the network too
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
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?
http://www.geocities.com/stop_abuse/LTI2020/OpinionE.htm
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
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
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
and another
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
I thought it a good idea to bring http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=12580&hl= to your attention
to summerise:
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
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
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
What specifically are the effects of spray and mist. Refraction of the beam potentially but what effect does this have on the reading?
Are you there Kevin?
What happened in the end? Its like watching Lord of the rings one and two and never seeing the third
looking for somewhere to dump this.... from tele web site.
I note Essex are sending LTI 20.20 information leaflets out with all NIPs:
http://www.essexsafetycameras.co.uk/communicate_page04.html
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/nav?page=motorcyclenews.articles.articleCategory.article&resourceId=6462338&articleCategory=NEWS_OTHER-NEWS.
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 ??
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
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?
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
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 ?.
No. And it is only type approved as such.
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)