Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: LTI 20-20 Ultralyte questions
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
chris93
I have a couple of questions re the above device I hope people can help with

1. Before using the device, does an officer have to form a prior opinion that a vehicle was driving in excess of the speed limit, or can they point it at every car until they catch one breaking the speed limit?

2. The following is an officers evidence "I aimed the laser at the vehicle`s registration plate at a distance of 276 meters. The laser gave me a reading of 40mph".

This suggests that the officer got an immediate lock on said vehicle and therefore an immediate reading. The device was hand held and was not on a tripod. I would suggest that it is impossible to get an immediate read.

Thanks



Jlc
1. Guidance used to recommend that an opinion should be formed prior to taking a reading but in law there is no such requirement. Law obviously overriding any such guidance. In reality it's easy to spot a car doing 40 in a 30 and the device reading corroborates. (And confirms any such opinion)

2. The reading is taken in around one third of a second. What the officer is saying is he aimed the device at you and pulled the trigger - it then told him the speed and distance virtually instantaneously.

Are you saying you were not doing 40mph or are clutching at straws?

That speed would normally be dealt with by way or course or fixed penalty - unless you requesting court or ignored accordingly.
peterguk
QUOTE (chris93 @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 14:31) *
The following is an officers evidence "I aimed the laser at the vehicle`s registration plate at a distance of 276 meters. The laser gave me a reading of 40mph".

This suggests that the officer got an immediate lock on said vehicle and therefore an immediate reading. The device was hand held and was not on a tripod. I would suggest that it is impossible to get an immediate read.


IMHO, it suggests he got an immediate reading once he had you in his sights. Seems OK to me.
Jlc
QUOTE (peterguk @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 15:03) *
IMHO, it suggests he got an immediate reading once he had you in his sights. Seems OK to me.

Of course, plead not guilty and get the officer in court to confirm. If one loses then expect to pick up costs of around £620, criminal court charge of £520 on top of the other elements.
chris93
QUOTE (Jlc @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 14:44) *
1. Guidance used to recommend that an opinion should be formed prior to taking a reading but in law there is no such requirement. Law obviously overriding any such guidance. In reality it's easy to spot a car doing 40 in a 30 and the device reading corroborates. (And confirms any such opinion)

2. The reading is taken in around one third of a second. What the officer is saying is he aimed the device at you and pulled the trigger - it then told him the speed and distance virtually instantaneously.

Are you saying you were not doing 40mph or are clutching at straws?

That speed would normally be dealt with by way or course or fixed penalty - unless you requesting court or ignored accordingly.


1. How is it easy? I`ll presume that the officer has been on a course and had training and will have a certificate that will have his accuracy on it? The ultralytes are fairly heavy devices and (again IMHO) it would take 2-3 seconds for him to raise the gun, steady it, and then get a fix. To get an immediate reading would suggest that the gun was already in position and that he was pointing it at every vehicle.

2. To be frank, I know I wasn`t driving at 40mph. I had already been flashed by oncoming vehicles which suggested that the police were ahead, and knowing the stretch of road as I do, I guessed it would be speed checks (even though it was 10.45pm on a Sunday night).

Upon being stopped, the officer said that I was exceeding the speed limit. In his statement he says that he showed me the reading. He didn`t. After doing all the various PNC checks, he then filled out a driver referral ticket (Surrey Police) which he completed on his hand held PDA. No speed was entered on the ticket. I then received a conditional offer of a fixed penalty but again no speed was on the offer, just that I had exceeded 30 mph on restricted road. The first time I actually saw the figure of 40mph was when I was issued with a summons.

So basically, there is no photographic or video evidence. Contrary to the evidnce given by the officer, I wasn`t shown the reading at the scene. No speed written on the ticket I was given. No speed written on the conditional offer and then I get a summons with this magical figure of 40mph. Not 37, 38 or 39 but the nicely rounded off figure of 40mph.

As it stands, it goes to trial in 3 weeks time, and yes I an aware of the financial penalties if I was found guilty.
AntonyMMM
Roadside stops are always very hard to defend.

No photo or video evidence is required - so basically it will be his word, and the reading from his approved device against your "I wasn't speeding". The offence is "exceeding a speed limit", not travelling at a specific speed, so the speed not appearing on paperwork is quite normal.

Nothing you have said so far suggests anything that is going to form a realistic defence.

The speed of 40 should have been an offer of a Speed Awareness Course , varying that by a few mph either way would make no difference at all ...so I'm not sure why you think a nicely rounded off figure is relevant.
chris93
QUOTE (AntonyMMM @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 16:25) *
Roadside stops are always very hard to defend.

No photo or video evidence is required - so basically it will be his word, and the reading from his approved device against your "I wasn't speeding". The offence is "exceeding a speed limit", not travelling at a specific speed, so the speed not appearing on paperwork is quite normal.

Nothing you have said so far suggests anything that is going to form a realistic defence.

The speed of 40 should have been an offer of a Speed Awareness Course , varying that by a few mph either way would make no difference at all ...so I'm not sure why you think a nicely rounded off figure is relevant.


I did a course 2 years ago so wasn`t eligible for a course.

The officer did have a colleague with him but he doesn`t really corroborate anything. He states in his statement "PC XXX caused XXX vehicle to stop due to it exceeding 30mph speed restriction. Once PC XXX had shown the driver the speed and distance reading, I continued to conduct speed enforcement".

Again, there is no mention by the 2nd officer of what speed I was actually doing. Perhaps this is an insignificant point but I also find it odd that the officer who was allegedly holding the gun was the same officer that stopped me. Surely it made more sense for one to hold the gun and the other to do the stopping.

There whole stop was just rather odd and there are so many other discrepancies in their statements, which is why at this stage it looks like a court case.
AntonyMMM
Presumably you declined the offer of a fixed penalty and the court case is your choice.

The prosecution evidence will be straightforward - You need to have a clear plan of how you can discredit that, in cross examination of the officer(s) and in your own evidence and present that as a defence well in court ( although it is difficult to see one to be honest).

Concentrate on the actual elements of the offence:

1 - Were you within a correctly signed, legal, limit ?
2 - Is there evidence of you driving ?
3 - Was your speed accurately measured as being above the limit ?

How the stop was conducted is largely irrelevant to the above. If you want to challenge the measurement, you will need evidence of why/how it is incorrect or unreliable ... not just assumption and guesswork.
Kickaha
QUOTE (chris93 @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 17:16) *
1. How is it easy? I`ll presume that the officer has been on a course and had training and will have a certificate that will have his accuracy on it? The ultralytes are fairly heavy devices and (again IMHO) it would take 2-3 seconds for him to raise the gun, steady it, and then get a fix. To get an immediate reading would suggest that the gun was already in position and that he was pointing it at every vehicle.

...........................

You seem fixated on the fact that he got an immediate reading, whereas his statement does not indicate that, just that he aimed it at your car and got the reading - the fact that he did not detail all the elements of aiming means nothing.

It is also possible that he had the device raised in position and was observing cars through it and only taking a reading of ones he thought were speeding.

I think that unless you have a LOT more than you have revealed here you should consider damage limitation at this point as a NG verdict is unlikely.
Jlc
His accuracy? The device does that and will return an error if the pulses do not sufficient corroborate. He may have been zapping every car but does that invalidate the speed reading?

It is more likely the speed reading was correct and taken before you slowed. As our resident officers will attest to there's no need to make up speeds as catching speeders is like shooting fish in a barrel.

The exact speed was not required on the paperwork, other than the summons but that's just to sentence. 40 is as likely as any other speed.

Let us know how you get on. Apologies if you don't like the answers but as others have noted you have an uphill struggle.

The statements are likely to be cut and paste for that whole session - they probably did show the speed reading to the majority of drivers.
peterguk
So you declined a CoFP, or haven't been offered one?
Hassan2015
"Upon being stopped, the officer said that I was exceeding the speed limit. In his statement he says that he showed me the reading. He didn`t. After doing all the various PNC checks, he then filled out a driver referral ticket (Surrey Police) which he completed on his hand held PDA. No speed was entered on the ticket. I then received a conditional offer of a fixed penalty but again no speed was on the offer, just that I had exceeded 30 mph on restricted road. The first time I actually saw the figure of 40mph was when I was issued with a summons. "

He seems to have been offered the CoFP but rejected it and now he has summons.

What was the date of the incident?

peterguk
QUOTE (Hassan2015 @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 23:51) *
He seems to have been offered the CoFP but rejected it and now he has summons.


Correct:

QUOTE (chris93 @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 16:16) *
I then received a conditional offer of a fixed penalty but again no speed was on the offer, just that I had exceeded 30 mph on restricted road. The first time I actually saw the figure of 40mph was when I was issued with a summons.


With no defence it's going to be an expensive day out.
kernow2015
Prior to using these devices, the officers will go and calibrate the gun via going to a known calibrated set distance, normally 20m and aim at a fixed point for it to calibrate ready for testing.
I used to go out and help measure the distances but as the traffic cops were basing themselves at stations most already had the distance marked out. They even told us once that we'd got our measurements wrong - we'd marked 5m then restarted meausuring without adding on the first 5m. So if their gun call tell that I'd very much think the speed was wrong.
Korting
QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Mon, 9 Nov 2015 - 06:30) *
Prior to using these devices, the officers will go and calibrate the gun via going to a known calibrated set distance, normally 20m and aim at a fixed point for it to calibrate ready for testing.
I used to go out and help measure the distances but as the traffic cops were basing themselves at stations most already had the distance marked out. They even told us once that we'd got our measurements wrong - we'd marked 5m then restarted meausuring without adding on the first 5m. So if their gun call tell that I'd very much think the speed was wrong.


That seems to tell me that he device was deliberately mis-callibrated. Is that the case?
baggins1234
Both of you are using the wrong terminology I'm afraid.

The device is sent back to the manufacturer or their agent each year for CALLIBRATION.

Two daily CHECKS must be done

1. Distance confidence check over a known distance i.e. The 20m mentioned
2. Scope alignment check to ensure the "red dot" in the HUD is correctly in line with the laser itself.

If the known distance was incorrect (as mentioned, being 5m out) then that should be picked up straight away. The officer would be expecting a reading of 20m when he did the check but would see one of 25m.
A simple check of the known distance by use of a tape measure would show the fact the distance was incorrectly marked. It would NOT lead to incorrect speed readings being obtained.

I have never known an LTI 20/20 fail a distance confidence check over the correct known distance


Back on topic, nothing that the OP has said so far gives any sort of a defence.
The device isn't heavy, it's easy to use and it's easy to target a vehicle pretty much instantaneously.

There is no legal requirement to show the speed to the offender. The offence is exceeding the speed limit. The only relevance of the actual speed recorded is as to how the offence is dealt with i.e. SAC, TOR (leading to a COFPN) or summons


The Rookie
Plead guilty and the additional penalty you opted for by going to court will be about £350, plead not guilty and loose and it will be about £1500, how lucky are you feeling......
justforthepictures
QUOTE (chris93 @ Sun, 8 Nov 2015 - 16:16) *
1. How is it easy? I`ll presume that the officer has been on a course and had training and will have a certificate that will have his accuracy on it? The ultralytes are fairly heavy devices and (again IMHO) it would take 2-3 seconds for him to raise the gun, steady it, and then get a fix. To get an immediate reading would suggest that the gun was already in position and that he was pointing it at every vehicle.

As it stands, it goes to trial in 3 weeks time, and yes I an aware of the financial penalties if I was found guilty.

From my experience of the Ultralyte training regular police officers have, it doesn't consist of very much, simply because it is a point, aim, steady, pull the trigger affair. It isn't a vastly complex classroom based process that requires months of self-denial whilst skills are honed.

Five minutes would explain the basics, what the buttons do and how you get the thing to produce a speed reading. The important bit of determining if a vehicle is speeding, or 'forming the opinion', can only be learnt 'on the job' - you think 'I reckon that car is doing 36mph' - so you ping it with the laser and it instantly tells you how accurate your judgement was. Doing this over and over and over again is the bit that allows you to develop the ability to a high degree. The more you do it, the better you become at judging speed. The ability to continually corroborate your opinion is the key learning aid.

If every vehicle is pinged, the chances are they're simply not very good at estimating speed, not that they 'fishing'. An experienced LTI/Pro Laser user will know which vehicles are speeding and which that aren't - it's one of those Catch-22 scenarios, you need to ping a lot of vehicles to get to the point where you only target the ones that require targeting.

There is no value pinging vehicles you know aren't speeding.

Ultralytes are not fairly heavy, used in conjunction with the retractable stock, they are extremely user-friendly.
The Rookie
QUOTE (justforthepictures @ Tue, 10 Nov 2015 - 21:12) *
If every vehicle is pinged, the chances are they're simply not very good at estimating speed, not that they 'fishing'.

That would be rather unfortunate given that their opinion as to the speed is a required part of the evidence, so if they can't get it right they shouldn't actually be trying to convict anyone perhaps?
captain swoop
But after they have pinged and the car is speeding you csn have the opinion it is speeding.
kezzy
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Mon, 9 Nov 2015 - 08:34) *
Both of you are using the wrong terminology I'm afraid.

The device is sent back to the manufacturer or their agent each year for CALLIBRATION.

Two daily CHECKS must be done

An operator should always check the equipment at every site, and carry out a check. The check must be noted in some sort of form either on a prepared sheet or note book.

1. Distance confidence check over a known distance i.e. The 20m mentioned
2. Scope alignment check to ensure the "red dot" in the HUD is correctly in line with the laser itself.

If the known distance was incorrect (as mentioned, being 5m out) then that should be picked up straight away. The officer would be expecting a reading of 20m when he did the check but would see one of 25m.
A simple check of the known distance by use of a tape measure would show the fact the distance was incorrectly marked. It would NOT lead to incorrect speed readings being obtained.

I have never known an LTI 20/20 fail a distance confidence check over the correct known distance


Back on topic, nothing that the OP has said so far gives any sort of a defence.
The device isn't heavy, it's easy to use and it's easy to target a vehicle pretty much instantaneously.

There is no legal requirement to show the speed to the offender. The offence is exceeding the speed limit. The only relevance of the actual speed recorded is as to how the offence is dealt with i.e. SAC, TOR (leading to a COFPN) or summons



Of course the LTI 20-20, is difficult to defend against because you have to prove the operator carried out these tests, and was using it correctly.
The only way to defend against it is to obtain the full dvd of the operation, and try and prove that there was some discrepancy in it's use. you can prove it if the operator had moved whilst he was conducting the scan / scam. It would be difficult to prove that he had aligned the red dot with the cross hairs. That is why you only get the speed detected on the first frame, all other frames do not show the speed.
Jlc
Video recording isn't always used - and doesn't appear so here?
kernow2015
QUOTE (Michael 194 @ Mon, 9 Nov 2015 - 08:16) *
QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Mon, 9 Nov 2015 - 06:30) *
Prior to using these devices, the officers will go and calibrate the gun via going to a known calibrated set distance, normally 20m and aim at a fixed point for it to calibrate ready for testing.
I used to go out and help measure the distances but as the traffic cops were basing themselves at stations most already had the distance marked out. They even told us once that we'd got our measurements wrong - we'd marked 5m then restarted meausuring without adding on the first 5m. So if their gun call tell that I'd very much think the speed was wrong.


That seems to tell me that he device was deliberately mis-callibrated. Is that the case?



Apologies for confusing you. We were at a station marking the distance out for them ( we measure, get them to aim the device from the spot we say and it gives them a reading distance wise, we then double check the distance and mark it out, which was then showing 15m, the bit we went wrong on was that there was a raised area above the car park which we had marked out from the wall to the end of the raised area, then from there out to 20m. Once we realised what we'd done we added it all together, checked it again and it was correct.

Even the markings on the roads where they drive a set distance (normally half a mile) to check the vascar is done this way, albeit with a trundle wheel and a marked car sat behind with lights on.
The Rookie
QUOTE (captain swoop @ Tue, 10 Nov 2015 - 22:09) *
But after they have pinged and the car is speeding you csn have the opinion it is speeding.

Which means you don't have the two INDEPENDANT items of evidence that is clearly the intent of the law, in my assessment the opinion MUST be prior to have validity. Noting that back in the 1970's they staged a car accident in front of a group of judges waiting to be photographed, estimates of the speeds from this august group went up as high as 90mph, both cars were doing 30mph.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.