This link will take you to a page which explains the information that appears on the LTi 20-20 Lastec traffic videos.

UPDATE 21st January 2009

Motorist beats 98mph charge

UPDATE 7th February 2007

MCN has the following.



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 here (38Mb).

There is a lower resolution WMV file available here. (3.68Mb)

There is also an article about this program on the BBC Inside Out Website.

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

NOTE A 16Mb RealPlayer clip from the programme, can be downloaded from this link.

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

We look at these cameras and see if their claims of accuracy are themselves accurate.”

You may also find this recent Wiltshire case of interest - the Crown dropped the charge, rather than disclosing the traffic video.

Watch the video in this case carefully and decide for yourself. Did the motorcycle decelerate from 107 mph to 87 mph, without braking?

You may also find this US case of interest – “Laser Loses a Legal Test”

We can also provide the recording as a SVCD, 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, Mr Garrett was the only recognised "expert" on the LTi 20/20 in this country. That may have changed now.

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@sbcgloba.../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_co..._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_co..._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 “the Condition of Type Approval” 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/

Hehe.
If you look under the tab on his posts, you'll find that it's these orange pages.

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

Surreal!

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 Section 3 of the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act 1996:

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 the crucial evidence, in a mere speeding prosecution

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?....£££££££££££££££££££££££££££££.

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!)

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 this thread 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 become a bit ‘shy’.

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 may not wont to disclose any more traffic videos.

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

POSSIBLE VOLUNTEER EXPERT WITNESS

Sit Sit Fetch It