Fighting an LTi 20/20 evidence
Discussion
Hi Guys,
I'm new to this forum but I've had a look through and would ask for some advice on a matter I am currently fighting.
On the 27th March last year (2006) I was clocked by a van with an Lti 20/20 just outside of Fakenham, Norfolk on the A148. I then received the NIP, asked for a photgraph and received it. I noticed on the photo that the distance was 594.8m and there was a lorry in view travelling towards me and it clearly showed I was clocked at 63 mph in a 50. I knew that this was an inaccurate reading so I contested it.
To cut a long story short after lots of appearences and requests I FINALLY received my video evidence on 13th Jan, my hearing being set for the 2nd Feb. I couldn't get expert opinion in time so decided to fight the case myself.
I went to court but its now been adjourned as there wasn't enough time for the case to be heard, so i said I'd use the time to get expert opinion - however I can't get anyone! Michael Clark, the leading expert, is understandably snowed under right now!
So, I'm going to outline my argument here and see what one of you might think.
On the video the camera is pointing towards the town across the carriageway - in other words the van is parked on the nearside to catch oncoming traffic on the offside. In the video the cross-hair is pointed at the side of the road as my car comes around the bend on the downward part of the hill. The operator swings the camrea over and starts to try and track my car - the screen shows "Error 3", then 63mph, then "Timeout". Also in the image you'll see a lorry approaching towards me and his wind made the camera and van move considerably as he tried to track my car. He takes a second shot as soon as timeout clears and once again it says "error 3", 50 mph and "timeout"
I have requested that the CPS provide me with evidence that the site and camera have had a check using a VASCAR equipted vehicle, and so far they have ignored my request.
My argument is this:
1) The operator was indescriminantly using the camera to check motorists, and not to "confirm his suspicions"
2) The 1st reading was taken at the extreme range of the LTi 20/20 (against ACPO guidelines) and was seen to track down the side of my vehicle on the bend, hence the error 3 message and it was misleading because of the slip effect and the cosine angle.
3) The EFFECTIVE range of the LTi 20/20 when used with a video is only 300 meters, so the evidence recorded beyond this is inadmissable
Have I missed anything? The only thing that bothers me is that the courts seem to be siuding with the CPS and Polizie rather a lot and not allowing members of the public like myself to question the validity of the evidence. As the law states that one witness is not enough to pass conviction the photgraphic evidence is always counted as a second witness, so if you discredit the images it would mean that all cases would have to be reviewed.
I'm new to this forum but I've had a look through and would ask for some advice on a matter I am currently fighting.
On the 27th March last year (2006) I was clocked by a van with an Lti 20/20 just outside of Fakenham, Norfolk on the A148. I then received the NIP, asked for a photgraph and received it. I noticed on the photo that the distance was 594.8m and there was a lorry in view travelling towards me and it clearly showed I was clocked at 63 mph in a 50. I knew that this was an inaccurate reading so I contested it.
To cut a long story short after lots of appearences and requests I FINALLY received my video evidence on 13th Jan, my hearing being set for the 2nd Feb. I couldn't get expert opinion in time so decided to fight the case myself.
I went to court but its now been adjourned as there wasn't enough time for the case to be heard, so i said I'd use the time to get expert opinion - however I can't get anyone! Michael Clark, the leading expert, is understandably snowed under right now!
So, I'm going to outline my argument here and see what one of you might think.
On the video the camera is pointing towards the town across the carriageway - in other words the van is parked on the nearside to catch oncoming traffic on the offside. In the video the cross-hair is pointed at the side of the road as my car comes around the bend on the downward part of the hill. The operator swings the camrea over and starts to try and track my car - the screen shows "Error 3", then 63mph, then "Timeout". Also in the image you'll see a lorry approaching towards me and his wind made the camera and van move considerably as he tried to track my car. He takes a second shot as soon as timeout clears and once again it says "error 3", 50 mph and "timeout"
I have requested that the CPS provide me with evidence that the site and camera have had a check using a VASCAR equipted vehicle, and so far they have ignored my request.
My argument is this:
1) The operator was indescriminantly using the camera to check motorists, and not to "confirm his suspicions"
2) The 1st reading was taken at the extreme range of the LTi 20/20 (against ACPO guidelines) and was seen to track down the side of my vehicle on the bend, hence the error 3 message and it was misleading because of the slip effect and the cosine angle.
3) The EFFECTIVE range of the LTi 20/20 when used with a video is only 300 meters, so the evidence recorded beyond this is inadmissable
Have I missed anything? The only thing that bothers me is that the courts seem to be siuding with the CPS and Polizie rather a lot and not allowing members of the public like myself to question the validity of the evidence. As the law states that one witness is not enough to pass conviction the photgraphic evidence is always counted as a second witness, so if you discredit the images it would mean that all cases would have to be reviewed.
I know very little about the legalities or otherwise of the defense you are proposing but I would suggest you look into cases that have already used expert witnesses to show the potential issues with the LTI 20/20 to see if the justifications used in those cases could also apply to your circumstances. You may then find it useful to quote those cases in your defense.
Thanks guys - I had already been reading that thread but at 37 pages long....geesh!
One intersting fact has since come to my attention upon reading the thread from PW is that the video I've been supplied only shows clips of my own car - no other video shots! Shall I now write back requesting the FULL video plus the Instruction book for the equipment?
thanks
Ash
One intersting fact has since come to my attention upon reading the thread from PW is that the video I've been supplied only shows clips of my own car - no other video shots! Shall I now write back requesting the FULL video plus the Instruction book for the equipment?
thanks
Ash
Your case does sound very similar to mine. I now have a solicitor because I was getting nowhere with the CPS. The PTR is tomorrow or Friday, at which time the trial date will be set.
I keep hoping the CPS will drop the case but it's not happened yet. I am fairly confident that we should win the case if it does go to court because there is so much evidence against the number on the video, but I've heard of many magistrates who believe the number to be gospel despite everything so who can tell?
BTW, if you have time to read through my thread then you'll see I posted a list of stuff my solicitor asked for from the CPS, which you might want to copy.
Please do keep us up to date on what happens with your case. Are you up at Kings Lynn?
I keep hoping the CPS will drop the case but it's not happened yet. I am fairly confident that we should win the case if it does go to court because there is so much evidence against the number on the video, but I've heard of many magistrates who believe the number to be gospel despite everything so who can tell?
BTW, if you have time to read through my thread then you'll see I posted a list of stuff my solicitor asked for from the CPS, which you might want to copy.
Please do keep us up to date on what happens with your case. Are you up at Kings Lynn?
Hi Peter,
I have just managed to spen 3 hours trawling through the treads! Yes, your case is VERY similar and I will be in Kings Lynn! Interestingly you have managed to get expert opinions and I haven't as yet, but as an advanced motorist I was going to go on the "beyond all reasonable doubt" angle and basically prove that the evidence is flawed and basically inadmissable.
I'll follow what happens in your case and if you want to swap notes get in touch. I'm in North Walsham.
regards
Ash
I have just managed to spen 3 hours trawling through the treads! Yes, your case is VERY similar and I will be in Kings Lynn! Interestingly you have managed to get expert opinions and I haven't as yet, but as an advanced motorist I was going to go on the "beyond all reasonable doubt" angle and basically prove that the evidence is flawed and basically inadmissable.
I'll follow what happens in your case and if you want to swap notes get in touch. I'm in North Walsham.
regards
Ash
justamin said:
On the 27th March last year (2006) I was clocked by a van with an Lti 20/20 just outside of Fakenham, Norfolk on the A148. I then received the NIP, asked for a photgraph and received it. I noticed on the photo that the distance was 594.8m and there was a lorry in view travelling towards me and it clearly showed I was clocked at 63 mph in a 50. I knew that this was an inaccurate reading so I contested it.
What was the distance for the second speed reading? Also, what was the time interval between them? (include the figure after the ‘NR’ )
justamin said:
On the video the camera is pointing towards the town across the carriageway - in other words the van is parked on the nearside to catch oncoming traffic on the offside. In the video the cross-hair is pointed at the side of the road as my car comes around the bend on the downward part of the hill. The operator swings the camrea over and starts to try and track my car - the screen shows "Error 3", then 63mph, then "Timeout". Also in the image you'll see a lorry approaching towards me and his wind made the camera and van move considerably as he tried to track my car. He takes a second shot as soon as timeout clears and once again it says "error 3", 50 mph and "timeout"
‘Timeout’ will automatically appear a few frames after the speed reading is taken. It will automatically clear when then next reading is taken.
justamin said:
I have requested that the CPS provide me with evidence that the site and camera have had a check using a VASCAR equipted vehicle, and so far they have ignored my request.
There is no obligation for them to do so.
justamin said:
My argument is this:
1) The operator was indescriminantly using the camera to check motorists, and not to "confirm his suspicions"
2) The 1st reading was taken at the extreme range of the LTi 20/20 (against ACPO guidelines) and was seen to track down the side of my vehicle on the bend, hence the error 3 message and it was misleading because of the slip effect and the cosine angle.
3) The EFFECTIVE range of the LTi 20/20 when used with a video is only 300 meters, so the evidence recorded beyond this is inadmissible
1) The operator was indescriminantly using the camera to check motorists, and not to "confirm his suspicions"
2) The 1st reading was taken at the extreme range of the LTi 20/20 (against ACPO guidelines) and was seen to track down the side of my vehicle on the bend, hence the error 3 message and it was misleading because of the slip effect and the cosine angle.
3) The EFFECTIVE range of the LTi 20/20 when used with a video is only 300 meters, so the evidence recorded beyond this is inadmissible
1) How do you know this if you don’t have the full video (or are you making the claim to try to get the full video?)
2) The effect of cosine will be in your favour (will always give a speed reading lower than actual). I could not comment on slip without seeing the video, but it is a real phenomenon that must be considered.
3) Where did you get that info? AFAIK the operator only needs to show that the vehicle targeted is the same as the one which the VRM detail was read from.
Hi Smeggy,
First image was taken at 9.33.58, 594.8m showing 63 mph, second reading was 9.34.01 at 527.3m showing 50 mph
The 300 meter effective range is quoted on www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/speed1.htm under the LTi 20/20 specifications.
I have today written to the CPS asking that they send the full video and operators handbook
First image was taken at 9.33.58, 594.8m showing 63 mph, second reading was 9.34.01 at 527.3m showing 50 mph
The 300 meter effective range is quoted on www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/speed1.htm under the LTi 20/20 specifications.
I have today written to the CPS asking that they send the full video and operators handbook
justamin said:
First image was taken at 9.33.58, 594.8m showing 63 mph, second reading was 9.34.01 at 527.3m showing 50 mph
Thanks. You didn’t give the NR figure after the time; I need this for basic evaluation:
9.33.58 N/R xx
9.34.01 N/R xx
(xx in the range of 01 to 50)
edit:
I need the NR figures for the first frame of when the speed is displayed, for each reading.
Edited by smeggy on Thursday 8th February 11:31
By my calculation, it is unlikely that you were doing 63mph at the first time and covered that distance and be doing 50mph at the second reading 3 seconds later.
The average speed between those distances is 50.3mph. In order to get that average, assuming a linear deceleration, you would have needed to have been doing approximately 37mph at the second reading.
The average speed between those distances is 50.3mph. In order to get that average, assuming a linear deceleration, you would have needed to have been doing approximately 37mph at the second reading.
Edited by tank slapper on Thursday 8th February 11:25
tank slapper said:
By my calculation, it is unlikely that you were doing 63mph at the first time and covered that distance and be doing 50mph at the second reading 3 seconds later.
The average speed between those distances is 50.3mph. In order to get that average, assuming a linear deceleration, you would have needed to have been doing approximately 37mph at the second reading.
The average speed between those distances is 50.3mph. In order to get that average, assuming a linear deceleration, you would have needed to have been doing approximately 37mph at the second reading.
You have made a grave assumption; this is exactly why I need the ‘NR’ figure. Was the duration 3.00, 2.02 or 3.98 seconds?
justamin said:
Sorry Smeggy, the NR figures aren't very clear, but from what I can make out the first reading is N/R 45 or 46, the second is N/R 25
Hope this helps
And, just for the record, my sat nav at the time showed a speed of 52 MPH just before I saw the van, so I know I wasn't doing 63!!!
Hope this helps
And, just for the record, my sat nav at the time showed a speed of 52 MPH just before I saw the van, so I know I wasn't doing 63!!!
Sorry, I made an edit to a previous post which you may not have seen.
I need the NR figures of the first frame of when the speed is displayed, for each reading. Have you played it back frame by frame to ensure the figures you gave are for the first frame for each displayed speed?
justamin said:
I have TRIED to play it frame by frame but the figures are moving so fast its hard to see what they are!!
Do you want the N/R figure when the error 3 code comes up, or when the speed is indicated (which is the figures I have given already)?
Do you want the N/R figure when the error 3 code comes up, or when the speed is indicated (which is the figures I have given already)?
Only when the speed first appears on the video (for each measurement); I don't care for the 'Error 3' for my basic evaluation. It doesn't matter if there is a 1 count error (such as you can't see if the number is 45 or 46)
Agreed.
Basic maths:
V(average) = dD/Dt = (594.8 - 527.3) / (9:34:01.46 – 9:33:58.84)
= 67.5m / 2.62s = 25.76m/s = 57.63mph
Assuming linear deceleration between assumed valid data points, your average speed would be 56.5mph.
Given the +/- 1mph display quantisation error, I’m afraid a good prosecution could easily succeed in arguing that you had simply braked between speed readings, regardless of what you say about the GPS reading. There is nothing inconsistent with the 2 speed readings and the deduced average speed; the chance of them all being incorrect with the same error factor is minutely small.
It appears you will have an uphill battle.
Don’t trust what that site says; there is a lot wrong on that site.
Basic maths:
V(average) = dD/Dt = (594.8 - 527.3) / (9:34:01.46 – 9:33:58.84)
= 67.5m / 2.62s = 25.76m/s = 57.63mph
Assuming linear deceleration between assumed valid data points, your average speed would be 56.5mph.
Given the +/- 1mph display quantisation error, I’m afraid a good prosecution could easily succeed in arguing that you had simply braked between speed readings, regardless of what you say about the GPS reading. There is nothing inconsistent with the 2 speed readings and the deduced average speed; the chance of them all being incorrect with the same error factor is minutely small.
It appears you will have an uphill battle.
justamin said:
The 300 meter effective range is quoted on www.ukspeedtraps.co.uk/speed1.htm under the LTi 20/20 specifications.
Don’t trust what that site says; there is a lot wrong on that site.
I understand your calculation, however I'm still certain that the camera is subject to slip factor on the first reading as it is not pointed on a reflective surface of the car and is in fact panning down the side over the indcator/sidelight. Also the video is clear enough to see that I didn't brake, plus the lorry (actually, 2 lorries) passing the scamera makes the image shudder and there's real chance his mirror is relecting the beam back anyway.
By your calculation the first reading is inaccurate anyway, which puts more then reasonable doubt on the reading being accurate
By your calculation the first reading is inaccurate anyway, which puts more then reasonable doubt on the reading being accurate
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff