LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
This morning I received a video and covering letter. The video shows just my piece of the tape, but shows it twice at full speed and then once stepping through slowly. The total length of the video is about 7 minutes.
It does show, as the partnership originally claimed, that the car in the first photo is the same as the one in the second. Although the car disappears behind the queue of traffic coming the other way, there is no way that another car could have been filmed for the second photo.
The operator is clearly pointing the LTI at the corner waiting for cars to come round. The video shows significant magnification such that the view of cars coming round the corner is reasonable, though obviously distorted as with any long-range camera.
Just before the reading of 77mph is flashed up, there is an "Error 03". Just after the 77mpg reading is a "timeout". I understand that "timeout" is normal. I don't understand "Error 03", but I guess it could just be that the operator tried twice to get my speed?
The covering letter is interesting, and I would welcome your comments. My comments are inserted in italic in square brackets.
It does show, as the partnership originally claimed, that the car in the first photo is the same as the one in the second. Although the car disappears behind the queue of traffic coming the other way, there is no way that another car could have been filmed for the second photo.
The operator is clearly pointing the LTI at the corner waiting for cars to come round. The video shows significant magnification such that the view of cars coming round the corner is reasonable, though obviously distorted as with any long-range camera.
Just before the reading of 77mph is flashed up, there is an "Error 03". Just after the 77mpg reading is a "timeout". I understand that "timeout" is normal. I don't understand "Error 03", but I guess it could just be that the operator tried twice to get my speed?
The covering letter is interesting, and I would welcome your comments. My comments are inserted in italic in square brackets.
CPS letter said:
Dear Mr Ward
Police -v- Peter Ward
Kings Lynn Magistrates' Court, 20th November 2006
Thank you for your letter dated 9th October 2006 addressed to Peter Tidey. Mr Brighouse in this office is now allocated this case and I would be grateful if any further correspondence could be directed to him.
A file was received from the police in this case on 11th October. I have looked at the material and am satisfied the evidence is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction.
I forward to you a copy of the video. It may assist you in understanding that the two photographs are the same car. You acknowledge that you are the driver in one of the photos. I rather suspect you are not suggesting you swapped seats with your passenger in the intevening 24 seconds reading some of your earlier correspondence. I intend to rely on your section 9 statement [what's that?] as an admission to prove you were the driver together with the photographic evidence. I disagree with your legal interpretation concerning the admissibility of the document which you deliberately produce in a manner you consider makes it inadmissible [I think he means the (Pepipoo) witness statement indicating it's being provided under threat of criminal penalty].
You will see an error message appears on the print out before the speed is flashed up. I understand that this does not impact on the speed on the device and am satisfied that the device is operating correctly and being used correctly at the time of the check. I understand a number of checks within about 1/3 of a second are made and if any one of these records a differentation of speed the word error appears on the divice. Obviously as soon as the device records a speed where there is no differentiation, the speed appears for that specific period of time. No doubt your expert will confirm this to you. To assist you, I have today written to the police to request an explanation as to why this message appears. I will disclose this information when I have a response.
You should understand that speeding cases are reviewed but large quantities of documentation are not routinely provided in every case. The cost implications to the public purse in doing this would not be proportionate. Resources are predominantly directed in this office at the prosecution of serious crime. The implications for defendants requiring substantial information from the prosecution in this sort of case will be reflected in the event of a successful conviction in the level of prosecution costs claimed. If a defendant puts the prosecution to proof as you are, whilst I acknowledge this is your right and whilst I confirm every assistance will be given to provide you with disclosure of information you require, costs will reflect this approach at the conclusion of the case if you are convicted. I reserve the right to produce this letter to the court to support any application for costs in this context. [so be warned!!!]
Your reference to making applications for stays of prosecution shows that you have misinterpreted the approach taken by prosecution in cases such as this. I have provided you with the video within 48 hours of the police providing the CPS with the file. The fact that you are yet to enter a not guilty plea has delayed the file being produced as evidential files are not provided until the plea is entered in these types of cases. This is not a case where a court would give any serious consideration to an abuse argument. Your remarks are misconceived. The information was only laid against you on 8.9.2006.
Yours sincerely,
Police -v- Peter Ward
Kings Lynn Magistrates' Court, 20th November 2006
Thank you for your letter dated 9th October 2006 addressed to Peter Tidey. Mr Brighouse in this office is now allocated this case and I would be grateful if any further correspondence could be directed to him.
A file was received from the police in this case on 11th October. I have looked at the material and am satisfied the evidence is sufficient to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction.
I forward to you a copy of the video. It may assist you in understanding that the two photographs are the same car. You acknowledge that you are the driver in one of the photos. I rather suspect you are not suggesting you swapped seats with your passenger in the intevening 24 seconds reading some of your earlier correspondence. I intend to rely on your section 9 statement [what's that?] as an admission to prove you were the driver together with the photographic evidence. I disagree with your legal interpretation concerning the admissibility of the document which you deliberately produce in a manner you consider makes it inadmissible [I think he means the (Pepipoo) witness statement indicating it's being provided under threat of criminal penalty].
You will see an error message appears on the print out before the speed is flashed up. I understand that this does not impact on the speed on the device and am satisfied that the device is operating correctly and being used correctly at the time of the check. I understand a number of checks within about 1/3 of a second are made and if any one of these records a differentation of speed the word error appears on the divice. Obviously as soon as the device records a speed where there is no differentiation, the speed appears for that specific period of time. No doubt your expert will confirm this to you. To assist you, I have today written to the police to request an explanation as to why this message appears. I will disclose this information when I have a response.
You should understand that speeding cases are reviewed but large quantities of documentation are not routinely provided in every case. The cost implications to the public purse in doing this would not be proportionate. Resources are predominantly directed in this office at the prosecution of serious crime. The implications for defendants requiring substantial information from the prosecution in this sort of case will be reflected in the event of a successful conviction in the level of prosecution costs claimed. If a defendant puts the prosecution to proof as you are, whilst I acknowledge this is your right and whilst I confirm every assistance will be given to provide you with disclosure of information you require, costs will reflect this approach at the conclusion of the case if you are convicted. I reserve the right to produce this letter to the court to support any application for costs in this context. [so be warned!!!]
Your reference to making applications for stays of prosecution shows that you have misinterpreted the approach taken by prosecution in cases such as this. I have provided you with the video within 48 hours of the police providing the CPS with the file. The fact that you are yet to enter a not guilty plea has delayed the file being produced as evidential files are not provided until the plea is entered in these types of cases. This is not a case where a court would give any serious consideration to an abuse argument. Your remarks are misconceived. The information was only laid against you on 8.9.2006.
Yours sincerely,
Edited by Peter Ward on Saturday 14th October 11:29
streaky said:
CPS letter said:
You should understand that speeding cases are reviewed by large quantities of documentation are not routinely provided in every case.
Fascinating! Speeding cases are not reviewed by people, but by "large quantities of documentation". Something has been missed (or edited - by the author) out. I sugest you ask for the original letter containing all the words that should have been in that sentence. The error suggests they do not have a peer review or other quality system in place. Hmm! - Streaky
Streaky, my error I'm afraid. I've updated my post. The letter actually said "You should understand that speeding cases are reviewed BUT large quantities of documentation are not routinely provided".
I have now transferred the 3 sections of the video to digital. The first (which to me is identical to the second) is here:
Note that it's about 7.5MB. The link shows up as a broken picture but if you click on it you can download the video.
The third section of the tape provided is the same thing in slow motion. It shows every second frame of the LTI. Unfortunately it's 57.5MB and I don't have space to store it, but I will send it to Dave for analysis as promised.
Keep those comments coming. This is getting interesting....
Dave, YHM!
Note that it's about 7.5MB. The link shows up as a broken picture but if you click on it you can download the video.
The third section of the tape provided is the same thing in slow motion. It shows every second frame of the LTI. Unfortunately it's 57.5MB and I don't have space to store it, but I will send it to Dave for analysis as promised.
Keep those comments coming. This is getting interesting....
Dave, YHM!
Edited by Peter Ward on Saturday 14th October 13:02
rx8driver said:
Peter,
I have followed this with interest.
Having now seen the film, The important question must be, How does it look? does it seem as if your car could have been doing 77mph or not?
I have followed this with interest.
Having now seen the film, The important question must be, How does it look? does it seem as if your car could have been doing 77mph or not?
I agree that this is the important question. Unfortunately I cannot tell. I am not experienced in looking at a car through an LTI viewfinder and deciding if it's doing 60 or 77mph.
I see from the video that there are cars in front of and behind me (well spaced) and I don't notice the gaps changing during the video, but there isn't much video time to do a definite assessment of this.
I remain certain that using their own figures, my speed between the first and second pictures is around 60mph. I'm also certain that, because I did not see the van, I had no reason to change my speed. My feeling is therefore to plead not guilty.
However, I can't see how to disprove the reading on the photograph except by going back to the site, measuring lengths of road immediately before and after the point at which I was targeted, and assessing my speed along it by distance over time. I'm heading that way on 22nd Oct so this has to be on my agenda.
motco said:
cptsideways said:
To add, I also agree that your inital manoeuvre over the broken white lines....
They look pretty solid to me, but at the grazing angle of view it is difficult to be sure. The target vehicle is taking what might be described as the racing line around the bend - not unreasonable nor illegal per se - but if the edges of the cross-hatched area are unbroken and it crossed them, then that is an offence all on its own. It is hard to assess the speed with an untrained eye, but I am prepared to believe that the experienced operator could have a decent stab at it. Of course whether they do base their actions on reasonable suspicion or simply have a zap at everything that appears is a moot point.
Edited by motco on Saturday 14th October 18:34
Some more very interesting comments, thanks. I will have to stop and take some detailed measurements next Sunday. I can't see any other means of disproving the speed (though I'm really hoping that Dave's analysis of the video will uncover something). Even though as cptsideways says there may be lots of reasons to doubt the reading, I guess the court will assume it to be true unless clearly disproved (and why not? they have to trust the police/partnership, and they are partly funded by the speeding fines).
I can confirm that the white lines on that corner are not solid, otherwise I would not take that line round the corner. I can see that taking that line could be interpreted as prima facie exceeding the speed limit. However, as I had a full load onboard on that journey, I took a straighter line through corners to lessen the G forces where safe and useful. No, I don't believe that I had just overtaken the car behind -- I wasn't rushing -- but I couldn't prove it or even state it in court given the elapsed time since April.
streaky said:
Peter - not yet downloaded them myself, but there may be something of use here: www.lasertech.com/ulproduct.html. Elsewhere there are many references to the manufacturer's literature stating the "Range Measurement Distance" as "30 ft to 3500 ft" - Streaky
You're right. The Cambridge partnership website is just one that states that the approved range is 999.9m ( www.cambs.police.uk/camops/safetycameras/information/cameraswork.asp ).
streaky said:
Peter - not yet downloaded them myself, but there may be something of use here: www.lasertech.com/ulproduct.html. Elsewhere there are many references to the manufacturer's literature stating the "Range Measurement Distance" as "30 ft to 3500 ft"
Edited to add:
The "leading" indicated by the crosshairs whilst your vehicle is hidden by the opposing traffic suggests that the operator expected your speed to be higher. The implication being that you slowed down whilst hidden. Only an analysis will show whether or not that is true.
Perhaps you could suggest that the vehicle pinged at 77mph is not the vehicle that emerges later, and that you joined the road from the trees on your left whilst out of sight of the LTI
.
Streaky
Edited to add:
The "leading" indicated by the crosshairs whilst your vehicle is hidden by the opposing traffic suggests that the operator expected your speed to be higher. The implication being that you slowed down whilst hidden. Only an analysis will show whether or not that is true.
Perhaps you could suggest that the vehicle pinged at 77mph is not the vehicle that emerges later, and that you joined the road from the trees on your left whilst out of sight of the LTI
. Streaky
Edited by streaky on Sunday 15th October 08:28
Streaky, thanks for the link (BTW, you need to remove the full stop from the end of the URL).
I see that there are several types of LTI 20.20. My summons states "LTI 20/20 TS/M Speedscope". This doesn't match any on the list on the LTI website, nor does it narrow it down sufficiently to determine its capabilities.
Because I see on the website that there are two basic specs for range:
Ultralyte 100: 2000ft (610m)
Ultralyte 100LR: 3280ft (1km)
Ultralyte 200: 2000ft (610m)
Ultralyte 200LR: 3280ft (1km)
Ultralyte LRB: 3280ft (1km)
A Commons written answer on 6th July 2006 on speed cameras states:
Hansard said:
Mr. Walter: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the maximum distance is over which a LT120.20 mobile speed camera can record speed. [82081]
Mr. McNulty: LTI 20.20 laser speedmeters can be used up to a distance of 999.9m. The instruments are technically capable of operating to distances twice as far, but the maximum distance they can display is 999.9m. Use is therefore limited to this distance.
Mr. McNulty: LTI 20.20 laser speedmeters can be used up to a distance of 999.9m. The instruments are technically capable of operating to distances twice as far, but the maximum distance they can display is 999.9m. Use is therefore limited to this distance.
Now I would take this as indicating that all cameras are the higher spec, except that Mr McNulty states that they are "technically capable of operating to distances twice as far", which the LTI website itself denies.
So, how can I find out which model of LTI 20.20 was used?
I had a brainwave tonight. Here is a short section of the slo-mo video that the CPS sent me, showing the time just before the zap to just after.
This is about 3.7MB. As before, the link shows up as a broken picture but if you click on it you can download the video.
AIUI, the LTI takes a number of readings during an 0.3s period and then displays the result. Also AIUI, the LTI records 50 frames per second. The slomo video that the CPS has given me has every alternate frame on it. Perhaps this is a quirk of the VCR.
The (alleged) speed of 77mph is displayed at 10:15:50 and 50/50 frames. The trigger must therefore have been pulled at 10:15:50 and 33/50 frames or thereabouts. I note from the slo-mo video that the crosshairs move rightwards quite significantly during this period (compare the vertical line to the end of the hatched box in the middle of the road). Also, the horizontal line moves downwards a little (compare it to the dark patch at the very end of the edge of the road where the side road joins).
My guess is that this is not "best practice", but that a magistrate will assume that a reading (rather than an Error 03) means it was acceptable? Is there a standard that is accepted by magistrates, or is it simply that "reading = kerching" whether genuine or not?
This is about 3.7MB. As before, the link shows up as a broken picture but if you click on it you can download the video.
AIUI, the LTI takes a number of readings during an 0.3s period and then displays the result. Also AIUI, the LTI records 50 frames per second. The slomo video that the CPS has given me has every alternate frame on it. Perhaps this is a quirk of the VCR.
The (alleged) speed of 77mph is displayed at 10:15:50 and 50/50 frames. The trigger must therefore have been pulled at 10:15:50 and 33/50 frames or thereabouts. I note from the slo-mo video that the crosshairs move rightwards quite significantly during this period (compare the vertical line to the end of the hatched box in the middle of the road). Also, the horizontal line moves downwards a little (compare it to the dark patch at the very end of the edge of the road where the side road joins).
My guess is that this is not "best practice", but that a magistrate will assume that a reading (rather than an Error 03) means it was acceptable? Is there a standard that is accepted by magistrates, or is it simply that "reading = kerching" whether genuine or not?
Good points, smeggy. So in fact the important point of this is that the operator accurately tracked the front radiator grille of my car for the required 0.3s. As far as I can tell the crosshairs remain on the N/S of the grille throughout. Although this is not the registration plate, I guess it's at least fairly upright (though sparse -- there's only slats there in front of the radiator and fan).
I'd value people's opinion on the timestamp at the point my front wheels are lined up with the end of the paler sideroad. This plus the point at which my front wheels are lined up with the end of the "parallel" central hatched area (ie. the point at which it becomes a V) should provide a measurable distance over which to compute a speed.
My best estimate of the first point is 10:15:49 and 40/50ths (which I interpret as 10:15:49.80). What do you think?
My estimate for the second point is 10:15:52 and 10/50ths (10:15:52.20). My slow-mo video didn't include this point, sorry.
If these 2 times are correct, it gives a time between the 2 points of 2.40 seconds. At 77mph the distance between them must be 82.6m. At 60mph the distance must be 64.4m. I'll see on Sunday.
I'm planning to wait until after this measuring exercise before I write back to the CPS. I don't think there's any point in bothering them any more until I can offer this proof of my speed. Once I've done this I'll know the truth with some certainty and I can either plead guilty or not guilty on this basis. This will be the first time I'll actually have real evidence: as of now I only have an LTI speed of 77mph and a calculation of speed between the two supplied photos of around 60mph -- ie. conflicting information.
If my measurements show I'm not doing 77mph, I hope the magistrate will accept my measurements (I'll photo them of course) and calculations. Is that a reasonable expectation?
I'd value people's opinion on the timestamp at the point my front wheels are lined up with the end of the paler sideroad. This plus the point at which my front wheels are lined up with the end of the "parallel" central hatched area (ie. the point at which it becomes a V) should provide a measurable distance over which to compute a speed.
My best estimate of the first point is 10:15:49 and 40/50ths (which I interpret as 10:15:49.80). What do you think?
My estimate for the second point is 10:15:52 and 10/50ths (10:15:52.20). My slow-mo video didn't include this point, sorry.
If these 2 times are correct, it gives a time between the 2 points of 2.40 seconds. At 77mph the distance between them must be 82.6m. At 60mph the distance must be 64.4m. I'll see on Sunday.
I'm planning to wait until after this measuring exercise before I write back to the CPS. I don't think there's any point in bothering them any more until I can offer this proof of my speed. Once I've done this I'll know the truth with some certainty and I can either plead guilty or not guilty on this basis. This will be the first time I'll actually have real evidence: as of now I only have an LTI speed of 77mph and a calculation of speed between the two supplied photos of around 60mph -- ie. conflicting information.
If my measurements show I'm not doing 77mph, I hope the magistrate will accept my measurements (I'll photo them of course) and calculations. Is that a reasonable expectation?
herewego said:
Is it possible using the length of the car for distance, the elapsed time from the tape and the angle of the road, maybe using an OS map, to calculate the speed from the first part of the tape.
I wonder in relation to another thread about operator training. Has evidence of operator training been provided?
I wonder in relation to another thread about operator training. Has evidence of operator training been provided?
Q1. I don't know. I just tried to choose a section of the tape that has some roadside marks that I can see. I realise that a longer distance would give a more accurate reading but I will not have the services of an assistant next Sunday. I'll review things again tonight to see if I can reliably identify marks over a longer distance.
Q2. No, nothing on the training of the operator, calibration of the gun, etc. Just a signed pro-forma statement from the operator (which doesn't indicate whether he/she is a police officer -- confirmation of this is still outstanding along with the complete video).
not yet. I think I'm having problems with email forwarding so things aren't getting through. I hope it will clear overnight.I've decided that tonight I'll write again to the CPS, this time to the person who is dealing with my case. Obviously I will thank them for the video that they've sent, but I will again ask for the complete video and the identity of the police officer who "formed the opinion". I think I should offer to return the supplied video as it doesn't answer the request I made.
I will again state that it's my expert witness who needs the complete video for his analysis, as he has made clear to me. Naturally I will state my case again, pointing out the conflict between the LTI reading and the time/distance between the two photos and this time adding that there was an Error 03 immediately beforehand that could also cast doubt on the reading.
However, I think it's fair to acknowledge that the video has confirmed that the car in the photo is mine, though this still does not allow me to plead because I haven't yet done the measurements for myself onsite.
Comments?
Thanks for the personal emails and messages of encouragement. They mean a lot to me.
I will again state that it's my expert witness who needs the complete video for his analysis, as he has made clear to me. Naturally I will state my case again, pointing out the conflict between the LTI reading and the time/distance between the two photos and this time adding that there was an Error 03 immediately beforehand that could also cast doubt on the reading.
However, I think it's fair to acknowledge that the video has confirmed that the car in the photo is mine, though this still does not allow me to plead because I haven't yet done the measurements for myself onsite.
Comments?
Thanks for the personal emails and messages of encouragement. They mean a lot to me.
Parrot of Doom said:
www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lti+20+20&search=Search
Interesting stuff.
Would there by any problem with putting your videos on YouTube, or would it affect your case?
Interesting stuff.
Would there by any problem with putting your videos on YouTube, or would it affect your case?
I don't know, but I don't want to risk anything yet.
vim fuego said:
if you need a plan i can get you one at any scale but i need the precise co-ordinates
vim,
Fantastic offer, thanks, and a great idea from LongQ. Here is the spot on Google Maps and Multimap:
[url]http://maps.google.co.uk/?ie=UTF8&[/url]
[url]www.multimap.com/map/photo.cgi?client=public&X=580000&Y=289750&width=700&height=400&gride=579500&gridn=289500&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=GB&pc=&zm=0&scale=5000&left.x=5&left.y=218[/url]
Does that give you enough to go on? The corner in the video and pictures is the one where the road comes out to the right. The camera van location is 745.4m (
) to the SSW down the road. Do you have access to large-scale softcopy maps?
thanks very much
Peter
I spent an hour on the stretch of road today, measuring and observing.
My main thought is that it is indeed much more difficult to assess the position of my car against points on the road than I thought. What looks very clear in a telephoto lens 1/2 mile away is really hard to spot on the road. For example, in the first photo the spot where the central hatchings start to narrow down to the point is obvious, but on the road it's really hard to see!
With my "glamourous assistant" (my 8-year-old daughter) I have measured the distance between where the sideroad joins the main road and what I believe is the spot where the central hatchings start to narrow. I make this about 86m. Now, reviewing both the normal-speed and the frame-by-frame videos, I find that it's hard to tell exactly where the car is level with these 2 points, but applying some margin of error:
1. end of sideroad: 10:15:48.72 - 49.16
2. narrowing of hatchings: 10:15:52.04 - 52.36
Elapsed time therefore ranges from 2.88s to 3.64s. The speed range is therefore 52-66mph.
Please, by all means do your own assessments! I'm happy that the distance is about right, say +/- 5m. I have not as yet made calculations including this range as well, just trying to assess the range of error on the video itself.
I also identified what I believe to be the correct spot where the camera van was. It was about 5m from the side of the road, about 31m back from the centre of the second track that leads into the rough track that runs down the LHS of the road along that straight. The distance from the van to the third track in (the one visible on the first photo, just before the green roadside sign) is about 260m, measured by a combination of LCD odometer and tape measure. This compares well with the map that vim fuego sent me, and confirms 2 things:
1. The location of my car in the first photo is much further round the bend than I assumed
2. The 745.4m seems about right, and I therefore assume is correct.
Based on this, I plotted the position of the car 745.4m from the van, and calculate that the distance between here and the 3rd track mentioned above is about 488m.
I have therefore tried to assess the likely spread of timings for the point at which my car passes this track. I can't be certain because the track disappears from the video shortly before I pass it, but by extrapolation I get a range of 10:16:07.84 - 09.28 (16.8 - 18.22s elapsed). This gives a speed range of 59 - 64mph. Again, please do your own assessment and let me know your results!
One thing I want to do when I go down the road again this coming Thursday is to measure the distance of the first of the centre-line arrows from the third track, as this is easier to assess against than the track (as it's on the video and next to the car) -- although still amazingly difficult!
The other thing I need to do is to take the measurements that David has asked me to do. This will be more difficult as they are on the corner and it can be a busy road, but I'll do my best.
So how do I feel after all this? Well I still feel that the case is definitely not proven, and if your calculations tend to agree with mine then I will want to plead not guilty. However, my guess is that my success will depend completely on whether the magistrate is willing to consider that the LTI is capable of error.
Fire away....
My main thought is that it is indeed much more difficult to assess the position of my car against points on the road than I thought. What looks very clear in a telephoto lens 1/2 mile away is really hard to spot on the road. For example, in the first photo the spot where the central hatchings start to narrow down to the point is obvious, but on the road it's really hard to see!
With my "glamourous assistant" (my 8-year-old daughter
) I have measured the distance between where the sideroad joins the main road and what I believe is the spot where the central hatchings start to narrow. I make this about 86m. Now, reviewing both the normal-speed and the frame-by-frame videos, I find that it's hard to tell exactly where the car is level with these 2 points, but applying some margin of error: 1. end of sideroad: 10:15:48.72 - 49.16
2. narrowing of hatchings: 10:15:52.04 - 52.36
Elapsed time therefore ranges from 2.88s to 3.64s. The speed range is therefore 52-66mph.
Please, by all means do your own assessments! I'm happy that the distance is about right, say +/- 5m. I have not as yet made calculations including this range as well, just trying to assess the range of error on the video itself.
I also identified what I believe to be the correct spot where the camera van was. It was about 5m from the side of the road, about 31m back from the centre of the second track that leads into the rough track that runs down the LHS of the road along that straight. The distance from the van to the third track in (the one visible on the first photo, just before the green roadside sign) is about 260m, measured by a combination of LCD odometer and tape measure. This compares well with the map that vim fuego sent me, and confirms 2 things:
1. The location of my car in the first photo is much further round the bend than I assumed
2. The 745.4m seems about right, and I therefore assume is correct.
Based on this, I plotted the position of the car 745.4m from the van, and calculate that the distance between here and the 3rd track mentioned above is about 488m.
I have therefore tried to assess the likely spread of timings for the point at which my car passes this track. I can't be certain because the track disappears from the video shortly before I pass it, but by extrapolation I get a range of 10:16:07.84 - 09.28 (16.8 - 18.22s elapsed). This gives a speed range of 59 - 64mph. Again, please do your own assessment and let me know your results!
One thing I want to do when I go down the road again this coming Thursday is to measure the distance of the first of the centre-line arrows from the third track, as this is easier to assess against than the track (as it's on the video and next to the car) -- although still amazingly difficult!
The other thing I need to do is to take the measurements that David has asked me to do. This will be more difficult as they are on the corner and it can be a busy road, but I'll do my best.
So how do I feel after all this? Well I still feel that the case is definitely not proven, and if your calculations tend to agree with mine then I will want to plead not guilty. However, my guess is that my success will depend completely on whether the magistrate is willing to consider that the LTI is capable of error.
Fire away....
tony13579 said:
The code of practice IS the law. the road traffic act states that the laser speed device must be type approved and used within the conditions of the type approval. and I have that laid down in a letter from home office minister Paul Goggins
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins001.jpg
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins002.jpg
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins003.jpg
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins004.jpg
If I am given coppies of the summons and photos I will take it up with my MP and ask the minister for a response.
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins001.jpg
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins002.jpg
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins003.jpg
www.btinternet.com/~anthony.seaton/goggins004.jpg
If I am given coppies of the summons and photos I will take it up with my MP and ask the minister for a response.
Edited by tony13579 on Wednesday 25th October 15:24
This is very interesting. Unfortunately the proferred "Speedmeter Handbook" link no longer works. I have tonight emailed the Home Office using their "contact us" email address public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk:
my email said:
Good evening!
I understand from a letter written by Paul Goggins MP in December 2005, a copy of which I have seen, that the "Speedmeter Handbook" was available on the Science, Research and Statistics website via the link www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications. Unfortunately that link no longer functions. I have used the search facility provided from the page www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/, but the search does not deliver the document.
Please can you confirm:
1. that the Speedmeter Handbook was available at the time that Paul Goggins MP wrote the letter in December 2005
2. the correct link for me to obtain a copy of the handbook via your website.
Thanks and regards
Peter Ward
I understand from a letter written by Paul Goggins MP in December 2005, a copy of which I have seen, that the "Speedmeter Handbook" was available on the Science, Research and Statistics website via the link www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/hosdb/publications. Unfortunately that link no longer functions. I have used the search facility provided from the page www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.uk/, but the search does not deliver the document.
Please can you confirm:
1. that the Speedmeter Handbook was available at the time that Paul Goggins MP wrote the letter in December 2005
2. the correct link for me to obtain a copy of the handbook via your website.
Thanks and regards
Peter Ward
We will see how long it takes to obtain a response.
tony13579 said:
My first coment is that ACPO code of pratice says 14.4 "within 10 feet of the carriageway"
I can look at the video and have got speed measurements from them in the past.
also I make that hit of 745m around 2483 feet. The code of practice states 2000feet as maximum range.
There are also lots of higly reflective white lines that may have returned the laser
by trying to pick points on the road it may be possible to determine how many meters the car traveled in a fixed time. therefore check the speed
This is also confirmed by a letter I got from home office minister Paul Goggins
The minister wrote
Quote:
Requirements for The day to day operation of enforcement devices have been laid down in the publication “Roads Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice(p67)” issued by ACPO. A copy is on their website: www.acpo.police.uk under policies. Section 14.4 of the code of practice requires the operator to act within 10 feet of the carriage way and at a range exceeding 50 feet. It says it is important that the beam is held steady on the target area to avoid any slip factor.
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf
page 66
14.3 range 50 feet to maximum 2000
page 66/67
10 feet from the carriageway
I can look at the video and have got speed measurements from them in the past.
also I make that hit of 745m around 2483 feet. The code of practice states 2000feet as maximum range.
There are also lots of higly reflective white lines that may have returned the laser
by trying to pick points on the road it may be possible to determine how many meters the car traveled in a fixed time. therefore check the speed
This is also confirmed by a letter I got from home office minister Paul Goggins
The minister wrote
Quote:
Requirements for The day to day operation of enforcement devices have been laid down in the publication “Roads Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice(p67)” issued by ACPO. A copy is on their website: www.acpo.police.uk under policies. Section 14.4 of the code of practice requires the operator to act within 10 feet of the carriage way and at a range exceeding 50 feet. It says it is important that the beam is held steady on the target area to avoid any slip factor.
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf
page 66
14.3 range 50 feet to maximum 2000
page 66/67
10 feet from the carriageway
Edited by tony13579 on Wednesday 25th October 14:10
Tony,
The Paul Goggins letter is extremely interesting but I wonder if his opinion would be deemed relevant in court? I hope the subsequent discussions on whether the CoP is considered guidelines or law in relation to type approval bear fruit.
However, on the point of distance, I have an email from TeleTraffic:
TeleTraffic email said:
Dear Mr Ward
The LTI 20.20.TS/M Speedscope has a government Type Approved maximum range of 999.9 metres and a minimum of 9 metres
I hope this assists your enquiry
Peter Gay
Customer Services Manager
Tele-Traffic UK Ltd
The LTI 20.20.TS/M Speedscope has a government Type Approved maximum range of 999.9 metres and a minimum of 9 metres
I hope this assists your enquiry
Peter Gay
Customer Services Manager
Tele-Traffic UK Ltd
Now Mr Gay may be wrong, but he is supported by the parliamentary answer referenced some way up this thread. I can't find anything to prove him wrong, though the fact that some of the LTIs only work to 610m certainly muddies the water.
Edited by Peter Ward on Thursday 26th October 22:22
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff