RE: Police to continue using unreliable laser guns
Thursday 17th February 2005
Police to continue using unreliable laser guns
Campaign calls for halt to laser gun use
Scottish law has helped one motorist avoid gaol, as evidence from a laser gun was shown to be unreliable. Police at the Inverness hearing said that James MacGregor was driving at 132mph on the A9, yet tests by engineers showed that his imported Subaru was limited to a maximum of 107mph.
Saying in court that the laser gun had operated correctly, the Northern Constabulary subsequently said it would carry on using the Pro-Laser III laser guns, while a Crown Pffice spokesman said it had "no concerns" about the accuracy of the technology. He said the gun in question had been checked as per standard operating procedure, and had been found to be working correctly.
However, MacGregor's lawyer produced evidence that showing that the car was in fact a grey import from Japan -- quite common in the Scoobie community -- and was limited according to Japanese legal requirements.
The court judged the case 'not proven' -- a verdict not available to courts south of Hadrian's Wall.
Campaign group Safe Speed has consequently called for urgent action to preserve public confidence. Founder Paul Smith said, "We hear many complaints about laser speed meter evidence, but it is very unusual for the accused driver to be able to demonstrate that his speed was anything other than that claimed by the police. The courts usually convict, but unusual cases like this prove the point that laser speed meter evidence can be unreliable."
"Confidence in speed enforcement is already low," said Smith. "Many people see speeding fines as nothing more than a stealth tax. This case will further damage public confidence. Over-zealous speed enforcement has badly affected the relationship between the police and the public. Vital respect for Police is earned over decades and lost in minutes."
Safe Speed said it demands either:
- A full explanation of the failure of the speed meter in this case or
- An immediate end to the use of laser speed meters in prosecutions
Discussion
Just a thought, but as you can plug a simple electronic delimiter into a jap import ecu. I'd say this guy had done just that and then pulled it out again to return it to 'jap spec' before having it 'independantly' tested. But, there's no proof either way, so he's got off.
>>> Edited by D4V KC on Thursday 17th February 11:38
>>> Edited by D4V KC on Thursday 17th February 11:38
Whatever happened to innocent before guilty then? Seems like some would rather play him as guilty with no proof otherwise.
Of far more interest id say is: How many other motorists have been scammed with this thing while travelling at UNDER the limit and then subsequently ended up prosecuted?
If thats not a reason to withdraw it from use then i dont know what is.
Its a disgrace!
Of far more interest id say is: How many other motorists have been scammed with this thing while travelling at UNDER the limit and then subsequently ended up prosecuted?
If thats not a reason to withdraw it from use then i dont know what is.
Its a disgrace!
Didn't the same thing happen a few months ago with a guy in a Punto or something? They claimed he was doing some 3 figure speed and the guy had to pay for an indepentent testing of his car at Bruntingthorpe before they'd accept that his std 1 litre econobox couldn't do the 140mph or whatever it was they claimed?
IIRC they put the blame on the detector picking up reflections on the car which appeared to be moving more quickly than the car. They refused to pay his costs for the testing too.
IIRC they put the blame on the detector picking up reflections on the car which appeared to be moving more quickly than the car. They refused to pay his costs for the testing too.
D4V KC said:
Just a thought, but as you can plug a simple electronic delimiter into a jap import ecu. I'd say this guy had done just that and then pulled it out again to return it to 'jap spec' before having it 'independantly' tested. But, there's no proof either way, so he's got off.
>>> Edited by D4V KC on Thursday 17th February 11:38
I wondered that as well.
Theoretically you could buy a jap import, de-restrict it, keep your speed above 107mph as often as possible on a run so if you get caught you just restrict the car again. Hmmmm. Not much point in doing just a ton is there? Wonder if many people will be thinking along these lines?
Saw this on the news last night, raised a smile
But if it ist found to be "inaccurate" in two cases... we do not know how many times it has been inaccurate at lowere speeds.
Thus the device needs much more testing before being used in such a way given that it affects mobility, motoring costs und employment prospects.
Und surely it ist possible mit such high grade forensic testing technique to determine whether or not the limiting doo-dah had been tampered with.
Thus the device needs much more testing before being used in such a way given that it affects mobility, motoring costs und employment prospects.
Und surely it ist possible mit such high grade forensic testing technique to determine whether or not the limiting doo-dah had been tampered with.
I suspect that cases will start to mount up at court because of this. I think evidence is already being gathered that proves these devices may be accurate to a degree but require very, very careful operation in a tightly controlled environment to work correctly. The way the Police and Scamera partnerships use them at the moment doesn't meet those parameters. Hence despite assertions to the conbtary from DVD and gone they are NOT infalible enoguh to be used to prosecute.
Possibly the major point is that due to the behavior of the Scamera "clubs" and Police using them, the ways of measuring speed they use are now being examined by interested parties. The faults of the devicesand the way agencies work the various methods to detect speed are being probed and they are being proved inaccurate.
Possibly the major point is that due to the behavior of the Scamera "clubs" and Police using them, the ways of measuring speed they use are now being examined by interested parties. The faults of the devicesand the way agencies work the various methods to detect speed are being probed and they are being proved inaccurate.
In my experience Magistrates have a "you are guilty" policy and "the police are right" attitude and it is almost impossible to get off of a speeding offence so well done to this guy.
I was done doing 56 in a temporary 40 (I didn't know about the temporary 40) on a dual carriageway. Done by a Truvelo.
The magistrate didn't believe me that there was no signs hence my speed, the works manager was called by the prosecution and he could not say signs were there or not for definite.
I was still found guilty.
I was done doing 56 in a temporary 40 (I didn't know about the temporary 40) on a dual carriageway. Done by a Truvelo.
The magistrate didn't believe me that there was no signs hence my speed, the works manager was called by the prosecution and he could not say signs were there or not for definite.
I was still found guilty.
The Prolaser used to catch him is already known to be inaccurate, its use is banned in several US states as it reports courtroom walls as moving. It's able to hide behind its type approval here though, hopefully cases like this will start to bring it's uselessness into the open though.
bbc news said:
Traffic police told Inverness Sheriff Court that the ProLaser III speed gun had operated correctly when it recorded Mr MacGregor.
His car had been about 2,000ft away at 2100 GMT, as it was getting dark.
bbc news said:
The website for the US-based manufacturer of the ProLaser says the gun has a range of 1,000ft - half the distance involved in the case.
If the manufacturer of the gun claims it only has a range of 1000ft, WTF are the police doing using it a 2000ft, and claiming they had operated it correctly???
If one force is using them at double the range, recommended by the manufacturer, then I bet that more forces are.
I suppose the excuse is that the britich BIBs are so highly trained that they can make up for limitations in infallible technology!
It is the usual case that the Police are considered infallibale, truthfull and acting the best interests of justice??? Or do I mean revenue...
D4V KC said:
Just a thought, but as you can plug a simple electronic delimiter into a jap import ecu. I'd say this guy had done just that and then pulled it out again to return it to 'jap spec' before having it 'independantly' tested. But, there's no proof either way, so he's got off.
I've been told the speed limiter (ecu?) had a Japanese original tamperproof seal still fitted...
jesusbuiltmycar said:
If the manufacturer of the gun claims it only has a range of 1000ft, WTF are the police doing using it a 2000ft, and claiming they had operated it correctly???
Both figures are correct. US law limits the maximum operating range.
Perhaps the question needs to be: "If US law specifies a max range of 1000ft, why don't we?"
safespeed said:
If the manufacturer of the gun claims it only has a range of 1000ft, WTF are the police doing using it a 2000ft, and claiming they had operated it correctly???
Both figures are correct. US law limits the maximum operating range.
Perhaps the question needs to be: "If US law specifies a max range of 1000ft, why don't we?"
Because the chances are that a motorist would see them.
In anycase the police are supposed to use the camera to backup their opinion that the car is speeding. At a distance over 1000ft unless the car is moving really fast they must be relying entirely on the device and fishing for speeders. Or people who aren't speeding and just get caught out.
Had a thought. With the new freedom of information act I wonder if it would be possible to find out if there are any documents that indicate that the police know their on shakey ground.
Also isn't continued use of an known unreliable piece of equipment and declaring it to be OK in a court perjury?
D4V KC said:
Just a thought, but as you can plug a simple electronic delimiter into a jap import ecu. I'd say this guy had done just that and then pulled it out again to return it to 'jap spec' before having it 'independantly' tested. But, there's no proof either way, so he's got off.
That's how mine works. It's a simple box that sits in on the speed sensor line before the ECU.
safespeed said:
I've been told the speed limiter (ecu?) had a Japanese original tamperproof seal still fitted...
Hmmm. Perhaps scoobies are different.
safespeed said:
If the manufacturer of the gun claims it only has a range of 1000ft, WTF are the police doing using it a 2000ft, and claiming they had operated it correctly???
Both figures are correct. US law limits the maximum operating range.
Perhaps the question needs to be: "If US law specifies a max range of 1000ft, why don't we?"
cos the yanks have bigger feet 
cdp said:
Had a thought. With the new freedom of information act I wonder if it would be possible to find out if there are any documents that indicate that the police know their on shakey ground.
www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance/exguide/sec43/chap01.htm
the site said:
Section 43 of the Freedom of Information Act provides that:
1. Information is exempt information if it constitutes a trade secret.
2. Information is exempt information if its disclosure under this Act would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it).
3. The duty to confirm or deny does not arise if, or to the extent that, compliance with section 1(1)(a) would, or would be likely to, prejudice the interests mentioned in subsection (2).
The only way to overcome the use of this 'Laser-Dodgyscope' is for everyone caught, or allegedly caught, to plead 'not-guilty' and go to court armed with all this information, demands for a 'dodgyscope to be shown to the court for demonstration by the defence, and all the police witnesses responsible for the use on the day and the calibration to be called as witnesses.
Thay would stop the entire scam.
Thay would stop the entire scam.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff