RE: Laser meters are inaccurate: BBC
Discussion
You certainly need to ask them for software version numbers US versus UK and if the US authorities had spent so much on the equipment that didn't work why weren't they simply issued with software upgrades that did work, if they were available.
Please, try and push this line of enquiry with them. And every time someone in the local newspapers crows about some magnificent speed camera company performance figures, email the author and point out the errors of their ways (reversion to mean too while you're at it).
SM
Please, try and push this line of enquiry with them. And every time someone in the local newspapers crows about some magnificent speed camera company performance figures, email the author and point out the errors of their ways (reversion to mean too while you're at it).
SM
nightdriver said:
I've asked that if they have such faith in the camera will they provide one for independant testing!
Strangely (not) the programme "Inside Out" had already said at the end of the programme that the Home Office had declined to submit one for testing.
It's no surprise really is it that they have found a BS "get-out"; it sounds like they are hanging on to the edge by their fingernails, desperate not to let this matter go any further.
james_j said:
I've asked that if they have such faith in the camera will they provide one for independant testing!
Strangely (not) the programme "Inside Out" had already said at the end of the programme that the Home Office had declined to submit one for testing.
It's no surprise really is it that they have found a BS "get-out"; it sounds like they are hanging on to the edge by their fingernails, desperate not to let this matter go any further.
Agreed. I have investigated the use of the laser detectors and their faults for the last 18 months and I can see light at the end of the tunnel. A few people on here are very close to opening the whole can of beans for everyone who has lost their case.
*Perhaps* there would be a friendly police face on here would let Dr Mike Clark unofficially borrow one. If Mr Garratt can be an expert witness after never having used the device, I am sure Dr Clark should be able to stand as an expert witness, as I can see no legal reason why he would have to show where the device he tested came from...
The thing that makes me want to puke throughout this whole thread is the "reasonable doubt" aspect.
It seems to me that it's possible using basic scientific facts to introduce reasonable doubt - but that this is effectively ignored if you are not an "expert witness".
Who needs to be an expert to understand such basic concepts. If a magistrate can't they SHOULDN'T BE IN THE
ING JOB TO START WITH.
Nor should the clerk of the court.
Bollocks to the way our legal system is being corrupted to us over for money.
It seems to me that it's possible using basic scientific facts to introduce reasonable doubt - but that this is effectively ignored if you are not an "expert witness".
Who needs to be an expert to understand such basic concepts. If a magistrate can't they SHOULDN'T BE IN THE
ING JOB TO START WITH. Nor should the clerk of the court.
Bollocks to the way our legal system is being corrupted to
us over for money. justinp1 said:
*Perhaps* there would be a friendly police face on here would let Dr Mike Clark unofficially borrow one. If Mr Garratt can be an expert witness after never having used the device, I am sure Dr Clark should be able to stand as an expert witness, as I can see no legal reason why he would have to show where the device he tested came from...
Whether the software is indeed any different in real terms, as far as error checking does, is a moot point. The probability is that they do use different software in the States - they have stuff that can be used for recording measurements and evidence for accidents so that they get the road open again ASAP. Not available here apparently.
As it is really a distance measurement device - used for docking Space Shuttles amongst other things apparently - I find it hard to believe that the Americans do not use the same (or better) software for error checking.
One has to bear in mind that the MD of the importers (for speedmeter use rather than just distance measurement for surveying purposes, etc.) is a former T.O. I understand and his company is a supplier to many forces. I would imagine that the availability of the devices is carefully monitored. To 'borrow' one you might be better off tapping up a civilian member of one of the partnerships. Bit of a long shot though.
Would it not be so much easier for everyone if the authorities just came out and proved there cannot be a problem - it can't be that difficult or expensive can it? I don't think it would require an army of civil service mandarins to set up a basic test of reliability.
Garrett and his merry men have been milking this one for years. Not only is his company profiting hugely (millions) from the resale of the LTI in the UK but he also comes along for court appearance fees.
I've always said it's bent since he is the one with a financial interest in the continued sale of the devices - however apparently that's ok in the UK courts.
When I threatened to question the accuracy of the LTI the CPS "reduced" the accused speed from 67 to 60 without blinking an eye.
I've always said it's bent since he is the one with a financial interest in the continued sale of the devices - however apparently that's ok in the UK courts.
When I threatened to question the accuracy of the LTI the CPS "reduced" the accused speed from 67 to 60 without blinking an eye.
lucozade said:
Garrett and his merry men have been milking this one for years. Not only is his company profiting hugely (millions) from the resale of the LTI in the UK but he also comes along for court appearance fees.
I've always said it's bent since he is the one with a financial interest in the continued sale of the devices - however apparently that's ok in the UK courts.
When I threatened to question the accuracy of the LTI the CPS "reduced" the accused speed from 67 to 60 without blinking an eye.
I agree, the astonishing thing is that out of 60 million people in the country he is the person who has most to lose from the reliability of the LTI, thus the most one sided bias. However I have heard of at least one case where he was the *only* expert witness allowed to give evidence in court.
The thing about these cases (including mine) is that a lot of the trial is not Defendant vs Police but really Defendant vs The use and technology of the speedmeter.
In fact, as I have mentioned before the only way that the police evidence can be attacked (apart from the usual loopholes, not releasing evidence etc) is to cross examine on the correct use of the speedmeter from the ACPO guidelines. The outcome of this as we know that even though the PC may have went up to a motorway bridge, and practiced shooting through his legs whilst performing tricks on a rodeo bull, as long as he has been trained at any time in the past, all of the ACPO guidelines are irrelevant.
As the cross examining of the police in court is now a no hoper due to the dissolution of the use of ACPO guidelines, the only way forward will be attacking the technology and the suggested use of the speedmeter itself. In that situation it would be farsical to think that the MD of the importing company would be anything but the 'defendant' and certainly not in an unbiased position to comment on technical questions he is unqualified to answer.
The other idea I had was that would it be possible for someone who was accused of an offence in asking to borrow the device for independant testing?
My sense of justice tells me that would be only fair!? However, the CPS wouldnt even let me have a copy of the manual after three letters politely asking for it, so it would need some sterner letters to get hold of it!
Couldn't you just buy one and then return it back to them saying it wasn't accurate enough? 
Proove in a court of law it doesn't work then you'd be guaranteed a refund!
On their website there are 3 uk sellers.
www.lasertech.com/ulproduct.html
www.lasertech.com/euro.html#greatbritian
>> Edited by cliffe_mafia on Wednesday 21st September 15:24
Proove in a court of law it doesn't work then you'd be guaranteed a refund! On their website there are 3 uk sellers.
www.lasertech.com/ulproduct.html
www.lasertech.com/euro.html#greatbritian
>> Edited by cliffe_mafia on Wednesday 21st September 15:24
cliffe_mafia said:
Couldn't you just buy one and then return it back to them saying it wasn't accurate enough?
On their website there are 3 uk sellers.
<a href="www.lasertech.com/ulproduct.html">www.lasertech.com/ulproduct.html</a>
<a href="www.lasertech.com/euro.html#greatbritian">www.lasertech.com/euro.html#greatbritian</a>
>> Edited by cliffe_mafia on Wednesday 21st September 15:24
Good idea, but....
This kind of outlines some of the crookery in this subject...
I am pretty sure that the manufacturer says that the algorithms used to detect slip error keep erroneous results *to a minimum*.
The only person who thinks that it is impossible that there may be an erroneous message ie a speed reading which is wrong is Mr Garratt who provides expert witness statements.
In effect the manufacturers claim 'to a minimum' is correct, as it is a very difficult task to test and program the software to detect slip error, and they accept this. The problem has come in the way the Home Office has tested the device and how it is allowed to be legally used.
The LTI2020 has been banned in most US States due to a test case where it was shown the device did not work in court due to slip error. In the states where it is allowed it either must be used on a tripod, or must be used on a tripod over i think 200 yards.
This could instantly cut the number of false readings in the UK, but then they would have to admit that many thousands of cases may have to be reopened...
In todays Motorcycle news.
Talks about a biker who is going to challenge the evidence in court over his LTI 20-20 conviction.
Apparently these devises apart from the slip error issue were not tested on motorbikes for the type aproval.
also talks about a "leading autority" Dr michael clark chairman of the european standards commitee on vehicle detectors who has questioned the acuracy of these devises
Talks about a biker who is going to challenge the evidence in court over his LTI 20-20 conviction.
Apparently these devises apart from the slip error issue were not tested on motorbikes for the type aproval.
also talks about a "leading autority" Dr michael clark chairman of the european standards commitee on vehicle detectors who has questioned the acuracy of these devises
pesty said:
In todays Motorcycle news.
Talks about a biker who is going to challenge the evidence in court over his LTI 20-20 conviction.
Apparently these devises apart from the slip error issue were not tested on motorbikes for the type aproval.
also talks about a "leading autority" Dr michael clark chairman of the european standards commitee on vehicle detectors who has questioned the acuracy of these devises
It'll be interesting to hear the outcome; I expect MCN won't let the issue fade away.
I know this will sound a bit like an American court room tv program, but couldn't you show that the device can't be held steady by way of a demo. Make a mock up of laser gun, same weight and dimensions, and stick a laser pointer on the top. Then get the offending policeman to point it at the wall in the court room. If they are "trained" to hold these devices steady the laser pointer dot will be perfectly still. If not, surely it isn't being used as they are trained to do.
Moo Moo said:
I know this will sound a bit like an American court room tv program, but couldn't you show that the device can't be held steady by way of a demo. Make a mock up of laser gun, same weight and dimensions, and stick a laser pointer on the top. Then get the offending policeman to point it at the wall in the court room. If they are "trained" to hold these devices steady the laser pointer dot will be perfectly still. If not, surely it isn't being used as they are trained to do.
Good idea. But can be more simply done. I did it by asking if the gun can move 1 or 2 mm while he was holding it.
He said he was trained properly.
I asked again.
He said no-one could be expected to hold it and it not move 1 or 2 mm.
I asked again.
He agreed that the device could move by 1 or 2mm while he was holding it.
I then showed the court that at 400m for every 1mm 'shake' there is, this will move the beam 1.2m from its intended target.
The problem isnt introducing the court to common sense, that is easy. I even cut out a 40th scale model of my car and measured 10m in court to show the court how tiny the moving target is, and the range of slippage is huge. I then stuck the paper model of my car on the front of an Olympic Pistol shooting target. If he could consistantly hit the target (car at 400m)at that range he would be consistantly hitting the 9 and 10 score on the Olympic target, and would at least got a Bronze medal in the last Olympics.
I literally racked my brains for weeks to find easy ways to show how the way that the devices are allowed to be used are simply rediculous. Also to accept that they can be accurate for evidential purposes by use in this was is a farce.
The problem is, as long as the PC has been trained, and using a Home Office approved device, the courts decision is 'Well, what more can he be expected to do? He has acted how he was trained and used the device as per that training in a way which is deemed to be the right way by the Home Office'.
That you cant argue with until the situation changes.
puggit said:
But how did the court explain to you that the reasonable doubt which you had introduced was being ignored?
I suspect their minds are so clouded that they do not recognise "reasonable doubt" in this matter.
(Also, even if on a tripod, the slightest breeze is likely to make the apparatus move.)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff