RE: Laser meters are inaccurate: BBC
Discussion
james_j said:
puggit said:
And I guess an appeal is out of the question, financially?
Already done that, spent a grand and got exactly the same answer with another £275 costs.
It seems as if they're terrified of setting a precedent. Command from on high probably.
Thats exactly what I thought. I have spoken to my solicitor about taking the case to the court of appeal as he believes that the Judges are better than that, and they must act independantly.
I really think that the crux of the cases are the fact that legally the actions of the PC have been correct and as he has been traned. In court it is the situation that it is the position of the CPS to prove its case. It seems that at the moment, proper training and use of approved equipment is enough to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
james_j said:
pesty said:
Any BIB have an opinion about this?
We are not that lucky... people have been asking that since the thread started...
(Bump)
....where are they now....
From what I can make out a few BiBs (and not just here) have been told to keep what they say on open forums very much in check. So I'm not surprised that there is an absence of comment here.
_dobbo_ said:
james_j said:
justinp1 said:
pesty said:
Any BIB have an opinion about this?
We are not that lucky... people have been asking that since the thread started...
(Bump)
....where are they now....
From what I can make out a few BiBs (and not just here) have been told to keep what they say on open forums very much in check. So I'm not surprised that there is an absence of comment here.
Nor me. It may also be the case that people who have used the LTI20/20 and similar know full well that on occasion they do give 'strange' results. If that were the case and was widely known, it would bring *every* case into reasonable doubt.
For example, even if it were one reading in 20 (or even 100) which was out, if it is 10 or 20 mph lower, it would be ignored. However if it were 10 or 20 mph higher, people are going to be stopped on a false reading. This, in corroboration with a highly dubious assessment of speed from 1/2 mile away is what is convicting people.
www.numberwatch.co.uk/2005%20September.htm
which has been posted previously sums this up in the best way I have heard so far as it amount to not much more than a system of 'random taxation'.
Although I would not expect a PC to name themselves and openly admit the shortcomings of the system, something which is conspicuous by its absence is an experienced user to defend the laser speedmeters.
It just adds more fuel to the rumour that the reason why no-one involved with the laser devices are willing to release one for testing, is that there is a little more to it than the organisations involved are just generally unhelpful...
>> Edited by justinp1 on Monday 26th September 11:06
Only 6 out of 101 speeding police drivers prosecuted
Does this answer part of your question re an answer from BIB
western mail said:
THERE were 101 police who fell foul of their own speed cameras in 12 months - but only six were prosecuted.
The rest were able to convince their commanders that they had a valid reason for breaking the limit, according to a response under the Freedom of Information Act by North Wales Police.
Does this answer part of your question re an answer from BIB
_dobbo_ said:
Wasn't there the case of the guy on his bike clocked at 145, who proved that his bike wasn't capable of that speed. Slip error in action?
There was a case of a japanese import Subaru in which the owner claimed the speed limiter had not been removed. IIRC there was another case of some shopping trolley in which teh owner paid an expert independednt ex police "expert" to test his car at bruntingthorpe so to prove his car was not capable.
As for the Police not comenting. It does not suprise me at allthey have closed ranks. Some on here have defende them before stating that they were trained so there can be no possibility of a problem.
Either they don't belive people are being done when they should not or they don't care.
The programme can be downloaded at;
Large; www.pepipoo.org/files/inside_out_12-sep-05.rm
Small; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/julie.denton2/insout.wmv
Article here; www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml
discusses the programme and you can have your say, a certain Steve Callaghan has...
Large; www.pepipoo.org/files/inside_out_12-sep-05.rm
Small; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/julie.denton2/insout.wmv
Article here; www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml
discusses the programme and you can have your say, a certain Steve Callaghan has...
catso said:
The programme can be downloaded at;
Large; www.pepipoo.org/files/inside_out_12-sep-05.rm
Small; http://homepage.ntlworld.com/julie.denton2/insout.wmv
Article here; www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtml
discusses the programme and you can have your say, a certain Steve Callaghan has...
Thanks, that's useful.
smeggy said:
Thanks, that's useful.
Seconded! That program wasn’t shown in my area
I even posted a response on the BBC site addressing Steve Callahan’s s sanctimonious comments; I doubt it will be published……
I think you'll find it's there now!
IaHa said:
smeggy said:
james_j said:
Thanks, that's useful.
Seconded! That program wasn’t shown in my area
I even posted a response on the BBC site addressing Steve Callahan’s s sanctimonious comments; I doubt it will be published……
I think you'll find it's there now!
Edited to add;
Doh! 4 minutes to write a bloody link!
Edited again to add;
And I pressed the stoopid quote button rather than edit.
>> Edited by IaHa on Tuesday 27th September 12:35
As a PC with nine years on traffic, I have used the Kustom ProLaser II (2nd on the list on this link) for most of that time.
I believe that it is accurate, and it has not given me any unexpected readings (that I am aware of) .
I have operated speed camera vans on 12 occasions nearly two years ago now, and the system used was the tele-traffic lastec local system which incorporates the LTI 20:20 laser.
Again the readings shown were as expected, and it did require a degree of accuracy, ie it often wouldn’t give a reading when I expected it to, possibly because I had slipped from the grill up the bonnet or whatever.
Not being an expert in the field of laser technology, I have to accept that if we are told that the device is accurate when used in a certain way, then it gets used.
The obvious flaw in my above comment is that I would not necessarily know if the readings obtained were sufficiently accurate. ie I may be able to visually gauge a vehicles speed to within 5% at 200m and 10% at 600 metres (guess), so if a vehicle was recorded at 105mph then realistically it could be 95mph and I would perhaps accept the reading. Looking back at what I’ve just written, that seems unlikely that my visual accuracy would be so far out, but I guess it’s possible.
So I’m afraid I cannot answer or assist with the great ‘slip’ debate, but I am happy that my own speed enforcement methods remove any doubt over laser accuracy.
But having had a ‘natter’ over coffee with Paul Smith yesterday at my gaff (good chap
), I know he is convinced that there is a problem with LTI 20:20 ‘slip’ effect which will not go away.
My own personal opinion is that it is another element thrown into the pot of dubiety which is weakening our general enforcement effectiveness, and also chipping away at police public relations.
I believe that it is accurate, and it has not given me any unexpected readings (that I am aware of) .
I have operated speed camera vans on 12 occasions nearly two years ago now, and the system used was the tele-traffic lastec local system which incorporates the LTI 20:20 laser.
Again the readings shown were as expected, and it did require a degree of accuracy, ie it often wouldn’t give a reading when I expected it to, possibly because I had slipped from the grill up the bonnet or whatever.
Not being an expert in the field of laser technology, I have to accept that if we are told that the device is accurate when used in a certain way, then it gets used.
The obvious flaw in my above comment is that I would not necessarily know if the readings obtained were sufficiently accurate. ie I may be able to visually gauge a vehicles speed to within 5% at 200m and 10% at 600 metres (guess), so if a vehicle was recorded at 105mph then realistically it could be 95mph and I would perhaps accept the reading. Looking back at what I’ve just written, that seems unlikely that my visual accuracy would be so far out, but I guess it’s possible.
So I’m afraid I cannot answer or assist with the great ‘slip’ debate, but I am happy that my own speed enforcement methods remove any doubt over laser accuracy.
But having had a ‘natter’ over coffee with Paul Smith yesterday at my gaff (good chap
), I know he is convinced that there is a problem with LTI 20:20 ‘slip’ effect which will not go away. My own personal opinion is that it is another element thrown into the pot of dubiety which is weakening our general enforcement effectiveness, and also chipping away at police public relations.
IaHa said:
some sensible stuff
Or at least I thought so in my ever so humble opinion.
Putting aside the general question regarding the "Govt one note samba" in relation to road safety issues.
One considerable factor alienating public and enforcement is the belief in the device accuracy to +/- a small amount, which results in enforcement of offences which are a similarly small number over a permitted limit. One could comment about penalty review which proposed significant differences in penalty for reading 1mph apart when the equipment is only accurate to +/- 3mph. (maybe +/-2mph)
In my patch a number of cases have not been proceeded with further because of a potential defence of automatism. In other words the trigger limit was so close to the speed limit that a defence of "I sneezed and involuntarily pressed the loud pedal" introduced sufficient doubt and hence a possible defence of automatism.
IaHa correctly points out the validity of a link between, " here is someone genuinely going sodding quickly" and a corroboratory reading. I really don't see how someone can make that judgement between 30 and 34 which is the situation in the cases I mentioned above.
Therefore the total reliance is placed upon the accuracy of the black box where the offence is 34/30, 45/40 and so on. This has no corroboration other than the video, then further doubt and mistrust is thrown into the pot by difficulty in obtaining complete video as part of disclosure. Furthermore there is the taint in all "civilianised" enforcement where the party involved has a direct financial benefit to them or their direct employer from the penalty charge.
I don't see this going away, ever. As said before this is important enough to warrant a full and truly independant research study. Either that or throw all the boxes away and "go back to basics."
my 2p. back in the corner......
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Tuesday 27th September 13:14
IaHa said:
I think you'll find it's there now!
Cool, I even got another on it. Let’s see if Steve sCammerham
answers these, or instead resort to his usual disappearing act. I will keep that page bookmarked for future reference Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff