RE: Laser meters are inaccurate: BBC
Discussion
james_j said:
Why if you used the evidence from the programme and were unsuccesful in court could face a stronger conviction?
I guess this is to scare you into accepting their doubtful "evidence" and paying up.
However, it would seem from their actions as if it is they who are running scared.
I agree. In effect what they said is true. If you accept the fixed penalty by the side of the road it is always 3 points and £60 quid. If at that point you decline to take that offer the only way this will then be decided on is at the magistrates court. Their guidelines are 3-6 points and a fine of up to £2000 (i think) based on income!
How many points they give at court is completely up to their discretion. In my case for 92 in a 70 I received 6 (!!??). Whereas in another case I sat in a guy was given 6 for speeding at a slightly higher speed AND having no insurance! So it is really pot luck.
The reason why they publicise and vociferously tell you in the trafpol car is that if more people decided to question the reasings and go to court, the system would clog up and fail. This is why the financial figures are set as they are, £60 is not too much to forget about, and a few hundred quid is just enough to make it not worthwhile!
the 'Beyond a reasonable amount' argument is also quite correct. However as I said before in practice the courts can only give one outcome. The prosecution shows the device is 'Type Approved', shows the officer has been trained and that the ACPO guidelines for usage are not legally needed to be adhered to!
The slip factor which has been talked about is also correct. I showed in court that at 400m a 1mm movement at the device makes an error of 1.2m which moves the point of reference from the number plate (even if it were there in the first place) down the length of the car or even onto another car altogether.
The PC also quite rightly admitted that he didnt use a tripod and not only was a 1mm movement possible it was inevitable!
You would think that all of this would show that this measuring device (which incidentally is only ever calibrated on stationary objects at up to 100m) is not fit for taking hand held readings at 400m.
But, 'type approval, training yada yada...' would mean that they cannot go against the grain as the courts assume that these things have been taken into consideration and tested for! It would also mean that thousands of other convictions are unsafe. Worse than that the devices are still in use as we speak, wrongly convicting people. That is where the scandal lies.
Would someone not be able to force an independant test of the UK type approved meters in court, based on the findings of the programme? Probably not, I'm sure they'd roll out some feeble excuse that buries the matter, but it would be worth a try, especially if you were simply asking them to prove the UK and US meters were in fact different and not subject to the same errors.
The Speed Trap Bible (www.speed-trap.co.uk) has listed the problem of slip error for several years now. But it's also stated (even on the manufacturer's own website!) that the beam divergence of an LTI is around 3 miliradians. Thanks to Hollywood, everyone thinks of lasers being a tiny red dot even miles away, but 3 miliradians equates to about 3 feet at 1000 ft (or approx 300m) distance. In other words, at this kind of distance, the beam is more than half a car's width wide and is therefore more than capable of measuring objects either side, in front of or behind your car.
In my experience, the CPS dropped the case when presented with this argument, but I'm sure if it had got as far as the magistrates they wouldn't have had the technical knowledge to understand the consequences. I'm sure the system relies upon people accepting the Fixed Penalty Notice.
In my experience, the CPS dropped the case when presented with this argument, but I'm sure if it had got as far as the magistrates they wouldn't have had the technical knowledge to understand the consequences. I'm sure the system relies upon people accepting the Fixed Penalty Notice.
What a lovely "Democracy" we all live in.
Where the people no longer control the country they live in, but those who represent us take it upon themselves to control and opress us with lies.
Makes you wonder how far they'll go, and to what end?
Soon there will be no innocent until proven guilty, it'll be guilty until you (impossibly) prove yourself innocent!
Didn't see the program, probably a good job as it would have made me loose even more faith in our "police"
Dave
Where the people no longer control the country they live in, but those who represent us take it upon themselves to control and opress us with lies.
Makes you wonder how far they'll go, and to what end?
Soon there will be no innocent until proven guilty, it'll be guilty until you (impossibly) prove yourself innocent!
Didn't see the program, probably a good job as it would have made me loose even more faith in our "police"
Dave
justinp1 said:
I agree. In effect what they said is true. If you accept the fixed penalty by the side of the road it is always 3 points and £60 quid. If at that point you decline to take that offer the only way this will then be decided on is at the magistrates court. Their guidelines are 3-6 points and a fine of up to £2000 (i think) based on income!
But the magistrates cannot be seen to be indiscriminately handing out unrealistically high fines. They know that a defendant can appeal by way of case stated and dim view is taken by the Higher Courts if the appeal is upheld.
justinp1 said:
How many points they give at court is completely up to their discretion. In my case for 92 in a 70 I received 6 (!!??). Whereas in another case I sat in a guy was given 6 for speeding at a slightly higher speed AND having no insurance! So it is really pot luck.
There are guidelines and scales and the magistrates need to be seen to be handing out 'punishments' in line with these. Again, they will alway be aware of a defendant's right to appeal by way of case stated.
justinp1 said:
The reason why they publicise and vociferously tell you in the trafpol car is that if more people decided to question the reasings and go to court, the system would clog up and fail. This is why the financial figures are set as they are, £60 is not too much to forget about, and a few hundred quid is just enough to make it not worthwhile!
The Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty is just that - its an offer. You do not have to accept it and you can exercise your right to fair trial.
If the BiB tell you that the courts could not cope with the workload if people exercised this right, then the Conditional Offer is a hollow promise and a sham. The courts MUST allow people to exercise their rights - its not for the police to decide that or to try and 'persuade' people to meekly roll over and accept guilt.
justinp1 said:
the 'Beyond a reasonable amount' argument is also quite correct. However as I said before in practice the courts can only give one outcome. The prosecution shows the device is 'Type Approved', shows the officer has been trained and that the ACPO guidelines for usage are not legally needed to be adhered to!
Guidelines are guidelines, not rules. The scammers only want your money. Of course they are not going to play fair....
justinp1 said:
But, 'type approval, training yada yada...' would mean that they cannot go against the grain as the courts assume that these things have been taken into consideration and tested for! It would also mean that thousands of other convictions are unsafe. Worse than that the devices are still in use as we speak, wrongly convicting people. That is where the scandal lies.
The LTI20-20 type approval never included testing for slip factor errors, AFAIK. That, I agree, is scandalous...
>> Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 13th September 11:10
Moo Moo said:
Well if my school boy maths is still up to the task, the operator would only have to move the camera 0.143 of a degree to produce a slip of a meter at 400m range. Can anyone in this world hold a camera that steady?
Not even on a tripod, unless they have a remote trigger as just touching the thing will move it.... ever tried shooting a target with a rifle at that distance?, even if said rifle is supported and a rifle is much easier to hold steady than a hand-held box at arms length.
And if they're at the roadside the passing vehicles will move it that much just with the wind rush or vibration.
SS2. said:
I agree. In effect what they said is true. If you accept the fixed penalty by the side of the road it is always 3 points and £60 quid. If at that point you decline to take that offer the only way this will then be decided on is at the magistrates court. Their guidelines are 3-6 points and a fine of up to £2000 (i think) based on income!
But the magistrates cannot be seen to be indiscriminately handing out unrealistically high fines. They know that a defendant can appeal by way of case stated and dim view is taken by the Higher Courts if the appeal is upheld.
justinp1 said:
How many points they give at court is completely up to their discretion. In my case for 92 in a 70 I received 6 (!!??). Whereas in another case I sat in a guy was given 6 for speeding at a slightly higher speed AND having no insurance! So it is really pot luck.
There are guidelines and scales and the magistrates need to be seen to be handing out 'punishments' in line with these. Again, they will alway be aware of a defendant's right to appeal by way of case stated.
justinp1 said:
The reason why they publicise and vociferously tell you in the trafpol car is that if more people decided to question the reasings and go to court, the system would clog up and fail. This is why the financial figures are set as they are, £60 is not too much to forget about, and a few hundred quid is just enough to make it not worthwhile!
The Conditional Offer of Fixed Penalty is just that - its an offer. You do not have to accept it and you can exercise your right to fair trial.
If the BiB tell you that the courts could not cope with the workload if people exercised this right, then the Conditional Offer is a hollow promise and a sham. The courts MUST allow people to exercise their rights - its not for the police to decide that or to try and 'persuade' people to meekly roll over and accept guilt.
justinp1 said:
the 'Beyond a reasonable amount' argument is also quite correct. However as I said before in practice the courts can only give one outcome. The prosecution shows the device is 'Type Approved', shows the officer has been trained and that the ACPO guidelines for usage are not legally needed to be adhered to!
Guidelines are guidelines, not rules. The scammers only want your money. Of course they are not going to play fair....
justinp1 said:
But, 'type approval, training yada yada...' would mean that they cannot go against the grain as the courts assume that these things have been taken into consideration and tested for! It would also mean that thousands of other convictions are unsafe. Worse than that the devices are still in use as we speak, wrongly convicting people. That is where the scandal lies.
The LTI20-20 type approval never included testing for slip factor errors, AFAIK. That, I agree, is scandalous...
>> Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 13th September 11:10
Hi,
To start with i must point out that I completely agree with all the points you make. The problem is, what is fair and right is different to how these rights are implemented and what they mean in practice.
As I have explained the ACPO guidelines for the use of the devices are also made freely available for the public as they say in them that one of their uses is so that members of the public are able to understand and can ascertain if a device which has been used against them was used properly. That is great freedom of information but if the police dont need to follow the said guidelines while they take evidence it is really a waste of money.
And you are also correct that in the police car you will always be informed to your right to a fair trial. However, whilst you are weighing up the pros and cons you are weighing up 3 points and £60 now even if you are completely innocent compared to up to 6 points a £200 fine and £100 court costs if you go to court and lose. And that is if you chose to represent yourself, otherwise also include your solicitors costs.
You are also correct in saying that you can appeal against the magistrates decision, which is exactly what I did.
The outcome was that the decision about 'type approval, training, ACPO only guidelines etc' was identical, in fact the judges took less than 5 minutes to deliberate over a two hour trial. However I also appealed against the points and these were reduced to 4 points.
However, the cost of that was my fine now also included the crown court costs, an additional £275, and now also my solicitors costs as at crown court you need a barrister. All in all my appeal cost an additional £1200 not including my time off work for the day in court and helping them prepare the case.
Your rights are certainly there. The problem is it is not worthwhile or financially viable to pursue them. In hindsight there is no doubt in my mind that although I am completely innocent I should have taken the £60 and 3 points when I had the chance. I am sorry to say that if that is the case then that is very, very wrong.
Thats because its about revenue not road safety! The whole legal system nationally is a farce, the law seems to work against the 'honest individual' and is almost like it is made as inflexible as possible so that we have no chance of defending ourselves, we just have to take whatever punishment the magistrate decides to give us like good little children!, I used to look up to and respect the Police and the Legal System in general, whats going wrong???????
In cases where it basically comes down to your word against theirs (Police), how many examples out of a thousand would the verdict go in favour of Joe Public..........
mmmmmmmm I wonder.
>> Edited by cerby4.5 on Tuesday 13th September 13:31
In cases where it basically comes down to your word against theirs (Police), how many examples out of a thousand would the verdict go in favour of Joe Public..........
mmmmmmmm I wonder. >> Edited by cerby4.5 on Tuesday 13th September 13:31
cerby4.5 said:
Thats because its about revenue not road safety! The whole legal system nationally is a farce, the law seems to work against the 'honest individual' and is almost like it is made as inflexible as possible so that we have no chance of defending ourselves, we just have to take whatever punishment the magistrate decides to give us like good little children!, I used to look up to and respect the Police and the Legal System in general, whats going wrong???????
In cases where it basically comes down to your word against theirs (Police), how many examples out of a thousand would the verdict go in favour of Joe Public..........
>> Edited by cerby4.5 on Tuesday 13th September 13:31
It might happen, but not in speeding cases, they make too much money!
The only other time I defended myself in court was when I was turning right at a box junction (thus driven past the lights and waiting in the centre of the junction) I waited for so long for a safe point to turn the lights changed. Ten seconds later I saw a police car do a U-turn around the junction and follow me...
I thought it was a set-up. I explained to the two officers and the one they were training exactly what happened, their response was to offer me a fixed penalty which I declined. I really thought it was dropped as it was so obviously a set up for an easy cop of a young lad in a nice car. Six months later (minus a day) I got the summons and their written statements. They were so cooked that if I didnt laugh I would have cried. One of them actually said that other cars had to take evasive action so as not to hit me!! In fact they all said the same thing (corroboration!?) that I went through the lights exactly 4 seconds after the alternate lights turned green! Thus I jumped the lights a full six seconds after they turned red, and cut through four lanes of traffic and got through fine, yeah right!
I defended myself in court and cross examined each officer in turn. The magistrate who was actually a crown court judge in summing up discounted two of the officers evidence as rubbish, with the third being debateable and my word against his.
The case was dropped, and even though I could not claim costs, and lost a couple of days off work I was vindicated.
The moral is: If you are not guilty and you know, if you have the time, fight it as much as you can. If it is speeding dont bother, you will only win if you are very rich or very lucky.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Tuesday 13th September 13:59
james_j said:So would I.
I'd be interested to read BIB comment on this, I don't think there has been yet.
I think the response would depend on whether the comment came from a real BiB, or a wannabe.......
destroyer said:
The only muppetry on display here is the rather poor attempt at claimimg the inaccuracy of the device
I think that was his last post!
james_j said:
I'd be interested to read BIB comment on this, I don't think there has been yet.
I'm sure I have read on this forum BIB's defend these devises and basicaly dismiss that there could even be a problem because they are all great super humans who are trained properly.
it may just have been streetcop though.
If it is speeding dont bother, you will only win if you are very rich or very lucky.
This is a good point - what we, the people, need is that lawyer who defended beckham, fergusson, etc to defend a footballer / tv celeb / rich person - can't remember his name, he did have a nickname but i can't remember that either!
Surely he, if anyone, can present evidence such as this and win, thus, overturning other convictions and stopping the use of these cameras.
Also, if there is no luck with our courts, what about the European court? Surely they have no vested interest in the UK police / government making money in this manner?
This is a good point - what we, the people, need is that lawyer who defended beckham, fergusson, etc to defend a footballer / tv celeb / rich person - can't remember his name, he did have a nickname but i can't remember that either!
Surely he, if anyone, can present evidence such as this and win, thus, overturning other convictions and stopping the use of these cameras.
Also, if there is no luck with our courts, what about the European court? Surely they have no vested interest in the UK police / government making money in this manner?
petea said:
If it is speeding dont bother, you will only win if you are very rich or very lucky.
This is a good point - what we, the people, need is that lawyer who defended beckham, fergusson, etc to defend a footballer / tv celeb / rich person - can't remember his name, he did have a nickname but i can't remember that either!
Surely he, if anyone, can present evidence such as this and win, thus, overturning other convictions and stopping the use of these cameras.
Also, if there is no luck with our courts, what about the European court? Surely they have no vested interest in the UK police / government making money in this manner?
The guys name is Nick Freeman. The costs involved are about £450 to look at your case, and if you have one £4000 a day to represent you. If you win you will most likely get most of it back though. He was the first person I contacted.
In the end I spent £1000 on a legal team and lost. I thought I would go for the cheaper option as I thought and was told I had a very good case.
To get to the European court you would still have to go through the appeals procedure, that is Magistrates court, then Crown court, Court of Appeal and one above that again I believe... By that time you would have spent about £8000 at least.
I spoke to my solicitor today with regard to my case and the new expert evidence, and he agreed that there was certainly grounds for my case to be re-opened and submitted to the appeal court. Including the expert witness costs, I am probably looking at £2500 to take the case further which is way out of my financial afford at the moment. The good thing may be though it may be taken as a test case. Thus in future hearings at the lowest level, ie Magistrates court, a common or garden solicitor can quickly make the magistrates aware that the very similar case (ie slip error in handheld devices from a large distance) has already been tried in a higher court. This means that a precedent has been set at a much higher court which they should adhere to.
If I can find a way to continue and win it will mean that someone else in my position could not be scared of hiring a solicitor, they could refer to my case, and then *if* the case continues to court they should win quickly and have their costs covered.
I am thinking of an appeal on here? What do you think?
victormeldrew said:
I am thinking of an appeal on here? What do you think?
I think a spot of "sponsorship" might be in order is what I think.
agreed justin, now when are you gonna wax em?
on a serious note, this is far, far more relevant to Pistonheads and the people who post here than anything else I can think of. It may not be as worthy but you can count me in
petea said:
If it is speeding dont bother, you will only win if you are very rich or very lucky.
From experience - not correct.
petea said:
Also, if there is no luck with our courts, what about the European court? Surely they have no vested interest in the UK police / government making money in this manner?
Watch this space...
>> Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 13th September 21:35
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff