UK LTI20 20 errors proven - on ITV Friday 4th 8pm
Discussion
I have permission to post this
Message from SafeSpeed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The following PR went out today at 11:40 this morning:
PR251: Motorists: you must see Tonight tonight
news: STRICT EMBARGO 12:01am Friday 4th November 2005
Tonight with Trevor Macdonald on ITV this evening (8pm ,all regions) has
crucial information for all motorists. Do not miss it.
The programme addresses motorists fighting back against misused and misapplied
laws. In particular and importantly it addresses problems with an extremely
commonplace laser speed meter.
The film will explain how easy it is for the equipment to give an erroneous
reading.
Safe Speed believes that errors in laser speed meter readings are commonplace.
When errors are commonplace the equipment has been proved to be incapable of
gathering evidence 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as required by law.
With at least 5 million motorists convicted using this equipment in the last
five years the stakes are sky high. Many will have suffered considerable
hardship - ranging from increased insurance premiums to loss of driving
licence. At the high end of the scale people will have lost their jobs and
their homes as a direct consequence.
Paul Smith, founder of the Safe Speed road safety campaign
(www.safespeed.org.uk) said: "I was present as an observer when the team from
Tonight with Trevor MacDonald were testing the LTI2020 laser speed meter. It
is clear to me that the equipment is unsuitable for obtaining legal evidence
against motorists because of the ease with which it can be confused."
"Clearly the Home Office did not adequately test the device before issuing
type approval. That type approval must now be withdrawn immediately. Pending
convictions must be dropped. The present situation is totally unacceptable."
"My advice to motorists is:
* Write to your MP demanding that type approval of the LTI2020 is suspended.
* See a solicitor if you have been accused or convicted based on laser speed
meter evidence.
* Challenge every ongoing case.
* Do not pay the fixed penalty ticket.
* If you have been convicted in the last five years, try to get the case re-
opened.
* If you have suffered losses because of faulty laser speed meter evidence
make a compensation claim."
<ends>
Notes for editors
=================
Tonight with Trevor MacDonald have repeated tests carried out by BBC 'Inside
Out' and The Daily Mail. The findings are always the same. The device makes
mistakes.
Tonight with Trevor MacDonald press enquiries:
===================================
This may now be forwarded anywhere. The embargo applies to broadcast and print media.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>> Edited by smeggy on Friday 4th November 08:13
MrsMiggins said:
The embargo was just to stop the press release going public too early. Tonight want to control the publicity to gain maximum effect. If it became a story too early no-one would watch!
Ah, ok thanks for the reply. Just wondered if I could used it to add strength to the e-mail (i.e. 'The story the Government wanted to squash...' etc.).
Time to distribute then!
www.thenewspaper.com/news/07/749.asp
Third Major Test Shows Laser Speed Guns Inaccurate
ITV tests the popular LTI 20-20 laser speed camera gun and finds it prone to error.
The "Tonight with Trevor Macdonald" show on Britain's ITV network today recreated tests performed by the BBC and Daily Mail newspaper all of which demonstrated how the popular LTI 20-20 Ultralyte speed camera gun is prone to significant error. ITV tested the American-specification version of the device.
"It is clear to me that the equipment is unsuitable for obtaining legal evidence against motorists because of the ease with which it can be confused," explained Safe Speed founder Paul Smith who was present during the testing. "With at least five million motorists convicted using this equipment in the last five years the stakes are sky high."
Paul Sowerby, a resident of Corby, UK explained in the Daily Mail how the inaccuracy of the LTI 20-20 has affected his life. He received a laser speed camera citation for driving 57 MPH in a 50 MPH zone -- even though that speed is within the legally accepted margin of error for speedometers in Britain. Sowerby requested a copy of the photographic evidence against him and discovered his photo displayed the message "ERROR 3," which according to the LTI operation manual means the gun had not been held steady. Ignoring this evidence, a judge assessed three points against Sowerby's license and ordered him to pay £360 (US $635) for taking the case to court.
The Ultralyte laser gun also accused Essex resident Judy Veater of driving 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Her tiny diesel automobile does not have the power to achieve that speed from a full stop in the location at which she was stopped.
Source: THE SPEED GUN BACKLASH (Daily Mail (UK), 11/1/2005)
Third Major Test Shows Laser Speed Guns Inaccurate
ITV tests the popular LTI 20-20 laser speed camera gun and finds it prone to error.
The "Tonight with Trevor Macdonald" show on Britain's ITV network today recreated tests performed by the BBC and Daily Mail newspaper all of which demonstrated how the popular LTI 20-20 Ultralyte speed camera gun is prone to significant error. ITV tested the American-specification version of the device.
"It is clear to me that the equipment is unsuitable for obtaining legal evidence against motorists because of the ease with which it can be confused," explained Safe Speed founder Paul Smith who was present during the testing. "With at least five million motorists convicted using this equipment in the last five years the stakes are sky high."
Paul Sowerby, a resident of Corby, UK explained in the Daily Mail how the inaccuracy of the LTI 20-20 has affected his life. He received a laser speed camera citation for driving 57 MPH in a 50 MPH zone -- even though that speed is within the legally accepted margin of error for speedometers in Britain. Sowerby requested a copy of the photographic evidence against him and discovered his photo displayed the message "ERROR 3," which according to the LTI operation manual means the gun had not been held steady. Ignoring this evidence, a judge assessed three points against Sowerby's license and ordered him to pay £360 (US $635) for taking the case to court.
The Ultralyte laser gun also accused Essex resident Judy Veater of driving 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone. Her tiny diesel automobile does not have the power to achieve that speed from a full stop in the location at which she was stopped.
Source: THE SPEED GUN BACKLASH (Daily Mail (UK), 11/1/2005)
Something about that report bugs me.
Speeding is an absolute offence; there is no legal margin for how much one can exceed the speed limit without being prosecuted. If it can be proven (including effects of tolerance) that he was doing at least 50.1mph then legally he can be prosecuted.
The accepted margin of error for speedos is between 0 to +10%.
For his speedo to be reading 50 whilst doing 57 would have to have an error of -12.3%, 12.3% outside the limit (speedos shouldn’t under-read at all). I believe such an incorrect speedo is no defence in law.
thenewspaper.com said:
He received a laser speed camera citation for driving 57 MPH in a 50 MPH zone -- even though that speed is within the legally accepted margin of error for speedometers in Britain.
Speeding is an absolute offence; there is no legal margin for how much one can exceed the speed limit without being prosecuted. If it can be proven (including effects of tolerance) that he was doing at least 50.1mph then legally he can be prosecuted.
The accepted margin of error for speedos is between 0 to +10%.
For his speedo to be reading 50 whilst doing 57 would have to have an error of -12.3%, 12.3% outside the limit (speedos shouldn’t under-read at all). I believe such an incorrect speedo is no defence in law.
Peter Ward said:Yes – instability of samples after acquisition. However, after reading that article carefully, it suggests that the error was only during the identification photo, hence it is meaningless so long as the first photo had the speed (without error). I’m afraid that won’t stand up in court.
...though presumably "ERROR 3" would normally indicate some sort of problem with the reading?
There is so much misinformation........
smeggy said:
...though presumably "ERROR 3" would normally indicate some sort of problem with the reading?
There is so much misinformation........
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the speed gun got a correct reading on the car but no photo, then the gun was again pointed at the car to get a photo and received the ERROR 3 reading. The speed recorded in the photo was invalid but the speed from the first use was used to prosecute even though there was no photo.
How could you prove that the recorded speed relates to the car in the photo, if the speed and photo resulted from use on two different occasions?
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 4th November 17:49
Peter Ward said:Apologies if I wasn't clear.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the speed gun got a correct reading on the car but no photo, then the gun was again pointed at the car to get a photo and received the ERROR 3 reading. The speed recorded in the photo was invalid but the speed from the first use was used to prosecute even though there was no photo.
How could you prove that the recorded speed relates to the car in the photo, if the speed and photo resulted from use on two different occasions?
>> Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 4th November 17:49
Two photos (video frames) were taken (one second apart), the first containing the valid speed measurement, the second used for driver ID; this is usual practice.
[edit]
I have scans of that article here (done previously for SS):
www.geocities.com/supraman2954/1.jpg
www.geocities.com/supraman2954/2.jpg
(right click and save as)
The second submission is the relevant one.
>> Edited by smeggy on Friday 4th November 18:21
smeggy said:
Something about that report bugs me.
thenewspaper.com said:
He received a laser speed camera citation for driving 57 MPH in a 50 MPH zone -- even though that speed is within the legally accepted margin of error for speedometers in Britain.
Speeding is an absolute offence; there is no legal margin for how much one can exceed the speed limit without being prosecuted. If it can be proven (including effects of tolerance) that he was doing at least 50.1mph then legally he can be prosecuted.
The accepted margin of error for speedos is between 0 to +10%.
For his speedo to be reading 50 whilst doing 57 would have to have an error of -12.3%, 12.3% outside the limit (speedos shouldn’t under-read at all). I believe such an incorrect speedo is no defence in law.
The Daily Mail took the 57 in a 50 story from a letter sent to them which was republished recently, it didn't come from anywhere else (I would hope not!). The letter was a rant that they were sent a ticket for 57 in a 50 when the threshold is "+10% +2mph" - either the DM or the person wring a letter (incorrectly) assumed it was related to the accuracy speedometers. In any case, the threshold is the minimum speed, so prosecuting for 57mph in a 50 is permissable under the ACPO guidelines, as is 35mph in a 30, 79 in a 70 etc...
Gareth
g_attrill said:The problem is, the ACPO guidelines are just that: guidelines - they aren't rules. A PHer was done at 34 on a road local to me. IIRC, another PHer was done at 76 on a motorway
The Daily Mail took the 57 in a 50 story from a letter sent to them which was republished recently, it didn't come from anywhere else (I would hope not!). The letter was a rant that they were sent a ticket for 57 in a 50 when the threshold is "+10% +2mph" - either the DM or the person wring a letter (incorrectly) assumed it was related to the accuracy speedometers. In any case, the threshold is the minimum speed, so prosecuting for 57mph in a 50 is permissable under the ACPO guidelines, as is 35mph in a 30, 79 in a 70 etc...
Gareth
The same guy was featured on Inside Out recently, but restricted to a few regions.
That was a much better programme and included Prof John Brignell, of numberwatch fame, who estimated that one of those cameras needs to move only a fraction of the width of a human hair to give a false reading at working distances.
Elsewhere, it's reported that an 80 year old scientist, who still acts as consultant to West Midlands(?) police, is to challenge the camera in Court. He says it's openly accepted in scientific circles that the camera is crap.
Challenges up to now have been shot down by an expert witness....the guy who imports the camera. Who happens to be an ex cop......
That was a much better programme and included Prof John Brignell, of numberwatch fame, who estimated that one of those cameras needs to move only a fraction of the width of a human hair to give a false reading at working distances.
Elsewhere, it's reported that an 80 year old scientist, who still acts as consultant to West Midlands(?) police, is to challenge the camera in Court. He says it's openly accepted in scientific circles that the camera is crap.
Challenges up to now have been shot down by an expert witness....the guy who imports the camera. Who happens to be an ex cop......
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff