UK LTI20 20 errors proven - on ITV Friday 4th 8pm

[7db]

I think that fact would have been interesting journalistically.

ACPO said the tests weren't valid because we didn't use one of their machines.
We asked if we could test one of their machines.
They declined.

Who looks scared, now?

[tonto]

smeggy said:

g_attrill said: 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 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

A friend of mine got done for doing 31 in a 30 in Brighton as did a work mate in Hartlepool, both about 3 years ago.

[safespeed]

7db said:

I think that fact would have been interesting journalistically. ACPO said the tests weren't valid because we didn't use one of their machines. We asked if we could test one of their machines. They declined. Who looks scared, now?

The broadcast programme was really watered down. They had much more material. Much stronger statements. I'll try to find out how this happened.

[_VTEC_]

safespeed said:

7db said: I think that fact would have been interesting journalistically. ACPO said the tests weren't valid because we didn't use one of their machines. We asked if we could test one of their machines. They declined. Who looks scared, now? The broadcast programme was really watered down. They had much more material. Much stronger statements. I'll try to find out how this happened.

We can hazzard a guess though can't we?

>> Edited by _VTEC_ on Saturday 5th November 01:13

[eccles]

7db said:

"ACPO said - these tests were not carried out on their home office approved and their calibrated equipment" The journalist really dodged the issue there by not asking to borrow one of their devices...

i have to agree there, for the program to be "whiter than white", they should have used a laser thingy that was calibrated by the same people that the plod use, that way there's no opening for people to say it wasn't calibrated the same, or to imply there are differences in the equipment used.

[safespeed]

eccles said:

7db said: "ACPO said - these tests were not carried out on their home office approved and their calibrated equipment" The journalist really dodged the issue there by not asking to borrow one of their devices... i have to agree there, for the program to be "whiter than white", they should have used a laser thingy that was calibrated by the same people that the plod use, that way there's no opening for people to say it wasn't calibrated the same, or to imply there are differences in the equipment used.

Which is EXACTLY the reason that officials refused to co-operate with the programme. They were invited - begged even - to bring their own equipment. Knowing full well that official equipment would fail the tests in the same way they declined.

[_dobbo_]

Just watched this. It seems to me that the program was built around a core statement - that if the authorities are going to apply the letter of the law, then to do so they must obey the letter of the law. We must apply the same standards to them as they are applying to us.

However nobody appeared to make this statement. It was said in a roundabout way by several of the contributors, but it needed someone to look into the camera and say it. The program makers seem to have wimped out.

[stubydoo]

Dear
I wish to comment regarding the recent bad publicity regarding the usage of mobile laser speed cameras, namely the LTI 20/20 lightweight hand held unit - currently used by a number of police forces throughout the Uk.
I believe from the information provided, that these units have been proven , on various occasions , to give out false readings i.e registering vehicles exceeding the speed limit, when in fact, they are not.
This has recently been proved on the National ITV programme, 'Tonight with Trevor McDonald' , which was screened earlier this week, along with other motoring issues which have resulted in wrongly convicted motorists.
Therefore, I respectfully request the Government to carry out an immediate withdrawal of this type of unit until its reliability can be proven, along with a full inquiry as to why such a unit can be allowed to produce evidence leading to the wrongful conviction of motorists, when its reliability is in such doubt.

I await your reply

Mr.



Sent this to my MP - don't hold much hope out though, ours is a Labour held constituency...

[safespeed]

stubydoo said:

Sent this to my MP...

Excellent strategy. A couple of hundred such genuine letters will very likely be sufficient to force some action. It'd be all the better if they were from people who are being prosecuted but have no confidence in the equipment.

Thanks for the email copy.

[stubydoo]

You're welcome - fortunately at present I am a 'clean guy' re speeding convictions, and would like to keep it that way !
Keep up the good work
Stu

[Parrot of doom]

www.writetothem.com/

Easiest way to contact your mp, all online.

[apache]

Done, can one not demand a practical demo in court? it would add a certain amount of weight to your case if you were to have plod laser the judge and show him that according to the device he was doing 46 miles per hour in his chair

[justinp1]

apache said:

Done, can one not demand a practical demo in court? it would add a certain amount of weight to your case if you were to have plod laser the judge and show him that according to the device he was doing 46 miles per hour in his chair

That is the exact reason why the device was banned in most US States. As the legend goes...

Unfortunately, to 'prove the case' all the CPS has to do in practice is show that the device has type approval, and the operator is trained to use it.

Something I have thought of though, is that if it is really that easy to get an honest reading, ie just point it at a car and press the trigger, and the ACPO Code of Practice doesnt need to be followed, what is the point in training these guys?

After all, in my case all the officer actually got right was that he picked it up and pressed the trigger. I can safely say I can do that myself without any training whatsoever.