Multiple vehicles in LT120-20 scammer picture
Discussion
My wife has received a NIP, asked for evidence, and surprisingly received it, along with a conditional offer 
The picture clearly shows two vehicles - in fact my wife was just exiting a corner (prior operator judgement of speed my arse), and the other vehicle is going round the corner the other way, and part of this other vehicle is obscured by the wifes car - its rear number plate is not visible.
Acoompanying the pictures and offer was a covering letter which states "We would confirm that all the speed detection equipment used by the Safety Camera Team is calibrated and used in accordance with manufacturers and ACPO guidelines, by fully trained operators, and is approved by the Home Office."
Ahem. ACPO guidelines? The ones that state "Where there is a suggestion in the negative that two or more vehicles are or maybe in the measurement field the reading should be disregarded."?
Comments welcomed!
The picture clearly shows two vehicles - in fact my wife was just exiting a corner (prior operator judgement of speed my arse), and the other vehicle is going round the corner the other way, and part of this other vehicle is obscured by the wifes car - its rear number plate is not visible.
Acoompanying the pictures and offer was a covering letter which states "We would confirm that all the speed detection equipment used by the Safety Camera Team is calibrated and used in accordance with manufacturers and ACPO guidelines, by fully trained operators, and is approved by the Home Office."
Ahem. ACPO guidelines? The ones that state "Where there is a suggestion in the negative that two or more vehicles are or maybe in the measurement field the reading should be disregarded."?
Comments welcomed!
I think this case is definately fightable.
Firstly, was your wife really doing under the limit? If the LTI is *correct* this would mean that the car speedo would be probably showing 40.
If she is sure that she was doing 30 then I would try to fight it. With regard to the speed reading on the image, cars moving away from the camera have a minus sign before their speed.
I have tried to fight an LTI2020 case at magistrates and crown court. Despite having as many faults with the setup, testing and use as possible, still lost.
However, although the chances of fighting this case in a 'common sense' way are slim, for example the CPS wont play ball and give you enough evidence to fight it anyway...
The best way is to make it as difficult as possible for them to continue and the most chance of making an error and stuffing up, or giving up. My next port of call would be to write back, mention that you are unsure who was driving and ask them for a *full* video recording that the stills were taken from. They are reluctant to do this as basically it will probably show that no prior assessment of speed has been taken prior to speed reading, and that propably went on like that all day. The video may also show some set-up and use errors which may be embarrassing.
Firstly, was your wife really doing under the limit? If the LTI is *correct* this would mean that the car speedo would be probably showing 40.
If she is sure that she was doing 30 then I would try to fight it. With regard to the speed reading on the image, cars moving away from the camera have a minus sign before their speed.
I have tried to fight an LTI2020 case at magistrates and crown court. Despite having as many faults with the setup, testing and use as possible, still lost.
However, although the chances of fighting this case in a 'common sense' way are slim, for example the CPS wont play ball and give you enough evidence to fight it anyway...
The best way is to make it as difficult as possible for them to continue and the most chance of making an error and stuffing up, or giving up. My next port of call would be to write back, mention that you are unsure who was driving and ask them for a *full* video recording that the stills were taken from. They are reluctant to do this as basically it will probably show that no prior assessment of speed has been taken prior to speed reading, and that propably went on like that all day. The video may also show some set-up and use errors which may be embarrassing.
Prior assesment of speed? I don't think so.
I can't tell who is driving either, just a blob of over-exposed pixels.
Shame there were no signs suggesting a camera ahead, which is surely in the guidelines?
Lets just hope the camera operator later contracted scrotum rot from sitting on his arse all day doing no good for bugger all! Clearly if people are speeding there (which they are), then they are not preventing people from slowing at an accident blackspot (the corner?), and so being negligent to road safety!
F**kers! Why our government supports such ineffective road safety policy is beyond me. Ah, gravy train... makes sense now.
Dave
I can't tell who is driving either, just a blob of over-exposed pixels.
Shame there were no signs suggesting a camera ahead, which is surely in the guidelines?
Lets just hope the camera operator later contracted scrotum rot from sitting on his arse all day doing no good for bugger all! Clearly if people are speeding there (which they are), then they are not preventing people from slowing at an accident blackspot (the corner?), and so being negligent to road safety!
F**kers! Why our government supports such ineffective road safety policy is beyond me. Ah, gravy train... makes sense now.
Dave
justinp1 said:Unfortunately she has already admitted she was the driver. I was passenger (in the back with our son).
I think this case is definately fightable.
Firstly, was your wife really doing under the limit? If the LTI is *correct* this would mean that the car speedo would be probably showing 40.
If she is sure that she was doing 30 then I would try to fight it. With regard to the speed reading on the image, cars moving away from the camera have a minus sign before their speed.
I have tried to fight an LTI2020 case at magistrates and crown court. Despite having as many faults with the setup, testing and use as possible, still lost.
However, although the chances of fighting this case in a 'common sense' way are slim, for example the CPS wont play ball and give you enough evidence to fight it anyway...
The best way is to make it as difficult as possible for them to continue and the most chance of making an error and stuffing up, or giving up. My next port of call would be to write back, mention that you are unsure who was driving and ask them for a *full* video recording that the stills were taken from. They are reluctant to do this as basically it will probably show that no prior assessment of speed has been taken prior to speed reading, and that propably went on like that all day. The video may also show some set-up and use errors which may be embarrassing.
We're pretty sure that she was at 30mph, but as time goes on you do start to doubt your memory ... at the time we were both sure she was doing an indicated 30mph, we had a conversation about the mobile camera, its placement on the exit of a 30mph limit vs entry and how that related to improving road safety, and how a lot of people would get caught there. We were 100% certain my wife wasn't one of them.
I'm tempted to write back and point out the discrepancy between the picture and the claim to adhere to ACPO guidelines, highlighting the ACPO guideline being breached, and ask for further (i.e. video) evidence so corroborate the still. As you say, they are unlikely to respond, but nothing ventured nothing gained.
victormeldrew said:
Acoompanying the pictures and offer was a covering letter which states "We would confirm that all the speed detection equipment used by the Safety Camera Team is calibrated and used in accordance with manufacturers and ACPO guidelines, by fully trained operators, and is approved by the Home Office."
Ahem. ACPO guidelines? The ones that state "Where there is a suggestion in the negative that two or more vehicles are or maybe in the measurement field the reading should be disregarded."?
I could be wrong and I haven't checked, but I thought that section of the guidelines referred to radar detection devices, not laser...
The ACPO "Code of Practice" repeat after me "Code of Practice" NOT guidelines does state that more than one vehicle in the measurement zone readings should be disregarded.
This is referred in two places, the protocol for operation of hand held radar devices, but it is not included in that for laser devices. I suspect this is because they want to maintain that the measurement zone is so small, ie maintaining the fiction in magistrates brains that being laser the measurement zone is a tiny red dot.
However the two vehicles bit is also mentioned in the section relating to back office protocol.
So by saying that the device is operated according to guidelines.........
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 19th January 12:15
This is referred in two places, the protocol for operation of hand held radar devices, but it is not included in that for laser devices. I suspect this is because they want to maintain that the measurement zone is so small, ie maintaining the fiction in magistrates brains that being laser the measurement zone is a tiny red dot.
However the two vehicles bit is also mentioned in the section relating to back office protocol.
So by saying that the device is operated according to guidelines.........
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 19th January 12:15
SS2. said:Yes, thanks for that, you are right. Still, why let facts get in the way of a good argument!
Acoompanying the pictures and offer was a covering letter which states "We would confirm that all the speed detection equipment used by the Safety Camera Team is calibrated and used in accordance with manufacturers and ACPO guidelines, by fully trained operators, and is approved by the Home Office."
Ahem. ACPO guidelines? The ones that state "Where there is a suggestion in the negative that two or more vehicles are or maybe in the measurement field the reading should be disregarded."?
I could be wrong and I haven't checked, but I thought that section of the guidelines referred to radar detection devices, not laser...
Flat in Fifth said:
The ACPO "Code of Practice" repeat after me "Code of Practice" NOT guidelines does state that more than one vehicle in the measurement zone readings should be disregarded.
FiF - do you have a reference for that? The only online copy I have calls them Operating Guidelines.
Flat in Fifth said:
The ACPO "Code of Practice" repeat after me "Code of Practice" NOT guidelines does state that more than one vehicle in the measurement zone readings should be disregarded.
This is referred in two places, the protocol for operation of hand held radar devices, but it is not included in that for laser devices. I suspect this is because they want to maintain that the measurement zone is so small, ie maintaining the fiction in magistrates brains that being laser the measurement zone is a tiny red dot.
However the two vehicles bit is also mentioned in the section relating to back office protocol.
So by saying that the device is operated according to guidelines.........
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 19th January 12:15
I completely agree, and I point I have made many times in the past as I have been the wrong end of a CPS brief tell the Judge that the document is called guidelines in court, and thus imply it is an optional requirement to adhere to them...
I would ask the camera body to produce the said document called 'ACPO Guidelines' so that you can check for yourself, with the copy of the full tape.
Edited to add:
Just looked at the picture again, and the video would prove this better, that there is no way that the operator could even guess the speed of a vehicle with any kind of skill. I would ask in court which area of road was used for the prior assessment of speed. However, it is my guess that the full video, if they can be bothered to carry on with the case and send you it, will be instantly targeting each car as it comes into view from around the bend and past the hedge... This would then make the operators statement a load of rubbish.
>> Edited by justinp1 on Thursday 19th January 13:03
7db said:
FiF - do you have a reference for that?
Title: ACPO Code of Practice for Operational use of Enforcement Equipment
Owner: ACPO Road Policing Business Area
Author: ACPO Road Policing Enforcement Technology Committee Implemented: 1 November 2002
Review: 31 December 2005
Version: 2.3 (25 November 2004)
is here
full address in case link fouls up
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Data/RPET%20Manual%20version%202-3.pdf
Edited to add the foreword to the above document
Foreword
The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 required the Home Office Type Approval of evidential radar speed meters. The Road Traffic Act 1991 expanded this provision to allow for the type approval of other devices used in the enforcement of road traffic law.
While Type Approval provides an assurance of the technical accuracy and reliability of a device, devices do need to be properly used. Reliance on instructions from manufacturers alone is insufficient to protect evidential integrity and therefore the Police, in consultation with the Home Office Police Scientific Development Branch (PSDB), have laid down operational standards.
The devices referred to in this Code of Practice, although the subject of rigorous field and laboratory testing, are only as reliable as the user. It is imperative that the procedures set out in this Manual are applied scrupulously - each link in the evidential chain is of importance, and upon its careful application lays the integrity of the Police Service.
These standards are in your hands.
R Brunstrom
Chief Constable
says it all really
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 19th January 13:32
GregE240 said:
I'd battle that all the way, mate.
Which car was the LTI pointing at? How can they prove it was you?
Fight, fight fight!!!!!
Fundamentally they can’t, but the courts won’t care so long as it was noted that alignment was performed.
motco said:
Can't they differentiate between approaching and receding targets then?
Yes. The “* 037 mph” shows an approaching vehicle was targeted; the reading would have been “*-037 mph” had had the vehicle been receding (the “*” means that the pre-set threshold has been exceeded).
Rob-C said:
Theres the potential for a massive slip error if the beam were panned between the receding MPV and the oncoming Audi.
I don’t think slip error occurred between the two cars in this instance. Had the gun slipped from the further to the closer car, the rate of change of distance would have been too great – the 10 meter gap would result with a hugely discontinuous measurement; the error trapping software certainly won’t miss that. E03 all the way I’m afraid!
BliarOut said:
……There's every possibility of a reflection from the larger vehicle in the background.
The LTI will acquire the first reasonable reflection, anything else will be ignored. That Audi looks nice and shiny.
Sorry victormeldrew but I don’t believe you have much of a case to fight (by all means try – you might get the case mysteriously dropped if you insist on seeing the video – including the alignment procedure
) I agree with our resident expert smeggy!
From my experience, fighting such a case from a common sense approach wont get far. However by forcing the CPS to prove each pert of the chain of evidence will give you a good chance they cannot, or do not want to.
In my case, the LTI2020 was not noted whatsoever that the alignment was checked. The PC stood up in court and swore that he could remember back to any day a year ago and swear without doubt that he did not that day, but accoring to the Code, that should not be good enough. The alignment check should also be performed to the instruction manual (they arnt usually), and there is also a secret bit of case law which can be used with regard to the alignment checks, which in many cases disproves the fact that the device was correctly tested for evidential purposes.
There are 3 ways to go about this:
1) Pay up.
2) Make it very difficult, than means repeatedly ask for the same evidence they either refuse or just ignore giving you.
3) Go to court and fight to the end. Get an experienced lawyer who has more specialist knowledge than the CPS brief. Get him to fight the case, as there are no doubt ways of winning the case, or at least disproving at magistrates court level. At Crown court level, if you appeal the playing field evens out, as the CPS barristers are much better, and your case will be tried by an experienced judge.
There is a cost of probably £500-£700 for number 3 though. If you win you will get this back though and be vindicated!
From my experience, fighting such a case from a common sense approach wont get far. However by forcing the CPS to prove each pert of the chain of evidence will give you a good chance they cannot, or do not want to.
In my case, the LTI2020 was not noted whatsoever that the alignment was checked. The PC stood up in court and swore that he could remember back to any day a year ago and swear without doubt that he did not that day, but accoring to the Code, that should not be good enough. The alignment check should also be performed to the instruction manual (they arnt usually), and there is also a secret bit of case law which can be used with regard to the alignment checks, which in many cases disproves the fact that the device was correctly tested for evidential purposes.
There are 3 ways to go about this:
1) Pay up.
2) Make it very difficult, than means repeatedly ask for the same evidence they either refuse or just ignore giving you.
3) Go to court and fight to the end. Get an experienced lawyer who has more specialist knowledge than the CPS brief. Get him to fight the case, as there are no doubt ways of winning the case, or at least disproving at magistrates court level. At Crown court level, if you appeal the playing field evens out, as the CPS barristers are much better, and your case will be tried by an experienced judge.
There is a cost of probably £500-£700 for number 3 though. If you win you will get this back though and be vindicated!
The corner might not be as sharp as it looks on the photograph, but if it is I would have expected more body roll at 37mph. Also, regarding comments about the Audi travelling away from the scamera, it appears to be almost square on, so any reading from it might well be close to zero ... not negative as some have suggested. Slip error remains a possibility.
In reference to magistrates being misled as to the title and therefore the applicability of the APCO Code of Practice, as with all things, take the evidence (and purchase a copy, don't simple download it) with you to refute any such claim by the CPS. Take examples of a Code of Practice being mandated too. BS 7799 is entitled "Code of Pratice ..." and is a British Standard. Maybe the combination will move the magistrates' thoughts away from believing the CPS's erroneous statements.
Streaky
In reference to magistrates being misled as to the title and therefore the applicability of the APCO Code of Practice, as with all things, take the evidence (and purchase a copy, don't simple download it) with you to refute any such claim by the CPS. Take examples of a Code of Practice being mandated too. BS 7799 is entitled "Code of Pratice ..." and is a British Standard. Maybe the combination will move the magistrates' thoughts away from believing the CPS's erroneous statements.
Streaky
streaky said:
The corner might not be as sharp as it looks on the photograph, but if it is I would have expected more body roll at 37mph. Also, regarding comments about the Audi travelling away from the scamera, it appears to be almost square on, so any reading from it might well be close to zero ... not negative as some have suggested. Slip error remains a possibility.
In reference to magistrates being misled as to the title and therefore the applicability of the APCO Code of Practice, as with all things, take the evidence (and purchase a copy, don't simple download it) with you to refute any such claim by the CPS. Take examples of a Code of Practice being mandated too. BS 7799 is entitled "Code of Pratice ..." and is a British Standard. Maybe the combination will move the magistrates' thoughts away from believing the CPS's erroneous statements.
Streaky
I agree with streaky, this is a very good way forward. Whilst you are there ith a copy of the ACPO Code of Practice relevant for this case, also bring in your briefcase a couple more, perhaps one which is relevant to other evidence gathering and one with regard to the detaining of the accused etc.
When the argument comes up that these are 'guidelines', pull out the Code of Practice for the detaining of the accused and pull out a a couple of pre-meditated quotes:
'You must only hold a detainee for X hours... ' - Is that a guideline?
'...use of reasonable and necessary force....' - Is that a guideline?
Or in the field of evidence gathering:
'...the use of gloves in gathering forensic evidence of DNA testing...' Is that a guideline?
I realise that these exact ones my not exist to the letter, but you get the gist.
Similarly, what I was itching to tell my barrister, when it was being argued in court was to ask the PC, where *exactly* the word guidelines is used in the document. It is not used at all, apart from the rlevance of using lasers and heath and safelty guidelines.
Further thought on this.
In this case measurement being questioned from site where targeting near a bend.
Lots of similar cases on M180 site which involves a bend and increased cosine effect.
The case in Cambridgeshire discussed on PH here (volvo / lorry) again a bend and a brow iirc.
Is there a trend developing here?
In this case measurement being questioned from site where targeting near a bend.
Lots of similar cases on M180 site which involves a bend and increased cosine effect.
The case in Cambridgeshire discussed on PH here (volvo / lorry) again a bend and a brow iirc.
Is there a trend developing here?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff