LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me

[catso]

Beggarall said:

I therefore suggest you ask them to provide all the evidence which probably means having to plead "not guilty". Do you have time and energy to stick to your guns!

I don't see why you can't ask for the evidence, go to court and then still plead Guilty if the evidence shows that to be the case?

I had to go to court over a speeding offence and my Solicitor got the video evidence (in fact the case was postponed 3 times due to them not sending it), but I was still able to plead 'Guilty at the earliest possible opportunity' - the only difference being that I did not elect to go to court, I was summoned to do so.

>> Edited by catso on Sunday 14th May 13:39

[BliarOut]

Flat in Fifth said:

Also in full nit-picking mode. They are in default of the code of practice in not blacking out the remainder of the passenger compartment. The front seat passenger features appear to be edited but it looks as if a back seat passenger is recognisable? 16. Safety Camera Enforcement, Office Procedures 16.2 The Use of Front Photography in Road Policing Enforcement "For that reason the following protocol drafted in 1996 by the ACPO (RP) Traffic Enforcement Technology Sub-Committee. Any force which uses or, considers the use, of front or simultaneous photography must adhere to its principles." 16.3 The Protocol (f) The displayed image will only show that part of the vehicle, which permits the identification of the driver with the remainder of the passenger compartment obscured. Nits picked and flicked.

Wasn't that introduced in case Prescott was ever caught speeding?

[justinp1]

catso said:

Beggarall said: I therefore suggest you ask them to provide all the evidence which probably means having to plead "not guilty". Do you have time and energy to stick to your guns! I don't see why you can't ask for the evidence, go to court and then still plead Guilty if the evidence shows that to be the case? I had to go to court over a speeding offence and my Solicitor got the video evidence (in fact the case was postponed 3 times due to them not sending it), but I was still able to plead 'Guilty at the earliest possible opportunity' - the only difference being that I did not elect to go to court, I was summoned to do so. >> Edited by catso on Sunday 14th May 13:39

This is quite correct. If you believe that you were not doing this speed, you have every right to see the full evidence that the Laser operator used to gather his 'opinion of excess speed' and the evidence recorded on the video.

I think this case has a lot going for it. The operator *must* form an opinion of excess speed before using the device. Often these cases have been dropped as the accused has stood their ground and kept repeatedly asking for the *full* video tape of the recording session. This will show this and can be used as evidence in this case. The operator has either used the lenses to get his opinion of speed, thus an object coming straight towrds him which is difficult enough or he did his assessment with the naked eye before using the device. However this would mean that he would have to be so sure for evicential purposes that he should be able to swear on oath he was sure you were speeding from a distance of a kilometre away, which is utter tripe.

A good motoring lawyer will get this case dropped either before court or very quickly otherwise with you costs paid. There are simply too many 'iffy' factors which would mean that the CPS may not win, and the more there are, then the less likely they will want to go to court and be publically embarressed.

I have defended myself in an LTI2020 case and got very close, and I believe that if the politics around the device were a little different by barrister would have certainly won at appeal. There was no video evidence in that case and focussed around the officers cast iron memory of the exact events and testing on the day. He remembered so much out of the day, or the revision of the day according to the ACPO Code book which the CPS brief went over with him, that he forgot what colour my car was! This wouldnt be so bad if it was not a bright yellow TVR!

In my experience I would go for it. The video can only work in your favour, and most of the time the CPS will drop the case before letting you have it. If you have the finances I would let a specialist handle the case as it does tend to take over your life if you have to handle it yourself!

[Peter Ward]

Thanks, PHers, for your considered opinions. I appreciate your time to think through the position for me.

The roads north of Brandon are pretty straight but with some bends between the straights. The straights have excellent visibility. That particular bend also has good visibility and is why I was over the centre-line of the bend to straighten out the corner -- I could see there was nothing close coming the other way. I do remember that.

I don't think I was doing 77mph at that time. The bend is wide and open but that I don't recall taking that bend at 77mph. But I couldn't state that I wasn't over 60 at the time.

The comments about speed vs. distance are interesting. I don't recall slowing down between that bend and the position of the van (which I didn't see) but that doesn't mean that I didn't. I certainly couldn't prove that I didn't.

So it looks like I would need a copy of the video in order to prove sufficient to get me off this. At the bottom of the sheet containing the 2 photos (no, I don't know what happened to NR02 either!), it says "In LTI 20/20 cases the images are reproduced from the original evidential video recording. They are NOT produced as prima facie evidence".

I guess therefore that I have to ask for a copy of the video. I presume I will have to respond to the NIP, receive the conditional offer, and then reply Not Guilty to get it?

The problem is I'm very busy at work and at home at present, and I'm not sure I have the time/energy to fight. If it were for my 6th or 9th points it would be different, but everyone has 3 points now don't they? Perhaps it's just too much trouble. I'll think about it.

Thanks again for your help. It's nice to have friends.

[cptsideways]

I'd ask to see the full evidence!, that being the FULL video. Compare the distance with other cars in the video. Also I would assume you may have been pinged more than once, would be interesting to see what that reveals.

You could easily calculate your distance/time/speed using the evidence supplied I'm pretty sure.

Also the cross hairs are not necessarily where the laser is pointing, depending on how the camera & LTI are set up, the cross hairs are pre-imposed by the video camera. Many operators will use the TV screen to aim with & misalignment is easy to do. This should be checked upon initial operation, by panning the LTI with its beeper/beam rebound test function and this test should really be seen in the video!. If the video shows any panning during the ping moment it could be pointing at anything, don't forget white linage is just as reflective as number plates And panning an LTI can give hugely spurious readings.

Just this week whilst testing out my new laser gun, (privately owned I hasten to add) panning across my car from a 30m range I received a speed reading of 647mph!!!! yes it really is that easy to get false readings.

ALWAYS ASK FOR THE EVIDENCE!!!!


>> Edited by cptsideways on Sunday 14th May 17:17

[catso]

Peter Ward said:

I don't think I was doing 77mph at that time. The bend is wide and open but that I don't recall taking that bend at 77mph. But I couldn't state that I wasn't over 60 at the time.

You shouldn't need to prove that you were doing less than 60, but if you can prove (or raise enough doubt) that you were not doing 77 then that should be sufficient?

Or am I missing something here.

[Deltafox]

Peter Ward said:

it says "In LTI 20/20 cases the images are reproduced from the original evidential video recording. They are NOT produced as prima facie evidence".

So if its NOT the original images, who's to say theyre not altered?

[justinp1]

catso said:

Peter Ward said: I don't think I was doing 77mph at that time. The bend is wide and open but that I don't recall taking that bend at 77mph. But I couldn't state that I wasn't over 60 at the time. You shouldn't need to prove that you were doing less than 60, but if you can prove (or raise enough doubt) that you were not doing 77 then that should be sufficient? Or am I missing something here.

That is perfectly correct. There is a big myth before you get to court that you have to prove your case. This is not true. All you have to do is show that there is reasonable doubt in the case of the CPS or put doubt in some of their evidence.

A point i have just thought of is that after the LTI2020 is produced, the only tests it needs to have is an annual check it can measure the distance of a stationary object at up to 100 metres away. On a day to day basis the device also needs to be checked on a stationary object such as a post usually at 20 metres away. The CPS will need to produce written evidence that this was carried out before and after the tour of duty. The point is that even if this was carried out, if the alignment was 10cm out at 20 metres, which is quite possible, at that kind of distance it would give an error between the crosshairs and where the beam actually is of about 4 metres.

If it were me i would fight this one....!

[deeps]

Hard luck Peter, a sickening waste of resources to catch someone driving perfectly safely.

Like FIF said, the scam van must have been parked some distance from the road, I guess sideways on down a track and shooting through a gap in the hedge/trees. Impossible to spot and contributing absolutely nothing to the safety of that road.

[smeggy]

Chaps,

The ‘01’ and the ‘03’ is the frame count. There are 50 New Records (frames) in 1 second of video.


Peter,

your only defence is demonstrating that the gun could have been vertically misaligned, hence instead swept across the road in front of your car; add slip and you're done. I could put you in touch with someone who just recently won his case (this is not released news so I have to seek permission first).

There is more but I prefer not to say in public

If you believe you were not speeding, then your best bet is to plead not guilty and demand the evidence. If you genuinely were not speeding, the SCP will not release potentially self-incriminating evidence to you and they will drop your case.

[Flat in Fifth]

BliarOut said:

Wasn't that introduced in case Prescott was ever caught speeding?

No I think it was introduced in case Prescott's* driver was ever caught speeding.

* alt. Gwyneth Dunwoody

[Flat in Fifth]

smeggy said:

The ‘01’ and the ‘03’ is the frame count. There are 50 New Records (frames) in 1 second of video.

Thanks for that explanation S.

Just so I am clear. Those two shots just happen to be the first and third frame in those particular seconds of footage and could have read anything from 01 to 50. Yes?

Secondly if PW does get the video then the time in connection with the NR frame count could be used to get very accurate timing between measured marks then?

FiF

[smeggy]

Flat in Fifth said:

Just so I am clear. Those two shots just happen to be the first and third frame in those particular seconds of footage

Or 2nd and 4th, I can't remember the counter starts at 0 or 1

Flat in Fifth said:

and could have read anything from 01 to 50. Yes?

It's either 01 to 50 or 00 to 49

Flat in Fifth said:

Secondly if PW does get the video then the time in connection with the NR frame count could be used to get very accurate timing between measured marks then?

The video will track whatever the camera is producing. The camera should be very precise and accurate (quartz driven), so yes.

[hertsbiker]

If they can photo-edit the passenger, why not the speed, or the plate??

[Deltafox]

hertsbiker said:

If they can photo-edit the passenger, why not the speed, or the plate??

Spot on.

[Flat in Fifth]

Deltafox said:

hertsbiker said: If they can photo-edit the passenger, why not the speed, or the plate?? Spot on.

Calm down girls.

16.3 The Protocol
(g) The initial image, recorded by the device at the time of the alleged offence, will always remain in its total and unaltered condition as the 'best evidence' for subsequent production in Court if necessary.

[turbobloke]

No worries FiF, the ladies are laid back hang on is that Modallowed and Tedproof...

[blueyes]

Had a similar problem with an accusation of speeding for my neice.

They provided a distant and close up photo. The distant one showed the car and speed but NO plate. The close up showed the drivers face and car plate but NO speed (just TIMEOUT in the bottom corner)

I wrote back and asked them for a photo showing BOTH of the following: car plate and speed.

Case dropped.


Worth a try.

[Peter Ward]

blueyes said:

Had a similar problem with an accusation of speeding for my neice. They provided a distant and close up photo. The distant one showed the car and speed but NO plate. The close up showed the drivers face and car plate but NO speed (just TIMEOUT in the bottom corner) I wrote back and asked them for a photo showing BOTH of the following: car plate and speed. Case dropped. Worth a try.

That does appear to be just too easy. With an unbroken video of the event you would expect that they would simply run it from start to finish to show that the car remains the same and that as it gets closer the reg plate becomes readable. However yes, it does seem worth a try....

[blueyes]

Peter Ward said:

blueyes said: Had a similar problem with an accusation of speeding for my neice. They provided a distant and close up photo. The distant one showed the car and speed but NO plate. The close up showed the drivers face and car plate but NO speed (just TIMEOUT in the bottom corner) I wrote back and asked them for a photo showing BOTH of the following: car plate and speed. Case dropped. Worth a try. At least it pisses them off, makes them do a bit more work for their 60 quid AND you get some free photos of your car! That does appear to be just too easy. With an unbroken video of the event you would expect that they would simply run it from start to finish to show that the car remains the same and that as it gets closer the reg plate becomes readable. However yes, it does seem worth a try....