LTI 20/20 strikes again -- at me
Discussion
Here are two images I've received from Norfolk Constabulary. The mobile camera was on the A1065 just north of Brandon at Weeting. I don't recall seeing the van at all, and nor did my wife who was in the car at the time. It's so annoying, not having any points at present and falling victim to what must have been a camera van on a great -- and safe -- piece of road in this way.
As I'm wondering about fighting this for 3 reasons, I'd value your advice:
1. 745.4m away?!?!?! Is this a valid hit?
2. Is it possible that the signs and other traffic could affect the reading?
3. Does my SUV look like it's coming round the corner at 77mph?
Now I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm the driver, unlike a few years ago when I think my registration had been cloned. However, I'm not convinced that I was doing 77mph on this occasion. I'd like to fight this, but I'm also very well aware that this will cost time and money and I'm likely to fail simply because the camera never lies, so I do want to be sure it's worth the risk.
BTW I've read the Pepipoo letter re PACE and that might be worth trying, but my main point here is the distance and accuracy of the hit.
Thanks, people!
As I'm wondering about fighting this for 3 reasons, I'd value your advice:
1. 745.4m away?!?!?! Is this a valid hit?
2. Is it possible that the signs and other traffic could affect the reading?
3. Does my SUV look like it's coming round the corner at 77mph?
Now I'm happy to acknowledge that I'm the driver, unlike a few years ago when I think my registration had been cloned. However, I'm not convinced that I was doing 77mph on this occasion. I'd like to fight this, but I'm also very well aware that this will cost time and money and I'm likely to fail simply because the camera never lies, so I do want to be sure it's worth the risk.
BTW I've read the Pepipoo letter re PACE and that might be worth trying, but my main point here is the distance and accuracy of the hit.
Thanks, people!
Peter Ward said:
As I'm wondering about fighting this for 3 reasons, I'd value your advice:
1. 745.4m away?!?!?! Is this a valid hit?
2. Is it possible that the signs and other traffic could affect the reading?
3. Does my SUV look like it's coming round the corner at 77mph?
INAL and happy to be proved wrong but this is the first pic I've seen at a range >400m. The operator has taken a speed reading and then taken a second picture for identification. This would raise serious questions over continuity of evidence. I would speak to a specialist motoring lawyer but I think you have a good chance of the legality of the evidence.
Just at little bit of info,unless my maths is wrong
the time between the two pics is 24 seconds
At 77mph you travel 0.0213888 miles per second
Distance travelled 0.0213888 x 24 = 0.51333miles = 826 meters
So the distance from you to the camera van started at 745.4 meters
Yet the second picture shows you still well infront of the camera but a steady 77mph would put it behind you
So if you assume maximum distance travelled between the two photos is 745.4meters (i know its less but bear with me) in 24 seconds,which is 31 meters per second equals 121.21kmh or 69.11mph
So unless you came round the corner at brakeneck speed and threw on the anchors its wrong
Unless my maths is wrong
the time between the two pics is 24 seconds
At 77mph you travel 0.0213888 miles per second
Distance travelled 0.0213888 x 24 = 0.51333miles = 826 meters
So the distance from you to the camera van started at 745.4 meters
Yet the second picture shows you still well infront of the camera but a steady 77mph would put it behind you
So if you assume maximum distance travelled between the two photos is 745.4meters (i know its less but bear with me) in 24 seconds,which is 31 meters per second equals 121.21kmh or 69.11mph
So unless you came round the corner at brakeneck speed and threw on the anchors its wrong
Unless my maths is wrong
Peter - I'll answer your questions directly, but please bear in mind I'm no longer Traffic, so my info may be out of date.
1. Yes, AFAIK, the LTI can operate up to 999.9metres - you just bob a longer lens on the camera for the longer distances.
2. It's possible, but I wouldn't like to give a definitive answer.
3. IN the pics, it looks like you're on the straight. It looks like your car is a Subaru Forester, and they're not too shabby at speed, are they? It's tricky to tell how sharp the bend is because of foreshortening (or whatever the correct rem is) in the photo, so if you were accelerating out of the bend, it could be possible. I suppose only you would really know what you could get round that particular band at in that particular car.
It's possible that the second "photo" is merely a still for ID, taken from the video which should be running constantly while the kit is in use.
And as for the Speed/time/distance calculations other posters have suggested, it's possible that Peter slowed down (for whatever reason) after the first pic, which may explain while he was still in view.
I hope the above hasn't come across as conforntational, I'm just trying to answer Peter's questions as best as I can with my (now outdated) experience. If it were me, and I wasn't happy with it, I think I'd consider a specialist solicitor.
1. Yes, AFAIK, the LTI can operate up to 999.9metres - you just bob a longer lens on the camera for the longer distances.
2. It's possible, but I wouldn't like to give a definitive answer.
3. IN the pics, it looks like you're on the straight. It looks like your car is a Subaru Forester, and they're not too shabby at speed, are they? It's tricky to tell how sharp the bend is because of foreshortening (or whatever the correct rem is) in the photo, so if you were accelerating out of the bend, it could be possible. I suppose only you would really know what you could get round that particular band at in that particular car.
It's possible that the second "photo" is merely a still for ID, taken from the video which should be running constantly while the kit is in use.
And as for the Speed/time/distance calculations other posters have suggested, it's possible that Peter slowed down (for whatever reason) after the first pic, which may explain while he was still in view.
I hope the above hasn't come across as conforntational, I'm just trying to answer Peter's questions as best as I can with my (now outdated) experience. If it were me, and I wasn't happy with it, I think I'd consider a specialist solicitor.
I wasn't suggesting Peter did slow down, I was just hypothesising why the car might still be in shot in the time difference shown. For the sake of balance, I should have also mentioned that there is possibly a fault with the equipment, as well as the possibility that Peter had slowed (and he needn't have slowed because of the camera/van, he could have been dealing with any other hazard).
Re the signs:
The ACPO guidelines specifically say you shouldn't be using the gun with signs in case of reflection. You need two pictures with time and distance to cross check the speed reading. They are supposed to check the readings for validity but frequently don't. Interesting how the information they give you isn't good enough to allow you to check if you are actually speeding. I wonder why that is
The ACPO guidelines specifically say you shouldn't be using the gun with signs in case of reflection. You need two pictures with time and distance to cross check the speed reading. They are supposed to check the readings for validity but frequently don't. Interesting how the information they give you isn't good enough to allow you to check if you are actually speeding. I wonder why that is
BliarOut said:
Re the signs:
The ACPO guidelines specifically say you shouldn't be using the gun with signs in case of reflection. You need two pictures with time and distance to cross check the speed reading. They are supposed to check the readings for validity but frequently don't. Interesting how the information they give you isn't good enough to allow you to check if you are actually speeding. I wonder why that is
Hmmm not sure about that.
The signs thing relates to devices using radar.
For laser and optical devices the only restrictions are that the beam should not be projected through glass or mirrors. Also they should be operated from within 10 feet of the edge of the carriageway. Looks at photo and
Also for the penalty back office the protocol states that "Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded."
I don't know enough to say whether the two other vehicles in the photo could have an effect.
Of course, the road is at best NSL, and as a single carriageway that is 60mph.
I looked at Google Earth and it seems to me that the road in question is pretty damn straight! Amazing what exaggeration results from a long focus lens.
If it were me I'd go to the site and do some measuring and angle calculation.
>> Edited by motco on Sunday 14th May 12:38
I looked at Google Earth and it seems to me that the road in question is pretty damn straight! Amazing what exaggeration results from a long focus lens.
If it were me I'd go to the site and do some measuring and angle calculation.
>> Edited by motco on Sunday 14th May 12:38
Peter Ward said:
Sorry above post should have read three other vehicles in the photos.
Now what does the 01 and the 03 to the right of the time refer to?
Do these relate to readings? ie there is another ping between the two?
If so, possible scenario.
Ping one, 77 mph at a fair old distance, possible slip or other error.
Ping two, shows lower possibly legal speed. Operator ignores
Ping three, id shot.
Ping two being a lower speed would explain why vehicle not past camera according to time distance calcs.
Whole vidoe needs to be provided and seen methinks.
and what is the betting that if you or your brief insists on the whole video the case gets dropped?
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 14th May 12:55
Assuming the video was running continuously, then between Pic 1 and Pic 2 it looks like the other 3 vehicles will have crossed between you and the scamera - so continuity of evidence will have been lost. From my reading in pepipoo the scamerati are very reluctant to hand over the full video record (because it is surmised that the operators wave their hairdryers around in a fairly indiscriminate manner and are not too keen to for this to be in the public domaine). 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!
Flat in Fifth said:I'll bow to your wisdom there FiF
Re the signs:
The ACPO guidelines specifically say you shouldn't be using the gun with signs in case of reflection. You need two pictures with time and distance to cross check the speed reading. They are supposed to check the readings for validity but frequently don't. Interesting how the information they give you isn't good enough to allow you to check if you are actually speeding. I wonder why that is
Hmmm not sure about that.
The signs thing relates to devices using radar.
For laser and optical devices the only restrictions are that the beam should not be projected through glass or mirrors. Also they should be operated from within 10 feet of the edge of the carriageway. Looks at photo and
Also for the penalty back office the protocol states that "Where there is a suggestion in the image that two or more vehicles are, or may, be in the measurement field, the reading must be disregarded."
I don't know enough to say whether the two other vehicles in the photo could have an effect.
But seeing as the LTI is just a glorified laser tape measure and stopwatch there are plenty of external factors that could influence the reading. Would be nice to see any later photos to do a manual calculation but I bet they are reluctant to release them as they probably aren't in the scamaeraships favour.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff