Can you be done from a car?
Discussion
I do understand what youre saying but it does not affect the speed reading on the Laser to a degree that people are getting off at Court. This small movement as you put it is recognised because as we all know, most Lasering is done standing up and holding the device.
If theres movement to a degree then the device will not lock on and you will get an erroe reading.
If i Laser someone at say 70 in a 40, i will have no problem sleeping thinking that the reading is inaccurate, however, 35 in a 30........well lets not go there.
If theres movement to a degree then the device will not lock on and you will get an erroe reading.
If i Laser someone at say 70 in a 40, i will have no problem sleeping thinking that the reading is inaccurate, however, 35 in a 30........well lets not go there.
TonyRec said:
I do understand what youre saying but it does not affect the speed reading on the Laser to a degree that people are getting off at Court. This small movement as you put it is recognised because as we all know, most Lasering is done standing up and holding the device.
If theres movement to a degree then the device will not lock on and you will get an erroe reading.
If i Laser someone at say 70 in a 40, i will have no problem sleeping thinking that the reading is inaccurate, however, 35 in a 30........well lets not go there.
Funnily enough, in the US (and I believe in the UK) testing was done on the UK HO approved hair dryers which proved that even on a tripod using a hair trigger and the lightest touch could still be inaccurate enough to make the readings large enough to warrent them not being admissable in court, of course the HO totally deny this, quoting some load of bull that the manufacturers even recognised as being such. Without a tripod, being used by a professional, they managed to get such inconsisent readings that said a car travelling at 50 was supposedly doing in excess of 100. All totally pointless to discuss of course as neither the police or HO will ever admit this, so unless we get speed data logging in cars to prove otherwise were stuffed.
Here's a question for any police out there, I was driving down the A34 shortly after the end of the british GP - a policeman literally jumped out of the hedge, swung his hands up and assumed a stance like James Bond about to pop a bullet through my forehead. My reaction was not to think "it's a policeman with a radar" but "shit, WTF!!!" slamm on the brakes and swerved all over the road, at which point I realised what in fact was going on. WTF do these guys get off doing this?!?! He had the gaul to suggest I was speeding and trying to avoid him, when infact I was doing 15mph BELOW the limit as my car was having problems!!!!
>> Edited by Davi on Sunday 1st January 16:59
TonyRec said:I hope that's the way it is in practice TR and I don't doubt your 'professionalism', your comfort comment was taken here as intended. However if you're lasering a vehicle at a distance of 100m, then if the the angle of the gun dips by only one twentieth of one degree over a third of a second this could add (or subtract) 10 mph. There are many folk who are shocked to receive a NIP when driving legally in a 30 zone, for an alleged speed around 40 and I believe this is one major reason why. As the article showed, these devices are hardly accurate even on a tripod. The readings obtained in the trial were not 'rejected' by the device. Nothing personal here as I trust you will appreciate, edited to add, seeing your comment on the other thread about 'flashing round the bend' I suspect you will be as fair a cop as we could hope to 'meet'
I do understand what youre saying but it does not affect the speed reading on the Laser to a degree that people are getting off at Court. This small movement as you put it is recognised because as we all know, most Lasering is done standing up and holding the device.
If theres movement to a degree then the device will not lock on and you will get an erroe reading.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 1st January 18:43
Having been involved in a long running legal case whih revolved around the ACPO Code of Practice for laser devices, I do believe that it is not against the rules to take measurements from a vehicle as long as the reading is taken through an *open* window.
There are a number of other wet-up and operational points which may not have been up to standard on this occasion, but if I were defending this case the use of the device from a window, perhaps using the car as a 'prop' to keep the device steady I would not use this as a point in court.
After all, the handheld devices can be used completely handheld. If a rest like part of the car is used this can only make the reading more stable in comparison.
There are a number of other wet-up and operational points which may not have been up to standard on this occasion, but if I were defending this case the use of the device from a window, perhaps using the car as a 'prop' to keep the device steady I would not use this as a point in court.
After all, the handheld devices can be used completely handheld. If a rest like part of the car is used this can only make the reading more stable in comparison.
Yes some devices can be hand-held but it's not ideal, and while mags may accept evidence obtained this way there are so many doubts now that it ought not to be acceptable. In practical terms you're probably right that this factor alone may not prevail as a defence, but taking a similar device into court on a tripod and used according to guidelines by a trained operator, and showing that the magistrates were exceeding 30mph sitting on their bench, might just do the trick.
turbobloke said:
Yes some devices can be hand-held but it's not ideal, and while mags may accept evidence obtained this way there are so many doubts now that it ought not to be acceptable. In practical terms you're probably right that this factor alone may not prevail as a defence, but taking a similar device into court on a tripod and used according to guidelines by a trained operator, and showing that the magistrates were exceeding 30mph sitting on their bench, might just do the trick.
If this were feasable, and you could in fact reliably do this first time in court, that would no doubt be great.
However from experience, the CPS would show that you, an untrained user, have used the device to specifically induce errors on a stationary object. Even if you *could* make the device act up in this was reliably in court, its benefit would be marginal. The CPS would simply argue that your experiment does not affect the fact that the device was used by a trained operator in the correct way as shown in the ACPO Code of Practice, with a device whoch has been tested by the Home Office Scientific Branch as to be suitable to use on moving vehicles. The fact that in court, used on object the ACPO Code does not cover, on a stationary object it too does not cover, and at a range it recommends that is not used under, and purposely inducing slip, will not prove that it does not work under the correct conditions as shown in the ACPO Code.
justinp1 said:that's absolutely NOT what I said! Get a trained user to use it properly - you can still get the desired result.
the CPS would show that you, an untrained user, have used the device to specifically induce errors on a stationary object
justinp1 said:Well I'd like to share some 'communications' with you on this emanating from the inside but if you're willing to take my word for it, 'tested by HO scientists' is about as credible as a warranty from fred in a shed on a mini 850 turbo coversion giving 1500 bhp
tested by the Home Office Scientific Branch as to be suitable to use on moving vehicles
These devices are not up to standard, they're often not used properly regardless, and overall should not be in use. The icing on the cake is that under pressure 'they' get the laser gun company boss in - disinterested expert testimony 
- to say how great they are. Say Hi to banana republic justice I really do wish that i could let a few people try the Laser for themselves.
A while ago i was going to get a few people around to the Garage to let them have a play and in fact the only person ive met this way was Domster (who was interviewing me for Pistonfest a couple of years ago).
Maybe i can organise something with Lambo Cop as hes only at a garage down the road from me. It would certainly be easier with two like minded BiB to share the workload.
A while ago i was going to get a few people around to the Garage to let them have a play and in fact the only person ive met this way was Domster (who was interviewing me for Pistonfest a couple of years ago).
Maybe i can organise something with Lambo Cop as hes only at a garage down the road from me. It would certainly be easier with two like minded BiB to share the workload.
turbobloke said:
I do understand what youre saying but it does not affect the speed reading on the Laser to a degree that people are getting off at Court. This small movement as you put it is recognised because as we all know, most Lasering is done standing up and holding the device.
If theres movement to a degree then the device will not lock on and you will get an erroe reading.
>> Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 1st January 18:43
Cheers Bernard,
Its sometimes difficult when trying to explain things when im privvy to both sides of the discussion but its nice when its appreciated.
kevinday said:
TonyRec, also consider if an HGV is travelling past your vehicle as you trigger the device the air pressure shock wave will cause your vehicle to rock, this could be enough to substantially alter the reading.
If im in any doubt about a reading then i dont bother taking it any further but in any case, the speeds that are on my threshold will not affect your example.
To be perfectly honest, im more interested in bad driving and people with no licences, Insurance and people driving other peoples cars.
turbobloke said:
the CPS would show that you, an untrained user, have used the device to specifically induce errors on a stationary object justinp1 said:Well I'd like to share some 'communications' with you on this emanating from the inside but if you're willing to take my word for it, 'tested by HO scientists' is about as credible as a warranty from fred in a shed on a mini 850 turbo coversion giving 1500 bhp
tested by the Home Office Scientific Branch as to be suitable to use on moving vehicles
I completely agree with your sentiments, and if I didnt agree with you I wouldnt have spent thousands of pounds contesting my case.
However, even if you can pay an expert witness who is also a trained user, and you can get hold of a UK spec laser exactly the same as the one that was used against you, you *still* cannot use it properly in a courtroom, without compromising the ACPO Code, that the CPS would argue has been followed. For example, you cannot get a moving vehicle into a courtroom, and you cannot get the minimum range away to get any kind of meaningful test.
As I have said, I am not trying to play the devils advocate, I am going from a hell of a lot of hours research into this exact subject, and the court cases that have been tried, including defending my own at magistrates court, and being present at the crown court appeal.
Regardless of what I think about the LTI20/20 (which is similar to you), or anyone else thinks, or even if you can put forward a credible hypothesis is court, you wont have a chance of winning a case, unless you have an expert witness, a good lawyer and the ability to capitolise on some procedural faults, if their are any.
From experience it is hugely difficult (maybe impossible) to put forward a hypothesis in court which outweighs the fact that rightly or wrongly the device *has* been approved, and the operator has been trained.
To come back to the title of the thread, the answer is most definately yes, you can legally get zapped with the operator inside a car. Until, the use of the LTI20/20 is withdrawn pending retesting, or there is a high profile case which becomes a landmark case which is applicable to be referred to in future, the situation I have described still stands.
Unfortunatley what I have found, trying to fight the system by showing the system does not make sense or faulty does not work. If you want to win a laser case you have a much better chance by ringing up someone like Nick Freeman, paying him £4000 to represent you and watch (or just stay at home) while in court he gets the case dropped on some trivial procedural error which the local CPS brief does not have the specialist knowledge to defend against.
Not the dictionary definition of 'justice' but if it gets the job done...
justinp1 said:Yes, we agree on all fronts. I said some time back that it's well known that mags will accept this evidence, and for the reasons you set out, but we all know that doesn't make it right - and we need to keep the pressure up. Sorry to hear about your case going the way it did.
I completely agree with your sentiments, and if I didnt agree with you I wouldnt have spent thousands of pounds contesting my case.
hello chaps.
I've read up quite a bit about these things, spoken to the company that makes/distributes the devices, have a friend in a SCP and actually used one for an afternoon while testing out a device I'd created to try to 'confuse' one which was stuck to the front of my car.
I did get a speed reading of 7MPH from my car while it was parked up. You had to time it quite well, ie time pulling the trigger to sweeping the dot in the head-up display down the side of the car. Not that easy, but possible.
I would suggest that this would be BLINDINGLY obvious on the video if Mr Plod/SCP had done this, and he'd be pretty much criminalising himself, because to get it to work once he'd have to do it quite a lot - not clever. It would be possible though, but unlikely.
One thing the device did was instill confidence in the user (ie myself) that it's telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. How could you know this without any corroboration?
Well, because the manufacturers say so. These are the people selling the device remember.
I lasered a chap on a motorbike doing a displayed 135MPH towards me. OK he may have been doing only 130MPH but so what.
To me, the device is just saying 'yes, he is hammering it'
As for doing people for 34 in a 30, to me the deivce is telling you sod all. it's just a disgraceful way to take 60 quid off a driver for nothing.
As TonyRec commented, 70 in a 30, and the laser confirms the speed is high - good stuff.
To me speeding laws should be used as a tool to punish dangerous drivers and the laser speed devices used as a way of enforcing that.
you can drive like a tw@ well bellow the speed limit.
I've read up quite a bit about these things, spoken to the company that makes/distributes the devices, have a friend in a SCP and actually used one for an afternoon while testing out a device I'd created to try to 'confuse' one which was stuck to the front of my car.
I did get a speed reading of 7MPH from my car while it was parked up. You had to time it quite well, ie time pulling the trigger to sweeping the dot in the head-up display down the side of the car. Not that easy, but possible.
I would suggest that this would be BLINDINGLY obvious on the video if Mr Plod/SCP had done this, and he'd be pretty much criminalising himself, because to get it to work once he'd have to do it quite a lot - not clever. It would be possible though, but unlikely.
One thing the device did was instill confidence in the user (ie myself) that it's telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. How could you know this without any corroboration?
Well, because the manufacturers say so. These are the people selling the device remember.
I lasered a chap on a motorbike doing a displayed 135MPH towards me. OK he may have been doing only 130MPH but so what.
To me, the device is just saying 'yes, he is hammering it'
As for doing people for 34 in a 30, to me the deivce is telling you sod all. it's just a disgraceful way to take 60 quid off a driver for nothing.
As TonyRec commented, 70 in a 30, and the laser confirms the speed is high - good stuff.
To me speeding laws should be used as a tool to punish dangerous drivers and the laser speed devices used as a way of enforcing that.
you can drive like a tw@ well bellow the speed limit.
Agreed, there are certainly two good reasons why a speed limit should operate in some places and be enforced - one is as indicated by bryan35, to target the cretins who use speed in a dangerously inappropriate way and so get them off the roads, the other - coupled with a sign or brief explanation - is to warn drivers of a hidden hazard ahead that even the most observant driver would be unable to anticipate, so that an appropriate speed can be set by those unfamiliar with the road.
Wildcat's post from another thread adds to this debate - in the fastest 10% of drivers you find the cretins, but you also get the experts including police drivers of course. A laser is a crude device and will not distinguish between these two groups when both are making very good progress. Far more trafpol on the roads in unmarked cars would allow more following checks to take note of the standard of driving and bring discretion back. This will return traffic laws to the safety basis used to justify them, and remove the unacceptable random, revenue raising elements from roads policing. Given that they can spot dangerous driving both above AND BELOW the speed limit it would also make the roads a helluva lot safer.
Meanwhile BLiar and his speed fixated muppets are hooked on political correctness and want any tax they can get hold of including speed tax. Only when the political scene changed in Canada did we hear the truth about photoradar or laser speed enforcement - namely that it can be sustained only by a well funded spin machine, brings no benefits to safety but lots of revenue, alienates the public and harms witness cooperation and police recruitment, is a random arbitrary and heavy handed instrument, and represents intrusive big government. Which is why BLiar types love it so much.
Wildcat's post from another thread adds to this debate - in the fastest 10% of drivers you find the cretins, but you also get the experts including police drivers of course. A laser is a crude device and will not distinguish between these two groups when both are making very good progress. Far more trafpol on the roads in unmarked cars would allow more following checks to take note of the standard of driving and bring discretion back. This will return traffic laws to the safety basis used to justify them, and remove the unacceptable random, revenue raising elements from roads policing. Given that they can spot dangerous driving both above AND BELOW the speed limit it would also make the roads a helluva lot safer.
Meanwhile BLiar and his speed fixated muppets are hooked on political correctness and want any tax they can get hold of including speed tax. Only when the political scene changed in Canada did we hear the truth about photoradar or laser speed enforcement - namely that it can be sustained only by a well funded spin machine, brings no benefits to safety but lots of revenue, alienates the public and harms witness cooperation and police recruitment, is a random arbitrary and heavy handed instrument, and represents intrusive big government. Which is why BLiar types love it so much.
TonyRec said:
To me speeding laws should be used as a tool to punish dangerous drivers and the laser speed devices used as a way of enforcing that.
Absolutely spot on
Indeed but I have seen a whole tape from a camera van and only 17% of those zapped were eligible for prosecution
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff