Look East - BBC1 6:30
Discussion
Just seen it. This is the smoking gun! This is evidence of slippage on camera. On a *moving* vehicle with a UK approved device used to the ACPO guidelines.
The false 84mph message is quite clear, and is not applicable to either the defendant and not the lorry either. What certainly help the case is that his speed was correctly reported after overtaking the lorry.
Is 'Error 03' the error message reported for slip error anyone?
Someone give Steve Callaghan a nudge from whichever username he is trolling the forums from now!!!
>> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 14th October 18:44
The false 84mph message is quite clear, and is not applicable to either the defendant and not the lorry either. What certainly help the case is that his speed was correctly reported after overtaking the lorry.
Is 'Error 03' the error message reported for slip error anyone?
Someone give Steve Callaghan a nudge from whichever username he is trolling the forums from now!!!
>> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 14th October 18:44
After watching that it makes me wish that I had asked for evidence after being caught last year on the A11 at 95mph. I did doubt that I was actually doing that speed, but just took the easy route and sent off £60.
I would suggest that everyone should ask for evidence of their alleged speeding offences.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Friday 14th October 18:50
I would suggest that everyone should ask for evidence of their alleged speeding offences.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Friday 14th October 18:50
ledfoot said:
After watching that it makes me wish that I had asked for evidence after being caught last year on the A11 at 95mph. I did doubt that I was actually doing that speed, but just took the easy route and sent off £60.
I would suggest that everyone should ask for evidence of their alleged speeding offences.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Friday 14th October 18:50
Unless like me it was just done with a handheld laser, you will have no evidence to support apart from the 'prior opinion of speed' from half a mile away...
That is about as scientific of my giving the 'prior opinion of a coin toss coming up heads' and it does. I must be a psychic...
ledfoot said:
After watching that it makes me wish that I had asked for evidence after being caught last year on the A11 at 95mph. I did doubt that I was actually doing that speed, but just took the easy route and sent off £60.
I would suggest that everyone should ask for evidence of their alleged speeding offences.
>> Edited by ledfoot on Friday 14th October 18:50
Unless like me it was just done with a handheld laser, you will have no evidence to support apart from the 'prior opinion of speed' from half a mile away...
That is about as scientific of my giving the 'prior opinion of a coin toss coming up heads' and it does. I must be a psychic...
Thanks for the nudge Justin – no I didn’t see it 
This is what I picked up on SafeSpeed recently {blackdouglas}; I’ve not confirmed it myself.
The error codes E01, E02, E03 are displayed when the device has trapped an error. Quite often you see E03 leading up to a valid speed reading.
…………
E01 - meant that no reflected laser light returned to the device. Typically you will get this if you point it to the sky. The device will expect to see a reflection within a given period of time and if it doesn't it generated E01.
E02 - from the few samples, the device calculates an expected position of the target using a straight line velocity curve. It then collects further samples. Samples which are outside of the expected position plus a given tolerance are rejected. The sample set is just over 40 samples, of which 35 must be within the tolerances just described. You can typically demonstrate this error by moving the laser from one object to the other.
E03 - The device now has a sample set. An average speed is calculated using a least squares method (as described in the published patents). Each sample is then compared against this average speed, and if out by a given tolerance then the sample set is rejected with E03. Also if a large variance is found in the *power* of the returned pulses then the sample is also rejected.
justinp1 said:
Is 'Error 03' the error message reported for slip error anyone?
This is what I picked up on SafeSpeed recently {blackdouglas}; I’ve not confirmed it myself.
The error codes E01, E02, E03 are displayed when the device has trapped an error. Quite often you see E03 leading up to a valid speed reading.
…………
E01 - meant that no reflected laser light returned to the device. Typically you will get this if you point it to the sky. The device will expect to see a reflection within a given period of time and if it doesn't it generated E01.
E02 - from the few samples, the device calculates an expected position of the target using a straight line velocity curve. It then collects further samples. Samples which are outside of the expected position plus a given tolerance are rejected. The sample set is just over 40 samples, of which 35 must be within the tolerances just described. You can typically demonstrate this error by moving the laser from one object to the other.
E03 - The device now has a sample set. An average speed is calculated using a least squares method (as described in the published patents). Each sample is then compared against this average speed, and if out by a given tolerance then the sample set is rejected with E03. Also if a large variance is found in the *power* of the returned pulses then the sample is also rejected.
justinp1 said:Now confirmed.
Is 'Error 03' the error message reported for slip error anyone?
www.pepipoo.com/Case_Files/documents/CF11_LTi2020_screen.htm
Glad it was of use 
Interestingly on the video, they were breaking ACPO guidelines (use with a larger vehicle in shot) AND shooting through the legs of a signpost.
Now call me a rocket scientist, but when the laser pans across the supports, it will record a time and distance calculation not just for the car, but also the supports themselves. Yet another potential error!
The pictures looked just fine, with a reading of 84 MPH, but when you saw the video you could easily see the device recording a speed 22 MPH higher than Mr Dennison was actually travelling. You could see the car hadn't braked and he actually pointed to the scam van as he saw it. His speed at that moment was 62 MPH.
Further evidence if it was needed to contest EVERY single case, they are trying to convict innocent people with flawed "evidence"
Interestingly on the video, they were breaking ACPO guidelines (use with a larger vehicle in shot) AND shooting through the legs of a signpost.
Now call me a rocket scientist, but when the laser pans across the supports, it will record a time and distance calculation not just for the car, but also the supports themselves. Yet another potential error!
The pictures looked just fine, with a reading of 84 MPH, but when you saw the video you could easily see the device recording a speed 22 MPH higher than Mr Dennison was actually travelling. You could see the car hadn't braked and he actually pointed to the scam van as he saw it. His speed at that moment was 62 MPH.
Further evidence if it was needed to contest EVERY single case, they are trying to convict innocent people with flawed "evidence"
BliarOut said:
Glad it was of use
Interestingly on the video, they were breaking ACPO guidelines (use with a larger vehicle in shot) AND shooting through the legs of a signpost.
Now call me a rocket scientist, but when the laser pans across the supports, it will record a time and distance calculation not just for the car, but also the supports themselves. Yet another potential error!
The pictures looked just fine, with a reading of 84 MPH, but when you saw the video you could easily see the device recording a speed 22 MPH higher than Mr Dennison was actually travelling. You could see the car hadn't braked and he actually pointed to the scam van as he saw it. His speed at that moment was 62 MPH.
Further evidence if it was needed to contest EVERY single case, they are trying to convict innocent people with flawed "evidence"
At Crown court when the Judge wanted to hear the bare bones of my Appeal case to decide if enough time to hear the case, when he heard that we were sayng that the device was 22mph out on a dual carriageway, he gave a look of disgust and shook his head...
So much for going into a case with open eyes...
>> Edited by justinp1 on Friday 14th October 20:27
MrsMiggins said:
Just watched it on the BBC website. Looks like a sweep error to me, but don't worry, the CPS "will be taking clear and decisive steps to make sure this situation does not happen again"
I feel safer already
No doubt they are doing this in such a way to muddy the waters even more so that 'this' (losing a case) does not happen again!
i think he was done bang to rights, but got off on a technicality.
just look at the speed he's passing that lorry, and as he draws level with the cab you can see the cars nose dip as if the brakes have been put on.
i drive the A11 regularly, and i dont think i've ever seen a car cruising at '62mph'!
just look at the speed he's passing that lorry, and as he draws level with the cab you can see the cars nose dip as if the brakes have been put on.
i drive the A11 regularly, and i dont think i've ever seen a car cruising at '62mph'!
eccles said:
i think he was done bang to rights, but got off on a technicality.
just look at the speed he's passing that lorry, and as he draws level with the cab you can see the cars nose dip as if the brakes have been put on.
i drive the A11 regularly, and i dont think i've ever seen a car cruising at '62mph'!
Were you watching the same video? The cars nose never dips. Error 03 is slip error and there's a huge lorry in the frame. Watch it again online, you can see the point where he first sees the scamera and points to it.
Do you work for a scameraship?
eccles said:
i think he was done bang to rights, but got off on a technicality.
just look at the speed he's passing that lorry, and as he draws level with the cab you can see the cars nose dip as if the brakes have been put on.
i drive the A11 regularly, and i dont think i've ever seen a car cruising at '62mph'!
Ah as long as you dont think cars cruise at 62mph on the A11 he must be guilty... With that kind of hard evidence I am surprised you weren't called as a witness. Why dont you contact the CPS, and tell them to reopen the case on the basis of new evidence?
The car's nose does not dip whatsoever, in fact he is having a conversation with the passenger, and is actually gesticulating with his left hand, and looking straight on. Not the actions of a panic braking situation.
If he was done bang to rights, and he got off on a technicality...
If you are arguing that you have never seen a car cruising at 62mph, then how do you explain that the laser device got that speed? Either you are wrong or the device is!!?? No-one has mentioned that so far. Whether he was doing 84, 62 or anything else, the point is that one of the results cant be trusted, so why should we accept one over the other; as the presence that the device has produced a result which is 22mph out, shows that the other one certainly cannot be trusted. Moreover, if there was only one reading taken, the poor guy would have been found guilty without a doubt. Anyone else trust the 'readings' from now on?
justinp1 said:
eccles said:
i think he was done bang to rights, but got off on a technicality.
just look at the speed he's passing that lorry, and as he draws level with the cab you can see the cars nose dip as if the brakes have been put on.
i drive the A11 regularly, and i dont think i've ever seen a car cruising at '62mph'!
Ah as long as you dont think cars cruise at 62mph on the A11 he must be guilty... With that kind of hard evidence I am surprised you weren't called as a witness. Why dont you contact the CPS, and tell them to reopen the case on the basis of new evidence?
LOL, Maybe he works the "Safety Camera Partnership" already and hence has a view point inline with all the other "Safety Camera Partnership" Muppets
>> Edited by polus on Friday 14th October 22:32
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff