NO VIDEO EVIDENCE WITH LTI 20/20 LASER ?????
Discussion
Gentleman as previously posted have been reported for doing 109 on m6 and am defending my self in the case,i am using the defence that i was in 2nd lane driving at 70 (ish) and m3 bmw came past me hit the brakes hard and dived in front of me.the police have said they saw a red car in 2nd lane which appeared to be speeding and pointed laser at me and it read 109mph another officer pulled me up 2 miles down the m6.I denied speeding explained about the bmw but they are proceeding with case on 22nd of november.I have wrote to cps and asked for video evidence and calibration chats on laser gun.they then replied today that there is no video evidence and officers will attend court and bring calibration charts and any maintenance logs on the gun. I AM SEEKING ANY FURTHER ADVICE FROM THE FORUM AND WILL LET EVERYONE NO THE RESULTS...REGARDS STEWART
I'm not an expert, but the LTI should produce a photo rather than a video. This is the evidence so you should get access to it once you have pleaded not guilty. It should show which car had the cross-hairs on it. The problems, as you may have seen in other threads, are:
1) the cross-hairs may not be aligned with the laser
2) the laser spreads out over distance and may pick up vehicles other than yours, so even if the laser is pointing at your car it may also have picked up the other.
If your story is true -- and I'm not doubting it -- then I would feel inclined to go to a solicitor and get them to fight this. The principle is important and the description seems plausible. Ideally the BMW would also be visible in the picture so it would confirm what you say. If there is doubt, you should not be prosecuted, but magistrates don't always recognise the above problems and may simply believe the police whatever they say. It's a difficult call and I wouldn't blame you for just paying up to escape what will be hassle and aggro.
1) the cross-hairs may not be aligned with the laser
2) the laser spreads out over distance and may pick up vehicles other than yours, so even if the laser is pointing at your car it may also have picked up the other.
If your story is true -- and I'm not doubting it -- then I would feel inclined to go to a solicitor and get them to fight this. The principle is important and the description seems plausible. Ideally the BMW would also be visible in the picture so it would confirm what you say. If there is doubt, you should not be prosecuted, but magistrates don't always recognise the above problems and may simply believe the police whatever they say. It's a difficult call and I wouldn't blame you for just paying up to escape what will be hassle and aggro.
stewy123 said:
the police have said they saw a red car in 2nd lane which appeared to be speeding and pointed laser at me
Surely there's a big difference between "appearing" to be speeding and 109mph, that's 1.5 times over the limit!! With the current press about the lti and it's reliability even when calibrated and used in perfect conditions there's gotta be some way out.
As I understand it the LTI 'dodgyscope' can be used in conjunction with video equipment. If this was not done, and you were not stopped until 2 miles further down the road then they will need to prove that it was your car that was recorded as speeding.
From the little you have told us there 'should' be reasonable doubt, however, I doubt that that will suffice (despite the fact that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the legal requirement). I suggest a talk to a lawyer, because 109 is potentially a ban.
From the little you have told us there 'should' be reasonable doubt, however, I doubt that that will suffice (despite the fact that 'beyond reasonable doubt' is the legal requirement). I suggest a talk to a lawyer, because 109 is potentially a ban.
kevinday said:
As I understand it the LTI 'dodgyscope' can be used in conjunction with video equipment.
this is usually the case; the two pictures are taken from two frames of the video (that's why you see the 'NR' frame count). However I'm not sure there is a legal requirement for video/photo evidence. Perhaps there is video evidence but its being withheld in case it shows the operator/LTI in a bad light? 
If indeed withheld, there's no way you can prove misuse of the equipment or error with the speed measurement. kevinday said:Talk to a specialist, an ordinary lawyer won't suffice.
I suggest a talk to a lawyer, because 109 is potentially a ban.
I thought that as a defendant you had a statutory right to any evidence used against you. If they're just going to give frames of video, then thats not really the full evidence is it?
Get a solicitor, and fight them tooth and nail. If what you're saying about the incident is correct, then the video will surely show that, and you'll be safe.
If they have no video evidence, then I suspect that the odds are stacked against you as they tend to believe the police statement in these matters.
Get a solicitor, and fight them tooth and nail. If what you're saying about the incident is correct, then the video will surely show that, and you'll be safe.
If they have no video evidence, then I suspect that the odds are stacked against you as they tend to believe the police statement in these matters.
As well as the specialist speeding solicitor already suggested, get along to www.pepipoo.com and introduce yourself in the forums. There will be people in there with fair better specialist knowledge then us (barring DVD and a smattering of knowledge amongst others!).
Parrot of doom said:
If they have no video evidence, then I suspect that the odds are stacked against you as they tend to believe the police statement in these matters.
Are you saying that the prosecution would *weaken* their case if they added video evidence? I'm cynical enough to think that in that case you would find there is no video evidence.
Camera vans have laser speed meters connected to video equipment. You get a ticket in the post.
Police officers use LTI 2020 without video to measure your speed. Then they pull you. This is what appears to have happened.
However laser speed meters make mistakes. There are various threads around here on the subject. BBC Inside Out, The Daily Mail and Tonight with Trevor MacDonald have all demonstrated 'slip effect'. I am personally certain that laser speed meters cannot gather legal evidence to the standard of proof required by the courts: "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Hopefully we'll hear more and more about this until the Home Office does the right thing and withdraws type approval.
Police officers use LTI 2020 without video to measure your speed. Then they pull you. This is what appears to have happened.
However laser speed meters make mistakes. There are various threads around here on the subject. BBC Inside Out, The Daily Mail and Tonight with Trevor MacDonald have all demonstrated 'slip effect'. I am personally certain that laser speed meters cannot gather legal evidence to the standard of proof required by the courts: "beyond a reasonable doubt".
Hopefully we'll hear more and more about this until the Home Office does the right thing and withdraws type approval.
Firstly, I believe that if you have pleaded NG then you are entitled to full disclosure of evidence with no further being added 7 days prior to hearing. You also have the option to change you plea up until that time.
Also see
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/policieslist.asp
as this gives the guidlines under which equipment is maintained and used, ie clear road/clear view of 'offending' vehicle etc.
My adice, do a lot of homework, gain opinion/experience from forums and get a specialist lawyer opinion..
Good Luck
Also see
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/policieslist.asp
as this gives the guidlines under which equipment is maintained and used, ie clear road/clear view of 'offending' vehicle etc.
My adice, do a lot of homework, gain opinion/experience from forums and get a specialist lawyer opinion..
Good Luck
bimsb6 said:
i think i got clocked today with a laser gun but the traffic plod using it
had no hi viz jacket on, was he breaching the rules ? the car was tucked out of sight sneaky or what had he been wearing a high viz jacket he would have been visible .
Even if he was riding backwards on an elephant with the trigger pulled by his toe, it would seem that such 'guidelines' are only guidelines, and as long as he has a reading and believes it is your car then thats it.
There is more things to be pulled up on if the device was used on a motorway bridge, as this introduces ooperating issues, but I still have not heard a case where this was taken seriously.
bimsb6 said:
it is a legal requirement for anyone working by the side of the road to wear hi viz clothing,wondered if i should put a complaint in ?
You are probably right. After all the main reason my speed limits are cut to 40 in roadworks areas is to protect the safety of roadworkers.
It is quite ironic that the same rule of using the jackets should not apply to those out there to 'ensure safety'!?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff