LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 1000 Concept CF System NOT APPROVED?
Discussion
I will be disputing a traffic offence and would appreciate some advice as evidence relies on a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System. This is a product imported from Laser Tech (USA) and type approved by a company called Tele-Traffic (UK) - Dissolved in 2019.
The LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved in 2007/2009, it looks like the Concept CF system evolved from the Lastec Concept II DVD System (as type approved in 2010) through the removal of a DVD and the addition of a flash card reader. There must I intend to argue have been sizable technical updates to the Lastec Concept DVD system in order to enable this change e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
The ACPO document the police are using in evidence clearly indicates in sections 1.7 that changes to the devices, its software, component parts, manuals leads etc must be agreed with the Home Office and that minor changes may only be agreed (with prior written agreement) but other changes will require full type approval testing. I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence that the police's certificate of use for a prescribed device naming the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved device is invalid because no such device has type approval? I would expect that to defend against this argument the police would need to produce evidence from Tele-traffic providing written agreement that they were able to make the changes to the Lastec Concept DVD system without full type approval testing - highly unlikely they will be able to produce this as tele-traffic have been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I am considering an additional defence because in ACPO 14.7 the detector must be returned to the manufacturer or certified authorised agent to be annually calibrated. I intend to argue that as Tele-traffic - the certified authorised agent that achieved type approval for this device has been out of business for over 4 years it cannot calibrate the unit, and neither can it further 'certify' an agent to produce a calibration verification or provide approved parts were any replaced. I think it would be reasonable to request that the police provide a recent audit report and certificate confirming that Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried out the required onsite checks to certify any authorised agent that may have calibrated the device. I cannot see how they could do this with perhaps the small caveat that Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) were in a position to do this, I have searched the internet and cannot find an authorised agent of Laser Tech in the U.K. Might anyone know if this defence has been used before or if an authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks for reading this far - any advice or thoughts are greatly appreciated!
The LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved in 2007/2009, it looks like the Concept CF system evolved from the Lastec Concept II DVD System (as type approved in 2010) through the removal of a DVD and the addition of a flash card reader. There must I intend to argue have been sizable technical updates to the Lastec Concept DVD system in order to enable this change e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
The ACPO document the police are using in evidence clearly indicates in sections 1.7 that changes to the devices, its software, component parts, manuals leads etc must be agreed with the Home Office and that minor changes may only be agreed (with prior written agreement) but other changes will require full type approval testing. I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence that the police's certificate of use for a prescribed device naming the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved device is invalid because no such device has type approval? I would expect that to defend against this argument the police would need to produce evidence from Tele-traffic providing written agreement that they were able to make the changes to the Lastec Concept DVD system without full type approval testing - highly unlikely they will be able to produce this as tele-traffic have been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I am considering an additional defence because in ACPO 14.7 the detector must be returned to the manufacturer or certified authorised agent to be annually calibrated. I intend to argue that as Tele-traffic - the certified authorised agent that achieved type approval for this device has been out of business for over 4 years it cannot calibrate the unit, and neither can it further 'certify' an agent to produce a calibration verification or provide approved parts were any replaced. I think it would be reasonable to request that the police provide a recent audit report and certificate confirming that Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried out the required onsite checks to certify any authorised agent that may have calibrated the device. I cannot see how they could do this with perhaps the small caveat that Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) were in a position to do this, I have searched the internet and cannot find an authorised agent of Laser Tech in the U.K. Might anyone know if this defence has been used before or if an authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks for reading this far - any advice or thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Gareth79 said:
Are you intending to fund the legal challenge yourself? The Police/CPS have a dedicated team (Road Safety Support) who aggressively defend technical challenges such as this, and you are on the hook for costs if the court decides it's a frivolous challenge.
This ^^^Get proper legal advice instead of listening to all the barrack room lawyers on here if you really feel like you want to challenge it.
Alternatively have a go yourself and let us all know when the court date is so we can all watch you look like a bell end.
Greendubber said:
A better idea would be speaking to a proper solicitor that deals with motoring offences than asking on here. People will offer opinions and 'advice' which could end up costing you a lot of time, effort and money.
This - plus, as you've already seen, the signal to noise ratio on this sort of question generally ends up being pretty poor.Just to add to that "I know a bit, but nothing specific" vibe, I don't see how changing the mechanism on which data is stored would need type approval re-certification. It was digital data being stored on writable DVD, now it is digital data being stored on a memory card. Nothing involved in the actual measurement of speed and production of the digital data as evidence should need to change for that.
However, I don't know enough about type approval to comment on that clearly, it's just my own view based on random technical knowledge I've picked up over the years when replacing optical media with flash memory on various systems.
Years ago the only accepted expert on the LTI 20-20 in the UK was the person selling it to the police, who of course had a personal vested interest.
I used a recognised expert in the US from the manufacturing company who sold it to the UK company, who wasn't recognised, in a case where the officer using the device moved the detection point from the front to the side of my vehicle thus triggering his overspeed alert as I drove around a long bend.... US expert explained how it worked, how the error was generated, uk expert stood up and said it was all untrue and court said they would only recognise UK expert.
In the end simple maths and the distances between the white lines on the dual carriageway and lamposts using their film and timestamps proved I wasn't speeding, but it was a long fight with 4 trips to court before they'd even give me the footage...
So realistically - based on my previous experience, you've no chance in court claiming anything against the LTI 20-20 technically.
What speed were you doing?
I used a recognised expert in the US from the manufacturing company who sold it to the UK company, who wasn't recognised, in a case where the officer using the device moved the detection point from the front to the side of my vehicle thus triggering his overspeed alert as I drove around a long bend.... US expert explained how it worked, how the error was generated, uk expert stood up and said it was all untrue and court said they would only recognise UK expert.
In the end simple maths and the distances between the white lines on the dual carriageway and lamposts using their film and timestamps proved I wasn't speeding, but it was a long fight with 4 trips to court before they'd even give me the footage...
So realistically - based on my previous experience, you've no chance in court claiming anything against the LTI 20-20 technically.
What speed were you doing?
No idea, however "I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change."
I disagree.
It's a digital recording, therefore assuming the medium is capable of storing the same amount or more of data than the previous medium, the device is performing capture and storage in exactly the same way.
The same could be applied to say an image saved on either floppy, cd, dvd, or card - the raw data is exactly the same.
I disagree.
It's a digital recording, therefore assuming the medium is capable of storing the same amount or more of data than the previous medium, the device is performing capture and storage in exactly the same way.
The same could be applied to say an image saved on either floppy, cd, dvd, or card - the raw data is exactly the same.
TIIVRS said:
I will be disputing a traffic offence and would appreciate some advice as evidence relies on a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System. This is a product imported from Laser Tech (USA) and type approved by a company called Tele-Traffic (UK) - Dissolved in 2019.
The LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved in 2007/2009, it looks like the Concept CF system evolved from the Lastec Concept II DVD System (as type approved in 2010) through the removal of a DVD and the addition of a flash card reader. There must I intend to argue have been sizable technical updates to the Lastec Concept DVD system in order to enable this change e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
The ACPO document the police are using in evidence clearly indicates in sections 1.7 that changes to the devices, its software, component parts, manuals leads etc must be agreed with the Home Office and that minor changes may only be agreed (with prior written agreement) but other changes will require full type approval testing. I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence that the police's certificate of use for a prescribed device naming the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved device is invalid because no such device has type approval? I would expect that to defend against this argument the police would need to produce evidence from Tele-traffic providing written agreement that they were able to make the changes to the Lastec Concept DVD system without full type approval testing - highly unlikely they will be able to produce this as tele-traffic have been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I am considering an additional defence because in ACPO 14.7 the detector must be returned to the manufacturer or certified authorised agent to be annually calibrated. I intend to argue that as Tele-traffic - the certified authorised agent that achieved type approval for this device has been out of business for over 4 years it cannot calibrate the unit, and neither can it further 'certify' an agent to produce a calibration verification or provide approved parts were any replaced. I think it would be reasonable to request that the police provide a recent audit report and certificate confirming that Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried out the required onsite checks to certify any authorised agent that may have calibrated the device. I cannot see how they could do this with perhaps the small caveat that Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) were in a position to do this, I have searched the internet and cannot find an authorised agent of Laser Tech in the U.K. Might anyone know if this defence has been used before or if an authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks for reading this far - any advice or thoughts are greatly appreciated!
quoted just in case......The LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved in 2007/2009, it looks like the Concept CF system evolved from the Lastec Concept II DVD System (as type approved in 2010) through the removal of a DVD and the addition of a flash card reader. There must I intend to argue have been sizable technical updates to the Lastec Concept DVD system in order to enable this change e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
The ACPO document the police are using in evidence clearly indicates in sections 1.7 that changes to the devices, its software, component parts, manuals leads etc must be agreed with the Home Office and that minor changes may only be agreed (with prior written agreement) but other changes will require full type approval testing. I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence that the police's certificate of use for a prescribed device naming the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved device is invalid because no such device has type approval? I would expect that to defend against this argument the police would need to produce evidence from Tele-traffic providing written agreement that they were able to make the changes to the Lastec Concept DVD system without full type approval testing - highly unlikely they will be able to produce this as tele-traffic have been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I am considering an additional defence because in ACPO 14.7 the detector must be returned to the manufacturer or certified authorised agent to be annually calibrated. I intend to argue that as Tele-traffic - the certified authorised agent that achieved type approval for this device has been out of business for over 4 years it cannot calibrate the unit, and neither can it further 'certify' an agent to produce a calibration verification or provide approved parts were any replaced. I think it would be reasonable to request that the police provide a recent audit report and certificate confirming that Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried out the required onsite checks to certify any authorised agent that may have calibrated the device. I cannot see how they could do this with perhaps the small caveat that Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) were in a position to do this, I have searched the internet and cannot find an authorised agent of Laser Tech in the U.K. Might anyone know if this defence has been used before or if an authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks for reading this far - any advice or thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Byker28i said:
Years ago the only accepted expert on the LTI 20-20 in the UK was the person selling it to the police, who of course had a personal vested interest.
I used a recognised expert in the US from the manufacturing company who sold it to the UK company, who wasn't recognised, in a case where the officer using the device moved the detection point from the front to the side of my vehicle thus triggering his overspeed alert as I drove around a long bend.... US expert explained how it worked, how the error was generated, uk expert stood up and said it was all untrue and court said they would only recognise UK expert.
In the end simple maths and the distances between the white lines on the dual carriageway and lamposts using their film and timestamps proved I wasn't speeding, but it was a long fight with 4 trips to court before they'd even give me the footage...
So realistically - based on my previous experience, you've no chance in court claiming anything against the LTI 20-20 technically.
What speed were you doing?
This, if your going after it’s home office type approval on the grounds that changing from dvd to sd card media is likely to I used a recognised expert in the US from the manufacturing company who sold it to the UK company, who wasn't recognised, in a case where the officer using the device moved the detection point from the front to the side of my vehicle thus triggering his overspeed alert as I drove around a long bend.... US expert explained how it worked, how the error was generated, uk expert stood up and said it was all untrue and court said they would only recognise UK expert.
In the end simple maths and the distances between the white lines on the dual carriageway and lamposts using their film and timestamps proved I wasn't speeding, but it was a long fight with 4 trips to court before they'd even give me the footage...
So realistically - based on my previous experience, you've no chance in court claiming anything against the LTI 20-20 technically.
What speed were you doing?
Fail I would suggest and incur massive costs, so unless you were doing a massive speed your attempts for technical defence are futile. It’s going to be hard to suggest it’s not an accurate speed device because the results are recorded on different media.
As stated unless you have a recognised expert to back up your claims your peeing in the wind. No court is going to want to throw all speeding cases out on a technicality as the lti 20 20 is a very commonly used speed detection system. I have seen the, used outside of guidance and still it’s a dangours game challenging a trivial speeding offence on these grounds, Jonny depp can’t even get a fair trial in the UK what chance do you think have judges are bent in this country!
TIIVRS said:
I will be disputing a traffic offence and would appreciate some advice as evidence relies on a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System. This is a product imported from Laser Tech (USA) and type approved by a company called Tele-Traffic (UK) - Dissolved in 2019.
The LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved in 2007/2009, it looks like the Concept CF system evolved from the Lastec Concept II DVD System (as type approved in 2010) through the removal of a DVD and the addition of a flash card reader. There must I intend to argue have been sizable technical updates to the Lastec Concept DVD system in order to enable this change e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
The ACPO document the police are using in evidence clearly indicates in sections 1.7 that changes to the devices, its software, component parts, manuals leads etc must be agreed with the Home Office and that minor changes may only be agreed (with prior written agreement) but other changes will require full type approval testing. I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence that the police's certificate of use for a prescribed device naming the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved device is invalid because no such device has type approval? I would expect that to defend against this argument the police would need to produce evidence from Tele-traffic providing written agreement that they were able to make the changes to the Lastec Concept DVD system without full type approval testing - highly unlikely they will be able to produce this as tele-traffic have been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I am considering an additional defence because in ACPO 14.7 the detector must be returned to the manufacturer or certified authorised agent to be annually calibrated. I intend to argue that as Tele-traffic - the certified authorised agent that achieved type approval for this device has been out of business for over 4 years it cannot calibrate the unit, and neither can it further 'certify' an agent to produce a calibration verification or provide approved parts were any replaced. I think it would be reasonable to request that the police provide a recent audit report and certificate confirming that Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried out the required onsite checks to certify any authorised agent that may have calibrated the device. I cannot see how they could do this with perhaps the small caveat that Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) were in a position to do this, I have searched the internet and cannot find an authorised agent of Laser Tech in the U.K. Might anyone know if this defence has been used before or if an authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks for reading this far - any advice or thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Unfortunately not a valid defence under Section 3, Subsection 4 of the Ways and Means Act (1968). The judge is likely to refer the defendant to the decision made in Arkell v Pressdram (1971), which would be detrimental. Part of the problem is that reference is made to 'Tele-traffic', and elsewhere 'Tele-Traffic'. 'Tele-traffic' and 'Tele-Traffic' are entities with no existence outside the mind of the defendant, meaning that this particular line of argument cannot obtain type approval under Home Office Rule 4 of the Type Approval Act (2001), in accordance with European Directive 98/46/ec, European Directives Pertaining to Frivolous Arguments (as revised). One assumes the entity alluded to but not here named is 'Tele-Traffic (UK) Limited', but insertion of the name into the affected clauses is disallowed under the Legal Documents Redrafting Act (1889). The LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved in 2007/2009, it looks like the Concept CF system evolved from the Lastec Concept II DVD System (as type approved in 2010) through the removal of a DVD and the addition of a flash card reader. There must I intend to argue have been sizable technical updates to the Lastec Concept DVD system in order to enable this change e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
The ACPO document the police are using in evidence clearly indicates in sections 1.7 that changes to the devices, its software, component parts, manuals leads etc must be agreed with the Home Office and that minor changes may only be agreed (with prior written agreement) but other changes will require full type approval testing. I would argue that changing the medium of recording of a type approved device is not a minor change.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence that the police's certificate of use for a prescribed device naming the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved device is invalid because no such device has type approval? I would expect that to defend against this argument the police would need to produce evidence from Tele-traffic providing written agreement that they were able to make the changes to the Lastec Concept DVD system without full type approval testing - highly unlikely they will be able to produce this as tele-traffic have been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I am considering an additional defence because in ACPO 14.7 the detector must be returned to the manufacturer or certified authorised agent to be annually calibrated. I intend to argue that as Tele-traffic - the certified authorised agent that achieved type approval for this device has been out of business for over 4 years it cannot calibrate the unit, and neither can it further 'certify' an agent to produce a calibration verification or provide approved parts were any replaced. I think it would be reasonable to request that the police provide a recent audit report and certificate confirming that Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried out the required onsite checks to certify any authorised agent that may have calibrated the device. I cannot see how they could do this with perhaps the small caveat that Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) were in a position to do this, I have searched the internet and cannot find an authorised agent of Laser Tech in the U.K. Might anyone know if this defence has been used before or if an authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks for reading this far - any advice or thoughts are greatly appreciated!
Also unfortunately, expert witness Mr Mohammed Mirza of Mohammed's Mobiles in the High Street has examined the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System and has made the following statement: 'The laser gun, yeah, not like one off of Star Wars but one the five-oh use, yeah, like the old school one had a DVD recorder in it, innit, but that's like older than Rupert Murdoch. The new one's got a computer drive where the DVD recorder was, but it's all the same gun at the end of the day. What it plugs into, that don't matter, yeah, it's how fast the actual gun thinks you were going'.
How fast were you going?
SnoopDogg said:
I'ma be disputin a traffic offence n' would appreciate some lyrics as evidence relies on a LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System. This be a thang imported from Laser Tech (USA) n' type approved by a cold-ass lil company called Tele-Traffic (UK) - Dissolved up in 2019.
Da LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved up in 2007/2009, it be lookin like tha Concept CF system evolved from tha Lastec Concept Pt II STD System (as type approved up in 2010) all up in tha removal of a STD n' tha addizzle of a gangbangin' flash card reader n' s
t. There must I intend ta argue done been sizable technical thugged-out shiznit ta tha Lastec Concept STD system up in order ta enable dis chizzle e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.
Da ACPO document tha five-o is rockin up in evidence clearly indicates up in sections 1.7 dat chizzlez ta tha devices, its software, component parts, manuals leadz etc must be agreed wit tha Home Office n' dat minor chizzlez may only be agreed (with prior freestyled agreement) but other chizzlez will require full type approval testing. I would argue dat changin tha medium of recordin of a type approved thang aint a minor chizzle.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence dat tha policez certificate of use fo' a prescribed thang namin tha LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved thang is invalid cuz no such thang has type approval, biatch? I would expect dat ta defend against dis argument tha five-o would need ta produce evidence from Tele-traffic providin freestyled agreement dat they was able ta make tha chizzlez ta tha Lastec Concept STD system without full type approval testin - highly unlikely they is ghon be able ta produce dis as tele-traffic done been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I be thankin bout a additionizzle defence cuz up in ACPO 14.7 tha detector must be moonwalked back ta tha manufacturer or certified authorised agent ta be annually calibrated. Y'all KNOW dat st, muthafka! This type'a shiznit happens all tha time. I intend ta argue dat as Tele-traffic - tha certified authorised agent dat bigged up type approval fo' dis thang has been outta bidnizz fo' over 4 muthafkin years it cannot calibrate tha unit, n' neither can it further 'certify' a agent ta produce a cold-ass lil calibration verification or provide approved parts was any replaced. Y'all KNOW dat st, muthafka! I be thinkin it would be reasonable ta request dat tha five-o provide a recent audit report n' certificate confirmin dat Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried up tha required onsite checks ta certify any authorised agent dat may have calibrated tha device. I cannot peep how tha fk they could do dis wit like tha lil' small-ass caveat dat Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) was up in a posizzle ta do this, I have searched tha internizzle n' cannot find a authorised agent of Laser Tech up in tha U.K. Might mah playas know if dis defence has been used before or if a authorised body has stepped in?
Thanks fo' readin dis far - any lyrics or thoughts is pimped outly appreciated!
Da LTI 20-20 Ultralyte 1000 was type approved up in 2007/2009, it be lookin like tha Concept CF system evolved from tha Lastec Concept Pt II STD System (as type approved up in 2010) all up in tha removal of a STD n' tha addizzle of a gangbangin' flash card reader n' s
t. There must I intend ta argue done been sizable technical thugged-out shiznit ta tha Lastec Concept STD system up in order ta enable dis chizzle e.g. internal cabling, chipsets, firmware etc.Da ACPO document tha five-o is rockin up in evidence clearly indicates up in sections 1.7 dat chizzlez ta tha devices, its software, component parts, manuals leadz etc must be agreed wit tha Home Office n' dat minor chizzlez may only be agreed (with prior freestyled agreement) but other chizzlez will require full type approval testing. I would argue dat changin tha medium of recordin of a type approved thang aint a minor chizzle.
Would it therefore be a reasonable defence dat tha policez certificate of use fo' a prescribed thang namin tha LTI 20-20 Ultralyte Concept CF System as a type approved thang is invalid cuz no such thang has type approval, biatch? I would expect dat ta defend against dis argument tha five-o would need ta produce evidence from Tele-traffic providin freestyled agreement dat they was able ta make tha chizzlez ta tha Lastec Concept STD system without full type approval testin - highly unlikely they is ghon be able ta produce dis as tele-traffic done been dissolved since 2019.
As Tele-traffic no longer exists I be thankin bout a additionizzle defence cuz up in ACPO 14.7 tha detector must be moonwalked back ta tha manufacturer or certified authorised agent ta be annually calibrated. Y'all KNOW dat s
t, muthafka! This type'a shiznit happens all tha time. I intend ta argue dat as Tele-traffic - tha certified authorised agent dat bigged up type approval fo' dis thang has been outta bidnizz fo' over 4 muthafkin years it cannot calibrate tha unit, n' neither can it further 'certify' a agent ta produce a cold-ass lil calibration verification or provide approved parts was any replaced. Y'all KNOW dat st, muthafka! I be thinkin it would be reasonable ta request dat tha five-o provide a recent audit report n' certificate confirmin dat Tele-Traffic (UK) had recently carried up tha required onsite checks ta certify any authorised agent dat may have calibrated tha device. I cannot peep how tha fk they could do dis wit like tha lil' small-ass caveat dat Laser Tech (the USA manufacturers) was up in a posizzle ta do this, I have searched tha internizzle n' cannot find a authorised agent of Laser Tech up in tha U.K. Might mah playas know if dis defence has been used before or if a authorised body has stepped in?Thanks fo' readin dis far - any lyrics or thoughts is pimped outly appreciated!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff