The Speed Gun 'never' lies, or does it.......
Discussion
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=380255&in_page_id=1770
Police speed guns do make mistakes, the Government has admitted for the first time.
The errors mean that thousands of motorists have potentially lost their licences and even their livelihoods on false grounds.
Almost a million drivers are on the verge of bans after being repeatedly snapped by 3,500 mobile devices across England and Wales
The Home Office and the police have always insisted that the speed guns - which are held by hand or mounted on a tripod - do not lie.
But that is contradicted by a letter from Geoffrey Biddulph, the senior Home Office civil servant in charge of policing Britain's roads.
In it, he states clearly: "We do accept in certain atypical circumstances a device may be capable of producing inaccurate readings."
The letter was sent to Barry Culshaw, a Hampshire solicitor who has defended scores of motorists unfairly trapped by the cameras.
He has sent the Home Office a damning dossier showing how the cameras and their operators make mistakes. He says that the most unreliable guns, which use laser technology, should now be ditched by the Government.
A Daily Mail investigation last year revealed the full extent of the flaws in the devices.
Our tests showed that the most popular of the guns - the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 100 - gave erratic results even when operated strictly according to instructions.
It recorded a wall travelling at 44 mph, an empty road doing 33 mph and a parked car managing 22 mph. A bicycle - being ridden at just 5mph - was said to have been doing 66mph.
Most of the mistakes stemmed from the gun's wide beam picking up readings from overtaking cars and parked vehicles. Reflections from the road surface, hoardings, fences and even traffic signs also produced errors.
If the gun was not held firmly on the target - itself a difficult task - 'slippage' led to faulty readings. A movement of as little as the width of a human hair was enough to create mistakes.
Our investigation was monitored by one of the country's leading laser experts, Dr Michael Clark.
Only this week, in what is now being viewed as a landmark case, a motorist accused of speeding at 109mph along the M6 toll road in Staffordshire was cleared by a judge because of an error by a laser gun or its police handlers.
Car salesman Stewart Walker, 37, defended himself at Stoke magistrates court because he could not afford the £1,400 in fees charged by a solicitor.
He told the judge that he was driving at exactly 70mph when he was snapped by an LTI Ultralyte last June.
'This is a huge admission from the Home Office'
As the officer squeezed the trigger Mr Walker was overtaken by a BMW sports car which then pulled in front of his own saloon.
Mr Walker asked the officer, in court to give evidence, if the reflection of the faster car could have been picked up by the camera's laser beam by mistake to give the extraordinarily high reading. The officer said yes.
Mr Walker, from Norfolk, handed the judge a copy of the Mail investigation, published last October. The judge read it before declaring that Mr Walker should have the case against him dropped. His costs will now be paid by the police.
After the hearing, Mr Walker said: "I told the judge that I thought the gun had taken a reading from another car.
"I have been worried for months about losing my licence even though I had done nothing wrong or dangerous at all."
Motoring organisations have consistently said that the cameras are not fault-free.
Some observers have called for speed guns to be scrapped altogether because of the flaws.
Paul Smith, head of Safe-Speed, a group which campaigns against the spread of mobile cameras, said: "This is a huge admission from the Home Office.
"Now the Government has finally confessed that a problem exists, they must withdraw the devices and make arrangements to compensate those convicted or fined on the basis of unreliable evidence.
"Five million motorists have been convicted or paid a fixed penalty in the past five years. Now we know that many have not broken any law at all."
Mark McArthur-Christie, policy director of the British Driving Association, said: "The public are beginning to mistrust the police because of the unfairness of the cameras which trap the innocent."
More than two million motorists are expected to receive speed camera tickets this year. If each is fined £60, the total profits from the cameras in 2005-2006 will be £118million. The money goes to police forces, road safety groups and courts that hear speeding cases.
The Home Office declined to comment last night.
Police speed guns do make mistakes, the Government has admitted for the first time.
The errors mean that thousands of motorists have potentially lost their licences and even their livelihoods on false grounds.
Almost a million drivers are on the verge of bans after being repeatedly snapped by 3,500 mobile devices across England and Wales
The Home Office and the police have always insisted that the speed guns - which are held by hand or mounted on a tripod - do not lie.
But that is contradicted by a letter from Geoffrey Biddulph, the senior Home Office civil servant in charge of policing Britain's roads.
In it, he states clearly: "We do accept in certain atypical circumstances a device may be capable of producing inaccurate readings."
The letter was sent to Barry Culshaw, a Hampshire solicitor who has defended scores of motorists unfairly trapped by the cameras.
He has sent the Home Office a damning dossier showing how the cameras and their operators make mistakes. He says that the most unreliable guns, which use laser technology, should now be ditched by the Government.
A Daily Mail investigation last year revealed the full extent of the flaws in the devices.
Our tests showed that the most popular of the guns - the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 100 - gave erratic results even when operated strictly according to instructions.
It recorded a wall travelling at 44 mph, an empty road doing 33 mph and a parked car managing 22 mph. A bicycle - being ridden at just 5mph - was said to have been doing 66mph.
Most of the mistakes stemmed from the gun's wide beam picking up readings from overtaking cars and parked vehicles. Reflections from the road surface, hoardings, fences and even traffic signs also produced errors.
If the gun was not held firmly on the target - itself a difficult task - 'slippage' led to faulty readings. A movement of as little as the width of a human hair was enough to create mistakes.
Our investigation was monitored by one of the country's leading laser experts, Dr Michael Clark.
Only this week, in what is now being viewed as a landmark case, a motorist accused of speeding at 109mph along the M6 toll road in Staffordshire was cleared by a judge because of an error by a laser gun or its police handlers.
Car salesman Stewart Walker, 37, defended himself at Stoke magistrates court because he could not afford the £1,400 in fees charged by a solicitor.
He told the judge that he was driving at exactly 70mph when he was snapped by an LTI Ultralyte last June.
'This is a huge admission from the Home Office'
As the officer squeezed the trigger Mr Walker was overtaken by a BMW sports car which then pulled in front of his own saloon.
Mr Walker asked the officer, in court to give evidence, if the reflection of the faster car could have been picked up by the camera's laser beam by mistake to give the extraordinarily high reading. The officer said yes.
Mr Walker, from Norfolk, handed the judge a copy of the Mail investigation, published last October. The judge read it before declaring that Mr Walker should have the case against him dropped. His costs will now be paid by the police.
After the hearing, Mr Walker said: "I told the judge that I thought the gun had taken a reading from another car.
"I have been worried for months about losing my licence even though I had done nothing wrong or dangerous at all."
Motoring organisations have consistently said that the cameras are not fault-free.
Some observers have called for speed guns to be scrapped altogether because of the flaws.
Paul Smith, head of Safe-Speed, a group which campaigns against the spread of mobile cameras, said: "This is a huge admission from the Home Office.
"Now the Government has finally confessed that a problem exists, they must withdraw the devices and make arrangements to compensate those convicted or fined on the basis of unreliable evidence.
"Five million motorists have been convicted or paid a fixed penalty in the past five years. Now we know that many have not broken any law at all."
Mark McArthur-Christie, policy director of the British Driving Association, said: "The public are beginning to mistrust the police because of the unfairness of the cameras which trap the innocent."
More than two million motorists are expected to receive speed camera tickets this year. If each is fined £60, the total profits from the cameras in 2005-2006 will be £118million. The money goes to police forces, road safety groups and courts that hear speeding cases.
The Home Office declined to comment last night.
It should also be noted that Stewart Walker is a PHer, who asked for help on the S,P and L forum. I have been giving him a hand for the last few months on how to deal with the CPS and trial from the times I have defended myself in court, as he couldnt afford the solicitors fees.
Not asking for credit myself, but it must be said that this is all thanks to Pistonheads, and proof that as a community if we all pull together, we *can* make a difference!
Not asking for credit myself, but it must be said that this is all thanks to Pistonheads, and proof that as a community if we all pull together, we *can* make a difference!
Yeah but – was he really only doing 70?
I used the M6 toll for the first time recently (I’ve been a conscientious objector ‘till now) and, as I’ve heard it’s aggressively targeted by the Police, I set cruise to 70 and drove the length of it in lane 1. I was passed by everything else, a fair number of cars travelling at very high speed.
With all that going on why would Bib zap someone doing 70? Has anyone called into question the officers ‘formed an opinion of speed’ judgement – he was obviously way out?
I also think that Paul’s setting himself up for a fall by saying that “many” of the 5 million motorists that have been convicted have not broken any law at all.
I used the M6 toll for the first time recently (I’ve been a conscientious objector ‘till now) and, as I’ve heard it’s aggressively targeted by the Police, I set cruise to 70 and drove the length of it in lane 1. I was passed by everything else, a fair number of cars travelling at very high speed.
With all that going on why would Bib zap someone doing 70? Has anyone called into question the officers ‘formed an opinion of speed’ judgement – he was obviously way out?
I also think that Paul’s setting himself up for a fall by saying that “many” of the 5 million motorists that have been convicted have not broken any law at all.
deva link said:
Yeah but – was he really only doing 70?
I used the M6 toll for the first time recently (I’ve been a conscientious objector ‘till now) and, as I’ve heard it’s aggressively targeted by the Police, I set cruise to 70 and drove the length of it in lane 1. I was passed by everything else, a fair number of cars travelling at very high speed.
With all that going on why would Bib zap someone doing 70? Has anyone called into question the officers ‘formed an opinion of speed’ judgement – he was obviously way out?
I also think that Paul’s setting himself up for a fall by saying that “many” of the 5 million motorists that have been convicted have not broken any law at all.
From my knowledge of this case, the point is that it wasnt him that was zapped! The only evidence which said that the reading was from him was the opinion of the officer of what or which car the laser most likely hit from where it was wavered down to a quarter of a mile away. In court he said it was possible that the reading came from the BMW who overtook in from of him who was in fact speeding.
He didnt just make the BMW up either, he protested his innocence and told them about the BMW overtaking him when he was pulled over and made a signed statement there and then.
On the point of 'opinion of excess speed' - you dont really think that is always adhered to to an evidential level every time the trigger is pulled do you?
If it is difficult to target a car from a quarter of a mile away by laser, it is even more difficult to tell what speed it is going from half a mile away.
deva link said:
I also think that Paul’s setting himself up for a fall by saying that “many” of the 5 million motorists that have been convicted have not broken any law at all.
Hardly. The best estimates of lti20.20 errors are in the range 1 in 25 to 1 in 250. So even at 1 in 250 we still have 20,000. At the other end of the scale we have 200,000. Either figure is 'many'.
safespeed said:
I also think that Paul’s setting himself up for a fall by saying that “many” of the 5 million motorists that have been convicted have not broken any law at all.
Hardly. The best estimates of lti20.20 errors are in the range 1 in 25 to 1 in 250. So even at 1 in 250 we still have 20,000. At the other end of the scale we have 200,000. Either figure is 'many'.
There is my one in there in that figure too. Sadly the huge majority of the cases will be where people trusted the figure above their judgement or didnt contest the charge. I spent about £1500 in all trying to win my case and lost at appeal. My hope if that if enough positive evidence and cases start coming through I can get the case opened on the grounds of new evidence to hopefully put justice right.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff