RE: Speed gun programme in trouble
Tuesday 15th August 2006
UK police use LTI 20-20 UltralyteAustralia's handheld speed camera programme is in real trouble.
Speed gun programme in trouble
Handhelds report ridiculous speeds
UK police use LTI 20-20 Ultralyte
Motorists in the state of Victoria have been happily -- or, rather, unhappily -- shelling out fines for speeds that very few if any road-going cars could ever reach.
The facts came to light as one motorist challenged the police to hand over the paperwork after being accused of speeding when he was sure he hadn't been. It took months but the official speed of his car was 1,110kph -- almost 700mph.
On checking other people's results, they too were found to be doing crazy speeds -- officially that is. As were brick walls, steel advertising hoardings and other static objects.
A more scientific test involving a road engineer, with the same speed gun that the police use, found that a car travelling at 60kph (37.5mph) was shown on the device as travelling at 130kph.
Victoria has previous. A couple of years ago, the state government shelled out some AUS$14 million (£5.6 million) when 19 fixed cameras in Melbourne were exposed as faulty. A further AUS$10 million (£4 million) in fines was either scrapped or waived.
It couldn't happen here -- could it? It has: last October, one newspaper investigated a similar phenomenon in the UK and found that the LTI 20-20 Ultralyte gun, as used by several forces, posted a speed of 44mph for a static wall, 33mph for an empty road and 22mph for a parked car.
The problem in both cases is that the laser beam used to determine speed can bounce off objects other than that whose speed is bring measured, producing false results. According to one expert, if the speed gun's aiming point slips from the windscreen to the grille, the device will over-read by 8mph, as slippage occurs if the operator moves his hand "the thickness of a human hair".
The moral is clear -- if you're nabbed, ask to see the documentation.
Links
Discussion
Old news...sadly the UK government won't admit there's an issue - they CLAIM the ones the UK now use don't have this problem, or that police officers are trained in their use, or some other crap to keep them in use and prevent massive payouts to those potentially wrongly-convicted.
In short, our state is morally bankrupt and would rather lie to us in order to keep fleecing us than take responsibility for their mistakes.
In short, our state is morally bankrupt and would rather lie to us in order to keep fleecing us than take responsibility for their mistakes.
very old news. The LTI has been found to have flaws and if you try to bring it into court the big boys are wheeled out to defend it. In fact the guy who is the MD of Teletraffic UK, the sole distributor of the LTI units, is himself a formal police officer and now a qualified lawyer. His companies is making millions from selling the devices back to the police forces.
Trust me this is corrupt from the highest level and will not be breached.
Trust me this is corrupt from the highest level and will not be breached.
And it's even worse for bikers! Motor Cycle News (MCN) had several articles over past months re: hand-held cameras-especially "Safety partnership" (!) van cameras. These have been proven to be inaccurate on bikes & allegedly were never tested on bikes. The "slippage" issue is common & potentially more likely on bike readings. Seem to recall MCN tested h/held on stationary Honda Fireblade & got a reading of 25-30 mph. not sure if they didn't even fire it at tarmac & got a positive reading !!
p.s. Camera shown looks remarkably like Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic machine gun-WORRYING OR WHAT??
p.s. Camera shown looks remarkably like Heckler & Koch MP5 semi-automatic machine gun-WORRYING OR WHAT??
Edited by sprinter885 on Tuesday 15th August 11:29
lucozade said:
very old news. The LTI has been found to have flaws and if you try to bring it into court the big boys are wheeled out to defend it.
Surely get a camera into court, and point it at a moving person, see what speed it comes up with. Point it at the ground etc.. and see what speed it comes up with? If it is flawed....................
Surely any scientific evidence presented at court by an independant expert would be undeniable? You would only need to cast doubt on the accuracy and repeatibility of the equipment which judging by the reports would seem to be a safe thing to do?
Maybe safespeed should buy a brand new laser gun and have it independently tested? The results from this investigation could force the biggest single policy change in the war against drivers for years...
Maybe safespeed should buy a brand new laser gun and have it independently tested? The results from this investigation could force the biggest single policy change in the war against drivers for years...
Al 450 said:
Surely any scientific evidence presented at court by an independant expert would be undeniable?
You wish! The crown will roll out it's own "independant witness" namely the guy who distributes these devices in the UK. He'll swear under oath that your witness is wrong. Who do you think will win? The wreckless child killing speed merchant, or the good honest hard working speed camera operator?
No doubt if you are really lucky you will be lumbered with the expenses of the crown's "independant" witness to go along with your existing fine and points.
jasandjules said:
lucozade said:
very old news. The LTI has been found to have flaws and if you try to bring it into court the big boys are wheeled out to defend it.
Surely get a camera into court, and point it at a moving person, see what speed it comes up with. Point it at the ground etc.. and see what speed it comes up with? If it is flawed....................
As devil's advocate, all you're saying is that the speed gun can be wrongly used, just as any tool can be. The police argument will then be that in your case it wasn't
.Peter Ward said:
As devil's advocate, all you're saying is that the speed gun can be wrongly used, just as any tool can be. The police argument will then be that in your case it wasn't
. Maybe, but some of the cases I've seen would imply that
the officer using the machine had the ability of an
Olympic level marksman to get some readings.
Hardly realistic or prudent for the coppers to assert
such skills in normal use.
I think I'm right in saying that the UK is one
of the few countries in Europe to license the LTI20-20
for use.
Other countries in Europe have tried it and found it
either performs inadequately or it can only be sensibly
be used at short range.
lucozade said:
very old news. The LTI has been found to have flaws and if you try to bring it into court the big boys are wheeled out to defend it. In fact the guy who is the MD of Teletraffic UK, the sole distributor of the LTI units, is himself a formal police officer and now a qualified lawyer. His companies is making millions from selling the devices back to the police forces.
Oh, the big boys get bigger than that. The VP of LTI (Jeremy Dunne) was flown in from the USA to act as an expert witness for a recent speeding case, which was settled just after he got into the UK –the resulting court costs exceeding £4000 (for witness expense).
Frank Garrett (MD of TT) is a know nothing blowhard – I go further than that, he is a liar!
There, I said it on a public forum, feel free to try sue for libel FG – but you know you won’t win...........
This liar will stand up in court and will admit the LTI can be fooled if the beam is swept along a stationary surface, which is true, but – he also says the software will ‘somehow’ prevent this panning error if the beam is swept along a moving surface. I know intimately how this device works and I can tell you that’s bollox (simplistically, how does it know the target is moving in order to accept the speed reading as valid? – it’s a paradox), yet the courts will accept FG’s statement as undisputed fact.
lucozade said:
Trust me this is corrupt from the highest level and will not be breached.
Otherwise known as a fudgement
Peter Ward said:
As devil's advocate, all you're saying is that the speed gun can be wrongly used, just as any tool can be. The police argument will then be that in your case it wasn't .
.Indeed, but I Would argue that should the speed gun be capable of incorrect readings (especially if it reads say 30mph for someone walking across the court OR a positive reading when pointed at the floor) that this raises a doubt as to the veracity of the evidence. A reasonable doubt, no? And I think that then leaves the weighting of the Porsecution a bit screwed, as they have to prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that you were speeding.
As for the independant witness, again, this won't stand up to actual physical evidence if the unit is displayed in court.. Hell, if it was my case I would look to proceed on the grounds of perjury against the guy.
Surely the defence briefs have pointed out that this "independant witness" of the crown is the CEO/whatever of the company who makes them? Call his integrity into question?
jasandjules said:
As for the independant witness, again, this won't stand up to actual physical evidence if the unit is displayed in court.. Hell, if it was my case I would look to proceed on the grounds of perjury against the guy.
Surely the defence briefs have pointed out that this "independant witness" of the crown is the CEO/whatever of the company who makes them? Call his integrity into question?
Surely the defence briefs have pointed out that this "independant witness" of the crown is the CEO/whatever of the company who makes them? Call his integrity into question?
I would suspect that any judge with an eye on his career won't question the golden goose TOO closely, will he/she?!?
Welcome to Britain, only the corrupt, villainous and inept may apply.
Why would the (corrupt, shite, useless) Gov't bother about such things as accuracy of information or even the simple truth when it might stand in the way of making some dosh?! Dont fret about it, bend over and add a bit more vaseline, the inevitable will hurt less.
Why would the (corrupt, shite, useless) Gov't bother about such things as accuracy of information or even the simple truth when it might stand in the way of making some dosh?! Dont fret about it, bend over and add a bit more vaseline, the inevitable will hurt less.
havoc said:
I would suspect that any judge with an eye on his career won't question the golden goose TOO closely, will he/she?!?
One of the fundamental tenets of our society is the judiciary are independant of the Govt. That is also why you see all the HRA cases where the Govt are p***ed and hurl abuse at the judges, who are interpreting the law.
So, in theory there are no comebacks on a judge who does this, and let's face it, in all seriousness, if the machines were shown to be faulty then a judge would be very stupid not to take that into account. If the only evidence is flawed, then a submission of no case to answer is in order, and quite frankly if the CPS brif tried to defend that they may well get short shrift.
A judge can do this, and believe me, shifting them out of power is hard. A vote in both houses of Parliament is needed, and I think this has only ever happened 2-3 times in history.
Anything that is hand-held cannot be accurate by design. If the operator moves, in this case a thousandth of an inch, the speed recording is inaccurate.
The device should be mounted on a tripod at the least, and also employ some recording/calibration device which measures seismic activity or vibration to prove that it is stationery and recording on a stable datum.
The device should be mounted on a tripod at the least, and also employ some recording/calibration device which measures seismic activity or vibration to prove that it is stationery and recording on a stable datum.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff