ITV1 NOW - Speed guns can be wrong
Discussion
Hmmm. The ITV website is quite interesting - ITV.com/tonight
Tonight investigates claims made by motorists that the LTI20:20 speed gun is seriously flawed.
Mark Jordan meets Dr Michael Clark, an expert in laser technology, who believes that the device can be prone to error.
Motorists have been challenging its readings in court with increasing success.
Watch the ITV1 show on Friday, March 9 at 8pm.
Links
This website provides the information motorists need to defend themselves against alleged speeding offences and helps them obtain a just result
www.pepipoo.com
SECTION FOURTEEN of the below document lists the regulations which operators using laser speedmeters are supposed to operate by
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Da Manual version 2-3.pdf
General website on safe speeds and speed cameras
www.safespeed.org.uk
Nice to see Pepipoo and Safespeed in the mainstream media again.
ITV said:
Tonight investigates claims made by motorists that the LTI20:20 speed gun is seriously flawed.
Mark Jordan meets Dr Michael Clark, an expert in laser technology, who believes that the device can be prone to error.
Motorists have been challenging its readings in court with increasing success.
Watch the ITV1 show on Friday, March 9 at 8pm.
Links
This website provides the information motorists need to defend themselves against alleged speeding offences and helps them obtain a just result
www.pepipoo.com
SECTION FOURTEEN of the below document lists the regulations which operators using laser speedmeters are supposed to operate by
www.acpo.police.uk/asp/policies/Da Manual version 2-3.pdf
General website on safe speeds and speed cameras
www.safespeed.org.uk
Nice to see Pepipoo and Safespeed in the mainstream media again.
ACPO's statement that the case law and finding`s towards the Lasertech Speedscope LTI 20 -20 speed detection device in the U S of A is of no use because its not covered by UK law is incorrect
USA case often provides a persuasive influence in our court rooms as would any other commonwealth Country.
But then ACPO would cover thier ar*e's any which way they can. Their representative in Devizes magistrates was a joke.
USA case often provides a persuasive influence in our court rooms as would any other commonwealth Country.
But then ACPO would cover thier ar*e's any which way they can. Their representative in Devizes magistrates was a joke.
I love the bit at the end though. Mcdonut said, that the ACPO claimed the guns were correct and that the expert had only won a handful of cases. Recently he lost one which incurred £9k legal costs. Basically allowing the police to bully the public by saying we are right and in court we will screw you further.
They then go on to say how the manufacturer is employing an independant expert to tell them the gun is fine.
They then go on to say how the manufacturer is employing an independant expert to tell them the gun is fine.
herewego said:
spaximus said:
They then go on to say how the manufacturer is employing an independant expert to tell them the gun is fine.
What I thought the commentator said was that the home office had commissioned an independant report which would be ready soon.
The pattern is that 'independent reports' paid for by government reflect the views of government. Now there's a surprise - and if once in a while a researcher did a full honest job, the government simply wouldn't publish the report.
These reports are a very expensive exercise in government propaganda. Using our money. How the hell did they get the right to do that?
safespeed said:
herewego said:
spaximus said:
They then go on to say how the manufacturer is employing an independant expert to tell them the gun is fine.
What I thought the commentator said was that the home office had commissioned an independant report which would be ready soon.
The pattern is that 'independent reports' paid for by government reflect the views of government. Now there's a surprise - and if once in a while a researcher did a full honest job, the government simply wouldn't publish the report.
These reports are a very expensive exercise in government propaganda. Using our money. How the hell did they get the right to do that?
Let's be sceptical, but let's not pre-judge it. We have to wait and see what it says and who prepared it.
herewego said:
safespeed said:
herewego said:
spaximus said:
They then go on to say how the manufacturer is employing an independant expert to tell them the gun is fine.
What I thought the commentator said was that the home office had commissioned an independant report which would be ready soon.
The pattern is that 'independent reports' paid for by government reflect the views of government. Now there's a surprise - and if once in a while a researcher did a full honest job, the government simply wouldn't publish the report.
These reports are a very expensive exercise in government propaganda. Using our money. How the hell did they get the right to do that?
Let's be sceptical, but let's not pre-judge it. We have to wait and see what it says and who prepared it.
I read government reports all day long. Occasionally I come across one (Like TRL595, which they tried to hide) that does not contain the 'right' information to fully support actual or proposed government policy. The rest are pure propaganda. Stern? Eddington? Hutton? Come on folks!
Any Home Office report into LTI20.20 WILL BE soured by the potential costs of paying back millions of motorists whose convictions were unsafe.
safespeed said:
Any Home Office report into LTI20.20 WILL BE soured by the potential costs of paying back millions of motorists whose convictions were unsafe.
Precisely! It's the loss of future revenue which terrifies them as does the prospect of millions of people (rightfully) claiming their money back. So expect some very high-level arm-twisting / trickery.
herewego said:
Let's be sceptical, but let's not pre-judge it. We have to wait and see what it says and who prepared it.
From innocent naivety above, to truth and reality below...
safespeed said:
I read government reports all day long. Occasionally I come across one (Like TRL595, which they tried to hide) that does not contain the 'right' information to fully support actual or proposed government policy. The rest are pure propaganda. Stern? Eddington? Hutton? Come on folks!
Any Home Office report into LTI20.20 WILL BE soured by the potential costs of paying back millions of motorists whose convictions were unsafe.
Any Home Office report into LTI20.20 WILL BE soured by the potential costs of paying back millions of motorists whose convictions were unsafe.
spaximus said:
Recently he lost one which incurred £9k legal costs. Basically allowing the police to bully the public by saying we are right and in court we will screw you further.
The CPS prosecutors final words to me before we went into court when I fought my case was something along the lines of, "Are you sure you want to go ahead and plead not guilty, it could cost you a lot more in court costs than simply paying the fine you know."
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff