Surely this new speed device cant operate ethically
Discussion
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2008/02/18/new-speed-camera-is-no-bigger-than-pair-of-binoculars-86908-20323125/
Basically.
hand held laser device size of binoculars.
only needs a target of 3 inches
works to more than a mile in all weathers.
rumoured to be coming to the uk.
Questions.
Surely the easiest defenc would be that they couldn't prove it was your car that was actually targeted.
I am a fully trained army marksman and I wouldn't claim I could ever hold a 3 inch moving target at a mile distance.
Just normal hand and body instability would make this task impossible.
Is it yet another case of guilty until proven innocent arriving on these shores..
disgraceful
Basically.
hand held laser device size of binoculars.
only needs a target of 3 inches
works to more than a mile in all weathers.
rumoured to be coming to the uk.
Questions.
Surely the easiest defenc would be that they couldn't prove it was your car that was actually targeted.
I am a fully trained army marksman and I wouldn't claim I could ever hold a 3 inch moving target at a mile distance.
Just normal hand and body instability would make this task impossible.
Is it yet another case of guilty until proven innocent arriving on these shores..
disgraceful
Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 18th February 10:58
Strangely enough, I did a bit of research into what is viable with regard to 'target size'.
When I was in court, I produced a scale model of the front elevation of my car, so it would be the same size at 20m from the witness stand and bench as it was from the laser operator at 400m away.
It was just over an inch across. I then pulled out an exact life size copy of an Olympic standard 20m pistol shooting target. My car just about filled the centre circle and the next two rings around. After the operator told me he would have no trouble consistantly hitting the model of my car at 20m we compared this to the target to discover the level of marksmanship he told the court he possessed would have got him a minimum of a bronze medal, had he had the foresight to leave his police job and join the GB olympic team at the last olympics.
Luckily for him, and his evidence he did not try to tell the court he could actually refine this to hitting the ACPO stated target which is the number plate or area around it - as that was just even more unlikely at that distance.
As an interesting side note, the clerk told me later he though the analogy was brilliant as I then brought up the point of asking how the officer could prove his marksmanship on the paper target. Of course he could back his unlikely feat up with the pellet marks. You don't get the same ability to tell where the laser 'hit'...
When I was in court, I produced a scale model of the front elevation of my car, so it would be the same size at 20m from the witness stand and bench as it was from the laser operator at 400m away.
It was just over an inch across. I then pulled out an exact life size copy of an Olympic standard 20m pistol shooting target. My car just about filled the centre circle and the next two rings around. After the operator told me he would have no trouble consistantly hitting the model of my car at 20m we compared this to the target to discover the level of marksmanship he told the court he possessed would have got him a minimum of a bronze medal, had he had the foresight to leave his police job and join the GB olympic team at the last olympics.
Luckily for him, and his evidence he did not try to tell the court he could actually refine this to hitting the ACPO stated target which is the number plate or area around it - as that was just even more unlikely at that distance.
As an interesting side note, the clerk told me later he though the analogy was brilliant as I then brought up the point of asking how the officer could prove his marksmanship on the paper target. Of course he could back his unlikely feat up with the pellet marks. You don't get the same ability to tell where the laser 'hit'...
Absolutely.
No doubt APCO guidleines will be brought in for their use but then the officers would never admit to breaking them so you would be in a guilty until disproven scenario.
I hope the powers that be see sense and don't allow them.
It even says the device works through glass.
Great ideal for the parambulated non walking police force of today who can stay glued in their armchairs.
I would have no difficulty whatsoever disproving this device at all.
I have better than 20/20 vision at distance. I have 6/3 vision which is actually 20/10 in other words i can see from 20m what someone with 'normal' eyesight can only see from 10m.
Whats the eyesight ability of the average traffic policeman or as likely pcso when these divices arrive?
No doubt APCO guidleines will be brought in for their use but then the officers would never admit to breaking them so you would be in a guilty until disproven scenario.
I hope the powers that be see sense and don't allow them.
It even says the device works through glass.
Great ideal for the parambulated non walking police force of today who can stay glued in their armchairs.
I would have no difficulty whatsoever disproving this device at all.
I have better than 20/20 vision at distance. I have 6/3 vision which is actually 20/10 in other words i can see from 20m what someone with 'normal' eyesight can only see from 10m.
Whats the eyesight ability of the average traffic policeman or as likely pcso when these divices arrive?
The marksman shooting a gun and the courtoom model car anaolgies doen't work at all do they?
There would be no problem shining a torch beam and hitting the target in either situation, light and bullets: chalk and cheese.
All that is required is to illuminate the target reflective areas, the highly reflective areas return an expected signal to the measuring device and the change in distance to target with respect to time is acheived; low skill required, highly effective result.
There would be no problem shining a torch beam and hitting the target in either situation, light and bullets: chalk and cheese.
All that is required is to illuminate the target reflective areas, the highly reflective areas return an expected signal to the measuring device and the change in distance to target with respect to time is acheived; low skill required, highly effective result.
wakeywakey said:
The marksman shooting a gun and the courtoom model car anaolgies doen't work at all do they?
There would be no problem shining a torch beam and hitting the target in either situation, light and bullets: chalk and cheese.
All that is required is to illuminate the target reflective areas, the highly reflective areas return an expected signal to the measuring device and the change in distance to target with respect to time is acheived; low skill required, highly effective result.
Which is of course why on all of the contested laser speeding cases I have seen, either before or after the reading has been another reading 'ERR 03' which means that the skill of the operator was *not* enough to get a reading - not so 'low skill' then...There would be no problem shining a torch beam and hitting the target in either situation, light and bullets: chalk and cheese.
All that is required is to illuminate the target reflective areas, the highly reflective areas return an expected signal to the measuring device and the change in distance to target with respect to time is acheived; low skill required, highly effective result.
So how different is a bullet to a laser? They both go in a straight line, and where the device points at. There is beam divergence with the laser, but not enough to make the laser point somewhere down a road and be sure it was the car that was hit... In fact, that only adds more doubt as at the longer distances the actual point that was reflected could be another car, a roadsign or anything - or are we nieve to think that it can only be someones number plate that can be hit at a quarter or even half a mile away or more?
The laser is NOT the same as a torch. Without quoting basic physics and explaining the obvious, the difference is with a torch you can physically see what the light is hitting as the object is illuminated.
With the laser devices it is an educated guess of what in in the beam divergence at the time...
Greendubber said:
mark69sheer said:
Great ideal for the parambulated non walking police force of today who can stay glued in their armchairs.
Wind your neck in Mark, why not wait to see if they come here first and how they are used before taking a dig. You really are boring.
wakeywakey said:
There would be no problem shining a torch beam and hitting the target in either situation, light and bullets: chalk and cheese.
Of course the skill at the outer reaches of the guns deployment would be the same.You don't have a handy red dot showing exactly where your beam is pointing unlike a torch which you can see has hit your target.
So how do you actually know exactly where you were aiming the gun.
The blurb says you can now get motorists who speed by 'hiding' behind other cars and that you only need to see 3 inch of the target to get a reading. You do of course have to hold it on target for .3 seconds as well.. which is probably longer than a marksman like myself even has to hold the sights on target to squeeze a shot off which is actually done in the cycle of your bodies breathing as you exhale and your sights cross the target momentarily. You dont hold the gun in one place for ages wobbling about trying to keep it still.
Will we see police laying prone on the floor using tripods and rests.. I think not.
I can't understand why any Bib on here would want to come to the defence of this device its only yet another speed measuring device and one with a load of inherrent bad publicity built in from new.
Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 18th February 12:00
The Tuscan Rat said:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/...
Taken from the same topic a few weeks back.
Although this thing has the ability to work at a great distance, you need to have two forms of evidence to convict someone of speeding, your own estimate then the laser to back you up. I think I can personally estimate a cars speed from a distance of about 200 metres, any more and you are into very dodgy grounds. If I was taken to court and the officer said I estimated his speed at a mile away and it was XX, then I used the laser and it confirmed this I would take the whole court outside and get the officer to prove it.......
As for the bullet / Laser thing. I to shot full bore target rifle at a Regimental level, when on century range, Bisley you have to take a lot into consideration, windage etc etc, where as a laser or very high powered torch ( 10 million candles should do it )would not be affected by this and would hit the target every time.
Justin I can see where you are coming from but it is very thin. If it were me, I would have taken my mag light out of my pocket and hit you car every time. Then explained the width of a laser at said distance compared to my torch. Then again I doubt we would have got to court as I would have waited to you were closer then done my checks and remember this is the real world and I don’t and won’t sit in a van so I also doubt you would have got near my tolerances for speed. Thus targeting the right people.
Thats some really useful input, and a great idea. Perry Mason would be proud!Taken from the same topic a few weeks back.
Although this thing has the ability to work at a great distance, you need to have two forms of evidence to convict someone of speeding, your own estimate then the laser to back you up. I think I can personally estimate a cars speed from a distance of about 200 metres, any more and you are into very dodgy grounds. If I was taken to court and the officer said I estimated his speed at a mile away and it was XX, then I used the laser and it confirmed this I would take the whole court outside and get the officer to prove it.......
As for the bullet / Laser thing. I to shot full bore target rifle at a Regimental level, when on century range, Bisley you have to take a lot into consideration, windage etc etc, where as a laser or very high powered torch ( 10 million candles should do it )would not be affected by this and would hit the target every time.
Justin I can see where you are coming from but it is very thin. If it were me, I would have taken my mag light out of my pocket and hit you car every time. Then explained the width of a laser at said distance compared to my torch. Then again I doubt we would have got to court as I would have waited to you were closer then done my checks and remember this is the real world and I don’t and won’t sit in a van so I also doubt you would have got near my tolerances for speed. Thus targeting the right people.
Edited by The Tuscan Rat on Monday 18th February 12:09
The only problem would be getting a torch with a small enough beam divergence. Otherwise, it may make the job too easy for the operator to switch the torch on and just hold it on the target. I suppose what you are trying to prove is that at that kind of distance the beam would be flying around different parts and around the car.
I guess a good witness and brief would attack this though and make out that it is not a fair comparison for various reasons...
actually having just read the newspaper article I can relax again.
It says it only needs a 3 inch target at 100ft
So it would need a 90 inch target at 1000 yards
and a 180 inch target or 15ft at 2000 yds
since most cars are about 6 ft wide then its operating range is only realistically about 750 yds
Here's the funny thing
at 400 metres ... you need a 40 inch or 3ft 4 inch target so how is that going to catch people who are 'hiding' in traffic unless they drive more than half way out their lane?
It says it only needs a 3 inch target at 100ft
So it would need a 90 inch target at 1000 yards
and a 180 inch target or 15ft at 2000 yds
since most cars are about 6 ft wide then its operating range is only realistically about 750 yds
Here's the funny thing
at 400 metres ... you need a 40 inch or 3ft 4 inch target so how is that going to catch people who are 'hiding' in traffic unless they drive more than half way out their lane?
Edited by mark69sheer on Monday 18th February 12:21
mark69sheer said:
Greendubber said:
mark69sheer said:
Great ideal for the parambulated non walking police force of today who can stay glued in their armchairs.
Wind your neck in Mark, why not wait to see if they come here first and how they are used before taking a dig. You really are boring.
Greendubber said:
mark69sheer said:
Greendubber said:
mark69sheer said:
Great ideal for the parambulated non walking police force of today who can stay glued in their armchairs.
Wind your neck in Mark, why not wait to see if they come here first and how they are used before taking a dig. You really are boring.
The Tuscan Rat said:
JustinP1 said:
Thats some really useful input, and a great idea. Perry Mason would be proud!
The only problem would be getting a torch with a small enough beam divergence. Otherwise, it may make the job too easy for the operator to switch the torch on and just hold it on the target. I suppose what you are trying to prove is that at that kind of distance the beam would be flying around different parts and around the car.
I guess a good witness and brief would attack this though and make out that it is not a fair comparison for various reasons...
You only have to sow the seed into the bench, this then adds an eliment of doubt...The only problem would be getting a torch with a small enough beam divergence. Otherwise, it may make the job too easy for the operator to switch the torch on and just hold it on the target. I suppose what you are trying to prove is that at that kind of distance the beam would be flying around different parts and around the car.
I guess a good witness and brief would attack this though and make out that it is not a fair comparison for various reasons...
" Look how easy I hit the defendands car with my torch, a laser is much more accurate "
And if you could then I would humble myself before the magistrates and plead with them to be lenient.
saying you can hit something with a torch is like saying you can hit a barn door with a shovel or a target with a scattergun.
proving you can hold a narrow beam within 3ft 4 inches at 400 metres on a moving target is seriously outside the range of human capability from a standing position using a device similar to binoculars.
Thats 10 inch at 100 metres
or 5 inch at 50 metres or 2.5 inch at 25 metres.
Now I could easily hit a half inch target at 25m with a rifle in the prone position I can easily hit a one inch target at 50 metres.
But thats with a rifle.
with a pistol which this bonocular device is nearer to then I would really struggle to hold these targets especialy moving and especially standing up squinting .
Its a non starter this device...
proving you can hold a narrow beam within 3ft 4 inches at 400 metres on a moving target is seriously outside the range of human capability from a standing position using a device similar to binoculars.
Thats 10 inch at 100 metres
or 5 inch at 50 metres or 2.5 inch at 25 metres.
Now I could easily hit a half inch target at 25m with a rifle in the prone position I can easily hit a one inch target at 50 metres.
But thats with a rifle.
with a pistol which this bonocular device is nearer to then I would really struggle to hold these targets especialy moving and especially standing up squinting .
Its a non starter this device...
There are some different issues involved in 'hitting the target' if you compare a hand held laser with a gun.
First of all, if you are unsupported, holding a small laser steady (with one or two hands) to hit a small target at >25m is actually quite difficult. The same goes for aiming a gun (rifle or pistol). About the best you can do with either at 50m and over is to 'area aim' which means you are working on best probability of hitting your 'x ring' when you want to.
I'd say standing unsupported with a rifle or hand-held laser, you'd do well to keep aim on a 3" fixed target at 50m without veering off more than you were on. And that's without having to contend with even a light breeze or other environmental effects causing your body to move.
If you can get some support (kneeling, prone, using a rest of some sort) then it becomes a lot easier to hold aim of course. But this is not the same as 'hitting the target'. You can give a rifle to a novice and even if they are shooting off a bench, they will often be nowhere near the 10 ring, even at short distances. The recoil, lack of trigger control and often just first-time nerves makes a huge difference.
If you then have to press a trigger or button to fire the laser or rifle, you will introduce some movement. This is why trigger control and breathing is so important in target shooting. And once the round has been fired, there is still the time the bullet takes to travel down the barrel, which although very brief, can introduce further errors in the flight of the bullet due to body movement and control of recoil.
A laser, once on target will stay on target as long as the operator doesn't move. But unless you had the laser on a sturdy tripod I would say that trying to hit a small target at 200m and over is still not going to happen regularly unless you have had a lot of practise.
Just my tuppence-worth.
First of all, if you are unsupported, holding a small laser steady (with one or two hands) to hit a small target at >25m is actually quite difficult. The same goes for aiming a gun (rifle or pistol). About the best you can do with either at 50m and over is to 'area aim' which means you are working on best probability of hitting your 'x ring' when you want to.
I'd say standing unsupported with a rifle or hand-held laser, you'd do well to keep aim on a 3" fixed target at 50m without veering off more than you were on. And that's without having to contend with even a light breeze or other environmental effects causing your body to move.
If you can get some support (kneeling, prone, using a rest of some sort) then it becomes a lot easier to hold aim of course. But this is not the same as 'hitting the target'. You can give a rifle to a novice and even if they are shooting off a bench, they will often be nowhere near the 10 ring, even at short distances. The recoil, lack of trigger control and often just first-time nerves makes a huge difference.
If you then have to press a trigger or button to fire the laser or rifle, you will introduce some movement. This is why trigger control and breathing is so important in target shooting. And once the round has been fired, there is still the time the bullet takes to travel down the barrel, which although very brief, can introduce further errors in the flight of the bullet due to body movement and control of recoil.
A laser, once on target will stay on target as long as the operator doesn't move. But unless you had the laser on a sturdy tripod I would say that trying to hit a small target at 200m and over is still not going to happen regularly unless you have had a lot of practise.
Just my tuppence-worth.
fastfreddy said:
A laser, once on target will stay on target as long as the operator doesn't move. But unless you had the laser on a sturdy tripod I would say that trying to hit a small target at 200m and over is still not going to happen regularly unless you have had a lot of practise.
But of course in our case the target vehicle is moving.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff