Daily Mails Front page LTI 20-20 test
Discussion
I just bought the paper and read the article. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the so-called 'expert witness' (I know much more about these guns than he does) there is a flaw in the report. He has already admitted that you can get false readings from stationary targets but the software can somehow differentiate between stationary and moving targets (this of course being total bull).
The 66MPH cyclist simply does not work because there’s no point (or set of points that when swept) can indicate and maintain 66MPH for 0.3 seconds (8.6 meters), hence I reckon the beam missed it and swept across something else (stationary) instead.
I will email Sue Reid to tell her how the tests should have been done.
The 66MPH cyclist simply does not work because there’s no point (or set of points that when swept) can indicate and maintain 66MPH for 0.3 seconds (8.6 meters), hence I reckon the beam missed it and swept across something else (stationary) instead.
I will email Sue Reid to tell her how the tests should have been done.
smeggy said:
The 66MPH cyclist simply does not work because there’s no point (or set of points that when swept) can indicate and maintain 66MPH for 0.3 seconds (8.6 meters), hence I reckon the beam missed it and swept across something else (stationary) instead.
Probably included for the incredulity factor. But the point, surely, is that the often vaunted "UK version with [implied] improved error detection" is at least highly questionable. The number don't really matter, the doubt is the key thing here. The article did point out that it is equally likely that people above the limit have had low readings. Sounds plausible. I wonder where that thought came from though? If an 'expert' source by way of mitigation of any sort of admission of possible error, which has always been strenuously denied previously, then it would confirm that the devices are not as full proof as people would wish us to believe. It would also bring into question the entire type approval testing regime.
Now that could be very interesting.
LongQ said:
The article did point out that it is equally likely that people above the limit have had low readings. Sounds plausible. I wonder where that thought came from though? If an 'expert' source by way of mitigation of any sort of admission of possible error
Mitigation? You mean in the same way that a few innocent people have been convicted for murder, but to balance things out, there are many murderers running free?
LongQ said:I understand your point and agree; even though that particular test is definitely invalid, who can say that these measurements on motor vehicles are not also invalid!
The number don't really matter, the doubt is the key thing here
LongQ said:‘Tis correct. It’s equally possible for the gun to be swept from front to rear of an oncoming/outgoing vehicle, hence reducing the computed ‘distance with time’.
The article did point out that it is equally likely that people above the limit have had low readings. Sounds plausible.
LongQ said:
But the point, surely, is that the often vaunted "UK version with [implied] improved error detection" is at least highly questionable.
smeggy said:
I just bought the paper and read the article. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the so-called 'expert witness' (I know much more about these guns than he does) there is a flaw in the report. He has already admitted that you can get false readings from stationary targets but the software can somehow differentiate between stationary and moving targets (this of course being total bull).
If you find the Inside Out video (on PePiPoo) they tested a small lorry and got a sweep error down the side of it. I'm not sure why they did't do this here though. However I'm pretty sure Dr.Clark would have done whatever he could in the circumstances.
Gareth
As Smeggy points out the devil is in the detail but on face value the article hit all the spots.
Difficulty of acurate reading even when operated and set up according home office and mfr manual.
Slip errors wall at 44mph.
Reflections (parked car measured at 22mph by reflection off a moving van)
The cycle at 66 was a "showing how ridiculous it all is factor."
Difficulty of holding accurately
Beam width at typical measuring distance being 2x typical vehicle width hence questioning what is being measured.
Frank Garrett inadmissablity as expert witness. Mr Garrett refused to comment.
Nice touch the mention of him FG being a millionaire on the back of it, whereas Dr Clark does not make his income from giving evidence defending camera cases.
Scameraships unwillingness to release corrob by video evidence and then when forced the cases are dropped.
As said above nice balancing comment about slip errors can work both ways.
Mention of the time bomb if convictions quashed, refunds, loss of licence, even jobs mentioned.
Safespeed mentioning that the type approval should be withdrawn and subject to independant review.
Mention of pepipoo by his real name.
Front page plus two full pages inside.
Difficulty of acurate reading even when operated and set up according home office and mfr manual.
Slip errors wall at 44mph.
Reflections (parked car measured at 22mph by reflection off a moving van)
The cycle at 66 was a "showing how ridiculous it all is factor."
Difficulty of holding accurately
Beam width at typical measuring distance being 2x typical vehicle width hence questioning what is being measured.
Frank Garrett inadmissablity as expert witness. Mr Garrett refused to comment.
Nice touch the mention of him FG being a millionaire on the back of it, whereas Dr Clark does not make his income from giving evidence defending camera cases.
Scameraships unwillingness to release corrob by video evidence and then when forced the cases are dropped.
As said above nice balancing comment about slip errors can work both ways.
Mention of the time bomb if convictions quashed, refunds, loss of licence, even jobs mentioned.
Safespeed mentioning that the type approval should be withdrawn and subject to independant review.
Mention of pepipoo by his real name.
Front page plus two full pages inside.
Yes, at last the truth is coming out, about time though. Don't forget anyone who hasn't seen the earlier thread entitled "laser meters are innacurate".
It's interesting that anytime a court case has got close to throwing serious doubt on the accuracy of the dodgy scopes, mainly by the request for video evidence (that is usually taken at the scene as backup), the case against the driver is suddenly withdrawn. Strange that.
It's interesting that anytime a court case has got close to throwing serious doubt on the accuracy of the dodgy scopes, mainly by the request for video evidence (that is usually taken at the scene as backup), the case against the driver is suddenly withdrawn. Strange that.
SafeSpeed forums has the scans you've all been looking for 
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4344
www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4344
Got the paper this morning, and didnt actually read it till this evening. How the hell I didnt notice the front page and read it all with glee this morning I dont know.
The article was fantastic, a great truthfull report, that at least might highlight this to the general public.
Will it make a difference? Hell no. The whole partnership idea is now a mega multi million pound industry, and as with all big unacountable corporations, they will not let anything like the truth get it the way of their business.
Their reply to this seems that our operators are trained, thats it, we dont care.
How can an unbiased, uncorrupt court of law, allow an ex policeman who sells the laser devices to be an expert opinion on them, whilst expert physics and laser experts seem not to be able to offer advice on them? Next they will be allowing the courts to be part of the partnerships...
The article was fantastic, a great truthfull report, that at least might highlight this to the general public.
Will it make a difference? Hell no. The whole partnership idea is now a mega multi million pound industry, and as with all big unacountable corporations, they will not let anything like the truth get it the way of their business.
Their reply to this seems that our operators are trained, thats it, we dont care.
How can an unbiased, uncorrupt court of law, allow an ex policeman who sells the laser devices to be an expert opinion on them, whilst expert physics and laser experts seem not to be able to offer advice on them? Next they will be allowing the courts to be part of the partnerships...
The report itself doesnt contain anything myself and others have been saying about the LTI2020 for the last year or so. It was however a great, consise piece of journalism which included all the sources we have talked about. The other benefit was the use of the UK approved device.
I dont think the report in itself will make it easier to win an LTI2020 case directly. I wont be contacting my solicitor to appeal on my appeal yet!
However it has spread the word to millions of people to the point that *every* reader who is now accused *will* be requesting the full evidence, and if possible taking the case to court.
If nothing else the CPS will start drowning under the pressure of releasing the evidence, and the courts are going to get more familiar with the concepts. The sooner that some of the magistrated and judges can hear some hard evidence that the LTI2020 does produce some erraneous results, may open their mind to other cases so that to win a case, you may be able to defend yourself and show the faults in the system based on the misusage of the equipment, rather that having to spend thousands on solicitors and expert witnesses.
The other result is that the more publicity this gets there is more chance of there being a recall or suspension of the devices. Then that would be the fuel for all the people who have fought cases and lost to get some of their money and points back.
I dont think the report in itself will make it easier to win an LTI2020 case directly. I wont be contacting my solicitor to appeal on my appeal yet!
However it has spread the word to millions of people to the point that *every* reader who is now accused *will* be requesting the full evidence, and if possible taking the case to court.
If nothing else the CPS will start drowning under the pressure of releasing the evidence, and the courts are going to get more familiar with the concepts. The sooner that some of the magistrated and judges can hear some hard evidence that the LTI2020 does produce some erraneous results, may open their mind to other cases so that to win a case, you may be able to defend yourself and show the faults in the system based on the misusage of the equipment, rather that having to spend thousands on solicitors and expert witnesses.
The other result is that the more publicity this gets there is more chance of there being a recall or suspension of the devices. Then that would be the fuel for all the people who have fought cases and lost to get some of their money and points back.
trax said:
...How can an unbiased, uncorrupt court of law, allow an ex policeman who sells the laser devices to be an expert opinion on them, whilst expert physics and laser experts seem not to be able to offer advice on them? Next they will be allowing the courts to be part of the partnerships...
Indeed.
If we were watching this happen in some banana republic we'd be sniggering and saying something like "...typical, they can't even be trusted to run their court of law without corrupting influences..."
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff