MCN Camera article

[Flat in Fifth]

Not available on line but spotted and only had time to skip through.

Basically LTI 20-20 not type tested or approved on bikes. True apparently.

Home Office confirming that if not used [i]exactly[/i] according ACPO guidelines cannot be relied upon to give accurate results.

MCN getting one scamp to did a hole for himself rather like Stevie babes.

Anyone got the full article?

You know what you can never find a bliarout when you need one! :D

[pesty]

not but my blood pressure hasnt dropped yet from reading it.

That arogent tt of a copper who said something along the lines of this
"I wear a uniform I don't expect people to question me I don't need proof". gggggrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

oh a the scamera partnership guy. "are eyou calling me a liar ?"

err yes they are as the home office has just said the exact opposite of you 2 fools.

angry again

[justinp1]

Flat in Fifth said:

Home Office confirming that if not used exactly according ACPO guidelines cannot be relied upon to give accurate results.

Heres something even better, and even more damning than that.

When I was defending my LTI2020 case it was obvious that the operator had not even read the ACPO document. This he even agreed. However by the time the appeal came around he had been properly briefed for the case by the CPS barrister to reply to every question about the use of the ACPO code, with the suffix '... but they are *only* guidelines!'. He also gave evidence that the 'ACPO Guidelines' are only there to help the operator get a result, as if they are not followed and the device will not work propery and display an error message.

As we know this is tripe.

Something I have thought of only last week, where did the term 'ACPO Guidelines' come from?

The real name for the 'ACPO Guidelines' is rather more definate: The ACPO Code of Practice for Operational Use of Road Police Enforcement Technology.

Furthermore the foreword of the document talks of how the statements within, supercede the manufacturers instructions in all cases, they must be scrupulously adhered to, and they are the basis of the integrity of the evidence gathered.

It also implies that the Home Office Type Approval is only valid whilst the ACPO code of practice for operational standards is followed.

So, back to the 'guidelines' issue....

I have checked the entire document, the only use of the word 'guidelines' is made with reference to the heath and safety goverment guidelines using laser or radar equipment.

So who changed the name to 'ACPO Guidelines'?

I have the opinion that slowly as more and more of these cases have come to light, the CPS barristers in the know have propogated the perversion and demotion of the name 'Code of Practice for Operational Standards' to the rather more weak 'guidelines'. All in the name in rubbishing the attacks on substandard operators, and instilled into the mind of judges and magistrates that in fact this document is a 'white elephant' with no use in law.

If I *had* have had the wherewithall at the time to catch onto what they were actually doing, I would have had a great day in court, and *should* have had my case won. What I should have asked the PC on the stand, and the CPS solicitors was where in the Code of Practice of anywhere else in law they are referred to as guidelines. I think the lack of answer, and a lot of stuttering would have won my case...

[catso]

Flat in Fifth said:

Anyone got the full article?

INNACURATE CAMERAS - THE PROOF

HOME OFFICE ADMITS GIANT FLAW IN SPEED CAMERA TESTING

By Steve Farrell

None of the speed detection devices used by police or speed camera partnerships have EVER been tested for accuracy on bikes, an MCN investigation has discovered.

It means that if you’ve ever faced a speeding penalty while riding your bike – whether you were caught by a Gatso, camera van or police officer using any kind of radar gun – there’s no certainty that the evidence used to convict you was accurate.
In July, MCN revealed the Home Office had given type approval to the lasers used in speed camera vans without testing them on bikes, and that thousands of riders may have been convicted unfairly as a result.
But this latest and more shocking admission came when we went back to the Home Office with questions about other types of speedtrap. A spokesman said “There is no condition on type approval that it can’t be used on motorcycles. No tests were ever specifically done on motorcycles for any of the devices as there is no technological reason to believe they present new challenges not present with other vehicles.”
But even the firms that sell speed detection equipment in the UK admit that motorcycles DO present new challenges not present with other vehicles. Earlier this month Mike Ricketts, customer service manager for Tele-Traffic UK, which distributes the LTI 20.20 laser devices used in speed camera vans, told MCN “Motorcycles, being smaller targets, are more difficult to acquire.” This admission only came after MCN approached the firm pretending to be planning a two-wheel land speed record attempt.
Trevor Hall, secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) Roads Policing Enforcement Technology Committee, told MCN in May that it was “much more difficult “ to measure the speed of bikes using a hand-held laser. He also admitted: “I can never say that every reading is 100% accurate.”
Dr Michael Clark, chairman of the European Standards Committee on Vehicle Detectors, said: “Only four kinds of technology have been used in speed detection devices that affect motorcycles: lasers; microwaves or radar; and inductive loop under-road sensors. In all cases it’s more likely that an inaccurate speed will be recorded for a bike than a car.”
Police have been using speed enforcement equipment for “at least 30 years” according to an ACPO spokesman. The first UK fixed speed camera appeared in 1992, and there are now 6000 of them.
The news that none of the devices has ever been tested on bikes brings the possible number of unfair speeding convictions against motorcyclists to millions.
MORE RIDERS READY TO CHALLENGE CHARGES
Dozens of readers have reported that LTI 20.20 lasers in speed camera vans had never been tested for accuracy on bikes – and nine have said that they now plan to challenge their speeding charges in court.
MCN has helped one reader Yessin Meggaro, by teaming him up with specialist bike solicitors Kirwans (0151-608-9078). They will help Meggaro apply for legal aid.
Meggaro said: “On Kirwans advice, I’ve now returned my Notice of Intended Prosecution, admitting it was me riding.” He’ll now have to wait until he receives a Fixed Penalty Notice before taking any further action.
Meggaro was snapped on his Suzuki GSXR-600 in Bath in May.
“They claim I was doing 37mph in a 30 zone, but I know I was doing 30,” He said.
Mitch Paris, 44, from Lavenham, Suffolk is also planning to challenge a speeding charge after a picture taken by a speed camera van showed the target cross-hairs were aiming at his Yamaha TDM900’s rear tyre. “I ignored my Fixed Penalty notice, and got a threatening reminder yesterday, which I’ve also ignored,” said Paris. “I’m now expecting to receive a summons.”
Alan Mitchell, a 42-year-old Honda VTR1000 rider, is challenging a case in Scotland. He said: “I’m going to court on November 17 with a not-guilty plea.”
If you’re planning to challenge a speeding charge, the first thing you should do is contact a local solicitor.



THE COVER-UP BEGINS: CAMERA PARTNERSHIPS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF CHIEF POLICE OFFICERS RESPOND TO MCN’S FINDINGS…

‘I hope you’re not calling me a liar!’ Peter Holley, Sussex camera Partnership

DESPITE the Home Office’s admission in July that LTI 20.20 speed detection lasers were never tested on motorcycles, safety camera partnerships are still insisting they were.
In a letter to an MCN reader, Sussex Safety Camera Partnership’s operational supervisor Peter Holley claimed:
“The LTI 20.20 has been subjected to Home Office type approval testing, which is recognised as being the most stringent in the world, and found to be accurate on all types of vehicles.”
We decided to challenge Holley with our findings,
What follows is what happened when we phoned him to find out where he got his information from, and if he’d be prepared to loan us an LTI 20.20 for us to carry out our own independent tests….
MCN: Can we borrow an LTI 20.20 please?
Peter Holley: No.
MCN: Why not?
PH: We don’t have to give reasons.
MCN: OK but you claimed in a letter to an MCN reader that LTI 20.20s have type been “found to be accurate on all types of vehicles”. What’s that based on?
PH: it’s been type approved, and when they’re type approved they have to be checked on every type of vehicle.
MCN: Have you actually asked the Home Office that?
PH: I can only tell you what ACPO said.
MCN: Which is?
PH: hang on, let me read it to you… It says, “The Home Office Scientific Development Branch is of the opinion that the UK version will perform within permitted tolerances if used in accordance with the current ACPO enforcement guidelines.”
MCN: So it doesn’t say that the device has been found to be accurate on all types of vehicles?
PH: No it doesn’t, no…
MCN: So you have given an MCN reader incorrect information.
PH: You’re not calling me a liar, I hope.
MCN: We’re just asking you to justify your claim.
PH: No, no, no, you’re calling me a liar.
MCN: Are you able to justify your claim?
PH: I suggest you write to me.



“ALL ENFORCEMENT DEVICES HAVE BEEN TESTED ON BIKES”
ACPO SPOKESPERSON

IT’S not just Sussex Safety Camera Partnership in denial about the lack of tests on bikes.
Here’s an exchange that took place between MCN and ACPO, following the Home Office’s admission…

MCN: Have any of the speed enforcement devices used by police ever been tested for accuracy on motorcycles?
ACPO: Under Home Office type approval all devices entered into the process by manufacturers undergo a very rigorous testing regime and are tested against all types of vehicles, including motorcycles.
MCN: This directly contradicts what the Home Office has told us. Are you able to provide the results of these tests?
ACPO: All speed enforcement devices are tested on motorcycles. When we say ‘not specifically tested on motorcycles’ what we mean is, there wasn’t a special test set up just for motorcycles. But motorcycles are tested, along with cars and HGVs and other vehicles, in a general test, which includes a cross section of vehicles on the road. I can understand why the language may have been confusing, but what we’re saying is that all speed enforcement devices are tested on motorcycles.
MCN: Can we see these test results?
ACPO: They’re held by the Home Office - though I believe they are ‘commercially in confidence,’ as releasing them would effectively release product information to the competition.
MCN: The Home Office has told us no speed enforcement device has ever been tested on a motorcycle in any way, ever.
ACPO: What was the Home Office’s wording? Did they say “no speed enforcement devices have ever been specifically tested on motorcycles”?
I’m the police – are you saying you need more than my word as evidence that these tests take place? I don’t normally have to provide evidence when stating a fact.
MCN: It’s not just us that want evidence. It’s MCN readers. How can we ask the Home Office for results of tests theyb say were never done?
ACPO: I think I’ve answered from ACPO’s point of view. You need to take this to the Home Office for the rest of your enquiry. ACPO’s position is unchanged.




HOW COULD THE CAMERAS LIE?

MCN’s latest findings that no speed detectors have been tested specifically on bikes might not be quite so sensational if it wasn’t for the eveidence of Dr Michael Clark – chairman of the European Standards Committee on Vehicle Detectors. Clark believes that if tests were conducted with bikes, there are clear scientific reasons why the detectors would prove to be less reliable. Here he explains why…

LASER GUNS
USED in camera vans and handheld devices. Clark said: “Motorcycles are a very poor target for lasers. Any reading from the front will be dodgy because reflective surfaces like screen and headlight don’t send back a good signal to the laser. Half the time when operators think they’re pointing at the bike, the signal is hitting the tarmac.” If this happens, even momentarily, it could add speed. “Slip effect” also occurs where the laser strikes two different points on a bike, and can result from a slip as small as “a hair’s breadth” according to Clark.

RADAR
USED by Gatsos and in some hand-held devices. “Radar devices will be much more likely to give an inaccurate reading for a bike because the radar target is much smaller than other vehicles,” said Clark.

INDUCTIVE LOOP SENSORS
USED by some Gatsos, an inductive loop detects metal objects in it’s magnetic field. Clark said: “The size of a bike and the fact that it is horizontal means it will produce less of a change in induction. As a result the technology will be more prone to error.”

[james_j]

It's so obvious the "authorities" and the partnership businesses have such an almost corrupt or desperate desire to secure their revenue stream, they're now beginning to come unglued. Keep it up MCN and others.

[echo]

Just my penny's worth

catso said:

None of the speed detection devices used by police or speed camera partnerships have EVER been tested for accuracy on bikes, an MCN investigation has discovered.

incorrect.

catso said:

"ACPO: All speed enforcement devices are tested on motorcycles. When we say ‘not specifically tested on motorcycles’ what we mean is, there wasn’t a special test set up just for motorcycles. But motorcycles are tested, along with cars and HGVs and other vehicles, in a general test, which includes a cross section of vehicles on the road. I can understand why the language may have been confusing, but what we’re saying is that all speed enforcement devices are tested on motorcycles."

correct.

I know cos I've watched (not LTI 2020 tho).

[echo]

Also while we're at it:

catso said:

Dr Michael Clark, chairman of the European Standards Committee on Vehicle Detectors, said: “Only four kinds of technology have been used in speed detection devices that affect motorcycles: lasers; microwaves or radar; and inductive loop under-road sensors. In all cases it’s more likely that an inaccurate speed will be recorded for a bike than a car.”

False: I can think of at least two others - Rubber tubes and piezo-electric sensors and they are not inherently less accurate on bikes - in fact some would argue that the impact of a single wheel would give a cleaner detection that that of two front wheels. I have seen both types accurately detect bicycles!

[BliarOut]

echo said:

Just my penny's worth catso said: None of the speed detection devices used by police or speed camera partnerships have EVER been tested for accuracy on bikes, an MCN investigation has discovered. incorrect. catso said: "ACPO: All speed enforcement devices are tested on motorcycles. When we say ‘not specifically tested on motorcycles’ what we mean is, there wasn’t a special test set up just for motorcycles. But motorcycles are tested, along with cars and HGVs and other vehicles, in a general test, which includes a cross section of vehicles on the road. I can understand why the language may have been confusing, but what we’re saying is that all speed enforcement devices are tested on motorcycles." correct. I know cos I've watched (not LTI 2020 tho).

So if you've seen motorcycles being tested, why do you think the authorities are so cagey about releasing the results of the tests?

[Einion Yrth]

BliarOut said:

So if you've seen motorcycles being tested, why do you think the authorities are so cagey about releasing the results of the tests?

Tested and found to be woefully inaccurate perhaps?

[BliarOut]

Einion Yrth said:

BliarOut said: So if you've seen motorcycles being tested, why do you think the authorities are so cagey about releasing the results of the tests? Tested and found to be woefully inaccurate perhaps?

Surely not?

Wouldn't have anything to do with wheel design giving a faster reflection, potentially hitting the road through the bike, or the rider himself moving would it?

[echo]

BliarOut said:

So if you've seen motorcycles being tested, why do you think the authorities are so cagey about releasing the results of the tests?

Probably the same reason they wont give out results for cars or any other vehicles - the information is commercialy valuable to the manufacturer's competitors?

[justinp1]

echo said:

BliarOut said: So if you've seen motorcycles being tested, why do you think the authorities are so cagey about releasing the results of the tests? Probably the same reason they wont give out results for cars or any other vehicles - the information is commercialy valuable to the manufacturer's competitors?

How can the results of tests be commercially valuable? I would understand if they were talking about releasing the schematics or design of the device or making the software public domain, but I fail to see how whether knowing if your competitors device works and how well it works can affect anyone, apart from the poor sods who are targeted!

I am sure when BMW release their 0-60 times and bhp figures, this is not releasing commercial secrets. It is proving to the potential user of the car/device that it has been proved what they are getting.

[echo]

justinp1 said:

How can the results of tests be commercially valuable? I would understand if they were talking about releasing the schematics or design of the device or making the software public domain, but I fail to see how whether knowing if your competitors device works and how well it works can affect anyone, apart from the poor sods who are targeted!

Really?

It wouldn't be commercially valuable for a manufacturer to be able to state 'In independent tests UK Home Office declares our speed device is more accurate than any other tested'?

Just my opinion of course

[Richard C]

echo said:

Really? It wouldn't be commercially valuable for a manufacturer to be able to state 'In independent tests UK Home Office declares our speed device is more accurate than any other tested'? Just my opinion of course

But surely the HO tests give test specification, results and conclusion objectively. They would not refer to other tests.

The statement that 'In independent tests UK Home Office declares our speed device is more accurate than any other tested' is none of these just marketing superlatives or puff.

[Flat in Fifth]

echo said:

Also while we're at it: catso said: Dr Michael Clark, chairman of the European Standards Committee on Vehicle Detectors, said: “Only four kinds of technology have been used in speed detection devices that affect motorcycles: lasers; microwaves or radar; and inductive loop under-road sensors. In all cases it’s more likely that an inaccurate speed will be recorded for a bike than a car.” False: I can think of at least two others - Rubber tubes and piezo-electric sensors and they are not inherently less accurate on bikes - in fact some would argue that the impact of a single wheel would give a cleaner detection that that of two front wheels. I have seen both types accurately detect bicycles!

Depends upon how you interpret Dr Clark's statement.

I read it that there are only four kinds of technology where motorbikes are adversely affected.

What we don't know is if the missing word is due to sloppy reporting or was indeed missed out by Dr Clark in his original statement

One could argue that there is technology in place which is to the advantage of motorbikes; namely Specs; reason being no front number plate required. Hence no vehicle id etc etc.

FiF