BBC1 west Inside Out, Friday 19.1.07 Speed Cameras.

[J500ANT]

www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/index.shtml

Cant find the Sky channel number for BBC One West, sorry. If anyone can assist with that it'd be good. I saw the original programme they refer to, and saw this was coming up, thought it might interest a few.

Tony
(To clarify, it appears this story "does the rounds" of all the regional Inside Out programmes. The detail of the story is on the link, www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/west/ tells of last weeks story which means that one this programme is aired tomorrow in theory it'll be there to watch again on the /west/ site)

Edited by J500ANT on Thursday 18th January 09:24

[jasandjules]

Even the link irritated me.

"a complicated thing called slip effect".

BUT, at least they are finally noticing that these things make mistakes. I would have thought it was fairly self evident if they are not set on a tripod there would be errors before you even started.

[tigger1]

Part of news story said:

But now legal history has been made has both magistrates and a crown court judge have ruled in favour of motorists saying that the evidence of those speed guns, in those cases was not reliable.
Reflection effect
Diagram from Dr Clark's 2005 research

One of those motorists is Dave Lyalle.

He was clocked by a LTI 20.20 allegedly doing 59 mph in a 50.

But Mr Lyall was sure he wasn't speeding.

Together with his solicitor and Dr Clark as an expert witness, David fought his case at the magistrates court.

Dr Clark said he believed Mr Lyall was the victim of a slip error which the gun's built in error trapping software didn't detect.

Mr Lyall was found not guilty.

Well, that's good news. Interesting that the response was

Meredith-sic-Hughes said:

The specific court cases mentioned all relate to cases where either the court did not accept the competence of the operator; or the prosecution did not have an expert available; or a procedural (ie administrative) error occurred.

(my bold)
So, the evidence itself isn't good enough for a prosecution ey? I particularly liked the bit about the expert witness for the prosecution...and yet Mr Hughes has the cheek to suggest that Dr Michael Clarke is merely trying to earn money for himself by saying that the cameras don't work as they should in some cases (slip error).

The argument against the device is good science, they should not be used as a handheld device, if at all.

Edited by tigger1 on Friday 19th January 08:54

[J500ANT]

*BUMP*
(They've been plugging this all day)

[Rob_the_Sparky]

I like the blatent threat of what it will cost in court fees to challange their evidence. Sounds like he is saying that human error no longer exists because they are well trained...

[fluffnik]

Rob_the_Sparky said:

I like the blatent threat of what it will cost in court fees to challange their evidence. Sounds like he is saying that human error no longer exists because they are well trained...

Surely such intimidation is criminal?

Let's put a big chunk of ACPO in pokey.

[jasandjules]

fluffnik said:

Let's put a big chunk of ACPO in pokey.

When it is proven by scientists that the LTI20-20s cannot physically work the way the chap who makes them claims, I think he ought to be done for perjury, and I for one will contribute to the Private Prosecution Fund.

One thing that also gets me, should the operators hand move at all during the "hit", that must affect the readings?

[Richard C]

jasandjules said:

One thing that also gets me, should the operators hand move at all during the "hit", that must affect the readings?

The operators hand cannot not move.
The beam angle is 0.17 degrees. Thats a group of 3 spots 3 metres tall at 999 metres ( max distance they are type approved to be used ) and a metre at 333meters range. Obviously they can hit more than the target and if there's any movement, far more,

A trained sniper need a rifle stock to keep it that steady.

I have recent personal experience where I am convinced the police officer swept the LTI to get/got a higher reading

[thegreenhell]

If you are interested, both documentaries are now on youtube.

Original 2005 programme

Updated 2007 programme

[james_j]

Richard C said:

The operators hand cannot not move.
The beam angle is 0.17 degrees. Thats a group of 3 spots 3 metres tall at 999 metres ( max distance they are type approved to be used ) and a metre at 333meters range. Obviously they can hit more than the target and if there's any movement, far more,

A trained sniper need a rifle stock to keep it that steady.

...and the rifle shooter will be lying down, probably with the gun strap wrapped around them making the gun virtually rock steady; and, in target rifle shooting, the target isn't moving. Even then they would have to be good shooters to match the steadyness required of the laser gun operator who usually holds the gun in a standing position with arm or arms outstretched, aiming at a moving target!

Laser gun innacurate and prone to slip error? Almost certainly.

[dcb]

james_j said:

Laser gun innacurate and prone to slip error? Almost certainly.

That's precisely why the UK is one of the few countries
in Europe to permit their use.

Most Euro countries won't allow coppers to use speed
guns to secure a conviction.

Mind you, I think there is just about no chance of
UK Gov giving up on speed guns.

Two million speeders a year at sixty quid a go isn't going
to be given up easily.