LTI 20/20 thwarted again.
Discussion
After the Montgomery case in Carlisle, you would have thought that the SCPs and other users would have tightened up on procedures to ensure that the LTI was not misused.
However, a recent case has once more shown that the device is fallible in the wrong hands!
Speeding accusation of 63mph in a 50mph limit
Operator ex traffic BiB, and yet the Chairman of the bench found operator evidence "unconvincing and unreliable", legalese for He was telling porkies?
Hence not guilty verdict!
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Biker-cleared-...
However, a recent case has once more shown that the device is fallible in the wrong hands!
Speeding accusation of 63mph in a 50mph limit
Operator ex traffic BiB, and yet the Chairman of the bench found operator evidence "unconvincing and unreliable", legalese for He was telling porkies?
Hence not guilty verdict!
http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Biker-cleared-...
this is Bristol said:
'Other convictions could be on shaky ground' says Bristol biker cleared of speeding
Legal battle: Mark Lindsay, from Windmill Hill, Bristol, has fought a speeding fine as the camera [view] was not fixed on his bike.
By daniel evans crime correspondent
A MOTORCYCLIST who successfully contested a speeding charge is telling other drivers and riders that their convictions could be on shaky ground.
Mark Lindsay, from Windmill Hill, was cleared after a day-long trial in Taunton.
The not guilty verdict of the magistrates called into question whether the laser and camera used by enforcement officer Clive Walsh were aligned properly.
On April 22 last year, Mr Lindsay was apparently clocked driving his 800cc Honda VFR at 63mph on the A4 Portway near Shirehampton as he drove to work in Cardiff.
Having already accepted a fine and three penalty points for driving over the 50mph limit the month before, he decided to contest the second allegation, believing he was not driving as fast as he was accused of.
The 58-year-old software engineer, of Cotswold Road, said: "I asked for photographic evidence and was sent a photograph plus a map showing that the location of the camera unit was the same place as the previous offence.
"I knew the speed could not be right because, since the first offence I had been scrupulously careful about staying within 50mph all along the 50 limit on the Portway.
"The photograph I was sent shows a car directly in line with my bike but ahead of me.
"I am in the inside lane and the car is in the outside lane. I decided that the laser must have somehow picked up the car's speed instead of mine.
"I searched the internet and discovered there are a lot of anomalies with the LTi 20-20 laser system used. Subsequently, video evidence shows my bike in the inside lane, with car accelerating away from me, in the outside lane, clearly going considerably faster."
Video and speed measurement expert Tim Farrow told the court in his opinion the laser device and camera were not aligned properly and the laser had clocked the nearby car. He surmised that either camera enforcement officer Mr Walsh accidently clocked the car, or was deliberately aiming for the car, but as the cross hairs on the video recorded were fixed in the motorbike, the fine was sent to Mr Lindsay.
"I think it's ridiculous that I've had to go through this year-long process for something that should have been thrown out long ago," said Mr Lindsay. "As I was found not guilty, my expert witness Tim Farrow and advice on internet suggests the whole session was erroneous and therefore the 20 other people convicted during this session should have their convictions overturned.
"I would advise them to get in contact with Mr Farrow."
Police spokesman Martin Dunscombe said: "The evidence in this case was placed before the magistrates and we respect the verdict the magistrates came to."
On April 1, Safety Camera Partnerships around the country were disbanded after the Government pulled funding for them. As a consequence, fixed speed cameras and red light cameras in the Avon and Somerset police force area were switched off. However, the force still uses mobile units to catch speeding drivers.
Mr Farrow can be contacted on 01726 63755.
It seems that the LTI laser beam was not aligned with the cross hairs on the video!Legal battle: Mark Lindsay, from Windmill Hill, Bristol, has fought a speeding fine as the camera [view] was not fixed on his bike.
By daniel evans crime correspondent
A MOTORCYCLIST who successfully contested a speeding charge is telling other drivers and riders that their convictions could be on shaky ground.
Mark Lindsay, from Windmill Hill, was cleared after a day-long trial in Taunton.
The not guilty verdict of the magistrates called into question whether the laser and camera used by enforcement officer Clive Walsh were aligned properly.
On April 22 last year, Mr Lindsay was apparently clocked driving his 800cc Honda VFR at 63mph on the A4 Portway near Shirehampton as he drove to work in Cardiff.
Having already accepted a fine and three penalty points for driving over the 50mph limit the month before, he decided to contest the second allegation, believing he was not driving as fast as he was accused of.
The 58-year-old software engineer, of Cotswold Road, said: "I asked for photographic evidence and was sent a photograph plus a map showing that the location of the camera unit was the same place as the previous offence.
"I knew the speed could not be right because, since the first offence I had been scrupulously careful about staying within 50mph all along the 50 limit on the Portway.
"The photograph I was sent shows a car directly in line with my bike but ahead of me.
"I am in the inside lane and the car is in the outside lane. I decided that the laser must have somehow picked up the car's speed instead of mine.
"I searched the internet and discovered there are a lot of anomalies with the LTi 20-20 laser system used. Subsequently, video evidence shows my bike in the inside lane, with car accelerating away from me, in the outside lane, clearly going considerably faster."
Video and speed measurement expert Tim Farrow told the court in his opinion the laser device and camera were not aligned properly and the laser had clocked the nearby car. He surmised that either camera enforcement officer Mr Walsh accidently clocked the car, or was deliberately aiming for the car, but as the cross hairs on the video recorded were fixed in the motorbike, the fine was sent to Mr Lindsay.
"I think it's ridiculous that I've had to go through this year-long process for something that should have been thrown out long ago," said Mr Lindsay. "As I was found not guilty, my expert witness Tim Farrow and advice on internet suggests the whole session was erroneous and therefore the 20 other people convicted during this session should have their convictions overturned.
"I would advise them to get in contact with Mr Farrow."
Police spokesman Martin Dunscombe said: "The evidence in this case was placed before the magistrates and we respect the verdict the magistrates came to."
On April 1, Safety Camera Partnerships around the country were disbanded after the Government pulled funding for them. As a consequence, fixed speed cameras and red light cameras in the Avon and Somerset police force area were switched off. However, the force still uses mobile units to catch speeding drivers.
Mr Farrow can be contacted on 01726 63755.
I'm sure that your maths and theories have some relevance - but not it seems to this case - although it was decided by magistrates who are not generally known for their technical prowess!
this is Bristol said:
The not guilty verdict of the magistrates called into question whether the laser and camera used by enforcement officer Clive Walsh were aligned properly.
this is Bristol said:
Subsequently, video evidence shows my bike in the inside lane, with car accelerating away from me, in the outside lane, clearly going considerably faster."
Video and speed measurement expert Tim Farrow told the court in his opinion the laser device and camera were not aligned properly and the laser had clocked the nearby car. He surmised that either camera enforcement officer Mr Walsh accidently clocked the car, or was deliberately aiming for the car, but as the cross hairs on the video recorded were fixed on the motorbike, the fine was sent to Mr Lindsay.
It would be nice if we could upload the video, but the court has ruled that the device was not set up correctly - and the police spokesman acceded saying:Video and speed measurement expert Tim Farrow told the court in his opinion the laser device and camera were not aligned properly and the laser had clocked the nearby car. He surmised that either camera enforcement officer Mr Walsh accidently clocked the car, or was deliberately aiming for the car, but as the cross hairs on the video recorded were fixed on the motorbike, the fine was sent to Mr Lindsay.
Police spokesman Martin Dunscombe said:
"The evidence in this case was placed before the magistrates and we respect the verdict the magistrates came to."
It now remains to be seen whether the other drivers caught in the same session have grounds to appeal their cases. Definitely a need to see the WHOLE video!14-7 said:
WOW!
Another crap thread title that has nothing to do with what actually caused the downfall of the case.
I'd post more but it would be seen as insulting
towards others 
.
Actually, the thread title IS appropriate.Another crap thread title that has nothing to do with what actually caused the downfall of the case.
I'd post more but it would be seen as insulting
towards others .The LTI is capable of accurately (ETA) measuring the distance of a vehicle, which when coupled to software times the readings, and calculates the speed of the target vehicle.
What has happened in this instance, is that this accuracy has been thwarted by an operator who has allowed the recording device to be used out of alignment with the measuring device... and in the opinion of the magistrates, was not aiming the device correctly either.
Chairman of the Bench said:
...the operators evidence was "unconvincing and unreliable"
A similar occurrence to the Montgomery case, where the actions of the operator were called (successfully) into question.Now go ahead and be as insulting as you like - I don't mind, I'm used to associating in the company of Puff the tragic and his many alter egos!
Edited by Mill Wheel on Friday 29th April 10:57
BertBert said:
but the tyre distortions are not relevant to the point. The instantaneous centre of revolution should strictly be applied to a solid wheel.
However the point was that the bottom of the wheel is essentially stationary and the top of the wheel is moving at twice (bike) road speed (approximately).
Of course this is OT as it's not the reason that the LTI20-20 got the speed wrong (in the opinion of the judiciary).
Bert
However the point was that the bottom of the wheel is essentially stationary and the top of the wheel is moving at twice (bike) road speed (approximately).
Of course this is OT as it's not the reason that the LTI20-20 got the speed wrong (in the opinion of the judiciary).
Bert
saaby93 said:
Usually we get a set of 3 timed photos to guess calculate the speed
Do you mean three stills taken from the video? Useless if you wish to contest the evidence. You need the FULL video, so that the alignment checks can be seen.Mark Lindsay said:
I believe there are 3 things that need to be in alignment - the red dot sighting, the laser and the video camera. (The red dot sighting has to run parallel with the laser and is fixed 5 cms above it. There is no adjustment. This is just a check that they are in alignment. This could get out of alignment by rough treatment, or a component failing. In this case this was done in a very slap-dash manner.)
Having checked this the operator needs to align the video cross-hairs with the red dot. This should be done at approximately the [same] distance the device is to be used, or further. There are adjustment screws to carry this out. This is to iron out the parallax error between the laser (LTi 20-20) and the video camera (Concept DVD) which are mounted next to each other. In this case there was no evidence that this was carried out at all, and, in my opinion, the operator didn't appear to realise the importance of it.
So the LTIs accuracy appears to have been thwarted by a clown operating it without an understanding of how it worked! Having checked this the operator needs to align the video cross-hairs with the red dot. This should be done at approximately the [same] distance the device is to be used, or further. There are adjustment screws to carry this out. This is to iron out the parallax error between the laser (LTi 20-20) and the video camera (Concept DVD) which are mounted next to each other. In this case there was no evidence that this was carried out at all, and, in my opinion, the operator didn't appear to realise the importance of it.
Clive Walsh, the operator would do worse than to read here! .
.F i F said:
BrianMillar said:
I resubmit my theory
Personally I agree, and another thing. There is video with supposedly an accurate clock / timestamp on each frame. All it would take is an accurate site survey taking the distance shown between camera and vehicle and check if that corresponds to determine if the vehicle in frame is the one being measured.BrianMillar said:
From the photo the distance from the camera to the bike and the car could be worked out.
Whichever vehicle is 178m away is the one that has been targeted by the laser.
So it should have been easy to prove or disprove if the bike was targeted.
Whichever vehicle is 178m away is the one that has been targeted by the laser.
So it should have been easy to prove or disprove if the bike was targeted.
Also measure the distance between two identifiable points along the vehicle path and determine the time interval from the video frames. After that it is simple mathematics.
Has anybody ever done that?
IF the alignment was out, I would think that viewing the video would sooner or later show discrepancies between the behaviour of the targeted vehicle, and the readings recorded above.
No visit or survey required.
Certainly the magistrates were happy having seen the video, and heard the testimony of the operator that there was more than reasonable doubt as to whether Mark Lindsay was speeding.
Acheron said:
I think the topic title should be changed to; "LTI 20/20 Operator thwarted again".
I thought I had explained that! 
It was because the accuracy of the LTI was thwarted by an incompetent operator - just as the Cumbria case where top golfer Colin Montgomery won his appeal because the highly trained SCP operator was waving it around like a water pistol!
JustinP1 said:
Going back to the OP this case has nothing to do with the merits of the LTI2020
It has everything to go with the fact that the operator had not followed the right procedure to make it worthy of supplying evidence.
I gave the same argument at court, and then at appeal at Crown court, however, in effect the Judges rules that it did not matter if or how the device is tested, neither does it have to be.
So, these cases go either way.
I was very shocked to find that despite being supposedly qualified to use the device, in my case not only did the operator not test it in the way he should, he didn't know how to test it. Further to that not only had he not followed the ACPO Code in using it, he had not read it, and furthermore he did not know it even existed.
Yet seemingly, the same guy had produced evidence which has convicted hundreds or even thousands of people and this was the first time he was brought into question.
The clerk of the court was so shocked by what he heard that in deliberation, he made a point of saying to the police officer that he really should be reading up on this stuff or he would be back here again... However, there was no need because for me they effectively supported his actions to go back and do it again.
It is my opinion that if properly questioned, maybe 50% or more occasions the device is not set up to the evidential standards set.
It has everything to go with the fact that the operator had not followed the right procedure to make it worthy of supplying evidence.
I gave the same argument at court, and then at appeal at Crown court, however, in effect the Judges rules that it did not matter if or how the device is tested, neither does it have to be.
So, these cases go either way.
I was very shocked to find that despite being supposedly qualified to use the device, in my case not only did the operator not test it in the way he should, he didn't know how to test it. Further to that not only had he not followed the ACPO Code in using it, he had not read it, and furthermore he did not know it even existed.
Yet seemingly, the same guy had produced evidence which has convicted hundreds or even thousands of people and this was the first time he was brought into question.
The clerk of the court was so shocked by what he heard that in deliberation, he made a point of saying to the police officer that he really should be reading up on this stuff or he would be back here again... However, there was no need because for me they effectively supported his actions to go back and do it again.
It is my opinion that if properly questioned, maybe 50% or more occasions the device is not set up to the evidential standards set.
Going to court is a lottery - many magistrates are as clueless as your operator, and some judges too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff