'Slipping' speed guns may result in innocent drivers being fined

[Satch]

Strictly embargoed until 09.00 12/9/05

Claims that a hand-held speed gun - used by Police and Camera Safety
Partnerships across Devon and Cornwall - can give an inaccurate reading by
'slipping' are made by BBC South West's Inside Out programme tonight at 7.30pm on BBC ONE.

The 'slipping' effect is caused when the gun's infra-red pulses are disrupted
by the operator moving the beam down the side of the vehicle instead of keeping it steady. When this happens the gun can be effectively tricked, interpreting the movement of the beam as speed, and the length of the car is added to the distance actually travelled.

With the LTi 20-20 speed gun being used by many forces this could lead to motorists receiving unfair fines.

In tonight's programme Dr Michael Clark, independent consultant to the traffic
and communications industries, commenting on the effect of a potential
'slipping' error, says: "If someone’s doing just below 70 mph on a motorway
that puts him up in the 90’s and they’re going to be done by the police for
sure."

Professor of engineering and author John Brignell believes that for an
operator, pointing the gun at a car 500 meters away, the movement needed to slip off the number plate and down the side of a vehicle is minute. He says:
"Very roughly, without doing any calculations, we are talking about the camera moving about the thickness of a human hair."

And even in an experiment carried out by Inside Out presenter Samantha Smith pointing the gun along the side of a stationary car, the device registered a speed of six mph. When the test was then carried out on a truck travelling at about 30 mph, a false result was obtained 7 out of 22 times. Wrong speeds of up to 56 mph were displayed by the gun.

Teletraffic, the importers of the UK approved LTi 20-20 speed camera, claim it
is impossible to register a false reading from a moving target. The company
adapts the American LTi 20-20 guns to follow British specifications.

Presenter Sam Smith says: "Unfortunately Teletraffic, the Police and the Home Office declined to take part in the programme which meant we were unable to obtain a British version of the LTi 20-20 for our experiments, so Dr Clarksimply proved such misreadings can happen with the American speed gun too."

The Association of Chief Police Officers claim the experiment was 'misleading'
as the UK approved speed gun uses different 'error-trapping' software.

Yet a report, obtained by Inside Out and written by Frank Garratt, Managing
Director of Teletraffic, strongly suggests both versions of the LTi 20-20 are
the same. His report says the gun used by British Police is identical to the
version used by NASA. And NASA then told Inside Out that the version they use is the American version. All of which seems to suggest that the UK and American speed guns are identical.

Using the Freedom of Information Act the Inside Out investigation has also
discovered that the Home Office does not test for the 'slip effect' as part of
the approval process for these devices.

Inside Out: Monday 12th September, 7.30pm on BBC ONE

Note to Editor:

The LTi 20-20 speed gun is used by the Police and Camera Safety Partnerships
across the UK.

For further information contact:

John Ramsden, BBC Bristol Press Office, 0117 974 7472

 

[Will]

Hmm - interesting

Will

 

[Plodd]

That's the gun we use and it isn't difficult to know you have the front of the car and hold it there.

A lot of what was written there is complete tosh.
They say at a distance of 500mtrs away!! That is the absolute maximum we are taught to use and in practice it is never anywhere near that.

Most of my stops are recorded at a maximum distance of around 200mtrs. Usually much less.
The theory is you form the opinion a vehicle is speeding and the laser corroberates that opinion. There is no way at a distance of 500mtrs you would have a clue what speed a vehicle was travelling.

As usual with the press they only print one side of the story and the subject matter being what it is they will be believed.

 

[glojo]

I think Plodd missed what to me was the nitty gritty of this so called scoop.

They used the side of a lorry to get the correct response they needed.

Why do this when you are trying to disprove speeding allegations against motor cars, why not use a car?

As usual though jornalist comes through door and truth sails out the window. What really annoys me though is the hypocracy of the retired Traffic Officer. He spends years booking speeding motorists and clearly has done very well by doing so...... Nice house, nice Mercedes car, yet when he retires he sells his soul to bad mouth the very equipment he has been using?? If he believes it to be wrong, then has he been commiting perjury for 'X' number of years.

I'm sorry for the rant Plodd, but that person is a disgrace

(If your a member of this forum Mr ex Avon and Somerset Traffic Police person then please take this post personally because I mean every word of it )

Regards,
John

 

[Rory]

The theory is you form the opinion a vehicle is speeding and the laser corroberates that opinion. There is no way at a distance of 500mtrs you would have a clue what speed a vehicle was travelling.

Is this a wind up? We've seen enough of these things on TV to know that the Police Officer just scans every vehicle. This is a bit like the 'not being able to stop cars at random' argument.
I got done in Cheshire at certainly 800yds. I saw the guy on a dual carriageway bridge and immediately slowed to indicated 65, but I still got done at for 85. I don't know how they can take a (legible) picture at that distance but I was in a company car and they frowned on people challenging these things.
A neighbour, who has 'connections' with North Wales Police, reckons they use them at up to 1KM.

 

[Plodd]

Is this a wind up? We've seen enough of these things on TV to know that the Police Officer just scans every vehicle. This is a bit like the 'not being able to stop cars at random' argument.
I got done in Cheshire at certainly 800yds. I saw the guy on a dual carriageway bridge and immediately slowed to indicated 65, but I still got done at for 85. I don't know how they can take a (legible) picture at that distance but I was in a company car and they frowned on people challenging these things.
A neighbour, who has 'connections' with North Wales Police, reckons they use them at up to 1KM.

Totally different thing the Laser Gatso, they do just what you said they do and check every car. The hand held stuff is different.

 

[Dieselman]

Totally different thing the Laser Gatso, they do just what you said they do and check every car. The hand held stuff is different.

Doesen't that contrevene speed detection guidelines?
I recently saw an article that claimed the guidelines state that a Police officer is to use a device to confirm their suspicion that a vehicle is speeding.

Laser devices used from vans are being used by civilians, not Police officers and that they are being used to scan every vehicle.
In addition the distances of upto 1000m are too great for an individual to have a suspicion that a vehicle is speeding.

Apparently this makes a conviction unsafe at best.

Plodd, your comments would be appreciated.

 

[Plodd]

Sorry Dieselman I don't use the cameras and have no knowledge whatsoever about them.

We are currently training up the Traffic Wardens to use them.

 

[Steve_Perry]

...We are currently training up the Traffic Wardens to use them.

Oh dear Traffic Wardens wielding speed cameras with the intention to use? I forsee trouble ahead given how the average private 'traffic attendant' behaves these days.

S.

 

[pammy]

Oh dear Traffic Wardens wielding speed cameras with the intention to use? I forsee trouble ahead given how the average private 'traffic attendant' behaves these days.

S.

And to be fair how "we" (the great British public) often react to them just for doing their job

 

[Dieter]

Hi,

Whilst I didn't see this programme it appears to me that everyone caught by hand held laser in future should plead innocent. Surely it would then be up to the Police to PROVE that motorist was truly speeding. This is especially important as if used appropriately the operator already has formed the opinion that you are speeding. The laser just confirms their subjective opinion.

And if subsequently used by traffic wardens who may get performance (no of nicks ) related benefits then what?

Typical response from powers that be that the systems OK and eveyone else is wrong. Doubt has been raised and surely it's their duty to respond. After all we pay these t.ss..s wages !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheers,

 

[glojo]

Hi,

Whilst I didn't see this programme it appears to me that everyone caught by hand held laser in future should plead innocent. ,

Hi Dieter,
This article was just part of a 30 minute progam which also featured growing tea leaves on an English farm and increasing the amount of water rodents on our rivers!!!

The journalists involved in making the speed camera article also advised drivers that by pleading not guilty..... their fines might be increased!!

It makes me laugh when I read numerous posts about speeding offenders. Most drivers are looking for a legal loophole, or a way of telling an 'untruth' to literally get away with breaking the law. Yet these same people get hysterical if they think someone is doing the exact same thing to them!! If you commit the crime, be man enough to serve the time!! Certainly if you are innocent then fight, but how many of us are truly innocent?

The comment about slowing down to 65mph and still getting booked, would perhaps suggest the driver might have been speeding.

I am totally against the revenue collecting type speed camera's, and in my time I have been the World's worst speeding offender, but I WANT Police patrols outside my schools, outside my shopping area's with these speed camera's and prosecuting to the full, any offenders that break the law.

We seem to be forgetting that the first attempts at fooling the camera's all failed and the operators were getting error messages. They literally had to train themselves to get false readings when pointing the camera at a huge flat rectangular piece of sheet metal. (the side of the lorry) Hardly a sceintific, connstructive experiment. Not once, not once did they demonstrate this false reading on a saloon car?

Instead of sensationalism, why not go for the important issues in life..... I wish they could prevent toast from landing jam side down!!! I just dropped my blackcurrant coated piece of toast on my bed and yup!!! I'm in the dog house But as usual I digress

Bye for now,
John

Edit
They had an expert on the program stating how difficult it was to aim the camera's at distant objects!!! The Devon and Cornwall Police helicopter has just had a new piece of equipment fitted that can literally read car number plates at 2000ft! Oh and also a DVD writer that will instantly put camera footage onto DVD. (I now know where to get some films transferred onto DVD)

 

[Swiss Toni]

Is this a wind up? We've seen enough of these things on TV to know...

LOL

"..seen enough on TV to KNOW.."

LOL

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - TV journo uses bloke in a white coat to PROVE Bumble Bees can't fly.

 

[glojo]

LOL

"..seen enough on TV to KNOW.."

LOL

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - TV journo uses bloke in a white coat to PROVE Bumble Bees can't fly.

Poor little Orville watched that program and look what happened to him!!!

 

[Rory]

LOL

"..seen enough on TV to KNOW.."

LOL

Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, eh? - TV journo uses bloke in a white coat to PROVE Bumble Bees can't fly.

Cheshire Police have featured (or is it exculsively about them?) on BBC1 Traffic Cops. They recently had an 'episode' where they were hand held lasering *everyone* late at night. They actually weren't even bothered about speeding - they didn't do anyone who was over the limit - they just used it as an excuse to breathalize the drivers. If anyone saw it I thought it was bit cringing where the woman in the Merc turned the machine Amber, and the Bobby tried to give her a telling off and she wasn't having any of it.

 

[Rory]

Hi Dieter,
It makes me laugh when I read numerous posts about speeding offenders. Most drivers are looking for a legal loophole, or a way of telling an 'untruth' to literally get away with breaking the law. Yet these same people get hysterical if they think someone is doing the exact same thing to them!! If you commit the crime, be man enough to serve the time!! Certainly if you are innocent then fight, but how many of us are truly innocent?

The comment about slowing down to 65mph and still getting booked, would perhaps suggest the driver might have been speeding.

I am totally against the revenue collecting type speed camera's, and in my time I have been the World's worst speeding offender, but I WANT Police patrols outside my schools, outside my shopping area's with these speed camera's and prosecuting to the full, any offenders that break the law.

So that was me that slowed down and still got done. Of course I was exceeding the speed limit but the camera's are supposed to be positioned so that you see them (like any other hazard) and react.

Linking to your last paragraph, I was especially peeved that the laser/camera was being used on a brand-new section of very high quality dual carriageway. (the A500 Nantwich to M6 link for those who know it). Pedestrians are not allowed on it and I'm not aware there have been *any* accidents on this road, never mind serious ones. I was caught by an operator (a Police Officer) standing off to the side of a footbridge, not wearing a high viz jacket and with his back to some trees, against the light. I still saw him, but too late. I've seen seen Police standing on the embankment *under* the bridge, so completely in its shadow.
Yet Cheshire has a *terrible* accident record on its single carriageway A roads. Three people where killed a couple of days ago on the A530 near me - 2 where in a Merc - yet you never see cameras on those roads.
No money in it.