You think our speed cameras are sneaky?

No - it wasn't me!

Nime's not happy. They were his cameras.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
...what you dont know is that if the lti isn't happy it dont display a reading. Its a clever little bugger. Also, I never used it at all thru glass evidentially speaking - I did try it to see if it would work, but didn't use any readings in evidence - honest!

I've seen the police up here operating radar guns from inside their vehicles when it's raining. I wonder how many people they've booked were aware that they're not supposed to do that?

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Note: Domfjbrown doesn't drive. Not his fault but the fact remains. It's an important fact because the only way to understand that it may be perfectly safe to put your foot down on the straight, but slow down to well below the speed limit for the blind corner/summit, is to be an experienced driver.

This is true - I'm physically unable to drive. However, anyone with any common sense can understand that driving in a straight line at 50 mph, then belting round a blind corner/summit at 50 can be potentially very dangerous.

I'm actually quite pleased I *can't* drive - based on the way I get antsy when being held up on my bike, I'd be one hell of an impatient driver (I don't think I'd speed mind you - but who can tell - luckily I can't be a hypocrite on the speeding issue ).

quote:

I've seen the police up here operating radar guns from inside their vehicles when it's raining. I wonder how many people they've booked were aware that they're not supposed to do that?

Er, its best practice to not do it thru glass, but the manufacturers have no problem with it, as they say once it gets a reading its happy etc, so its not as crucial as you make out...

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:

quote:

I've seen the police up here operating radar guns from inside their vehicles when it's raining. I wonder how many people they've booked were aware that they're not supposed to do that?

Er, its best practice to not do it thru glass, but the manufacturers have no problem with it, as they say once it gets a reading its happy etc, so its not as crucial as you make out...

The ACPO code of practice is very clear on this point:

"In operational use the operator and the device must be outside any vehicle"

"Hand-held radar should only be operated by an officer on foot"

Hand-held laser devices can be used from inside a vehicle but only if all mobile phones and radios are turned off, and not through glass.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Er, its best practice to not do it thru glass, but the manufacturers have no problem with it, as they say once it gets a reading its happy etc, so its not as crucial as you make out...

how can you possibly know what it's got a reading from if you're firing through glass or water?

because the company have set it that unless it gets the correct reading parameters back it doesn't display a reading.

best e-mail LTI if you need to get any more technical.

ps - i used it as i was trained to do so - see steve g's comments above...

Andy, If you haven't already seen it then I suggest you have a look at this:
Inside Out

it shows that they are capable of producing incorrect readings.

Naturally all the parties raking in the money have no comment to make.

Mmm,

I was trained to obtain readings by aiming at the front of the vehicle, and not panning.

Not really a lot I can add to that.

I know how you're trained, but at 500m we're talking about under 1mm of 'panning' (which can also occur along a bonnet, not just the side of the car) - ie just a hand tremor or in the case of talivans then suspension movement or bridge movement due to passing traffic.
One reason you may not have heard of any court cases challenging the LTI is because it seems most of them seem to get quietly dropped.

I guess the main point is that it's now been proved that these devices can incorrectly record speeds by a big enough to have someone banned from the roads and yet it's being hushed up.

here's another link for you. Was he really doing 107mph???

On the vid they were doing a lot more than 1mm of panning, John.

I take your point, but to balance this off you need to also go the other way and look at what the offence actually says: exceeding the speed limit.

You also need to realise that when I was using them the prosecution parameters re minimum speeds over the limit etc were somewhat differant to what they are now. The third thing to consider is that when I was using them i was what a lot of you are asking for, i.e. someone actually holding the camera - not a fixed robot.

We will get back to the same old argument re the actual speed limits and how they are set, and also some drivers thinking they are 'better' than the limit set etc.

quote:

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
here's another link for you. Was he really doing 107mph???

No wonder they didn't want to release the video.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
I take your point, but to balance this off you need to also go the other way and look at what the offence actually says: exceeding the speed limit.

yes that is the offence but with these errors you can be doing 65mph and find yourself with a NIP for 90mph.
At least when you were holding the camera I'm guessing you also do what their supposed to be doing and obviously aren't and that is forming a prior opinion that the vehicle in question is in fact breaking the speed limit and the device your using was only backing your opinion.

quote:

We will get back to the same old argument re the actual speed limits and how they are set, and also some drivers thinking they are 'better' than the limit set etc.

you know as well as I do that some drivers ARE better than the limit set in good conditions. That's what your discretion is all about. You know how to pick the really bad ones, you know who needs a chat and you know who needs the ticket. A camera (with or without a civilian operator) doesn't know any of that.
That's beside the point though, what worries me is if these cameras have just a 1 in 1000 error rate (and the program showed 1 in 10 I believe) then it's not going to take long to start racking up points even if you drive at the limit. Worse still is that have absolutely no possible means of defending yourself because "the camera doesn't lie" (been there, tried that).

Anyone who has played with a cheap laser pointer or builder's laser level will know how a minute movement of the device will result in a major shift in the angle of the beam and the resultant position of the distant spot.

Even using one of these levels on a wooden floor is very difficult as the floor depresses enough with operator's movements to shift the beam considerably.

I once spent half an hour trying to use one of these laser levels to draw a line across a field to mark our boundary with poles. It proved impossible to align the laser spot with the mark on the house wall at any great distance despite the supplied tripod.

To use one of these police speed "guns" without a tripod seems completely ludicrous. As is aiming from any distance away from the immediate side of the road where the vehicles are approaching. Even using one on a curve in the road is liable to problems.

The danish speed warning signs often change their reading as a vehicle passes. They frequently throw up a completely random higher speed when two or more vehicles approach the sign with a typical spacing between them! I presume these speed warning signs use a similar technology to police speed guns. Perhaps not?

quote:

At least when you were holding the camera I'm guessing you also do what their supposed to be doing and obviously aren't and that is forming a prior opinion that the vehicle in question is in fact breaking the speed limit and the device your using was only backing your opinion.

of course.

By the way, Have you heard of Vascar?

quote:

Originally posted by John Sheridan:
yes that is the offence but with these errors you can be doing 65mph and find yourself with a NIP for 90mph.

Or be doing 59mph in a 60 limit and get a NIP for 85mph - which is the sort of thing that most of the dropped cases have been for.

quote:

At least when you were holding the camera I'm guessing you also do what their supposed to be doing and obviously aren't and that is forming a prior opinion that the vehicle in question is in fact breaking the speed limit and the device your using was only backing your opinion.

I've observed a number of police speed traps in my time and it's obvious that they use the devices to measure the speed of every vehicle - not just the ones that look to be exceeding the speed limit.

I've seen one location using VASCAR where they start the timing immediately on the vehicle coming into sight.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
By the way, Have you heard of Vascar?

Probably the most open to deliberate abuse of any of the speed measuring devices.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
By the way, Have you heard of Vascar?

yes, if I'm not mistaken you time yourself between 2 points while attempting to follow a car at a fixed distance. Not perfectly accurate but I doubt that you'll be out by 30mph in your estimate (edit: if used properly).

Ok, I give up.

I never knowingly misused a device to prosecute a speeder. I have a concience.

If i didn't have a concience i would not be having this debate with you both here and now.

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
Ok, I give up.

I never knowingly misused a device to prosecute a speeder. I have a concience.

And I'm sure that the majority of officers are in the same position. Unfortunately there are other officers out there that will misuse these devices because of bigotry or bias. In addition there are considerably more that don't follow correct procedure without caring about the outcome. The video footage of the motorcyclist is a clear example of one instance - there is absolutely no way a prosecution should have been attempted in that case.

Steve,

I may have said this to you before, but your after a bit of a perfect world, are you not?

Oh, and before you bite my head off, I agree with your sentiments...

A few interesting and possibly relevant links

Police stake out

Harrassment or not

More tales from Edmonton

quote:

Originally posted by andy c:
I may have said this to you before, but your after a bit of a perfect world, are you not?

I don't expect all police officers to be perfect, however I dislike the hypocrisy involved and the extent to which their colleagues and the courts cover up for them.