Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Tue May 05, 2026 19:06

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:19 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
scan1

scan2

Daily mail web article

Police speed guns do make mistakes, the Government has admitted for the first time.
The errors mean that thousands of motorists have potentially lost their licences and even their livelihoods on false grounds.

Almost a million drivers are on the verge of bans after being repeatedly snapped by 3,500 mobile devices across England and Wales.

The Home Office and the police have always insisted that the speed guns - which are held by hand or mounted on a tripod - do not lie.

But that is contradicted by a letter from Geoffrey Biddulph, the senior Home Office civil servant in charge of policing Britain's roads.

In it, he states clearly: "We do accept in certain atypical circumstances a device may be capable of producing inaccurate readings."

The letter was sent to Barry Culshaw, a Hampshire solicitor who has defended scores of motorists unfairly trapped by the cameras.

He has sent the Home Office a damning dossier showing how the cameras and their operators make mistakes. He says that the most unreliable guns, which use laser technology, should now be ditched by the Government.

A Daily Mail investigation last year revealed the full extent of the flaws in the devices.

Our tests showed that the most popular of the guns - the LTI 20.20 Ultralyte 100 - gave erratic results even when operated strictly according to instructions.

It recorded a wall travelling at 44 mph, an empty road doing 33 mph and a parked car managing 22 mph. A bicycle - being ridden at just 5mph - was said to have been doing 66mph.

Most of the mistakes stemmed from the gun's wide beam picking up readings from overtaking cars and parked vehicles. Reflections from the road surface, hoardings, fences and even traffic signs also produced errors.

If the gun was not held firmly on the target - itself a difficult task - 'slippage' led to faulty readings. A movement of as little as the width of a human hair was enough to create mistakes.

Our investigation was monitored by one of the country's leading laser experts, Dr Michael Clark.

Only this week, in what is now being viewed as a landmark case, a motorist accused of speeding at 109mph along the M6 toll road in Staffordshire was cleared by a judge because of an error by a laser gun or its police handlers.

Car salesman Stewart Walker, 37, defended himself at Stoke magistrates court because he could not afford the £1,400 in fees charged by a solicitor.

He told the judge that he was driving at exactly 70mph when he was snapped by an LTI Ultralyte last June.

'This is a huge admission from the Home Office'

As the officer squeezed the trigger Mr Walker was overtaken by a BMW sports car which then pulled in front of his own saloon.

Mr Walker asked the officer, in court to give evidence, if the reflection of the faster car could have been picked up by the camera's laser beam by mistake to give the extraordinarily high reading. The officer said yes.

Mr Walker, from Norfolk, handed the judge a copy of the Mail investigation, published last October. The judge read it before declaring that Mr Walker should have the case against him dropped. His costs will now be paid by the police.

After the hearing, Mr Walker said: "I told the judge that I thought the gun had taken a reading from another car.

"I have been worried for months about losing my licence even though I had done nothing wrong or dangerous at all."

Motoring organisations have consistently said that the cameras are not fault-free.

Some observers have called for speed guns to be scrapped altogether because of the flaws.

Paul Smith, head of Safe-Speed, a group which campaigns against the spread of mobile cameras, said: "This is a huge admission from the Home Office.

"Now the Government has finally confessed that a problem exists, they must withdraw the devices and make arrangements to compensate those convicted or fined on the basis of unreliable evidence.

"Five million motorists have been convicted or paid a fixed penalty in the past five years. Now we know that many have not broken any law at all."

Mark McArthur-Christie, policy director of the British Driving Association, said: "The public are beginning to mistrust the police because of the unfairness of the cameras which trap the innocent."

More than two million motorists are expected to receive speed camera tickets this year. If each is fined £60, the total profits from the cameras in 2005-2006 will be £118million. The money goes to police forces, road safety groups and courts that hear speeding cases.

The Home Office declined to comment last night

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 10:49 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 19:50
Posts: 3369
Location: Lost in the Wilderness
Well what a turn round, never thought I’d see the day. As I was convicted on a motorcycle while overtaking other vehicles, would this indicate I can appeal my case? (It was nearly three years ago).

_________________
Useless laws weaken necessary laws.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:06 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Even if the LTI20/20 is proved capable of error, only those people who contested their guilt in court have any chance of being "pardoned".

If you pleaded guilty via the paperwork (s172/NIP etc.) then you are guilty. Sorry.

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:26 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:19
Posts: 1795
The only problem with scrapping laser guns and gatsos is that this will lead to the wider use of specs and other maybe in car speed limiting devices. These are more insidious. There are rumours of forcing these devices onto private cars within London for a start.

It would be nice to see all the speed limiting devices scrapped so maybe proper road safety would be concentrated on...... porcines ready for take off :)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:36 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 06:46
Posts: 16903
Location: Safe Speed
malcolmw wrote:
Even if the LTI20/20 is proved capable of error, only those people who contested their guilt in court have any chance of being "pardoned".

If you pleaded guilty via the paperwork (s172/NIP etc.) then you are guilty. Sorry.


A 'class action' leading to judicial review could change that couldn't it? (I'm asking not telling...)

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 13:41 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 13:36
Posts: 1339
Quote:
In it, he states clearly: "We do accept in certain atypical circumstances a device may be capable of producing inaccurate readings."


And the 'atypical' circumstances are? Movement the width of a human hair. Just marvellous.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 18:20 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:26
Posts: 194
Location: Burton on Trent
Can you challenge the conviction because of new evidence as you can in Jury trial. I was done for an alleged 47 on a motorway. I know now my speedo meant the maximum I actaully did was 43 mph throughout the 10 mile speed limit. I HAD to believe the police equipment was all O.K. If I had the information now I would challenge it. What do the people on pepipoo think ?

:) Richard


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 20:14 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 16:48
Posts: 60
Quote:
Mr Walker asked the officer, in court to give evidence, if the reflection of the faster car could have been picked up by the camera's laser beam by mistake to give the extraordinarily high reading. The officer said yes.


If that is your honest held belief then you have to say it, well done that man!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 18, 2006 20:55 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 16:51
Posts: 1323
Location: Stafford - a short distance past hope
Dutch wrote:
Quote:
Mr Walker asked the officer, in court to give evidence, if the reflection of the faster car could have been picked up by the camera's laser beam by mistake to give the extraordinarily high reading. The officer said yes.


If that is your honest held belief then you have to say it, well done that man!


I do hope he still has a job?


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 20:00 
Offline
Camera Partnership Staff
Camera Partnership Staff
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 19:48
Posts: 1995
only just got back from my sisters in london,

funny this story is not plastered all over the tabloids such a mjor scoop for thedaily mail again 8-)

_________________
now retired


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2006 21:39 
Offline
Police Officer and Member
Police Officer and Member

Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 16:48
Posts: 60
Quote:
only just got back from my sisters in london,

funny this story is not plastered all over the tabloids such a mjor scoop for thedaily mail again


Any feedback/opinion at all?

(edit, on the story that is, not on your visit to your sisters :lol: )


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 11 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.040s | 11 Queries | GZIP : Off ]