Safe Speed Forums

no, no, no. We proved to satisfy our own curiosity whether slip effect was possible. We acheived this in 15 min. Nothing to do with any TV.

This is stage 1 of proof. Can it happen? Yes.
stage 2 is can it happen in a contrived real situation?
stage 3 is does it happen in the field.

Last seasons inside out proved stage 1 also.
From the trailer I saw they proved stage 2 also. see next Monday
There are video tapes available that show stage 3 happening.
The 3 speed readings on a motorbike do not correspond with the tape time clock and the distance that the laser measures.

It is up to the camera partnerships and cps to throw out cases that do not hold water.

This has not happened and they may lose thier favorite tool.

WOT! You mean use it properly?
The TRAINED operator does exactly what you say, follows the manufacturers instructions and gets a reading that is, not by chance, a very close measurement of the vehicle speed.
I can't see what is wrong with that.

The tach v 20.20 is complete balls to be quite frank, every case I have seen the vehicle tacho shows the vehicle to have been travelling at the measured speed within 2 or 3 mins of the offence. Are tachos and LTI20.20 systems time synchronised? NO THEY ARE NOT! so the tacho v 20.20 is as I say complete balls and should be thrown out when the tacho shows a speed as measured within 15 minutes (a reasonable doubt type figure) of the LTI20.20. GPS is no defence as it's your word against the evidence.


Well that's fine and dandy for you and your non-type approved system. For the Type Approved systems in use in the UK, not the same as the garbage you are using in your program, this has not been seen in any of the 4 systems we have, we have tried these methods with all of the kit, no such readings.
No speed errors have been detected when the system has been compared to time/distance measurements when target vehicles have been measured on a "range". We have ranges on the motorway where we can compare our laser readings to measured time/distance average speeds, NO ERRORS have been detected in speeds other than that calculated for the expected cosine error. Every test returning perfect results for speed when comparing laser to average.
Operator do not move the laser around from vehicle to vehicle or sweep it around when making measurements, they don't stand on their head, squint their eyes, wear funny hats (well some do) or generally take no notice of the Operating Instructions as you seem to be doing!


Oh marvellous, there is a technique that takes a significant effort to perfect and you have to set the threshold to 0 for it to work. We are not trained in these techniques nor are we willing to be stupid enough to practice such shoddy, stupid methods that are totally against all advice and instruction. If this is what it takes to obtain wrong readings, all be it with a version of the device we don't use than exactly what basis is the program going out on?
Look Mr BBC, if you use this device in a clowns outfit while doing a back flip and shake it about after you have set it to a false threshold and altered the error trapping algorithms you can cock up the readings.
You really all need to start wearing red noses and take up your true positions as stand up comedians.


Why, you have already proved that you have no basis to call the system into doubt with your cock-eyed methodology and we have tested ours to show that they are sound devices when used correctly with the approved UK version.

You may be assured that camera operators (not comedians such as those on the BBC program) have very little problem returning readings that have yet to show an error in all of the practical testing we have put the equipment through.
You may also be assured that pointing at a vehicle at 300m is just as easy as pointing at a road sign, it just isn’t difficult. In fact even a slightly skilled operator has absolutely no problem obtaining readings out to the full operating range; it really is very very easy.
To say it isn't when you haven't even had a go is just complete rubbish as is to comment on accident causations when you have no access to any supporting data.
If this is the sort of clowning around you all get up to in your desperate attempts at undermining these devices you should really have a sit back and think very hard if you really want anyone with more nouse than a BBC reporter to take note.
Get a life!

What?

Did you even look at that link I supplied?

No I didn't the video is very familiar to us and we have provided a time/speed profile for the data upon it.
The analysis showed that the speeds, accelleration and decelleration were not only possible but typical of a motorcycle profile.
The thing I find surprising is that you find it so unbelievable that you are citing it as an example to show error when it is showing an easily possible situation.
Oh and the speed of 0mph at the end is from the sign in the road.
For the other poster on here, -107mph shows the vehicle is in fact receding, so no problems there either!
As said in my earlier post, you need to be TRAINED to know what you are doing and more importantly, know what you are talking about!

The familiar arrogance of 'JJ' is seen yet again on this forum. I hope God is watching what you are doing, JJ, and your improper attempt at comedy as an unelected (and of course unaccountable), public servant. A period of silence from you would be welcome.

The point demonstrated is that it IS possible to make the device provide false readings; in other words there is a 'procedure' which will cause it do do so, and which cannot be detected afterwards as having been carried out. Operators are indeed trained, but how do we know this training does not include the 'other procedure'. How does the citizen know that this is not being done by JJ's or any other partnership to ensure the revenue comes in. Answer is, of course we, and the magistrates don't, and the camera operator can be civilians, and are anyway on their own, not being checked. If no revenues were involved, most people would argue there is no incentive to falsify the evidence, but now there is; a massive one; who pays 'JJ's wages - the motorist upon whom JJ feasts, and indeed, feasts royally.

A few cases have arisen where cast-iron evidence has shown that the device has been operated incorrectly, because there was a tachograph record, or the vehicle was incapable of the accused speed when tested later. Of course these are few and far between, because the accused speeds are normally within the envelope of the vehicle, and the citizen usually has no independent data logger to prove otherwise.

If we assume that 0.001% of readings are incorrect, with 12 million fined already this gives a total of 12,000 motorists falsely convicted.

Is this acceptable by JJ and his cohorts?

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

safedriver

It's alright. JJ/Steve usually goes quiet for a while when asked a question they don't feel like answering.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

I was targeted from a massive distance and not once do the cross hairs actually hit my car. They just waggle up and down in front of it until the error 3 message goes and 70mph flashes up for less than 1/5 of a second.

It is obvious that it is caused by slip on the road surface of the hill I am going down, but this is just ignored by the scamerati, and the CPS just continue to harass me with court date after court date.

I know I was doing no more than 60 mph in a 60 mph limit, but I am still persecuted.

The road deaths in this county were 43 in 2002 when the partnership was formed, 49 in 2003, and 61 in 2004. The blood of these people is on the hands of the partnership!

More money being made year after year, more people dying on our roads, and less respect for the real Police who have worked so hard for so many decades keeping us safe.

You camera partnerships should hang your heads in shame and let us have our Police Force back!

Sink the scameraships and give us back our Police Force!

Can't argue with any of that and there appears to be a pattern forming. These 'people' are quite happy for this to continue rather than be proved wrong.

Dear Safedriver
Why is it that public servants can be accused of improper conduct and then be expected to keep silent? The position does not open up the public route to abuse so, no there is no need for a submissive approach to your accusations which are poorly founded and very abusive.

As far as any false readings having to be employed to catch out speeders is concerned, there is just no need, there are plenty of motorists more than willing to donate, we just wish that there were far fewer and that the numbers were falling faster.

Nuggets like you and your friends are encouraging donation, please stop.

I know if our manager found and form of dodgy practice it would be severely punished with an increase in the local Job Centre population.

You are unfounded in your accusations.

There were no speeds exceeding the alleged speed within 1/2hr, and the times can be corroborated with delivery periods.


The GPS was a "black box" a data logger that is downloaded onto a head office analysis system.


I believe the kit used in the programme were UK-supplied devices, if not then identical to that used in the UK (I don't believe the UK models are different anyway). All looked to be in excellent working order, if not then wouldn't the self-test flag something up?


I think JJ (or whoever) is getting desperate, the devices should NEVER EVER produce an incorrect reading no matter what you do to the user-side of the device.

Gareth

No desperation whatsoever as it would seem that the foundation of your claims are completely comical to say the least.

As I have said previously, we have tested the devices on many occasions against alternative speed measuring techniques and have yet to find any errors in the system whatsoever.

Perhaps the BBC would like to come and make a program about it!

But then (to misquote Christine Keeler) 'you would say that!'.

There is that "I'm no expert" bit again - it must be in the operators handbook!!

Sounds a bit like the BAC Comet airliner, Thalidomide, Ford Pinto fuel tanks, the Space Shuttle, Windows ME, USN Mk14 torpedos, Titanic, MV Darbyshire - the list of apparently safe designs, tested by bodies charged with approving safety or effectivness, which have gone on to be proved as failures is endless.


Easily possible - so it's not DEFINATE then?

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!

Dear Mr JJ

I did not intend any insult, so if any is taken, I withdraw it.

Public servants should never, ever, indulge in emotive and intemperate language, however tempting it may be; that is the role of the politicians. I do sympathise with you when I see some of the posts here, and I do hope you continue to contribute to a reasoned debate.

However, in my opinion, you are really on a loser in your relations with the public, because once everyone is detected and fined the question then becomes 'who is the law serving' ? We all know and personally admit to exceeding the speed limits from time to time, but this does not directly translate into accidents, injuries and deaths; if it did we would be looking at far, far, higher accident statistics than we have now. In my case, never a serious (injury), accident in nearly 40 years of motoring including motorcycling. I have to say that I did ocasionally 'drop it': more fool me !!

So most people seem to manage to stay out of trouble even though they may be breaking the law in a minor way. Yet the partnerships have fined 12 million up to 2003,mostly for minor breaches, and this total continues to rise exponentially, but without any significant effect on safety so far. The question therefore has to be - Is this the right way to improve road safety? I think not. We sinners seem to be in illustrious company when it comes to our 'crimes'. The Solicitor-General of this Government, several senior policemen, the Duke of Norfolk (Head of the IAM), Princess Anne etc. Are we all no better than thieves and robbers ??

Long before the partnerships were formed, road safety was significantly improved despite current traffic levels 10 times higher than the fifties when well over 5000 people were killed every year. Our roads are now the safest in the European Union, but its not the cameras that have done it.

As far as I am concerned, this cash source of fixed penalties for the funding of the partnerships is the paramount issue. Only when this is removed will I feel confident that the partnerships are neutral and motivated solely by road safety. How can it be otherwise when your and your staff's salaries are directly paid out of the fixed penalties you issue. Income down - get out there, lads, and get it in !! I am not a fool; I see the buried loops in the roads I pass which secretly analyse speeds to guide the partnerships in placing the cameras. You are allowed up to 15% of your efforts at undeclared sites, even if there have been no accidents at all on the roads concerned. A wonderful way to make up any shortfalls in income.

Mr Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Transport has stated that a successful camera is one that makes no money from fines. If this is true, how are you to be financed? You have no other source of income apart from the fixed penalties. Clearly the money must continue to flow in, and persons who wish to argue their case in a court must be discouraged, and thumped hard for their temerity at challenging you. We see that magistrates are part of the partnership. What does this tell the average person about the law and its impartiality, esoteric replies which attempt to prove the opposite will fall on deaf ears, at least in this house; it is a matter of propriety. There must not even be the hint of malpractice.

In reality what it comes down to is that every motorist, on every trip, is expected to be 100% perfect on every journey, from the second he/she leaves the driveway, to the second he/she returns. Are you perfect in every aspct of your life, Mr JJ ? I suspect not, but in motoring it ie apparently demanded totally. It is this fallibility which gives you and the other partnerships a limitless well of cash on which to draw. My expression for this is 'Feasting on Fallibility'.

If we consider your detection machinery. the fact is, that several cases in court have proved that the speed measurement devices used have been in error. Of course these are small in number, because so few motorists have records of their speed or indeed any equipment to enable them to do so. The 'lucky'few have been able to overturn the speed camera evidence, and robustly too. I think we would all like to know how a partnership (not Cumbria), can persist with a prosecution when all commonsense must have suggested a double-decker bus is incapable of 80 mph ( a recent case). This suggests that protecting the source pf revenue has been more important than the truth.

Sorry for this long post

_________________
Good manners maketh a good motorist

er, 0.001% of 12 milion is actually 120. I think you got a wrong reading

Well said, Mr. Safedriver. That's one of the best put-together and well-reasoned posts on here for a long time.
All absolutely true. I especially liked the comments about the Magistrates Couts Service being part of the pratnerships. The response you'll get is that the Magistrates are independent of the Courts Service. Who advises the Magistrates on the law and procedure? That's right, employees of the Courts Service - Partners in the Pratnerships. 'Nuff said!

The Lti unit itself does not know whether it is hand held or on a tripod, static or moving.

So it follows that if slip can be obtained by pointing a moving Lti at a stationery object, it must follow that slip can be obtained by pointing a stationery lti at a moving object.

We have not noticed this effect on any reading taken that has been tested against an alternative measurement of the same vehicle at the same time.
We have not been able to recreate a false reading by sweeping an LTI20.20 against vehicles or walls either.
From reading an earlier description of just how the false readings were obtained, i.e. sweeping at a set rate, angling the device while sweeping, setting the threshold speed down to 0 mph etc; none of these techniques are in common or uncommon use by operators of the devices.
The false and highly contrived situation in use, the tests we have carried out to compare laser speeds, Home Office testing and approval and the way in which the devices are used leads to the conclusion that in normal use there is every reason to believe that the system provides sufficient integrity with which to provide sound evidence for convictions.
The source of the challenge to the integrity is one of a pre-conceived agenda, the BBC are obviously using it as entertainment. If the BBC are using it as a public service message they are seriously misguided in their approach and are using a very weak source of dubious information.

The only way we have produced a false speed from the LTI20.20 is to move it toward a target. This is how laser devices are tested. The laser will indicate the resultant speed between it and the target, if the LTI20.20 is moving then the resultant speed indicated will be a summ of the speed of teh target and the LTI20.20, this is obvious I would hope. When they are used in Safety Camera Vans or by the Police they are in a stable or steady state hence measuring the speed of the target vehicle less any angular offset. I have yet to see an LTI20.20 used on a moving platform nor have I seen one used to sweep a target to obtain a reading rather than correctly acquire the vehicle.

The idea that an operator would deliberately attempt to acquire higher readings from vehicles that are not exceeding the speed limit is complete nonesense.

I'm looking forward to seeing it and what is to be presented but I don't know when I will see it as I have had my annual fill of being south of the M62 this decade.