Safe Speed Forums

I have just been talking to a very good friend of mine, who was recently stopped by a traffic Police vehicle, but not a speeding offence.

The two officers were very polite and reasonable, and due to the new requirements ask the driver to sit in the back of the police car and take a beath test, which he willingly did and passed.

He observed an LTI in the front of the vehicle and commented, albeit jokingly, that the officers were using an unreliable device.

The Officers surprisingly agreed with him, however what they said was that the device was basically accurate, but the problems with it were very real as a lot of the time the device was not used correctly.

This incorrect use was due to either poor training or lack of care, and was well known throught the Police and operating units.

I would agree 100% with those comments, and my personal experience backs this up completely.

For example I know that in some parts of the UK the only training received is "Cascade Training"

This is where an untrained operator works with a supposedly trained operator, trained in the same way, untill the new operator is considered "Trained"

Yes this is true, I have the evidence

Tim

if you browse any SCP website they show the shoulder number of the operator and their training certificate, IMO very foolish for an unauthorised officer to use the gun, its the first thing that is asked for

If what you are saying is right and some operators are cascade trained, then this calls into question whether they have received proper certification. If not, all speeding allegations they make are invalid. There is also the question as to whether such people are properly trained in how to present their evidence in court if required.

a further thought is I believe the LTI is an American made device, and like most things made by the Americans they never work properly. Look at their plasma screen TV's now being flogged over here, endless problems with them. Or the stealth bomber, whose anti radar paint washes off in the rain!!!! Anything that comes out of that country is a standing joke.

Training is irrelevant - at all times the video should be examined to ensure the device was being used correctly.

In the case against golfer Colin Montgomery - who would appear to be a serial speeder, the trained operator was shown (eventually) to have been using the LTI outside of the guidelines.

The judge was concerned enough to raise the matter with the Chief Constable.

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

I have to challenge the comments by Ernest Marsh

1. Training is very relevant, and a legal requirement. If the operator does not have a reasonable understanding of what he/she is doing during these checks and the basic operation of the device then they will make serious mistakes, so it follows that the trainer must be a qualified trainer

2. Looking at the video assists but only if all the pre session chacks have been carried out correctly and recorded.

3. Even if these checks "Appear" correct we cannot be sure as there is no audio recorded and the audio tone, during the alignment checks, is the ONLY way to confirm that the alignment was carried out correctly, or even carried out at all and the device was in the "tt" mode

4. Then we have hand held devices without any recording, all one has in the word of the operator against the word of a motorist

5. In the Montgomerie case the operator was at fault by not operating the equipment as required, however this was only discovered and accepted by the Judge, because CM had enought financial backing to contest the case and get the full session recording, usually denied to ordinary mortals.

6. From the considerable number of recordings, of speeding cases, I have seen and many years experience of aligning pulse measuring equipment, far more complicated that any speed gun, the alignment procedures even correctly carried out do not come up to the standard of accuracy I would require for such a device.

7. As for the annual calibration precedure I do not know of any Quality Control Assessor that would ever accept that and even passable. The best that could be said for the calibration procedure is that it is an acceptable pre calibration check. The list of what the calibration does not check but should check is considerable.

8. Since 1996 there is no record of any device failing its annual calibration, developing a fault or being outside the acceptable parameters. Why do I say this, well if there was a record then all the previous years convictions would have to be re assessed, and this would have attracted massive press coverage. So what is correct no devices have failed or no devices have been recorded as failed and but adjusted on the QT?

Tim

You misunderstood me!

What I meant was that training is irrelevant when there is no guarantee that the device is operated properly - as evidenced in the Montgomery case, even by an operator who IS trained properly.
The video showed that the properly trained operator was basically "playing" with the LTI because he was bored.
He targeted a jogger and a cyclist, and if the reports in the press are correct, targeted vehicles in quick succession causing a danger that a slip error would be recorded.
It was not the checking which was in question, but the basic operation of the device.

Your opinion of the calibration procedures is correct.
Scientifically they are a joke. The Home Office guidance for calibration is ignored, and magistrates simply either don't care, or do not understand the ramifications.

REDSPEED's speed curb device is needlessly complex - with the express purpose of making a technical challenge nigh on impossible. The varying of the interval between flashes is nothing short of farcical and very unnecessary - that alone should raise concerns in court if the bench were only aware.

REDSPEED also display the ISO 9001 quality mark on their certificates, in express contravention of UKAS rules - an indication of their disdain towards rules and the law!
As to failing the calibration, you only have to look at the computer software and hardware employed - is there anyone here who can say that their PC has NEVER had a hang or done something unexpected?

Even the CSCP website was not immune, when a link on the front page was duff - Steve Callaghan had this drawn to his attention - on more than one occasion, yet insisted that nothing was wrong!

When he finally had to admit defeat, and concede that there WAS a fault, a Safespeed poster identified the problem in the code in minutes!
What a cock - to use Callaghan's own expression!
Yet he appears as an "expert" witness???

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

Apologies for the misundersatnding of Ernest Marsh comment

Tim

As I understand "cascade training" it is no more than a Chinese Whisper - and we all know what that leads too!

Even with proper training people can, and do, get things wrong so if we at the mercy of cascade training we all may as well start saving now for that solicitor we will need later...

_________________
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of Safe Speed.
You will be branded a threat to society by going over a speed limit where it is safe to do so, and suffer the consequences of your actions in a way criminals do not, more so than someone who is a real threat to our society.

Tim
Which is best:
1. Cascade Training
2. No Training of any sort whatsoever in the equipment

Fiiiiiiiight!

You forgot:
3. No use of the equipment at all without proper training

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler

That's classic example of a False Dichotomy!

Only someone who is directly associated with, or has benefited from, or both, said cameras would spout such rubbish!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

i would imagine the job is hardly mind stimulating



it would depend if the jogger cyclist was a size 10 in tight lyrca



is there any more to this, i always thought the timeout/ 4 blocks stopped rapid triggering

whats is the training format ?, do you know?, what happens once an operator is trained ?, are they just left to their own devices or assessed. Which leads on to another issue on the legality of speed limits, what training do operators, both police and SCP have as per the ACPo guidelines

There is only ONE way of training anyone and that is by a properly trained instructor who actually understands how the device in question works.

This is even more critical because as a direct result of these "Trained" operators action people get criminal convictions.

We have to be 100% SURE of guilt, anything less is unsatisfactory.

There is a total cavalier attitude to the so called training carried out in many safety camera partnerships and the main reason for this is that partnerships and operators are told time and time again that these devices cannot go wrong or give a false reading. All the operator has to do is point it in the general direction of a target.

This assumes that the device is correctly aligned and calibrated

Is it credible that since 1996 no device has even needed alignment adjustment or found to be out of the calibration specification?

Tim

To be fair: the build of the Speedscopes (Marksmans) ARE fairly robust, and there is an amount of internal self-checking going on.
Chances are a failure would manifest itself as something catastrophic, such as: a continuous failure to acquire a target (E01) or one of the other E numbers (such as 50 or 54).
With what I know, I could accept that none have failed calibration; I would also suspect there have been a few outright field failures.

Oooh I feel all dirty

I don't have such kind words to say for the Ultralytes!

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I was including all LTI's in my comments Speedscopes and Ultralytes

Tim

Unless you have been trained in the devices how would you be able to comment? Have you been trained in the devices?

The principals of understanding the legal ramifications of good quality training (in all speed camera LTI / Ultralyte equip.) does not necessarily require one to have been trained 'oneself' to appreciate and be able to debate this.
However there are fairly easily accessible training guidelines / manuals available, and hands on experience to assist with the understanding and appreciation of operational functions and controls.

_________________
Safe Speed for Intelligent Road Safety through proper research, experience & guidance.

So "No" then!

By the way, Tim's comments above were on the capabilities of the equipment not their operators. If he is criticising operators training as not being good enough to operate the devices hos can he then go on to comment on the capabilities of the equipment without any operator or other training on them? The credibility of the commentator will increase if training has been received and the reverse being the case if no training at all has been received.

I'm damn sure there are a lot of drivers out there who have been "trained" how to operate a car or millions of people "trained" in operating a TV set but there are many millions, who have taken this training, who wouldn't have a clue on the technicalities of such devices or what could possibly go wrong with them. Just because you have been "trained" how to use something does not make you a technical expert .

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.