Safe Speed Forums

The shocking picture that shows police will do ANYTHING to hide speed cameras from unsuspecting motorists
Last updated at 11:11am on 31st March 2008

Comments

The police force headed by the "Mad Mullah of the Traffic Taliban" which has been accused of waging a "vendetta" against drivers has a new weapon - a speed camera hidden in a horsebox.

The stealthy ruse is North Wales Police's newest crackdown on speeding drivers and sees officers hiding in the back of the horsebox while parked up on a grass verge.

The force is headed by Richard Brunstrom who was dubbed the "Mad Mullah" after a serious of tough new measures to catch speeding drivers.

Scroll down for more...


Covert: Police officers use a speed camera from inside a horsebox

Mr Brunstrom has previously raised the prospect of speed cameras being hidden in cats' eyes. But despite his force's crackdown on motorists, road deaths and serious injuries are up by a third.

Last year he faced calls to quit after he showed pictures of a headless biker to journalists at a road safety seminar without telling the motorcyclist's family.

His 'Arrive Alive' speed cameras caught 55,000 offenders in 2007 including 19 police vehicles not answering 999 calls.

Scroll down for more...



Tackling speed: The police force are coming up with new schemes to stop motorists speeding
Arthur Roberts, of the pressure group People for Proper Policing, claimed: "This horsebox will be another serious distraction for motorists and doesn't really address road safety.

"It's another cynical way of raising revenue."

A spokeswoman for the police force said last week, when rumours about the hidden camera were rife: "As days get longer we can anticipate many more motorcyclists riding in North Wales.

"Tragically some of these will die or some will be seriously injured and in some cases excess speed will be a significant factor in these incidents.

"With our partners we are seeking to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries to motorcyclists and other road users through education, rider awareness, engineering and enforcement.

"Our enforcement activity will increase as the days get longer, but we're not prepared to comment now on the precise tactics that will be used. We would ask that all road users obey the law and ride and drive responsibly."

Yesterday the horsebox was parked alongside the road at Maenan, near Llanrwst - a straight stretch with a 60mph limit but renowned for speeding.

Transcription copy

Paul Goggins MP
PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE
2 Marsham Street SW1P 4DF
www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Saudra Gidiey MP
House of Commons
London SW1A OAA
Our M27919/5
Your Ref: Seal002/1/SL/MB

Thank you for your letter of 11 November 2005 on behalf of Mr(Anton) about recent media interest in the type approval of the LTI 20.20 speed enforcement device.
Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 sophisticated traffic law enforcement devices require type approval by the Secretary of State before evidence from them can be used in court proceedings. The Road Traffic Act 1988 sets out equivalent requirements for type approving speed enforcement devices. The type approval process provides a public assurance of any equipment's accuracy and reliability.
Home Office type approval is only granted to devices that have a high degree of accuracy and reliability to satisfy rigorous testing by the Home Office Scientific Development Branch (HOSDB) and the police in the field. Testing ensures that all devices are robust, reliable and can produce accurate readings or images under a variety of extreme conditions. Type approval is granted to a particular kind of device with each individual device required to be manufactured to the same high standard.
I should explain the two stages of the type approval system which all speed measuring devices must successfully complete before they can be used by the police for enforcement. The equipment is initially tested by the police as if in full operational use although, of course, no prosecutions are brought during the testing, period. Once the police are satisfied that devices are of a sufficient standard to meet their needs the responsibility for testing passes to the HOSDB.
HOSDB's requirements cover such issues as storage, operating temperatures. portability, durability, weather proofing, and electro magnetic compatibility as well as obvious matters such as accuracy and reliability. Independent scientific test houses carry out the testing. Only when a device has passed all these tests will a type approval Order be signed so that the police can use it for prosecution.
I wish to assure Mr Seaton that the laser speed measurement technology used in the LTI 20.20 is extremely sophisticated and the nature of the medium means that devices are continually self-calibrating with their own fault report system. HOSDB is satisfied that the devices should be calibrated in factory when constructed and then annually. In that case. the factory check and annual check are checks that the device's own internal and continuous calibrating system is operating correctly. A visible sticker is usually placed or, a device showing the date of the last check.
Requirements for the day-to-day operation of enforcement devices have been laid down in the publication Roads Policing Enforcement Technology Code of Practice" issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). A copy is available on their website: www.acpo.police.uk. under "Policies''.
Section 14.4 of the Code requires the operator to act within ten feet of the carriageway and at a range exceeding 50 feet. It says it is important that the beam is held steady on the target area to avoid any slip factor. Section 14.2 indicates the measurement is performed by aiming at the target vehicle in the area around the registration plate. It is not surprising that the BBC programme inside Out referred to in a recent Daily Mail article found that if the Code of Practice was not followed or ignored then erroneous results would occur. "Inside Out" also incorrectly implied that the LTI 20.20 should be held steady whilst in use. The Code of Practice does not require the LTI 20.20 to be held still - it has to be moved to keep it steady on the area of the vehicle targeted. I should also point out that the device used in "Inside Out" was the American version of the LTI 20.20 which is not type approved for use in the UK.
The LTI 20.20 has been type approved for use with the LASTEC Local Video System since 10 February 1998. The cross-hair shown on the LASTEC video recording does not show precisely where the laser was pointed and does not claim to do so. The operator adjusts the camera position so the cross-hairs line up with the laser at the expected operating distance. However at different ranges there will be a slightly different alignment. The cross-hairs only serve to provide some indication of the vehicle measured. The fact that some of the beam may be on the road surface does not invalidate the measurement. The dominant reflection will be from the vehicle and only signals of adequate strength will be used for the measurement. Any potential reflections from the road would not effect the speed reading while the laser is panned whilst being held on the same area of the vehicle. Furthermore it would be impractical to pan the laser significantly faster than the vehicle, whilst still holding the beam on the vehicle, so as to generate a significantly altered speed.
When a device is submitted for type approval, HOSDB only test the device for when it is used in accordance with the manufacturer's user manual and the ACPO Code of Practice. The tests are carried out by independent test houses against the requirements specified in the HOSDB publication "The Speedmeter Handbook". A copy of the Handbook can be found on the Police Scientific Development Branch area of the Home Office website at www.scienceandresearch.homeoffice.gov.u ... blications. In addition to these tests ACPO conduct tests using another type approved device as a reference and do their tests in the operational environment using real traffic. It is for these reasons that HOSDB have not considered it necessary to carry out tests to see if the laser can be moved along the road faster than !he vehicle to generate a higher speed HOSDB remain of the opinion that the UK version of the LTI 20.20 will perform within permitted tolerances if used in accordance with the ACPO enforcement guidelines and will not replicate the errors shown by the American device.

PAUL GOGGINS

If they were really serious about stopping accidents then they would stop people there and then

What gets to me about all this is that this is a tourist area! Do they not realise that no self respecting tourist will now visit them and spend money there? ..............Or maybe, they don't want us there and this is their new revenue gathering tax on the locals................either way business is going to suffer.

The people who this would put off visiting the area are exactly the sort of people who they wouldn't want visiting anyway.

Antisocial driving and accidents will keep many more people away than something that ultimately, whatever your views on speed limits, is just enforcing the law.

So why don't they concentrate on cutting down the antisocial driving and reducing accidents then?

Warning: thewurzel has been trolling on PH for several weeks.

(imagine the outcry if they applied that kind of thinking to all crimes. "Sorry, we can't investigate your burglary today, there are still murderers out there" )

Yes, they already fail to investigate some crimes because there are not enough clues. Outcry? No, people are used to it these days - it doesnt cause an outcry!

Cameras are not even policing on the cheap.. they dont actually STOP a crime, they record it.

Now imagine the outcry if instead of preventing a murder, police simply filmed it so as to gain enough evidence to convict the murderer in court?

How about if the murderer could get off with a smaller penalty if he pleaded guilty

In fact, why have police - why not employ civilian contractors, who got paid by how many murderers they could convict without involving a court!
Of course you would have to ensure the shareholders got a good return on their investment!

But there are enough clues to investigate speeding drivers caught by cameras, and it doesn't even need to take the police away from investigating more serious crimes.

But there are enough clues to investigate speeding drivers caught by cameras, and it doesn't even need to take the police away from investigating more serious crimes.
No, the only clue is a photograph which often does not show the driver, or a numberplate which has been cloned



And deter people from repeating the same behavior again (hence stopping it), even giving them several warnings before taking away their licence in most cases.
and until caught three times, the driver is FREE to carry on speeding – you acknowledge that in your response!



Imagine if murderers knew that there was a possibility of being caught on camera (including enough means to identify them) in any given place that they might commit their crime.
But the chances of a murderer getting caught on camera are slim – often a spur of the moment thing – easily caught by traditional methods. The premeditated murderer is more difficult to detect as are criminal speeders, because they take precautions such as stolen car/plates.

Not to mention that this already happens, CCTV cameras in a town centre can record footage of somebody being stabbed, but they can't stop it. It does tend to help catch the offenders, though.
So you accept that cameras dont prevent crime.



This already happens.
It shouldnt. It makes a mockery of justice – it's cheaper to plead guilty when you are not (perjury) than it is to plead not guilty in court



So, you're describing the employees of the previously mentioned town centre CCTV monitoring centre then?

Not at all. Their presence prevents crime. (Both CCTV and speed cameras)