An amusing read here from 2005:
http://web.archive.org/web/20051223083205/http://www.bbc.co.uk/london/content/articles/2005/09/07/insideout_speedgun_feature.shtmlSteve Callaghan wrote:
The method of operation employed on the Inside Out program is NOT the method employed in the field. If I found any of my operators using the geometry employed by those on the Inside Out program I would retrain them. How many incorrect readings were found when the geometry was correct and the thresholds set as expected? I saw none! I and 7 other operators are yet to see readings that have been demonstrated as obviously erroneous/spurious or not what has been expected.
Ernest Marsh wrote:
Actually Mr Hewitt, the device is designed to be used as a surveying tool, where it very accurately measures distances, and is used as such by some police accident investigators to produce an accurate record of a crash scene. Additional Software can also be employed to use those very accurate range checks, to determine the speed of a vehicle. It does this by interpreting the changing DISTANCE from the device to the vehicle over a set period of time, to calculate the speed. This only works if the SAME part of the vehicle is targeted during the readings. If not, the calculation is flawed by the movement of the aiming point in addition to the vehicle movement. Mr Callaghan assures us his operators are trained to do this. Surprisingly, the British Army has difficulty finding snipers who can match the accuracy at the ranges many of our camera partnerships operate at, as evidenced by film released to victims in court! Software is supposedly built in to 'trap' these errors, but the software code has never been made available for independent assessment - the only assurance that it works comes from the manufacturer.
How prophetic - at Carlisle Crown Court, Steve Callaghan's infallible belief in the operators he trained took a dent when the judge ruled that the operator had handled the LTI incorrectly despite the "expert" witness's earlier claims!
Of course SC didn't want to acknowledge that my summation was accurate...
Steve Callaghan wrote:
Mr Callaghan also says that the independent investigation into the device provided by the HOSB and its success indicates that the device is of high integrity. He also wonders how an engraver with no technical knowledge of such devices can now provide credible opinion of laser range finding equipment. All assumptions have been made with no regard for the width of the laser beam and the correllation of the returned beam by the receiver. I await the notice from the Home Office to withdraw the equipment, there appears to be nothing in my mail to this effect. Cheers S
And I was not the only one with concerns in 2005...
Smeggy (steve) wrote:
Steve Callaghan I’ll take your word at your perfect results. However, perhaps this could be because you were doing your tests in a sterile environment, conscious that you are being monitored, sub-consciously encouraging you to be alert and aware of your actions? Can you really confidently apply your findings to operators who are doing the job routinely, aiming the gun hundreds of times per day, day in day out, who after many hours become oblivious to the fact that they’re not following the ACPO guidelines to the letter. All the while fatigue is setting in, they get the shivers as they become cold, the wind gently rocking their hands. Have your really accounted for these factors? Let’s not be naive by dismissing the possibility of operators who deliberately try to get a wrong reading, through malice or boredom.