EXPERIMENTS with INFRA RED light on the vehicle. Cop stylie

Laura Bidding

michael12

Laura Bidding

andy_foster

michael12

Help - Search - Members - Calendar Full Version: LTI 20 20 TS/M Speedscope

FightBack Forums > Queries > Technical Discussion of Enforcement Devices

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 - 13:55

Hi,

I have recently been accused of doing 41mph in a 30 zone. I remember going passed the Talivan on the day in question, however I checked my speed at the time and my speedo read 36mph. I asked for the photos, which the camera partnership sent out however they did not have the speed displayed on them. I wrote to the camera partnership requesting images with speed displayed, the camera parntership sent out one image with the 41mph shown, however there are also 4 white boxes on the photo in the location were any error message is normally displayed. I am a bit suspicious of this and was wounder if any body has any information on the layout of pictures?

Thanks

Sat, 30 Jan 2010 - 17:24

QUOTE (michael12 @ Sat, 30 Jan 2010 - 13:55)

Hi,

I have recently been accused of doing 41mph in a 30 zone. I remember going passed the Talivan on the day in question, however I checked my speed at the time and my speedo read 36mph. I asked for the photos, which the camera partnership sent out however they did not have the speed displayed on them. I wrote to the camera partnership requesting images with speed displayed, the camera parntership sent out one image with the 41mph shown, however there are also 4 white boxes on the photo in the location were any error message is normally displayed. I am a bit suspicious of this and was wounder if any body has any information on the layout of pictures?

Thanks

Think this links to the correct one... www.pepipoo.com/LTi2020_screen.htm

Sun, 31 Jan 2010 - 11:40

Please see above cropped photo (just in case the camera partnership look at this site). I have covered the reference number however everything else s unchanged. There are a couple of differences from the other example photos on the net, mainly being:

"FL" in place of "NR" No "Log" number shown Fonts used and general appearence is slightly different from the example photos. 4 Small white boxes were an error would normally appear?

Fri, 5 Feb 2010 - 14:00

The problem you are faced with is that you are attempting to assemble a jigsaw by referencing two different images;There are two basic systems still in use associated with the LTI Speedscope. The first is a VHS video based system, whilst the other uses DVD. The equipment is supplied to police forces by Tele-Traffic and the now elderly VHS centric equipment is no longer supported because the parts cannot be sourced. This means in the main, most police forces (including the equipment operated by civilians/police staff), now use the Concept DVD system.So when someone goes hunting the internet for information regarding a picture that is supplied following a NIP, they will often happen upon conflicting source material. In other words, they will be comparing stills captured from the old Lastec VHS system with those of the Concept DVD kit. Does this matter? Yes it does, for there are inherent differences.The newer Concept system doesn't display an incrementing log system on the screen like the older Lastec equivalent, so there is no log shown on Concept captured images. Equally, the old TIMEOUT message has been replaced four solid blocks. The Concept system also uses a different font to its older contemporary. 'FL' is the Concept's digital frame rate equivalent of the old tape system's 'NR'.Furthermore, all error messages prove the equipment is working as it should - don't confuse 'error' with 'faulty kit'. Error messages simply mean that optimum conditions don't exist for accurate speed detection, so the scope is telling the operator, 'You shook me', or 'Something interrupted my beam', -they are a manifestation of perfectly functioning equipment.Your supplied image is exactly as I would expect and there is nothing underhand as you suspect.

Fri, 5 Feb 2010 - 19:14

QUOTE (Laura Bidding @ Fri, 5 Feb 2010 - 14:00)

Equally, the old TIMEOUT message has been replaced four solid blocks.

L...Do the 4 blocks instead of "Timeout" then equal timeout?

Sat, 6 Feb 2010 - 16:40

Laura,

Thanks alot for the info. I shall write to the camera partnership and request what kit they used (Concept DVD) and also for a copy of its operating manual.

Sat, 6 Feb 2010 - 18:30

QUOTE (michael12 @ Sat, 6 Feb 2010 - 16:40)

Laura,

Thanks alot for the info. I shall write to the camera partnership and request what kit they used (Concept DVD) and also for a copy of its operating manual.

Are they likely to send you a copy of the manual??

Sun, 7 Feb 2010 - 05:05

Yes, the four blocks equate to 'TIMEOUT'. I am uncertain what acquiring a copy of the Concept manual would achieve? I have it in .PDF format and had a whizz through to see what might benefit you, but have seen nothing that could be challenged with the information you have provided in conjunction with deepening your knowledge of the Concept system. Personally, I see more mileage in identifying the model of speedscope/Ultralyte (either the 100 or 1000) and researching that (http://www.teletrafficuk.com/downloads.htm) as that would have been what actually 'pinged' you - the Concept just being the bit that recorded the visuals and adds a few identifying and administrative numbers and bits for the viewing team. That said, as you've cropped your accompanying image, you've basically removed the facility of checking the position of the crosshairs in relation to your vehicle, other cars and street furniture/posts etc. So no-one here can comment on its apparent validity. Unless you've got something more than just a passing interest in the equipment that detected you, then you will not find any magic answers in requested manuals and I am certain they will refuse you a Concept manual. In fact, chances are, I doubt very much if anyone with whom you correspond has ever seen either a Concept system or its operating manual. The admin staff have no operational need to do so, totally different department to those out on the road.

a collection of content

m.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/07/man_escapes_speed_gun_charge_thanks_telematics/

Top telematics: Black box helps driver swerve speeding fine GPS data sends from Northumbria Police

By Simon Rockman, 7 Oct 2015

Motoring campaigner Neil Herron has beaten a mobile police speed trap rap by using the threat of revealing his own GPS-based telematics data in court.

The incident took place in January 2014, when Herron was stopped by a police patrol who were using a Tele-traffic LTI 20:20 Ultralyte 1000 infrared laser gun. (PDF datasheet)

The cops said their speed gun showed Herron was doing 40mph in a 30mph zone.

Herron luckily happened to be testing a GPS-powered data logging unit, described as a “driver safety telematic device”. Data recorded by the device indicated that Herron's speed was below the 30mph speed limit. This gave him the ammunition to challenge the police evidence in court.

While some motor insurers do not allow you to use their legal cover to fight speeding fines, Herron’s home legal cover had the action, which took 19 months to come to court. Sunderland Magistrates' Court found in his favour after the Crown Prosecution Service offered no evidence against him.

Herron told haulage trade news site Fleet News: “I would not have had any grounds on which to challenge the allegation if I had not had the data from the device. Many drivers have faced similar allegations and believed that they were not speeding but had no way of proving it. Now we have the affordable technology which motorists can use to create driving peace of mind.”

Mr Herron was represented by motoring lawyer Philip Somarakis, who told Fleet News:

Based on previous experience in other cases, laser speed detection devices can produce erroneous results and in this case Mr Herron was convinced he was not speeding as alleged and stated he had telematics data to support that view.

When confronted with the failings in court the prosecution determined to offer no evidence.

The manufacturer of the speed camera, Tele-traffic, told The Register that it had not been approached by Northumberland Police about the incident and was not actually aware of the case, suggesting that we speak to the police’s usual expert witness company Road Safety Support. Their technical manager, Steve Callaghan, told El Reg:

The LTI20.20 Ultralyte 1000 is a Home Office Type Approved device that makes measurements in an accurate way and is of high integrity when used correctly.

The evidence from the device used by Mr Herron was not considered by the court, so there is no established error indicated by that device.

It may well have been that the police knew that the camera data was erroneous and faced with a person who was prepared to fight, dropped the case.

We have contacted Northumbria Police to try find out why the CPS did not pursue the case, but did not get a response. It could well be worth having a GPS track your speed routinely, just in case. ®


forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t29596.html

If there are multiple targets inside the invisible laser beam during the acquisition phase, then the device always acquires the closest. It doesn't matterifit's a motorbike, traffic cone or white line. Nor does it matter whether it was the intended target. The device is used on cars, motorbikes, vans and all sorts of other traffic over a range of up to 1000m. The tests, are inside this envelope, and are therefore perfectly relevant. If something accidentally gets in the laser beam, and it's in front of the intended target, then you can get the wrong speed.

At Elvington, the effect was reproduced at about 500m - chosen because that's about the half way point in the device's normal operating range. The device produced incorrect speed readings on every run at that distance. Quite a shocking result!

It is my opinion, that the device should not be operated at any distance at which such errors can occur. However it is clear that the device is being operated on busy motorways full of traffic at distances way in excess of the 500m tried at Elvington, where the device consistently failed to give a correct reading. This is simply asking for trouble, and must be cause for concern?

I'm not interested in specific Court cases. The reason being that Judges tend to rely on the type approval of the device, and therefore do not allow challenges to the accuracy of the device. This, as far as I am aware, was what happened in the Humberside case. The Judge did not allow the accuracy of the device to be challenged.

Any comments as to financial interests (of which I have none), are irrelvant to the scientific points being made.

Very small beam width would theoretically make it less prone to slip - fewer of the vehicle's surfaces will be reflecting at any one time as fewer will be "sparkled" by the laser - giving less scope for confusion. Though this assumes that the operator is able to keep it perfectly on-target. In real life there will be some point at which unsteadiness of targeting does more harm than beam spread, and vice versa. One would hope that LTI have done some serious experimentation on this, but given some of the negative comments from NASA astronauts (who use LTIs to match speed to and eventually dock the shuttle with the ISS, satellites etc.) there must be a suspicion that either these experiments have been skimped on or the technology is simply a bit unsatisfactory, even in its best possible implementation.

Very small beam width will make it much less easy to acquire a distant target.

Very small beam width will make for a very much more concentrated beam - quite possibly not "eye safe".

The design has to be a compromise, because there are contrary and competing technical requirements. The underlying science is very clear-cut, hard science. The engineering implementationto make that into a working piece of technology involves judgements by different engineers who will make different decisions about the relative risks of (say) getting slip errors from the correct target versus getting a measurement from the wrong target. They are competing needs, so no design will be perfectly able to resist slip or perfectly able to exclude the possibility of picking up the wrong target.

Some jive about the original device

www.quattro123.com/LTI.htm


Yes, I am aware that the beam pattern is 3 bars, I did not want to get so complicated, nor was it necessary to put the theory across. In terms of big beam spot versus small beam spot, the torch versus laser pointer analogy is still good. I think one of the difficulties in imagining the limits of performance of these machines is because people think theycan 'see' the laser. There is only one receiver diode, so all the machine can 'see' is the intensity of the light. It's about the same as closing your eyes, or slightly less than the visual acuity of an earthworm, which has multiple light detectors. So complaining that an error was generated using a white van at 500m versus a bike rider in black versus yellow is all just specious. If you don't like a white van at 500m, use a black one at 250m. Did it make a mistake within approved operating envelope? Yes it did. Was it repeatable? Yes it was.

The Teletrafic report makes similar poor assumptions. I could rip it to shreds technically but I expect that has already been done. The report reads as a personal attack on Dr. Clark ratherthan focussing on the evidence, lacks cause and effect, and lies, like the interpretation of the trucks P14. I had to laugh, having seen the pictures overlaid elsewhere on ppp. TT *must* be aware this is fabrication. Both you folks and the report keep claiming that the LTI works fine when used as ACPO, yet there is vast effort and taxpayers money expended to avoid the legal requirementto use ACPO, and it is flaunted frequently. It's a fine piece of engineering to make it work as well as it does, but even the inventors do not claim it is perfect. The manual says it is 'very difficult' to get an error reading, not 'impossible'.


And this...


www.safespeed.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1977&start=20


Is that Steve Callaghan in there then? What makes you think that, and if so, why can't he call himself itschampionman like before? Sounds like some sort of creepy online Punch and Judy show going on .

JJ or Steve or whoever's in there, this is the Hants error story from the Surrey-Hants Star (with my bold): _____________________________________________________________

A POLICE speed camera error on the notorious A325 road at Farnborough led to the wrong motorist being prosecuted, it was revealed this week. Mrs Wendy Fitzpatrick was stunned when she received a fixed penalty notice claiming she had broken the speed limit on the 30mph dual carriageway section of the road earlier this month. She protested that she had not been speeding - and after initially refusing to budge, the police now agree with her. In an amazing admission, they said the speed limit was being broken by a car travelling in the opposite direction. The speed device had clocked that car doing 36mph, but had photographed the number plate of her Vauxhall Astra Estate. Mrs Fitzpatrick, who lives in Dorset, said on Monday: "How many other motorists has this happened to, with the result that they have been fined and had points placed on their licence?"They say the camera never lies, but it did in my case." She said it was only her inside knowledge of the speed camera system, gained from her previous job, that forced police to admit they had made a mistake. "If it hadn?t been for my persistence I could have lost my 45-year clean driving record," said Mrs Fitzpatrick who lived in the Farnborough area until two years ago. She has now written to Hampshire Chief Constable Paul Kernaghan protesting at the stress and worry the incident caused her. Julian Hewitt, press spokesman for the Safety Camera Partnership which oversees the speed traps, blamed the incident on two human errors and one by a machine. He said the initial slip-up was caused by the camera operator moving his camera too rapidly between the speeding car and Mrs Fitzpatrick's vehicle. "The digitising system that picks up the offences identified the wrong car," he said. Mr Hewitt said normally such an error was picked up during the rigorous checking system in his office. "This is a very rare coincidence of three failures in that system, and we are confident that it does not represent a significant problem," he added. _____________________________________________________________

First, yes, this is clearly not a slippage error, although as things stand we have no idea whether or not a slippage error may have occurred as well. I think it unlikely that would have even been checked for once they'd established the much larger cock-up of pinging the wrong car moving in the other direction.

I am not defending the reliability of the LTI, far from it. I personally have taken the expert witless Steve Callaghan to task on the issue