Post by Administrator on Dec 28, 2014 17:00:35 GMT
If you have done any amount of your own research on speed cameras or mobile speed cameras, you may be well aware of Tele-Traffic UK. This is the UK distribution buisness of the American laser guns.
LINK> www.teletrafficuk.com/
The UK buisness is run by an ex-police man believe it or not! A Frank Garratt and Jon Bond.. but i like to call them "Bank Garratt" and "Jon Banned".
You may have already read a couple of newspaper artices on them. One is regarding a Preston Crown court case where Garratt admits the lasers can be incorrect. And another is an undercover newspaper story where reporters pose as potential buyers of a laser gun and the Tele traffic reps are more concerned with all the money you can make rather than true road safety.
Here are the articles>
LINK>www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410449/Undercover-probe-reveals-buckets-money-speed-cameras.html
LINK> www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speeding-defences-3/
Here is an excerpt
From Motor Cycle News 7-2-2007:-
Speed Gun maker admits to flaws under oath, he says laser guns could
give incorrect readings - juust as we proved in tests last year.
BY STEVE FARRELL
A SPEED camera bosshas finally admitted that his equipment is capable of getting speeds wrong if guidelines are not strictly followed.
It means riders accused of speeding will have a better chance of proving their innocence if they can show the guidelines were not followed, according to lawyers involved in the case.
The boss of the firm that makes laser detectors used in speed camera vans was cornered into admitting how a hand held version of the device, called an LTI 20.20 Ultralyte, can give incorrect readings by a sharp-witted barrister at Preston Crown Court.
Frank Garratt, owner of Tele- Traffic UK Ltd, which makes the laser speed detector, finally acknowledged errors similar to those we highlighted last year when we used an LTI20.20 to get a reading of 40mph for a stationary bike.
Garratt acknowledged four ways the devices could be wrong:
He admitted they could exaggerate a vehicle's speed if they are not held steadily and the laser beam slips along the side of the vehicle - a phenomena known as "slip effect". Presented with evidence of an incorrect reading of 36mph for a vehicle travelling 29mph, he said: "This was probably slip effect off the side of the vehicle." He accepted the argument that if the laser beam was not aligned with the crosshair in the view finder, used by operators to target vehicles, then the speed of the wrong vehicle 'could be measured, In response to the argument, put by defence barrister Katherine Hodson, he said: "In strict academic theory, you're right, yes," He said operators must regularly check the crosshair is aligned with the centre of the beam to eliminate the potential for the wrong vehicle to be picked up, He said: "The salient point there is that the device should be properly aligned," . He admitted that where two vehicles fell within the spread of the laser beam, the device could pick up the speed of the nearer one even when aimed at the furthest one. Hodson said: "Let me put it this way, Mr Garratt, if two vehicles were travelling down the road within the range of the beam spread... it is possible that even if the officer aimed for the vehicle furthest away the device would lock on to the nearest vehicle." Garratt replied: "There are two principles... in broad principle I agree with it." In MCN tests last March we aimed an LTI20.20 at a stationary bike and the device consistendy picked up the speed of a passing car instead.
Garratt admitted the beam could be reflected off one vehicle and measure the speed of another. He said this would not happen if the beam struck a number plate but admitted it was possible with more irregular surfaces. His Honour Judge Woolman suggested it was more likely to happen with "angled polished surfaces" and Garratt responded: "Yes, indeed." Bikes are often targeted by the lasers from the front, where there are only different angled polished surfaces and no number plate. Garratt claimed an incorrect reading would only be obtained where the vehicle being targeted was stationary.
Garratt insisted the errors could only occur where the device was not operated according to guidelines set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the manufacturers. He said:
'''Like any device, unless it's operated within the 'prescribed parameters it may well not perform in the way that you would expect it to do." Garratt's cross examination was at Presion Crown Court on January 19, 2007.
Brian Wiltshire, the accused in the case, had been said to caught driving at 39mph in a 30 zone on Brookhouse Road, Caton, Lancaster, in October 2005. The appeal was allowed.
Garratt declined to speak to MCN.
LINK> www.teletrafficuk.com/
The UK buisness is run by an ex-police man believe it or not! A Frank Garratt and Jon Bond.. but i like to call them "Bank Garratt" and "Jon Banned".
You may have already read a couple of newspaper artices on them. One is regarding a Preston Crown court case where Garratt admits the lasers can be incorrect. And another is an undercover newspaper story where reporters pose as potential buyers of a laser gun and the Tele traffic reps are more concerned with all the money you can make rather than true road safety.
Here are the articles>
LINK>www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410449/Undercover-probe-reveals-buckets-money-speed-cameras.html
LINK> www.honestjohn.co.uk/faq/speeding-defences-3/
Here is an excerpt
From Motor Cycle News 7-2-2007:-
Speed Gun maker admits to flaws under oath, he says laser guns could
give incorrect readings - juust as we proved in tests last year.
BY STEVE FARRELL
A SPEED camera bosshas finally admitted that his equipment is capable of getting speeds wrong if guidelines are not strictly followed.
It means riders accused of speeding will have a better chance of proving their innocence if they can show the guidelines were not followed, according to lawyers involved in the case.
The boss of the firm that makes laser detectors used in speed camera vans was cornered into admitting how a hand held version of the device, called an LTI 20.20 Ultralyte, can give incorrect readings by a sharp-witted barrister at Preston Crown Court.
Frank Garratt, owner of Tele- Traffic UK Ltd, which makes the laser speed detector, finally acknowledged errors similar to those we highlighted last year when we used an LTI20.20 to get a reading of 40mph for a stationary bike.
Garratt acknowledged four ways the devices could be wrong:
He admitted they could exaggerate a vehicle's speed if they are not held steadily and the laser beam slips along the side of the vehicle - a phenomena known as "slip effect". Presented with evidence of an incorrect reading of 36mph for a vehicle travelling 29mph, he said: "This was probably slip effect off the side of the vehicle." He accepted the argument that if the laser beam was not aligned with the crosshair in the view finder, used by operators to target vehicles, then the speed of the wrong vehicle 'could be measured, In response to the argument, put by defence barrister Katherine Hodson, he said: "In strict academic theory, you're right, yes," He said operators must regularly check the crosshair is aligned with the centre of the beam to eliminate the potential for the wrong vehicle to be picked up, He said: "The salient point there is that the device should be properly aligned," . He admitted that where two vehicles fell within the spread of the laser beam, the device could pick up the speed of the nearer one even when aimed at the furthest one. Hodson said: "Let me put it this way, Mr Garratt, if two vehicles were travelling down the road within the range of the beam spread... it is possible that even if the officer aimed for the vehicle furthest away the device would lock on to the nearest vehicle." Garratt replied: "There are two principles... in broad principle I agree with it." In MCN tests last March we aimed an LTI20.20 at a stationary bike and the device consistendy picked up the speed of a passing car instead.
Garratt admitted the beam could be reflected off one vehicle and measure the speed of another. He said this would not happen if the beam struck a number plate but admitted it was possible with more irregular surfaces. His Honour Judge Woolman suggested it was more likely to happen with "angled polished surfaces" and Garratt responded: "Yes, indeed." Bikes are often targeted by the lasers from the front, where there are only different angled polished surfaces and no number plate. Garratt claimed an incorrect reading would only be obtained where the vehicle being targeted was stationary.
Garratt insisted the errors could only occur where the device was not operated according to guidelines set out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and the manufacturers. He said:
'''Like any device, unless it's operated within the 'prescribed parameters it may well not perform in the way that you would expect it to do." Garratt's cross examination was at Presion Crown Court on January 19, 2007.
Brian Wiltshire, the accused in the case, had been said to caught driving at 39mph in a 30 zone on Brookhouse Road, Caton, Lancaster, in October 2005. The appeal was allowed.
Garratt declined to speak to MCN.