Safe Speed Forums

Sounds like a defensive response to a large number of phone calls from irate motorists asking for their money back to me.

Used in accordance?

They have missed my car altogether and still claim that they use the device in accordance? It defies belief, and further opens the gulf between once supporters of the Police and the still hard working Real Police who have to suffer the growing lack of respect thrown at them.

This, from the Home Office.

We expect type approved devices to be used in accordance with the manufacturers instructions and the ACPO code of practice, but this is not a specified condition of the approval. We would expect a court to consider whether a device was used in this way but, if not, to make a judgement on whether the way it was used invalidated the approval. The police need to use the device correctly and where they do not, a valid defence may be made, but that will be for the court to decide on the particular case.

So Type Approval can be challenged if the device is use incorrectly.

PS Well done Daily Mail

_________________
If you're right, did your heels in
If you're wrong, admit it!

Sink the scameraships
Give us back our Police Force

In the Cardiff "Loose nuts and bolts" case:

1. The camera was not set up correctly.
2. It was not operated correctly.
3. Incorrect readings were obtained - even to the level of cars speeds being recorded in the wrong direction.
4. The police officer wrote a witness statement saying he checked the equipment before and after the session.
5. Once the tape was finally disclosed it was clear the device was not aligned correctly - alignment checks form an essential part of the before and aftere checks which the Police Officer said he had done. It was clear now he had not.
6. The police officer now said, yes there was a problem with the device, it was "loose" and he was continually having to realign it.
7. The ACPO Guidelines say that if there is a problem, the session must be terminated and no prosecutions pursued.
8. When asked when none of his "continual realignments" appeared on the tape he was unable to explain. Probably because he didn't do them. Any realignment during the session would have been evident on the video tape.
9. He said he did form a prior opinion for vehicles which were shown by the device as above the limit.
10. For vehicles which were not he said he formed a prior opinion that they were not speeding - he was just checking his estimation accuracy.
11. When asked what sort of opinion he formed for vehicles that were shown going in the wrong direction, he said he was unaware of them.
12. There was no record of which vehicles he formed a prior opinion of excessive speed and those which he was just checking his accuracy. Quite remarkable when nearly 700 readings were taken at an average of one every eight seconds!
13. He denied seeing any of the spurious readings - even though the speeds appear in the heads up display he was using to target the vehicles. So despite a hit rate of one every eight seconds, he seemed to have the ability to know to look away in advance for each of the spurious reaidngs. Another quite incredible feat!
14. The expert for the CPS guessed where the laser might have been going calling it a "Zone of Probability".
15. Frames were shown proving the "Zone of Probability" to be wrong. For one of his own example frames, the expert was unable to state which object the laser beam had struck!
16. The expert said slip of above 5mph would not occur. There is no doubt that it can occur.
17. The expert said reflection effects would not occur. There is no doubt that it can occur.
18. The expert said that the red dot cannot be adjusted outside the pattern of the laser beam. It can.
19. The expert implied the LTI 20.20 acquires the strongest signal. It does not. It acquires the closest signal.
20. When asked (in one example event) which of three cars the laser had struck, the expert, said "it was a toss up".

Naturally the motorist was convicted. No doubt the police officer and the expert got a pat on the back. The police - always telling us they are under staffed arranged for mass uniformed turnout to support the officer. Some were seem congratulating him.

This then is British Justice.