Laser speed camera - distance could be wrong

Yesmilady

Hello

Someone I know was caught speeding using a LTI 20.20 Ultralyte laser speed camera some time ago. The officer was on a motorway bridge, and snapped the victim coming towards him on the motorway, at a specified distance of 521m (presuming the second number down in the top right corner of the evidence photo is the distance). It was under 100mph but too high for a fixed pen.

Now, that distance doesn't seem right. We'd like to know if we can prove that fact in court (or whether it's up to the police to uphold some standard of practice which effectively proves it). Will any of these methods provide a strong proof? And/or will it matter - is it a case of if we can prove distance is wrong, case gets dropped?

The person in question remembers the incident, and feels they were more like 200-300m away from the officer. The angle at which the evidence photo was taken seems to confirm this, especially when compared with the street view image from the officer's position.

Using google maps, we found that there is another bridge between the officer's stated position and the point 521m down the road. It's not impossible that the narrow camera angle prevents us from seeing any part of the bridge infrastructure, however it seems unlikely. Is there a way of requesting a more zoomed out image? Would one have been taken?

If the driver was indeed 521m away, it would have been very difficult - although not impossible - not to include the bridge in the photo.

Next, the angle of the photo. I've included an image to illustrate what we mean. Looking at the angle of the car and the length of the lane markings as they appear in the photo, it would appear that the car is closer than 521m. If we could prove this using the length of markings irl, length as they appear, height of bridge, height of a person and maths, would that suffice to get the case thrown out?


*Image doesn't seem to work. Link here:* https://ibb.co/cyfGJ9p

Grateful for any advice - I have little knowledge of the laws and technicalities regarding mobile speed cameras.

:beer:

DUTR

Was your friend speeding or not?

Yesmilady

Believe so. Not sure.

Johno100

And how much over the limit? Would be a lot of bother and risk of substantial fine and costs if it is something that could be dealt with via a speed awareness course.

Aylesbury_Duck

Yesmilady wrote: »

Hello

Someone I know was caught speeding using a LTI 20.20 Ultralyte laser speed camera some time ago. The officer was on a motorway bridge, and snapped the victim coming towards him on the motorway, at a specified distance of 521m (presuming the second number down in the top right corner of the evidence photo is the distance). It was under 100mph but too high for a fixed pen.

Now, that distance doesn't seem right. We'd like to know if we can prove that fact in court (or whether it's up to the police to uphold some standard of practice which effectively proves it). Will any of these methods provide a strong proof? And/or will it matter - is it a case of if we can prove distance is wrong, case gets dropped?

The person in question remembers the incident, and feels they were more like 200-300m away from the officer. The angle at which the evidence photo was taken seems to confirm this, especially when compared with the street view image from the officer's position (which, incidentally, has captured another one of the sneaky things lying in wait for [STRIKE]unsuspecting cash cows[/STRIKE] dangerous motorists!).

Using google maps, we found that there is another bridge between the officer's stated position and the point 521m down the road. It's not impossible that the narrow camera angle prevents us from seeing any part of the bridge infrastructure, however it seems unlikely. Is there a way of requesting a more zoomed out image? Would one have been taken?

If the driver was indeed 521m away, it would have been very difficult - although not impossible - not to include the bridge in the photo.

Next, the angle of the photo. I've included an image to illustrate what we mean. Looking at the angle of the car and the length of the lane markings as they appear in the photo, it would appear that the car is closer than 521m. If we could prove this using the length of markings irl, length as they appear, height of bridge, height of a person and maths, would that suffice to get the case thrown out?


*Image doesn't seem to work. Link here:* https://ibb.co/cyfGJ9p

Grateful for any advice - I have little knowledge of the laws and technicalities regarding mobile speed cameras.

:beer:

Or people driving too fast making themselves a foolish and easy target.

Was your "friend" speeding or not? If they were, I suspect their "feeling" of the distance is as flawed as their "feeling" of what's a reasonable speed and their observation skills. [STRIKE]You[/STRIKE] sorry, they, "feel" they were only 200m-300m from the office but didn't notice the officer until it was too late? Suggests they were travelling too quickly for their observational levels.

unforeseen

I assume the photo is taken after the speed has been verified, so initial pickup at 521m, 200m to validate. I would think the reading must be measured over a certain time rather than just an instantaneous reading, photo then gets taken at end of measured period. At 90+ it only takes around 4.5s to travel 200M which could account for the apparent distance discrepancy

a.turner

unforeseen wrote: »

I assume the photo is taken after the speed has been verified, so initial pickup at 521m, 200m to validate. I would think the reading must be measured over a certain time rather than just an instantaneous reading, photo then gets taken at end of measured period. At 90+ it only takes around 4.5s to travel 200M which could account for the apparent distance discrepancy

You assume wrong.

It will be an instantaneous reading, pulling the trigger on the gun timestamps the video which is constantly running through out the time they are conducting the checks.

Yesmilady

And how much over the limit? Would be a lot of bother and risk of substantial fine and costs if it is something that could be dealt with via a speed awareness course.

98 in a 70, no course.

Or people driving too fast making themselves a foolish and easy target.

Was your "friend" speeding or not? If they were, I suspect their "feeling" of the distance is as flawed as their "feeling" of what's a reasonable speed and their observation skills. You sorry, they, "feel" they were only 200m-300m from the office but didn't notice the officer until it was too late? Suggests they were travelling too quickly for their observational levels.

You may be right or wrong, however I'm only asking about an applicable defense. Even if I agreed with what you say, IMO giving a hefty fine and subjecting someone to a load of trouble is not a fair response to a transgression which is made all the time and usually goes unpunished. Anyway, it wasn't me, and I digress.

Photo then gets taken at end of measured period.

[STRIKE]Ah, is that definitely the case? That would probably explain it then.[/STRIKE] Wait, no.. I read earlier they take measurements over about a third of a second?

a.turner

Yesmilady wrote: »

98 in a 70, no course.



You may be right or wrong, however I'm only asking about an applicable defense. Even if I agreed with what you say, IMO giving a hefty fine and subjecting someone to a load of trouble is not a fair response to a transgression which is made all the time and usually goes unpunished. Anyway, it wasn't me, and I digress.



Ah, is that definitely the case? That would probably explain it then.

To answer your question you'd need an expert witness rather than relying on google maps. No doubt that expert will cost more than any fine your friend is facing.

Yesmilady

To answer your question you'd need an expert witness rather than relying on google maps. No doubt that expert will cost more than any fine your friend is facing.

Thank you. Why is that though? I'm assuming here that my friend has the resources to go to the site and take photos, make measurements etc himself, which could presumably be used in evidence? Would it then matter that a layman explained the relationship between the measurements, photographs, distances and incident?

a.turner

Yesmilady wrote: »

Thank you. Why is that though? I'm assuming here that my friend has the resources to go to the site and take photos, make measurements etc himself, which could presumably be used in evidence? Would it then matter that a layman explained the relationship between the measurements, photographs, distances and incident?

How's he going to accurately measure the motorway?