Christopher J. Buckley

The LTI 20:20 is a speed camera device deployed across numerous enforcement zones to check the speed of a moving vehicle. There has been much press on this device, leading to accusations that the device is fundamentally flawed; suffering from not only beam boundary clashing, the slip effect, but also incompetent operatives of the devices.

SkyNews, is today reporting another case where the LTI 20:20 has been demonstrated to be at fault.

Note: the heading of the source article is completely incorrect. The case did not concern a standard Gatso, which incidentally are extremely accurate when used with the secondary marking check (the white lines on the ground). The secondary mark check -must- be in place to secure a conviction when employing a Gatso in the UK.

A scientist says he has done what millions of motorists have dreamed of doing - beating a speed camera - by using a device he made himself that everyone could soon get their hands on.

Dr Phillip Tann was driving through Sunderland when he was caught by a police radar trap, which clocked him doing 42mph in a 30mph zone.

But at the time he happened to be trialling his new invention - a super-accurate speed and distance recorder comparable to an aircraft’s “black box” in-flight recorder.

It told him he was in fact doing 29.177196mph at the time.

He was hauled before magistrates charged with speeding.

However, he said that when he showed them his system and the records from it they were so impressed he was allowed to walk free from court.

Police and the Crown Prosecution Service disputed his version of events, saying that in fact the only reason he was let off was that the prosecuting officer had left the force and could not come to court.

Northumbria police insisted they were satisfied the camera reading was accurate and maintained the case was discontinued for “administrative reasons”.

Chief Inspector Kevin Wellden said: “We are fully satisfied this camera was properly calibrated and gave a correct and accurate reading when the motorist passed it.”

“The 29mph refers to an average speed over a certain distance.
Advertisement

But the 45-year-old technology firm boss said it was his device that had prompted the ruling - and that it could open the floodgates for other innocent motorists accused of speeding.

His invention, called the Autopoietic System, can measure data over distances of less than half a metre compared with traditional GPS devices which work on distances of around five metres.

The design has already received Government funding, with an NStar proof of concept award.

Dr Tann, whose business Autopoietic Systems (Tann Ltd) is based in Birtley, Gateshead, said: “The Crown Prosecution Service requested to view the system and has now agreed that the Autopoietic System was more accurate than the police laser gun.

“I knew when I received the fine I couldn’t have been exceeding the limit because I’d seen the van with the camera.

“So I was surprised to receive a fine.

“The cameras used are not 100% accurate, but my system is.

“In the past people have had to rely on the accuracy of the police cameras and they can be subject to error but this information can be downloaded and used as proof.”

He added: “With this accuracy we can provide many new services, including sending an alarm if a phone travels outside an area or at a speed greater than 15mph.”

The article doesn’t state whether or not the Crown disclosed a copy of the original video tape - a feat which borders on hard to impossible at present. I would very much hope the defendant obtained a copy of the video tape, which he can share with us.

My personal opinion of this case is one of surprise. I am, honestly, inclined to believe the CPS’ version of events. The Home Office has not approved the Autopoietic System, and if the CPS has stated that this device is more accurate than their 20:20’s (the article unfortunately makes no reference to this device, which is unfortunate), then i look forward to reading their formal papers on the case. I do very much doubt the CPS ever said anything along those lines. The device may full well be more accurate, but before the courts, unless its approved by the Home Office it really doesn’t matter.