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.

I wonder when the people responsible for controlling the A14 will finally realise the crashes have nothing to do with speed, but everything to do with lorries using the road day and night, driving in both lanes, getting every-one annoyed and causing accidents due to frustration. Indeed, the A14 is always too busy to ever get above 56 mph during the day!

Instead of widening the road and completing upgrades, our representatives (unelected mostly I might add) have rail-roaded SPECS on us all. Josef Stalin would be salivating if he could see the gantries of spy cameras across Britain right now – all in the name of ’safety’. The UK is currently not a very comfortable place to live if you remotely value your right to privacy and presumption of innocence.

UPDATE: Here below you can see the new cameras in operation.

The European Court in Strasbourg will hear evidence that UK motorists’ rights are being undermined by anti-speeding laws. Senior human rights judges will be told that existing laws – which require vehicle owners to disclose who was driving at the time the vehicle was pictured by a speed camera – breach a fundamental tenet of British justice, namely the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

If the challenge, brought by the human rights group Liberty against the British government, is successful then it would seriously impair the usefulness of Britain’s 6,000 roadside cameras in catching speeding motorists. Lawyers for Liberty claim that an individual’s ‘right to silence’ is a vital cornerstone of the law.

At the hearing on Wednesday, 17 judges inside the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights will be told that motorists caught speeding by camera have an expectation to be protected by their right to silence.

The case centres on two motorists who objected to their fines. Judges will be told that a vintage Alvis belonging to Idris Francis, 66, was photographed being driven at 47mph in a 30mph area in Surrey in June 2001.

Francis, a retired company director of West Meon, Hampshire, refused to say who was driving and was fined £750 with £250 costs and three penalty points. He complains that being compelled to provide evidence of the offence he was suspected of having committed infringed his right not to incriminate himself.

His 1938 Alvis Speed 25, which was caught on the speed camera, has appeared in the Ruth Rendell Mysteries television series and was driven by Nigel Havers in The Charmer. Whether Francis will drive it to Strasbourg for this week’s hearing has yet to be decided.

The judges will also consider the case of Gerard O’Halloran, 72, from London, who admitted driving a car at 69mph on the M11 in Essex where a temporary speed limit restricted vehicles to 40mph. He later tried to have his statement excluded but was fined £100 for speeding with £150 costs and six penalty points. O’Halloran claims that he was convicted because of a statement he made under threat of a penalty similar to that for the speeding offence.

James Welch, legal director for Liberty, said it was essential that the laws were clarified to protect the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. Welch added: ‘Clearly there is no human right which allows drivers to travel over legal speed limits.

‘Rather, the principle we are defending is that no one should be forced to convict himself by his own mouth under threat of criminal sanction. Unless we are willing to overlook 300 years of common law, motorists too must have a fair trial in which they are innocent until proven guilty’.’

Campaigners argue that the UK is one of the most difficult countries in Europe in which to maintain a clean driving licence. Nearly a million motorists are on the brink of a ban because they have racked up penalty points, a recent study found. Experts predict that if the challenge to section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is successful, the police’s power to use cameras to catch speeding drivers will be severely curtailed.

The Observer