3:28 - ACPO warns drivers not to use these results as part of a speeding defence. At what point has ACPO been appointed as a public advocate? IS ACPO perverting the course of justice with this statement?
I was written for 65/55 and was going 61. The cop said I was going 71. I went to court and was only fined $5. I had an attorney that knew a little something about lidar, laser..
Same here bro, ur comment is 8 years old but whatever. 2 nights ago I got a ticket for 78 and 45. I was watching my speedometer the whole time, I hit 62 max and then popped it into neutral. I have a manual wrx. I was in in second gear and my 2nd gear doesn’t go above 64
@@rebeccalilly8118 we all need hidden cameras with speed verification. Let them give us a ticket and say nothing at all to them, then go to court and expose the lies.
@@JonTheChronno it was a 55. It was like the judge was mad that I approved he had to have Miss used the laser, so we still gave me the one point ticket. But he dropped the 76 mph because I wasn’t freaking going that. I do not believe those things are accurate at all. I had no idea about this issue until it happened to me so now I have a dash cam that records my speed.
Could anyone explain why for Laser Tech UK, there appears to be a discrepancy between the Home Office calibration certificate requirements for the Trucam devices and examples of the calibration certificates available online from different police forces? My understanding was that there is guidance that set out some minimum requirements, which is similar in the newer and older Home Office guidance. An extract from the guidance says.... "In addition the following information shall appear on the calibration certificate: i) the pulse repetition frequency or appropriate clock frequency shall be listed against the expected value; ..... iv) a table of actual and corresponding measured range. If presented, the corresponding speed readings shall also be listed, or a statement verifying they were all 0 mph, given. " So for point (i), sometimes only one value of pulse repetition or clock frequency appears on some Laser Tech calibration certificates (Dorset Police 21-0319), whilst on others no value appears (Warwickshire Police 23-0698) and it is not clear if that is actual measured or the nominal manufacturer value. Can anyone explain why this does not appear to be compliant with these minimum requirements as the expected and actual values need to be recorded, i.e. there should be two values of frequency on the certificate? Writing "Pass" is not writing a frequency value and writing one frequency value is not writing an expected value and an actual value for the unit. The word "against" clearly sets out that there should be two values doesn't it? For point (iv) it appears from the Home Office guidance that a table is required with actual and corresponding measured range values. Most Laser Tech calibration certificates seem to have only the actual range value column, which looks to be the ranges measured out on the ground with a measuring wheel or similar, with no indication of the optical device measured range value or any error in that measurement. The guidance says that the actual distance value should be recorded with the measured value. This does not appear to have been done - again, am I missing something? Instead, "Pass" has been written in a column titled "0 mph" next to a column of fixed distances. Surely this is totally ambiguous and does not appear to be compliant with the minimum required information that should appear on the certificate. It would not be clear if the "0 mph" column was meant to indicate if the distance measurement was a "Pass" or the 0mph reading was a "Pass" at that distance - neither of which would appear to be compliant with the guidance in any case. I'd thought that the reason that the minimum requirements for calibration certificates are specified to be measured values, is as an extra safeguard, to give confidence that the calibration has actually been performed. So does anyone know how these LTI devices have calibration certificates that do not appear to have a calibration measurement of distance on the calibration certificate, that would indicate that the device had been properly calibrated for distance measurements in compliance with the guidance. The second part of point (iv) says " If presented, the corresponding speed readings shall also be listed, or a statement verifying they were all 0 mph, given." - again, this does not appear to be what is done on the Laser Tech calibration certificates. Am I misunderstanding something here ? You can find lots of examples of calibration certificates on google searching "lti calibration certificate" - and there is some variability in the format and type and amount of quantitative information in them. Guidance on calibration certificates can be found googling "a guide to calibration requirements for traffic enforcement " - and whilst newer guidance has been released in the past couple of years, I though that the newer guidance still contained the requirements specified above.
This isn't about the Lidar being unreliable or inaccurate. It's simply about this guy going out of his way to trick the Lidar. On the first "test" when he shot the stationary car, watch the close up of him shooting the Lidar at 1:33, you'll see he very steadily pans it as he's firing, additionally he's doing it at a distance and angle that would be unrealistic of speed enforcement. Any qualified lidar operator (myself included) would easily be able to explain away this guy's "tests".
Yeah well I got a ticket claiming I was going 76 when I was going 61….and after a ton of research I’ve found he is 💯 correct. These guns are not accurate. At all.
But that's the other way round. If the car's speedometer indicates 30 MPH, the car will be travelling slower than that. My speedometer (which is rather accurate) will still display 140 KPH when i, in reality am travelling at 130 KPH.
@elporco, all the guy did was pull the trigger at a stationary car. Angle had nothing to do with that gun reading 8mph. He could have aimed it straight across at a tree and it probably would have done the same thing. LIDAR guns should be banned. Way too many questions and every police officer I've spoken with that uses it except 1 officer, thinks they're more accurate and they think they're a pro. I've watched way too many videos of a LIDAR reading showing 23mph at still air. An officer here where I work did, in fact, admit that a speed reading of an air vent in a cruiser and the wind itself has been known to show a speed reading.
+2010V6RAV4 pointing a radar at a still object is the easiest way to "produce an Error" lidar and radar will always read something, it looks past the stationary target and reads something else. I can produce readings all day long on them and credit them to what ever I want, put a moving target in the picture and that's another story.
I believe you are viewing matters from an American perspective? Are you in the states? The firmware loaded onto UK speedscopes is considerably different due to type approval constraints & much more robust. Version 3.03 on the Ultralyte 1000 & all previous variants has stringent error-trapping. That said, the American TruSpeed will display the type of jammer used & you will be stopped if used in a state where they are illegal.
Utter tosh. Those guys doing the test are pointing at the side of the car and moving the laser along the vehicle. Police point at the front of the vehicle and keep the laser stationary.
Laser jammers are mostly unreliable when used against modern speedscopes such as the TruSpeed. The scope either still records the vehicle's velocity, or displays the name of the unit blocking the signal. The latter is then followed up for perverting the course of justice, which carries a potential prison sentence. Hardly worth the risk for £60 & three points.
The error jam signal, E07 can always be beaten. Thats the thing about modern tech. I would never buy a dedicated jammer as a simple firmware upgrade on the camera will render it useless. As an electronics engineer, this is a field I find REALLY interesting. If you do your research and know what you are doing ,anything can be beaten. Fast processing power is the answer. The latest cameras use variable pulse rate technology to try and sense and defeat jammers. The fastest processor will always win (and the pulse rate on police lidar is pretty slow by modern processor standards)
You lost me at , "Would have added 8 M.P.H. to the speed!" Such B.S. explain how it would have added? Police get multiple readings, to verify, errors can be produced very easy in the absence of a moving target. The Laser or Radar looks past the target and clocks the first thing it finds.
The Term "Look" is used by Radar and Laser instructors to distinguish between a target your pointed at and clocking versus when the targets have moves past the beam and now the Radar or Laser is "looking" but not pointed by the officer at another target. A target that you point at is one which is a candidate for a ticket, one which the radar might display but you are not targeting. You still have not explained how it added 8 MPH, is it because of the car it looked at and you say it was pointed at? Readings on radars and lasers have explanations, someone that can critique can explain them. Police right tickets to a suspect vehicle, the sight it in, and check the speed. they understand that a laser or radar might look past this original target and understand why. someone who has had speed devices and a class understand this, its a very easy concept to grasp. someone that does not, its easy to confuse.
USA, and many more since most lidars come from the USA. This is a term used by engineers, and other places they use the word "sweep" "panning". Its because the critics do not like to explain, sometimes they understand this, but if they call it an ERROR they should be able to explain it. they cant nor can you.
Errors displayed by laser speedmeters are eminently explainable and are an indication that the equipment is working correctly. For example, the vertical three striped LTI Ultralyte 1000 loaded with UK firmware 3.03 has robust error-trapping characteristics and will produce an 'EO2' if the beam is interrupted during the acquisition cycle .
