Statement from Tele-Traffic (UK) Ltd

We are well aware of the spurious criticisms levelled by Dr. Michael Clark at speed detection equipment supplied by Tele-Traffic (UK) Ltd. including the LTI 20:20.

The facts are that our equipment has been subjected to the Government’s independent Type Approval process; a series of tests far more rigorous than any “experiments” conducted by Dr. Clark.  All our equipment has passed this process which tests both the integrity and the accuracy of the equipment.

It is pertinent to point out that in the recent case referred to in Humberside (Fernie case), Dr. Clark categorically stated to the Court that he did not wish to challenge the Type Approval process (widely acknowledged as the most demanding testing process anywhere in the world).  Consequently, it is our view that Dr. Clark and his colleagues are portraying double standards, openly criticising our Type Approved equipment, yet shying away from challenging the Type Approval process itself. 

Clearly, Dr. Clark is not independent and has a substantial financial interest in attacking our equipment, we believe to the detriment of the ordinary motorist who he seeks to confuse with his claims.

We maintain that our equipment will meet any standard set by independent evaluators and are happy to demonstrate it under the conditions it is designed to operate.

(As an untrained operator) All of Dr. Clark’s contrived “tests” that have registered spurious speed readings have been achieved by operating our equipment outside both the operational guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers and outside our own manufacturers’ operating parameters.

Contrary to Dr. Clark’s claims, we do not believe there has been a successful challenge to the integrity or accuracy of our equipment in the Courts.  Those cases that have been successfully defended have concerned operating or procedural errors and not equipment failure.

We are aware that reference is being made to a case in New Jersey in the United States.  This relates to (the predecessor of) the US equivalent of Type Approval.  Their process has placed some operational restrictions on the use of equipment in exactly the same way that the UK Type Approval process places certain operating restrictions on equipment in this country, for example, range restrictions.

Our view is that any piece of technology can be demonstrated to fail if it is not operated or used as it should be, yet all Dr. Clark’s claims revolve around the presumption that the equipment should be fail safe no matter how it is abused.  This is clearly ridiculous; would you drive a car on a busy motorway wearing a blindfold and then be surprised if you crashed?

Finally, we note that Dr. Clark will refer to tests he recently conducted as a result of the Humberside case.  It is therefore interesting to refer to the judgement in that case.  Despite Dr. Clark’s best efforts and the evidence he presented the Court found that there was “Nothing wrong with machine or way it was used” and dismissed the Appeal.  The defendant had some £9,000 of costs awarded against him.

Tele-Traffic (UK) Ltd is a supplier of equipment and has no part in the operational use of that equipment.  We, therefore, have nothing to gain from the issue of penalty notices.  However, we are extremely proud, as a supplier, to be associated with one of the most successful continuing road casualty reduction initiatives ever introduced in the United Kingdom.