mikefyfe

From today's Press & Journal ....

http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk...entPK=11843604

Thousands of motoring convictions throughout Scotland could be unsafe after a speed gun was found to be inaccurate, a solicitor has warned.

Campaigners have called for speed guns to be withdrawn from use after a Highland motorist clocked at 132mph in a 70mph speed limit was cleared when it was shown his car was incapable of travelling faster than 107mph.

His solicitor last night claimed the verdict showed the hand-held ProLaser III device, previously thought to be one of the most effective ways of measuring vehicle speed, could not be trusted.

James MacGregor, 34, a pipe-layer, of Cruachan, Dalcross, Inverness, was charged with driving dangerously at 132mph in the 70mph limit on the A9 at Daviot on August 6 last year.

Mr MacGregor pleaded not guilty and the matter went to trial at Inverness Sheriff Court.

Two experienced traffic officers told the court Mr MacGregor was stopped after being clocked from a distance of almost 2,000ft at around 9.45pm. They said the road was dry and it had been getting dark.

They said the ProLaser III had been operated correctly and confirmed Mr MacGregor's car had been the only vehicle travelling north on the dual carriageway at the time.

But the court heard that Mr MacGregor's Subaru Impreza WRX was a "grey import" from Japan and was therefore fitted with an electronic speed limiter - a legal requirement in its country of origin.

The court was told that although cars of this type were usually capable of high speeds and were often used for rallying, this one was not because it had been built for the Japanese market.

Gavin Wallace, of Wallace Per4mance, Murcar Commercial Park, Bridge of Don, Aberdeen, said he had tested the car on a rolling road and found it had a maximum speed of 107mph.

Asked whether the limiter could have been tampered with after Mr MacGregor was stopped and before the vehicle was tested by him, he said no.

Sheriff Alexander Pollock found the case not proven.

David Hingston, who represented Mr MacGregor, yesterday said: "This is a machine which is used throughout the UK. This laser gun is considered to be better than radar in that it is supposed to be much more accurate, much faster and capable of being used at much greater distances.

"It is not only used as a hand-held device, it is also fitted in some of the mobile units."

He said the laser gun used on his client's car had been proved to be inaccurate.

"This has huge implications throughout Scotland and the whole of the UK," said Mr Hingston. "In this case, we had a reading of 132mph from a vehicle that is not capable of doing 132mph. We have proved that this so-called 100% accurate machine is unreliable.

"Everybody being stopped as a result of a ProLaser reading should now be pleading not guilty."

He added that he thought it unlikely previous cases based on the device would be reviewed, but said the convictions could be unsafe.

Paul Smith, of the web-based Safe Speed road safety campaign at www.safespeed.org.uk, said: "We have long been worried about the quality of evidence gathered by both the ProLaser III and the LTI 20/20 laser speed meters.

"This case proves beyond doubt that a laser speed meter gathered faulty evidence. We must cease all use of these devices to prosecute motorists until such time as the errors can be fully explained and confidence restored.

"It is a very serious matter and we cannot assume that this case represents a single isolated incident. Not only are livelihoods at stake, but the public must be able to have absolute confidence in the police and their equipment."

Neil Greig, head of policy for the AA Motoring Trust in Scotland, said: "We would seek urgent reassurance from the police that they have tested this equipment and that they are 100% satisfied that it is accurate. We need to know if this was a one-off."

He said it did not automatically negate any other conviction. "It is up to any court to accept evidence put before it," said Mr Greig.

Road policing inspector for Northern Constabulary John Smith said: "The ProLaser is a type approved device, which is tested on a regular basis on calibrated speedometers in police vehicles.

"Any variance in the speeds recorded would be reported to the manufacturer immediately."

The Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland (Acpos) and the Crown Office were not available for comment last night.

In a similar case in August last year at Pontefract Magistrates Court in West Yorkshire, Steve Lucas, 20, of St Helens, Merseyside, was charged with driving his 1.2-litre Fiat Punto at 115mph on the M62. The charge was dropped after expert evidence showed that the car had a top speed of 104mph.

Jay_bee

iTrader: (1)

johnfelstead

How many JDM's do you know have the limiter intact? i dont know any. If i was the police in this case i would find a reason to impound that car and check if there has ever been a limiter removed in the past. Not proven does not mean not guilty, so that guy best watch his back for a while.

As to the punto, the top speed of my Hillman Imp was oficially 80MPH, I had a standard one at 95MPH downhill, there are some steep hills on the M62 so punto man quite posibly could have wound that up enough to do 115MPH.

I would need a lot more evidence than those two cases to say the equipment was faulty, some proper independant testing is what is required.

Vipa

"Asked whether the limiter could have been tampered with after Mr MacGregor was stopped and before the vehicle was tested by him, he said no."

My thoughts exactly

Jay_bee

iTrader: (1)

How many people buy JDM cars then leave the limiter on???

Id be interested to see if he has any mods.... I know its a bit of a sweeping statement, but i recon if its got mods, he prob was doing that kind of speed and has hurredly put the limiter back on. Surely the old bill cant be that stupid?

How can someone say he wouldnt have been able to limit the car between the offence and the car being tested unless he can prove that he went straight on the rollers after being stopped??

Otherwise, thats going to open up a bit of a situation for anyone with a JDM... "honest officer, the car can only do 107 mph, I'll book my car in on the rollers and prove it"

SamUK

iTrader: (1)

Think..What if it was you....

johnfelstead

Scottish Law has more leeway in cases like this, as they have the Not Proven option. Under English Law you are guilty or not guilty with no middle ground for a result that basically means they dont know. I hope that guy is telling the truth otherwise he could be in deap poo soon.

Jay_bee

iTrader: (1)

Im not knocking the guy if he was speeding and may have found a cheecky loop hole, but what Im saying is, in reality, I doubt the implications for everyone now caught speeding by laser are as big as whats being made out.

Anyway, all just IMO

Jay_bee

iTrader: (1)

Just heard about this on the radio...

<gets ready to eat his own words>

LOL

Neil Smalley

JohnF
There has been a lot of scientific investigation as to the use of the Lt 20-20. It has shown some serious anomalies in it's accuracy and use. It's only the intransigence of the establishment that has kept this evidence in the shadows. As I said above, check out pepipoo it has loads of stuff on there.

Diablo

It doesn't work that way John

Nor does it mean they "don't know" It means they can't prove it. There is a significant difference in law.

A not proven verdict sees the accused let off, it just doesn't pronounce him or her not guilty.

As far as the driver is concerned its as good as an aquittal.

GC8

My Impreza still has its original limiter in place John. The limiter is not usually removed from JDM cars, when the speedometer is 'converted' to read miles per hour the limit remains but at 180mph instead of 180kph.

It would be impossible to establish whether a reduction gear had been fitted to my car and then later removed.

Regards

Simon

Jap2Scrap

On my MR2 import the delimiter was mechanically over-ridden in the conversion from kph to mph using a gear system that was screwed between the end of the speedo cable and the gearbox. Could remove it in less than one minute on the MR2 so definitely could manage it in a matter of months even on a scooby.

skiddus_markus

I've had my GTiR about 5 years and it's still limited.I got stopped for speeding 2 weeks after I bought it so kept it on as a precaution.

GC8

The speed limiter isnt over ridden; it just takes effect at 180mph rather than 180kph (112mph).

Simon

johnfelstead

Simon, part of the SVA test is to check the conversion for MPH, so all they have to do is ask how the car got through SVA if that aplied. The early cars have a mechanical convertor in the speedo cable, the later ones use an electronic converter in the speed signal. Either way the car should fail SVA if its not converted to MPH and therefore de-restricted. Do we know if this car has been SVA'd or what MY it is?

Neil, i know what you are saying re the laser devices, i just think those two cases in the first post dont prove anything with regards to whether or not these people were caught with false readings.

Thanks for the clarification Diablo, i knew what i meant.

hades

Reminds me of an urban legend about one of the early convictions with one of the first hand held devices. So the story goes, the defence called for the device in court, and proceded to demonstrate the judge/magistrate was travelling at nearly 60mph whilst seated in the court . . .

Admittedly, that story is very much "not proven"

GC8

Converting by using either a reduction gear or a 'chip' on later models doesnt remove the restriction John; it simply moves it to 180mph rather that 180kph. It is quite possible that this vehicle was over ten years old at the time of registration, thereby not requiring an SVA test; but even if it was less than ten years old the SVA doesnt require that the limiter be removed, only that the speedo is accurate, able to display the vehicles top speed and reads in MPH.

When I imported my own Scooby I converted the speedometer to read in MPH by exchanging the face; the speed limiter is unaffected and cuts in at 112mph (180kph) and the odometer still reads in kilometres as intended.

I agree with your point though; it wouldnt take me long to make a Scooby read in MPH and be limited to an indicated 112mph, especially if I was being prosecuted for dangerous driving...


Regards

Simon

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

The official top speed of our Belingo van was 88mph...yet somone managed to get a caught doing 95mph

Last time I drove that shed I couldn't even get it past 80mph

hedgehog

This is not an urban legend but actually happened during a court case in the USA. The device was pointed at the rear wall of the court room and registered a speed of several mph, about 4mph as I recall.

In theory all it takes is the opinion of two police officers that you were speeding for you to be convicted of the offence. It doesn't require lasers or anything else, though they are usually used and I am not aware of any recent cases where the prosecution depended solely on the opinion formed by two police officers.

I am also guessing that the court was probably aware of the potential for any such speed limiting device to be removed and that, therefore, they probably established to their satisfaction that this was not the case. I am sure, for example, that the police would have used it as a defence if they thought they could have generated any suspicion in this area. With this in mind, and I don't as yet have the full details of the case, I think it very likely that the motorist was able to "prove" that the device was fitted at the time of the offence.

There was also a recent high profile case on this precise bit of road involving an off duty police officer from Inverness, also in a WRX, travelling at 136mph, a speed very similar to that reported in this case.

The other possibility, which has not been considered, is that the laser was operating correctly and gave an accurate reading but that the police officers involved embellished the story somewhat being, as they would likely be, aware of the performance of the vehicle concerned. Under such circumstances it is possible that they may not have been aware of the speed limiters on Jap imports. I have first hand experience of a situation where a police officer's perception of the top speed of a vehicle had a dramatic infulence upon the speed at which he alleged it was travelling.

SamUK

iTrader: (1)

He has been cleared...just read it in the Metro

hedgehog

The reason this is causing such excitement is that he was indeed "cleared" in the case.

What is even more interesting is that todays Daily Telegraph reports:

"The Home Office launched an investigation yesterday into the use of a
long-range speed camera after it emerged that its readings were
unreliable.

The decision came after a driver, accused of doing 132mph, was cleared
when
it was established that his car could not be driven that fast."

There are several implications of this announcement one of which is that the HO are also convinced that the vehicle involved could not have been travelling at the recorded speed. The other implication is that there is an election coming up and they want to pander to the motorist a bit so be sure to ask any politicians that come to your door about their position on motoring safety and speed cameras. If you don't like what you hear, let them know in no uncertain terms where you think they should stand.

NotoriousREV

If the Home Office decide to investigate Gavin Wallace's assertion that the speed limiter could not have been tampered with, he's in deep ****, IMHO.

johnfelstead

precisely, and that is the real dodgy issue in that case.

I wouldnt say no to that question unless the car had been in my posesion from the moment it was caught speeding to the moment it was tested on the rollers. Although he could argue that the limiter (in the ECU) hadnt been altered, just the convertor that altered the trigger input to the limiter. Although saying that, if its an MY99 onwards you might be able to tamper with that using EcuTek.

No is a potentially iffy answer, and given the implications of the loss of use of speed laser detectors and the revenue involved, i hope he hasnt dropped himself in it.

Jza

Another reason to but an Import

Jza

hedgehog

I don't think he has dropped himself in it because neither the police, the court nor any other authority has suggested that there is any question about the evidence given during the trial.

The HO are not reopening the case, or appealing it, they are going to investigate the accuracy of the laser device.

For the motorist to face any risk they would have to appeal his conviction and to date there is no suggestion that this will happen. I wasn't in the court and so don't know what evidence was presented but I would be fairly confident that both police and court were aware of the potential to remove or tamper with the speed limiter and I would be pretty sure that they established to their absolute satisfaction that the limiter was fitted at the time of the incident.

In view of the speed involved it is possible, for example, that the motorist was arrested at the scene and so he may not have had access to his car until it was examined by the expert witness.

When you consider just how keen they would have been to avoid losing this case I think you will find that if there had been any way to cast doubt on the operation of the speed limiter then the police and the CPS would have done so. That the HO announce an investigation so quickly also makes me believe that they had already been made aware of the potential for a "situation" to develop.

NotoriousREV

Unfortunately, I disagree. Court rooms are very difficult places to talk about technical things, especially when off the cuff questions are asked. A solicitor/magistrate/judge may have asked the question of tampering without any real knowledge of whether or not it was possible. This case has only become important since the verdict and speeding cases are minor and therefore are done with very little preparation.

I agree that the motorist here is in the clear, however, the Home Office, the Police force and the equipment supplier are under question here and the supplier in particular are likely to start defending their product.

If someone were to go to the Police questioning Gavin Wallace's assertion that there could be no tampering and providing evidence to the contrary, the Police could very easily bring charges.

I personally don't beleive that this case brings into question the accuracy of laser devices in any way, shape or form.

This is in no way a dig at Gavin Wallace either, I'd hate to seem him in the brown stuff for helping someone out but I'm concerned that that's what *may* happen.