2000TLondon

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4598412.stm

New_scooby_04

iTrader: (4)

This case is a prime example of safety cameras detecting inappropriate driver behaviour. This clearly illustrates that cameras are not a money generator."

Really!?!? Of course the camera would have detected his mobile phone use had he been at the speed limit and not been doing 156!?!?!

Does he really expect us to swallow this spin!!!!

Plonker!! Cameras are triggered by speed, nothing else, the fact that the camera happened to catch him on his mobile mobile phone was incidental, and what probably helped the crown in its appeal against him being let off.

BTW I'm not defending the driver; he was being a prize prat and using a phone at those speeds is indeed reckless!

2000TLondon

QUOTE BBC

Police have condemned the "blatant disregard" for safety shown by a man who was caught driving his BMW at 156mph with a mobile phone at his ear.

Businessman Ronald Klos, whose original acquittal was overturned, has been banned for a year and fined £3,000.

Klos, the founder of a salvage company, had originally been charged with offences including dangerous driving, using a handheld mobile while driving and failing to give police information as to the identity of the driver.

"We're delighted the original acquittal has been overturned and only sorry that Klos has not been imprisoned for his high-risk offending that could have so easily cost lives."

I'm surpised he wasn't locked up TBH, with the dangerous driving charge.

hedgehog

What is perhaps more interesting about this is the exact basis upon which his acquittal was overturned and we will not know all the details until the transcript of this case is published.

The courts believed he presented a perfectly reasonable legal defence and he won but in wishing to make an example of him the acquittal was pushed to a higher court and overturned in the full glare of considerable publicity. It will certainly be interesting to see what precedent this sets.

bob r

iTrader: (46)

people are just not heeding to the warnings. give them 3 points and a fine imo, not a poxy 30 pound fine... it just inst working no doubt had he not been the driver at the time stated he would have produced phone bills as evidence, therefore HE, not stating who was the driver, BANG TO RIGHTS. send him down

Trout

iTrader: (1)

Can an M3 really go that fast

hedgehog

Actually he didn't not state who the driver was, he said he didn't know who was driving and provided information as to where he was at the time the photo of his car was taken. His evidence was supported by that of the camera operator who stated that he couldn't identify Mr. Klos from the photo taken by the camera van.

Now as stated i haven't seen the transcripts yet and so don't know if there was supporting evidence to show that Mr. Klos was indeed elsewhere at the time. However, i am aware of several "cloned plates" cases where courts have convicted despite lots of witnesses (in one case a whole wedding reception worth) giving evidence that the keeper of the vehicle was many hundreds of miles from the location of the "crime."

I have no opinion on whether Mr. Klos was or wasn't driving the car but i have concerns that it needs to be shown that it has been established beyond all doubt that he was indeed driving otherwise what we have here is some bloke being fitted up for a crime. As more and more motoring "crimes" seem to carry the presumption of guilt rather than innocence this is something that is important to us all as none of us know if our car is going to be the next clone where the court rejects the evidence just to achieve a high profile conviction.

Richard_P

"The camera's are not a money generator"

Ha ha they just netted £3000, I've never heard such garbage, why are these people actually allowed to speak to the press. If I employed them I'd gag them for being so blatantly stupid.

Seems like the guy was stupid, should of got off on the technicality but the powers that be decided that wasn't appropriate and did him anyway.

Shame they don't apply that when rapists and murderers get off through lack of evidence or technicalities.

Funny judicial system we run here.

p.s not defending some muppet doing 156 mph just wondering what the **** this legal system is all about!

C2forWRX

he would only have to have gone about 20mph more and the camera wouldnt have gone off!

well acording to top gear anyway

hedgehog

It would hardly be a technicality if he couldn't be identified from the pictures, as the camera operator stated, and it he had evidence that he was elsewhere at the time (which may, or may not, turn out to be the case when we see the transcripts).

cookstar

iTrader: (6)

16 MPH more would have done it

Proved in a TVR Tuscan if memory serves

suprabeast

yeah thats sweet, once you're doing 170 you are above the law

Robbie T

iTrader: (8)

I was driving in a heated fashion on a quiet 'A' road when a supra came up behind me obviously wanting to pass, i pulled into the nearside lane at about 140mph. He then stormed passed me at speeds probably approaching 150mph, he turned an nodded at me at which time i saw him chatting on the phone.

Wasn't you was it supra beast

davyboy

Respect

PG

He was probably just trying to get out of Fife as quickly as he could, cant blame the guy.

alloy

Nutta with big *****

PG

davyboy

If it was a SN member getting done for 150 and talking on there phone, there would be a flame war!

This guy just gets a nod of approval.

ScooBStu

Quoted from the BBC:

He denied the original charges but was fined £2,500 for driving-related offences and £500 for failing to disclose who was at the wheel.

How can you be fined for failing to disclose who was at the wheel. There is no evidence to say that he was? Besides do we not have the right to remain silent? Surely this is in breach of this right.

Shocking really that he can be done with lack of evidence and scary!!!

cw42

iTrader: (1)

Reading back on the stories preceding this one, on the same page, you can see about his aquital from his previous trial.
One thing of note though, as it states previously, the m3 csl is electronically limited to 155 mph, wasn't it also in scotland that a scooby owner got off a speeding fine by claiming his was an import, and therefore limited to 115mph?
Surprised Mr. Klos didn't try that line of defence.
But most importantly, it seems to be the case now that in motoring offences, you have to prove your innocence, rather than the police proving your guilt, in a court of law these days, not a good way of doing things.

chris.

Adidas

Reading the article it could be that the allegation of dangerous driving was over ruled. It states that he is an 'amateur racing driver'. In Court it MAY have been argued that his driving ability/standards were higher therefore his driving was not 'dangerous'. Although this doesn't excuse the bloke being on the phone

A similiar case was heard a few years ago where a guy was clocked at about the same speed in a Honda NSX on a motorway, in the early hours of the morning when the road conditions were good. He was found not guilty on dangerous driving. His arguement was the car was constructed to attain high speeds etc and that he was (IIRC) an advanced driver, therefore he was not driving dangerously. However, he did plead to excess speed.

People often fight against an allegation of dangerous driving as it can lead to a custodial sentance rather then just a disqualification/fine or points.

Leslie

If he was guilty as charged then my only regret is that he got off so lightly.

Yes an M3 will manage that sort od speed. My M3 Evolution is capable of that anyway and his is lighter than mine.

There can be no justification for 3 figure speeds at any time on the public roads by a member of the public.

Most of the racing drivers I know would not drive at such high speeds on the public roads. Doing it on the track is fine but they all reckon it is not safe on the public roads.

Les

scoobys20mgh

156mph on the 'phone

That's a fast phone!

LUCKO

iTrader: (3)

it was an expensive phonecall, he needs to change his talkplan

p.s he is a ***-rot also

lordlucan

Provide a race license and BMW will de-restrict the CSL foc ! In this case I would imagine the CSL was de-restricted so 165-170mph top end.

J

Spoon

I remember going past an M3 once at it's limit and all I could hear was ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba ba

2000TLondon

That's interesting, assuming it's for track use?

Adrian F

He is an idiot and it is people like this that gets support for Gatso's from the general public when in fact i bet Gatso's mostly catch people 7-10 MPH over the limit.

Abdabz

No point in fining a millionaire just three grand and banning him for a year... It should have been a custodial where he would be botty podged for 12 months instead... Send out the right message to others... Excellent