Speed guns don't work...
20 August 2010, 12:37 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed guns don't work...
Sorry for linking people to the daily heil but interesting story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-79mph.html
Cop claims the speed guns don't work rather than take the rap for driving like a numpty. Fair play to the officer who asked for a review of the warning though.
If it's a repeat... didn't know.
5t.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-79mph.html
Cop claims the speed guns don't work rather than take the rap for driving like a numpty. Fair play to the officer who asked for a review of the warning though.
If it's a repeat... didn't know.
5t.
20 August 2010, 01:16 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 13,274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, even if they are inaccurate, rather "don't work" 
, she was clocked doing this in a 50mph zone.
Surely she was over the speed limit, irrespective of whether the speed guns are inaccurate or malfunctioning!!
Fecking blame society.... take charge and take responsibility for your own actions! 
, she was clocked doing this in a 50mph zone.Surely she was over the speed limit, irrespective of whether the speed guns are inaccurate or malfunctioning!!
Fecking blame society.... take charge and take responsibility for your own actions!
20 August 2010, 01:41 PM
#5
Reading between the lines. Its possible that she was initially cautioned as she was probably speeding (i.e 60mph), but the indicated 79mph speed was not accurate (wibbled the gun, bird, or another car etc). If there is an element of doubt, it would be wasteful to persue it further, hence the caution.
The CPS in their infinite wisdom have reviewed and think the quoted speed is accurate. Now it has to go to court and evidence reviewed and establish if the reading is accurate or not.
This is where the law system breaks down IMO. If you speed you are guilty, but they assume that the level of speeding is 100% accurate. If there is a doubt to that accuracy, the only way to contest it is plead "not-guilty" and try to disprove the evidence.
Common sense would allow for a plea-bargain and benefit of doubt (based upon previous records): i.e "No I wasn't doing 79mph, but I was doing 60mph". But courts don't seem to allow for this.
The CPS in their infinite wisdom have reviewed and think the quoted speed is accurate. Now it has to go to court and evidence reviewed and establish if the reading is accurate or not.
This is where the law system breaks down IMO. If you speed you are guilty, but they assume that the level of speeding is 100% accurate. If there is a doubt to that accuracy, the only way to contest it is plead "not-guilty" and try to disprove the evidence.
Common sense would allow for a plea-bargain and benefit of doubt (based upon previous records): i.e "No I wasn't doing 79mph, but I was doing 60mph". But courts don't seem to allow for this.
20 August 2010, 01:41 PM
#6
Reading between the lines. Its possible that she was initially cautioned as she was probably speeding (i.e 60mph), but the indicated 79mph speed was not accurate (wibbled the gun, bird, or another car etc). If there is an element of doubt, it would be wasteful to persue it further, hence the caution.
The CPS in their infinite wisdom have reviewed and think the quoted speed is accurate. Now it has to go to court and evidence reviewed and establish if the reading is accurate or not.
This is where the law system breaks down IMO. If you speed you are guilty, but they assume that the level of speeding is 100% accurate. If there is a doubt to that accuracy, the only way to contest it is plead "not-guilty" and try to disprove the evidence.
Common sense would allow for a plea-bargain and benefit of doubt (based upon previous records): i.e "No I wasn't doing 79mph, but I was doing 60mph". But courts don't seem to allow for this.
The CPS in their infinite wisdom have reviewed and think the quoted speed is accurate. Now it has to go to court and evidence reviewed and establish if the reading is accurate or not.
This is where the law system breaks down IMO. If you speed you are guilty, but they assume that the level of speeding is 100% accurate. If there is a doubt to that accuracy, the only way to contest it is plead "not-guilty" and try to disprove the evidence.
Common sense would allow for a plea-bargain and benefit of doubt (based upon previous records): i.e "No I wasn't doing 79mph, but I was doing 60mph". But courts don't seem to allow for this.
Trending Topics
20 August 2010, 01:54 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those speed cams are too unreliable to be used fairly to convict someone for speeding. It only needs an involuntary movement by the person holding the gun to produce a seriously innaccurate reading. Too easy to do despite all the training. As stated above, they have been demonstrated to show a wall was moving, not only in court but on a TV programme some time ago.
A small movement of the gun will mean a very large movement of the beam focus at some distance down the road. There is no way to disprove such movement in court. These contraptions should not be used to convict motorists for speeding.
Les
A small movement of the gun will mean a very large movement of the beam focus at some distance down the road. There is no way to disprove such movement in court. These contraptions should not be used to convict motorists for speeding.
Les
20 August 2010, 01:55 PM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Central Scotland
Posts: 3,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quite right Ali. The source being the Daily Heil, you have to be careful but at the end of the day it seems a pretty interesting defence!
Also, if it wasn't the case and the CPs do feel the camera was legit etc etc its doesn't look good the cops letting someone off with a talking to at that speed. sure she'll turn out to be an ace pursuit driver so no harm to the public blah blah.
5t.
Also, if it wasn't the case and the CPs do feel the camera was legit etc etc its doesn't look good the cops letting someone off with a talking to at that speed. sure she'll turn out to be an ace pursuit driver so no harm to the public blah blah.
5t.
20 August 2010, 02:09 PM
#10
In contrast to the 159mph Telford copper taking his new police car for a joyride....all caught on camera. And all charges cleared.
He didn't deny it, but used some feeble excuse instead. I do however believe the loop-hole of being a "trained driver familiarising himself to a new vehicle" has been shut. Quite rightly so.
He didn't deny it, but used some feeble excuse instead. I do however believe the loop-hole of being a "trained driver familiarising himself to a new vehicle" has been shut. Quite rightly so.
20 August 2010, 04:33 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Her defense/ GOOJFC will have nothing to do with accuracy of the speed gun.
If you read the whole article, she is also challenging the road signs,
so she will walk on a technicality
Mart
If you read the whole article, she is also challenging the road signs,
so she will walk on a technicality
Mart
20 August 2010, 09:06 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Didn't a TV show manage to clock a brick wall doing 47mph with an LT2020 ? Quite how any decent solicitors such as Nick 'Loophole' Freeman hasn't got these removed from use is beyond me 
20 August 2010, 11:44 PM
#19
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Verbal warning for doing 79 in a 50mph - I very much doubt joe public would get away with a verbal warning for that in the first instance. They don't half look after their own eh?
21 August 2010, 09:06 AM
#20
She should just pay the fine and admit she was going too fast.
She is in a position of responsibility and must know that this will show the police in a bad light to the public to try to get off on a technicality
She is in a position of responsibility and must know that this will show the police in a bad light to the public to try to get off on a technicality
21 August 2010, 11:02 AM
#21
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading between the lines. Its possible that she was initially cautioned as she was probably speeding (i.e 60mph), but the indicated 79mph speed was not accurate (wibbled the gun, bird, or another car etc). If there is an element of doubt, it would be wasteful to persue it further, hence the caution.
The CPS in their infinite wisdom have reviewed and think the quoted speed is accurate. Now it has to go to court and evidence reviewed and establish if the reading is accurate or not.
This is where the law system breaks down IMO. If you speed you are guilty, but they assume that the level of speeding is 100% accurate. If there is a doubt to that accuracy, the only way to contest it is plead "not-guilty" and try to disprove the evidence.
Common sense would allow for a plea-bargain and benefit of doubt (based upon previous records): i.e "No I wasn't doing 79mph, but I was doing 60mph". But courts don't seem to allow for this.
The CPS in their infinite wisdom have reviewed and think the quoted speed is accurate. Now it has to go to court and evidence reviewed and establish if the reading is accurate or not.
This is where the law system breaks down IMO. If you speed you are guilty, but they assume that the level of speeding is 100% accurate. If there is a doubt to that accuracy, the only way to contest it is plead "not-guilty" and try to disprove the evidence.
Common sense would allow for a plea-bargain and benefit of doubt (based upon previous records): i.e "No I wasn't doing 79mph, but I was doing 60mph". But courts don't seem to allow for this.
The force is rife with corruption, it stinks!
21 August 2010, 11:03 AM
#22
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wanting the English to come first in England for a change!
Posts: 2,091
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In contrast to the 159mph Telford copper taking his new police car for a joyride....all caught on camera. And all charges cleared.
He didn't deny it, but used some feeble excuse instead. I do however believe the loop-hole of being a "trained driver familiarising himself to a new vehicle" has been shut. Quite rightly so.
He didn't deny it, but used some feeble excuse instead. I do however believe the loop-hole of being a "trained driver familiarising himself to a new vehicle" has been shut. Quite rightly so.
21 August 2010, 11:45 AM
#23
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
shorty87
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
19
22 December 2015 11:59 AM
M4RKG
General Technical
3
30 September 2015 07:51 PM
speedrick
Subaru Parts
0
26 September 2015 03:01 PM