Accuracy of Speed Measuring Equipment

[st4]

This was a manual timing device not a 'gun'.

The driver was prosecuted for Dangerous driving, not the speeding offense as such, but to gain a successful prosecution the CPS/police don't have to prove a certain speed was reached, just that the limit was broken.

Yes and dangerous driving takes many forms, coarse steering causing a slide/drift (we've seen that one on here 10p short), overtaking where one shouldn't, cutting bends that you can't see round, the list of things go on....

However here it appears the dangerous activity was excessive speed and not my alternative activities. I put it that on this occasion if the basis of the DD charge was excessive speed (from which I gather from the link) then surely a number needs to be given to illustrate that there was excessive speed. Usually this is 30mph above the posted speed limit. A timed run would give an average and there'd be photographic evidence and naturally all this would be calibrated and could be proved. Looks like they didn't or they'd have a number

So if the CPS/police/whatever can't accurately say what the speed was then how can they prosecute.

I'm sure the diver took the speed of 105mph as speed above that could definitely be proven, even if a higher speed couldn't.

Know this for a fact do you? I'd wager that if the CPS could have nailed him for the 170mph or a higher speed they would have. More money and time behind bars etc. I'd argue it most certainly could not be proven

Maybe he should've had you as his brief and contested it and let them go for 130mph and a prison sentence..

Being snide is neither big or clever and quite frankly a little tiresome.

 

[Dieselman]

Being snide is neither big or clever and quite frankly a little tiresome.

Sorry, couldn't reply for a minute there...couldn't get enough air....

I suspect the drivers brief didn't just take the money and give terrible advice to accept the worst proferred charge, but of course I can't prove that....
The Guy's got thousands in fines and was looking at a stretch...do you think he just might have taken advice...???

 

[Swiss Toni]

So if the CPS/police/whatever can't accurately say what the speed was then how can they prosecute.


Know this for a fact do you? I'd wager that if the CPS could have nailed him for the 170mph or a higher speed they would have. More money and time behind bars etc. I'd argue it most certainly could not be proven


Being snide is neither big or clever and quite frankly a little tiresome.

You have to understand that the CPS don't have a target for income generation or "longest jail sentance" and don't make decisions to prosecute or on which charge they elect to lay based on which might attract the harshest sentance.

It can be a genuinely a difficult concept for anyone with a "business" mindset to comprehend.

Also, there is not a requirement to prove the exact speed, simply that the offence was proven - ie in excess of the posted limit.

 

[st4]

Sorry, couldn't reply for a minute there...couldn't get enough air....

Yawn

I suspect the drivers brief didn't just take the money and give terrible advice to accept the worst proferred charge, but of course I can't prove that....
The Guy's got thousands in fines and was looking at a stretch...do you think he just might have taken advice...???

No and perhaps were are debating over something we do not know 100% about but on the basis of what was presented in the paper it looks like he got pretty mediocre/poor legal advice. Either the CPS had significant evidence to prosecute a DD charge on the basis of inappropriate speed or they didn't...I wager the later otherwise a reduced plea wasn't on the cards.

I think given the shaky nature of the evidence against him that a better result for the defendant could have been secured if the defence had prepared the case properly. There is plenty of reasonable doubt there. A speed that's probably unattainable on the road in a car that's unable to attain it. He needed a better lawyer and a bit more backbone. I mean its a laugh out loud tale that should have been laughed out of court.

So perhaps you were right, on the basis of the article, and you were being really really clever, the fella needed a lawyer with the strength of mind, determination and clear character of me:bannana::bannana: But alas I am no lawyer but maybe I should be.

 

[Swiss Toni]

but alas i am no lawyer but maybe i should be.

:d

 

[st4]

Also, there is not a requirement to prove the exact speed, simply that the offence was proven - ie in excess of the posted limit.

I don't get it, I must be thick. ANyway if thats how it is, thats how it is but it stinks-like so much of life in modern britain...

But to say someone travelled in excess of the posted limit means you know how fast they were going, if you don't know the speed then how do you know how fast they were going and therefore if they were travelling in excess of the posted limit? Here it was a timed run so they have him at pnt A then @ pnt B and can work out using speed=D/T and get a conviction. Can't time him properly, no conviction, bad luck. Invest in better equipment and better luck next time....

I really don't get it, I am sorry. If they had him up for dangerous driving for something else that required more interpretation (cutting corners, overtakign on blind crests etc) then a police officers opinion of the events would be needed along with evidence of the offence being comitted (phots and videos), but on the basis of speed and speed alone then its his word vs the bobbies.

Then we have all this error margin stuff and really I'd throw it out of court.

 

[Swiss Toni]

I don't get it, I must be thick. ANyway if thats how it is, thats how it is but it stinks-like so much of life in modern britain...

But to say someone travelled in excess of the posted limit means you know how fast they were going, if you don't know the speed then how do you know how fast they were going and therefore if they were travelling in excess of the posted limit? Here it was a timed run so they have him at pnt A then @ pnt B and can work out using speed=D/T and get a conviction. Can't time him properly, no conviction, bad luck. Invest in better equipment and better luck next time....

I really don't get it, I am sorry. If they had him up for dangerous driving for something else that required more interpretation (cutting corners, overtakign on blind crests etc) then a police officers opinion of the events would be needed along with evidence of the offence being comitted (phots and videos), but on the basis of speed and speed alone then its his word vs the bobbies.

Then we have all this error margin stuff and really I'd throw it out of court.

Wrong way around.

Speeding requires corroboration.


Your prefered way of doing things would be easy enough, just make it law to have a downloadable speed recorder in every vehicle and make it a legal requirement to submit to a download at any time.

 

[st4]

Wrong way around.

Speeding requires corroboration.


Your prefered way of doing things would be easy enough, just make it law to have a downloadable speed recorder in every vehicle and make it a legal requirement to submit to a download at any time.

And whatever happened to the "right to remain silent" and not to incriminate oneself. Such a device would do this

The onus is on the police to provide proof of the offence, not on the suspect to provide this. Never in a month of sundays would I support such an idea

 

[Mr E]

There's also an element of public interest - imagine the headlines and discussions if the police had spent thousands tracking down this guy's car in order to confirm/deny his defense.

To a degree, hat's off to the guy for putting his hands up to what is still a serious offense with a hefty outcome. It's a pragmatic outcome that saves the taxpayer's money as well penalising someone who, by his own admission, was breaking the law.

 

[recycled]

Wrong way around.

Speeding requires corroboration.


Your prefered way of doing things would be easy enough, just make it law to have a downloadable speed recorder in every vehicle and make it a legal requirement to submit to a download at any time.

why don't we just make burglars, murderes/paedos and ASBO guys carry a chip around so their movements can be traced and downloaded at every station or would that affect their human rights too?

 

[recycled]

i am not clever enough and i rant too much-

i find it amazing that road crimes are so easily prosecuted but when you ring the cops and youths are loitering with intent their human rights this and social inclusion that means nothing is done about it, but as soon as someone does something antisocial in a car a conviction is sealed. Why not convict the buckfast swilling louts who were loitering in the office car park today @9am (i am not making this up either) with breach of the peace (down in england its public order offences).

The british tax paying motorist gets a bum deal, thats all.

Rant over for now.

pmsl

 

[recycled]

You have to understand that the CPS don't have a target for income generation or "longest jail sentance" and don't make decisions to prosecute or on which charge they elect to lay based on which might attract the harshest sentance.

It can be a genuinely a difficult concept for anyone with a "business" mindset to comprehend.

hahaha it is difficult to comprehend when a lot of cases seem to be ending up in pay this fine/ pay that fine/ fine here/ fine there.

Well its all fine by me