Speeding driver ordered to pay £11,000!!
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002
What an idiot!
A speeding driver has to pay £11,000 for challenging his ticket after a prosecution expert hired an airfield and a sports car to prove him wrong.
David Pickup, 45, was clocked doing 101mph in his Audi R8 on the A55 at Lloc in Flintshire in April 2014.
Flintshire Magistrates' Court heard a police speed camera caught him and he asked officers: "Can we call it 98?".
Pickup, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, who has a holiday home in Abersoch, Gwynedd, was convicted of speeding.
He denied breaking the 70mph speed limit and said that a number of people from Cheshire had second homes in Abersoch, which he called a millionaire's paradise.
The defence questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court.
Pickup was fined £675, given six points on his licence and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs - which included the testing - of £10,384.
What an idiot!
A speeding driver has to pay £11,000 for challenging his ticket after a prosecution expert hired an airfield and a sports car to prove him wrong.
David Pickup, 45, was clocked doing 101mph in his Audi R8 on the A55 at Lloc in Flintshire in April 2014.
Flintshire Magistrates' Court heard a police speed camera caught him and he asked officers: "Can we call it 98?".
Pickup, from Wilmslow, Cheshire, who has a holiday home in Abersoch, Gwynedd, was convicted of speeding.
He denied breaking the 70mph speed limit and said that a number of people from Cheshire had second homes in Abersoch, which he called a millionaire's paradise.
The defence questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court.
Pickup was fined £675, given six points on his licence and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs - which included the testing - of £10,384.
k me.KarlMac said:
MitchT said:
How did hiring and airfield and an Audi R8 help the prosecution? What were they trying to prove? Not enough information.
Accuracy of the equipment I'd guess. Must be something more to the story.
MitchT said:
How did hiring an airfield and an Audi R8 help the prosecution? What were they trying to prove? Not enough information.
That the equipment was accurate. An airfield so you can test it at the speeds involved in the case without using a public road and an Audi R8 so the defence cannot claim that the type of car being detected would have an effect.It serves him right. Plonker.
Raify said:
KarlMac said:
MitchT said:
How did hiring and airfield and an Audi R8 help the prosecution? What were they trying to prove? Not enough information.
Accuracy of the equipment I'd guess. Must be something more to the story.
Isn't this stuff tested before they use it? Surely if their type approval process leaves some doubt it shouldn't be used. How come this guy had to subsidise the testing the public should already expect to have been carried out?
Perhaps more to it than reported, or perhaps another case of completely out of touch mags coupled with the Welsh ludicrous obsession with speed coupled with a bit of the politics of envy.
Either way, it's an outrage that a MOP should have unlimited exposure to pay for whatever fun experiments plod should feel like undertaking because their equipment isn't properly tested.
Hopefully he'll get that overturned on appeal, sure they can tax him for the poxy 101mph if they feel it necessary but the rest.... seething mad.
Perhaps more to it than reported, or perhaps another case of completely out of touch mags coupled with the Welsh ludicrous obsession with speed coupled with a bit of the politics of envy.
Either way, it's an outrage that a MOP should have unlimited exposure to pay for whatever fun experiments plod should feel like undertaking because their equipment isn't properly tested.
Hopefully he'll get that overturned on appeal, sure they can tax him for the poxy 101mph if they feel it necessary but the rest.... seething mad.
HantsRat said:
The equipment is properly tested. This plonker still decided to try it on though. The magistrates should have just fined him at the first hearing though and ignored his rubbish defence.
If it's properly tested then all it would take to overturn his defence would be production of the testing evidence.Clearly it wasn't properly tested if that testing evidence was insufficient to convince the mag.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff