Man gets speeding fine 'for driving at 406mph

[Mrs Fish]

anaova said:

Man issued with speeding fine 'for driving at 406mph' A motorist has been issued a fixed penalty notice for allegedly driving at 346mph over the speed limit on a Cheshire road. Peter O'Flynn says he was stunned to receive the speeding notice claiming a Runcorn roadside camera had clocked him driving at 406mph. Officials say it's a clerical error, but say Mr O'Flynn will still be prosecuted. Peter was driving a Peugeot 406 courtesy car while his own was being repaired. He said: "I rarely speed and it's safe to say I'll contest this." The Peugeot 406 Sport has a top speed of 129mph. "I don't see how anyone can trust this camera," added Mr O'Flynn. But the Cheshire Safety Camera Partnership, which issued the speeding notice, said they would still take action despite the blunder, says The Sun. A spokesman said they would be applying to magistrates for a summons.

How can they prosecute if they don't know what speed he was doing?

[Mad Dave]

It was a Courtesy Car - everyone knows theyre the fastest vehicles on the road

[deltaf]

Its a Peugeot 406, the number is its top speed...

He must have a lot of mods to get that much out of it....stickers and vents etc!

[Mrs Fish]

deltaf said:

Its a Peugeot 406, the number is its top speed...

so it is so they scanned the badge rather than the speed then

[jmorgan]

This happened around here. Mentioned on PH as well, lady done for 480mph in an Allegro. Police were going to reissue with the full stop in the right place for 48 mph.

[FastShow]

I hope they issued the corrected NIP within 14 days of the offence though, or they're out of time...

[JMGS4]

why oh why do these people NOT let it run and THEN get taken to court...it'd get thrown out and then costs'd get paid... making complaints beforehand only lets these bureaucratic w+nkers get their sh1t straightened out!!!!!

[mike s]

Surely all this bloke would have to do in court is question the ability of the Polices equipment, In which they calculated his speed with! Well they couldn't have heard him coming!!

>> Edited by mike s on Wednesday 21st January 11:58

[chief-0369]

I hear the Pugeout 607 is faster though.

Almost supersonic by all acounts

[streaky]

chief-0369 said:

I hear the Pugeout 607 is faster though. Almost supersonic by all acounts

Austin 1800 anyone?

[puggit]

Says in Sun that the scameraship are applying to magistrates to hear the case....

[hornet]

streaky said:

Austin 1800 anyone?

Saab 9000

[hornet]

Hang on, if he was "346mph over the limit" at 406mph, that would mean a 60mph limit. What clerical error could've happened? It can't be a simple decimal point, as that would be 40.6mph, so not over the limit at all. Do they actually KNOW what speed he was doing?

More to the point, how many less obvious "clerical errors" have happened? If you were accused of 50 in a 40, would you question whether it was an error? Seems you'd have grounds to do so given this example, not to mention the recent 14mph fiasco.

[chief-0369]

the car was a Pug 406 hence 406mph.

I would love to get a NIP like this. you could have a field day in court


>> Edited by chief-0369 on Wednesday 21st January 12:57

[gizard]

Now I'm against all the ina propriat speed camreas on fast raods etc. and yes would dearly love to screen the prosecturor for a huge error if i got a similar ticket - however (and I don't mean to dampen everyone's enthusiasm) who end's up paying the court costs if this speeding offence of 06mph gets thrown out??? We all do the - tax payer....

[JMGS4]

The whole point is we would pay for it BUT the incompetent bureaucrats would lose their credibility on every court case after that......now that's a result, the lying barstewards!!!!

[_Al_]

My 216 seems lame by comparison; unless it reads the 16v badge too.

I'd like to see the reaction to 21,616mph!

[mondeoman]

gizard said:

Now I'm against all the ina propriat speed camreas on fast raods etc. and yes would dearly love to screen the prosecturor for a huge error if i got a similar ticket - however (and I don't mean to dampen everyone's enthusiasm) who end's up paying the court costs if this speeding offence of 06mph gets thrown out??? We all do the - tax payer....

Hang on a mo - we pay for it whether it goes to court or not ...
The Police and Judges and court staff are employed by US 24/7 anyway, so why not make use of the service we have already paid for???

[Dwight VanDriver]

Another nail in the coffin of police/public relationship.

Whoever let the papers be posted with this glaring mistake should be sacked immediately.

DVD

[anonymous-user]

gizard said:

...who end's up paying the court costs if this speeding offence of 06mph gets thrown out??? We all do the - tax payer....

Don't the Scameraship pay costs if the judgement goes against them? It's not as if they don't get enough through hypothecation as it is.