97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??

97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??

Author
Discussion

WaspsNest

Original Poster:

136 posts

190 months

Wednesday 26th April 2017
quotequote all
4040vision said:
I will just repeat what I said before; "there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present".
It isn't reasonable to suggest that there is an error that is large enough to induce a 3mph error. The device is Home Office Type Approved and when tested didn't show errors of that magnitude or it would have failed that Approval test because that error is too large; hence unreasonable.
The evidence and justification is that humans used it. They push buttons at defined points in the road. The device has a calibration schedule. The speedos on the car also have a calibration schedule. If devices didn't need calibrated, they would be deemed to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, or, totally inaccurate.

Home office approval it may have, but this is irrelevant to the accuracy of the device. The inaccuracy comes from the people using it.

ETA: I know what your getting at, but human inaccuracy is inevitable. If it was a laser gun or some other worldly device then fair enough, but even then..

Edited by WaspsNest on Wednesday 26th April 20:29

4040vision

255 posts

86 months

Wednesday 26th April 2017
quotequote all
WaspsNest said:
4040vision said:
I will just repeat what I said before; "there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present".
It isn't reasonable to suggest that there is an error that is large enough to induce a 3mph error. The device is Home Office Type Approved and when tested didn't show errors of that magnitude or it would have failed that Approval test because that error is too large; hence unreasonable.
The evidence and justification is that humans used it. They push buttons at defined points in the road. The device has a calibration schedule. The speedos on the car also have a calibration schedule. If devices didn't need calibrated, they would be deemed to be 100% accurate, 100% of the time, or, totally inaccurate.

Home office approval it may have, but this is irrelevant to the accuracy of the device. The inaccuracy comes from the people using it.
Not as much as 3mph in 97mph. You have no evidence of that, the prosecutor or your solicitor that suggested it haven't either. There is no evidence of that sort of error and it isn't reasonable to suggest there is a source of error from the operators of the device that will cause an error that large. You are guessing there is; why should that be considered reasonable?

Engineer792

582 posts

86 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
4040vision said:
Not as much as 3mph in 97mph. You have no evidence of that, the prosecutor or your solicitor that suggested it haven't either. There is no evidence of that sort of error and it isn't reasonable to suggest there is a source of error from the operators of the device that will cause an error that large. You are guessing there is; why should that be considered reasonable?
Why the squabbling over 3mph?
Whether it's 94or 97mph, they've still got him for speeding - what more do you want?

WaspsNest

Original Poster:

136 posts

190 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
Engineer792 said:
Why the squabbling over 3mph?
Whether it's 94or 97mph, they've still got him for speeding - what more do you want?
This is PH, we reserve our right to bicker over minute tolerances!

Engineer792

582 posts

86 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
WaspsNest said:
Engineer792 said:
Why the squabbling over 3mph?
Whether it's 94or 97mph, they've still got him for speeding - what more do you want?
This is PH, we reserve our right to bicker over minute tolerances!
The difference is, some people attach an importance to 3mph which is not deserved

cheddar

4,637 posts

174 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
£2,500 for the solicitor!

cmaguire

3,589 posts

109 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
Engineer792 said:
The difference is, some people attach an importance to 3mph which is not deserved
And they are idiots that unfortunately have the Law on their side when they really shouldn't.
This one is merely here to propagate his propaganda. I guess the forum tolerates his multiple personalities because his being here allows everyone else to appreciate how truly fked up the system really is.

Granfondo

12,241 posts

206 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that's strictly correct.

The HC is not law of itself and can only be used to support a prosecution. It is challengeable.

For driving to be deemed dangerous there needs to be some aggravating factor.
In Scotland speed +30mph will do!

leighz

407 posts

132 months

Thursday 27th April 2017
quotequote all
Piersman2 said:
No need for it, but in Scotland, it's almost defined as dangerous if you're 30+ over the limit apparently, at least by the Procurate. Doesn't seem to be backed up in court by the judges thankfully.
Granfondo said:
In Scotland speed +30mph will do!
where is this info from? Anecdotal internet stories or hard data/evidence from court cases? Not being funny - just curious....

Top result for waspsnest btw - if a bit painful!

Granfondo

12,241 posts

206 months

Friday 28th April 2017
quotequote all
leighz said:
Piersman2 said:
No need for it, but in Scotland, it's almost defined as dangerous if you're 30+ over the limit apparently, at least by the Procurate. Doesn't seem to be backed up in court by the judges thankfully.
Granfondo said:
In Scotland speed +30mph will do!
where is this info from? Anecdotal internet stories or hard data/evidence from court cases? Not being funny - just curious....

Top result for waspsnest btw - if a bit painful!
Got the T-shirt!

leighz

407 posts

132 months

Friday 28th April 2017
quotequote all
snap

Granfondo

12,241 posts

206 months

Friday 28th April 2017
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
I'm not sure that's strictly correct.

The HC is not law of itself and can only be used to support a prosecution. It is challengeable.

For driving to be deemed dangerous there needs to be some aggravating factor.
In Scotland speed +30mph will do!

WJNB

2,637 posts

161 months

Saturday 29th April 2017
quotequote all
desolate said:
I was on a dry empty motorway (empty apart from a police car doing aboit 140 trying to catch up with me.)

3 month ban and a mahoosive fine.
Dam unfair I know but the fact that the motorway was dry & empty is no defence. Was Plod hiding somewhere & you missed seeing their car or did you think following white car was not Plod?
I recently drove at your sort of speed + another 20mph at 6am on a very long straight stretch of dual-carriageway devoid of lay-bys, over-bridges or cameras. Got nervous as the empty stretch came to an end & was so much more relaxed at 70mph. Had my fun - got away with it - not sure I'll repeat it though. Interestingly having always had fastish OPEN cars driving with the roof down at legal limits is as exciting a rejuvenating as driving at excessive silly speeds. Happier at 40 roof down as 100+ roof up.

anonymous-user

54 months

Saturday 29th April 2017
quotequote all
WJNB said:
Dam unfair I know but the fact that the motorway was dry & empty is no defence. Was Plod hiding somewhere & you missed seeing their car or did you think following white car was not Plod?
It was an unmarked car observing from the slip road.

Dry and empty isn't a defence, but it's relevant to the punishment you get.

I'd just bought a puppy nr the isle of Skye and was pushed for time. The map of Scotland is a bit distorted and I didn't realise that that inch of the map would take 5 fking hours. That was my defence.