Slip error

[supermono]

What's the latest position? There have been cases (like the subaru on another thread today) where people have proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate that they cannot possibly have been doing the alleged speed.

I think a bus was another case and a fiat punto IIRC.

Do the powers that be simply write these off as insignificant anomolies?

I can't help thinking that if for example DNA evidence was proved to be flawed, they'd have to stop using the method of detection until an investigation was completed and reopen all previous cases to check errors weren't made.

How can a court of law take seriously two charges of 110mph, letting one guy off because he couldn't possibly have done the speed, and convicting another because he could.

I'm seriously tempted to get a jammer because I'm afraid an error will occur to me, and perhaps I never speed it's just that I have a car that'll do 155mph.

Andy

[m-five]

That Subaru driver may have gotten off because he might/might not have had the limiter on his vehicle removed at the time of the alleged offence, and then reinstated when it was tested.

I know my car has a 155mph limiter on it, but it only works in 6th gear - in 5th you can do an indicated 175mph. If the tester didn't know that they would assume I couldn't go faster than 155mph.

[supermono]

Whether or not the Subaru (or the Punto or the bus) were speeding is irrelevant.

It was shown to the magistrate's satisfaction that he couldn't have been doing the alleged speed and therefore the equipment was inaccurate.

So think of the two cases again... Mr Subaru and Mr M5 are side by side in front of the magistrage, both on a charge of 110mph taken 5 minutes apart by the same guy in the same camera van with the same equipment.

Mr Subaru has a report showing he couldn't have done it, Mr M5 doesn't. Verdict: Subaru let off, M5 guilty as charged?

This cannot be right can it?

The offence of "speeding" carries potentially life destroying penalties these days -- loss of livelihood, loss of marriage, bankruptcy. And yet they press charges using equipment PROVEN to be unreliable!

I don't understand for the life of me why solicitors aren't offering stock defences citing case history where the evidence is flawed.

Andy

[Peter Ward]

I found this by accident yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/speed-cameras.shtml

It's from February this year but very pertinent. Essentially, there are various ways that cameras and their operators can make mistakes but there seems to be a lack of willingness to admit it.

The end of the article is a quote from the RAC:

RAC said:

The RAC say it's important the police get it right when clocking drivers. Paul Hodgson from the RAC says; "I think it's important for the police, as well as motorists, to know that the cameras are working. "They need the trust of the motorists, so if a motorist's caught - they need to think they've been caught fairly and squarely. "If the technology's not working .. then those findings need to be fed into the home office review". Dr Clark says, "I think that these instruments, or instruments of this type should be reviewed, both in their use, and in the capability of the technology to perform the task that is being asked to do. "We talk of I think it's in excess of 2 million prosecutions using electronic devices - if only 1% of those prosecutions are incorrect that's 20,000 incorrect prosecutions, and that cannot be right".

[parrot of doom]

Peter Ward said:

I found this by accident yesterday: www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/southwest/series7/speed-cameras.shtml

I have that programme stored on my computer if you want it.

[supermono]

I'd be very interested in seeing that program... How might I obtain it from your computer ?

Andy