Was I dreaming or....

[esselte]

....did I hear on the radio earlier today that a guy with an Imprezza was charged with doing 130ish in Scotland by the Bib,but was found not guilty when it was proved his car was fitted with a limiter which gave him a 107 mph max speed? What does this say about the equipment used? (or the training or motive of the Bibs involved?)
I've looked on the web but can't find any mention of this so maybe I heard it wrong.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Yes you have ears.

Waiting for IOLAIRE to fill us in.....

DVD

[gshughes]

Nope you weren't dreaming, I heard an item on our local TV news about it at lunchtime. The headline was something to do with potentially faulty radar guns.

>> Edited by gshughes on Wednesday 16th February 16:35

[esselte]

Out of interest if it were the guns which are inaccurate ho would it affect anyone else caught by one of these ,subsequently pleaded innocent but was fined ,banned and given points...any come back?

[Dwight VanDriver]

http://tinyurl.com/5ch2p

Wonder if Defence notified Prosecution under disclosure rules of their defence and if so why didn't bib be present or do their own tests on the vehicle?

DVD

[WildCat]

Liebchen... I also heard this story und have been scanning for any links und have not found it yet. In fact .. it was not repeated on on the next bulletin.

How strange?

they could not be censoring it - could they?

After all.. they dislike negative publicity as it proves there ist point to other side of argument...

Und they say they are not Stasis ....

[cuneus]

Surely the police expert witness must have been able to tell it was not going 132 mph

[wtd]

www.ecutek.com.au/delta-ecu.htm

website said:

The safety features of the ECU are retained, such as sensor checks, fuel cut, boost cut, rev limit, speed limit and 'limp home' mode, though they may be altered to suit the car and its modifications

LOL bet any money he just had his ECU remapped

>> Edited by wtd on Wednesday 16th February 17:49

[esselte]

WildCat said:

Liebchen... I also heard this story und have been scanning for any links und have not found it yet. In fact .. it was not repeated on on the next bulletin. How strange? they could not be censoring it - could they? After all.. they dislike negative publicity as it proves there ist point to other side of argument... Und they say they are not Stasis ....

Yes,I think if the charge had been upheld it would've been another "mad speeding motorist caught doing warp speed" campaign.

[Peter Ward]

I heard it on PM tonight (R4). Apparently the judge also said that drivers caught speeding should question the reliability of the evidence. Well, I was in the car, and I think it was the judge, and I think that's pretty much what he is reported as having said. But it's not on the BBC news website.

Edited to say it was his defence lawyer who said it, not the judge. Makes more sense now. Sorry.

>> Edited by Peter Ward on Thursday 17th February 07:08

[kiwi_in_abd]

I was in inverness and was in the Local papers this morning also on the local news tv program this eveing

www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149485&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149233&home=yes&contentPK=11843604

Kiwi

[DeMolay]

Dwight VanDriver said:

http://tinyurl.com/5ch2p Wonder if Defence notified Prosecution under disclosure rules of their defence and if so why didn't bib be present or do their own tests on the vehicle? DVD

Just to clarify, it was a not proven verdict which, in Scotland, means that the prosecution haven't proved the case to the satisfaction of the judge. It doesn't mean that the guy was found not guilty, or that the evidence of the Pro Laser III was definately dodgy; but rather there was room for doubt.

Looking at the report, it seems the case hinged on this :

thisisnorthscotland said:

Asked whether the limiter could have been tampered with after Mr MacGregor was stopped and before the vehicle was tested by him, he said no.

So it appears the judge took the testimony of the defendant at face value. Very fishy...

[IOLAIRE]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Yes you have ears. Waiting for IOLAIRE to fill us in..... DVD

Hi DVD,
I've been out of things for a week or so coz I've been so busy I can hardly get time to sleep never mind follow the news.
Having a few days off so I'll see what I can find out about this.
I have to say I find the business about the car being limited to 107 MPH very strange.
Why that speed and what for what purpose?
It's an interesting one.

[gopher]

Not sure if it is of any value but a collegue of mine had an imported Imprezza and whilst it was very quick on acceleration it did not have a very high top speed compared to another (uk) Imprezza which belongs to another collegue. I'll see if he knows what the top end was.

Cheers

Paul

[Dibble]

IOLAIRE said:

I have to say I find the business about the car being limited to 107 MPH very strange. Why that speed and what for what purpose?

It could be an RPM limiter, which may then equate to 107 mph in top cog...

[dnb]

I know a reasonable amount about Impreza ECUs (I remap them as a hobby...)

The limiter is definitely speed based and is present even in the UK spec cars. (it's set to something silly like 175 mph as standard though)

The Japanese spec limiter is set to 180 km/h (112 mph) so 107 is about right given the accuracy of the speed sensor on the car.

The gearing is also shorter on the JDM cars - making them very quick at acceleration, but no good for sustained high speed cruising.

[bluepolarbear]

Dibble said:

IOLAIRE said: I have to say I find the business about the car being limited to 107 MPH very strange. Why that speed and what for what purpose? It could be an RPM limiter, which may then equate to 107 mph in top cog...

Jap Imported Impreza's are all limited to 112mph. I guess the 107 is the true speed when the speedo is reading 112mph.

Unlike German cars UK impreza's don't have limiters - they go as fast as Isac Newton intended them to go.

>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Thursday 17th February 00:00

>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Thursday 17th February 00:03

[Hilts]

dnb said:

I know a reasonable amount about Impreza ECUs (I remap them as a hobby...) The limiter is definitely speed based and is present even in the UK spec cars. (it's set to something silly like 175 mph as standard though) The Japanese spec limiter is set to 180 km/h (112 mph) so 107 is about right given the accuracy of the speed sensor on the car. The gearing is also shorter on the JDM cars - making them very quick at acceleration, but no good for sustained high speed cruising.

Can you tell if an Imprezza has been remapped and then reset to the 112 limit ? If you can't then maybe that's what's given rise to the not proven verdict.

Here's another link :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4270151.stm

[Peter Ward]

local paper said:

In a similar case in August last year at Pontefract Magistrates Court in West Yorkshire, Steve Lucas, 20, of St Helens, Merseyside, was charged with driving his 1.2-litre Fiat Punto at 115mph on the M62. The charge was dropped after expert evidence showed that the car had a top speed of 104mph.

So not a one-off then. How many other people have been done, and perhaps been disqualified, as a result of similar errors that they've been unable to prove? I can't believe that it only ever happens on cars that are unable to achieve the "recorded" speed. How can we find out the percentage of duff readings? FOI act? perhaps not.

>> Edited by Peter Ward on Thursday 17th February 07:06

[Peter Ward]

police reported on BBC website said:

"As a matter of practice, Pro-Laser III equipment - which has been approved for use by the secretary of state - is checked for accuracy in accordance with its operating instructions and standard police procedure on every occasion before it is used."

I see 3 questions:

1) what is the standard police procedure? I thought I'd heard that lasers, etc only need testing once a year. Now they're saying "every occasion before it is used". Does it vary by type?
2) How are Gatsos tested? Are they tested on "every occasion before it is used" as well? I think not
3) Just because the equipment is tested doesn't mean it can't give wrong answers occasionally. I wonder what percentage of the accuracy checks actually throw up "spurious" readings which are ignored? How can we actually find out how reliable these things really are?