How reliable are speed detectors?

lewism

lewism

lewism

Soldato
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Posts
2,916
Location
Fife
No jail term for '173mph' driver

A motorist allegedly clocked at 173mph (278km/h) by police has escaped jail after prosecutors failed to prove his car was capable of such a speed.

Police caught Tex O'Reilly, 36, from Canal Bridge, Willington, speeding on the A515 in Derbyshire.

He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving at Derby Crown Court for driving his Lotus Elise at 105mph (169km/h) in a 50mph zone in July 2008.

Mr O'Reilly was fined £5,000 and given a two-year driving ban.

Prosecutors insisted the officers' speed recording device was reliable.

But defence lawyers successfully argued Mr O'Reilly's car, which was unmodified, was not able to reach 173mph after Lotus confirmed the car had a top limit of only 127mph (204km/h).
Click to expand...

source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/7955457.stm

I remember a while ago about a thread where an old honda banger was clocked at a speed it was never capable of reaching. It's clearly happened again with a new, unmodified car.

I find it amusing that the prosecuters and police " insisted the officers' speed recording device was reliable." yet the device shown he was doing a speed almost 50mph more than what the car was actually capable. How can it be a reliable method of prosecution when it is clearly not working.

However, he was driving like a plonker doing 105 and he deserved his ban, which he accepted. But it makes me wonder just how many other times this has happened.
 
Laser, radar etc.. are tried and trusted methods of speed detection, they're never wrong and speed cameras and guns are 100% accurate. Speeding is the main cause of all accidents in the UK and the world and everytime you go 1mph over the limit a child automatically dies in Staines.
 
Very accurate if they are calibrated. Unfortunately the police do not have to prove any camera is calibrated unless you take them to court. it is criminal they can charge you without evidence. Photos and calibration certificates should be sent out as standard.
 
Matt82 said:
hmmm but what if it had had an engine transplant etc?
Click to expand...

Well presumably that would count as a modification... the car in question was unmodified. I imagine it would be a fairly in depth investigation as to overlook a whole engine transplant.
 
AcidHell2 said:
Very accurate if they are calibrated. Unfortunately the police do not have to prove any camera is calibrated unless you take them to court. it is criminal they can charge you without evidence. Photos and calibration certificates should be sent out as standard.
Click to expand...

If you took any old case to court, say they get you doing 50 in a 40mph, and give the OP's quoted case as evidence as to the inaccuracy... I suppose it depends if they had a calibration certificate for that, which with them saying "oh it's great this thing" or wtf, they would have. But perhaps not.
 
Griffo said:
If you took any old case to court, say they get you doing 50 in a 40mph, and give the OP's quoted case as evidence as to the inaccuracy... I suppose it depends if they had a calibration certificate for that, which with them saying "oh it's great this thing" or wtf, they would have. But perhaps not.
Click to expand...

Thing is if you goto court and lose you will be slapped with more points and probably 4-5X the fine. However if they do not have that calibration certificate they can not prosecute you as there's no evidence. It's a disgust that this country has a catch 22 situation in law.
 
What about the fact that the police are incapable of using them properly as well?

They can't even hold the damn things steady when taking a reading, it's all over the car, the road, even the vehicles nearby.

Quite how it's admissable in court is beyond me. But then they only care if it's going to make money for them.
 
Kol said:
Well presumably that would count as a modification... the car in question was unmodified. I imagine it would be a fairly in depth investigation as to overlook a whole engine transplant.
Click to expand...

no. they said in the video they didnt get a chance to inspect the car
 
Apparently the car was a 340R and not an Elise. It's got abysmal aerodynamics and wouldn't get anywhere near 173 even with a 300bhp Honda conversion.
 
Matt82 said:
was his insurance co mentioned in the article at all? i didnt see it
Click to expand...

no. I'm just assuming that the prosecutors would have checked with the insurance company to see if it was registered as modified after lotus came back and said it could only do 127mph.
 
what would lotus's evidence be based on, they didnt inspect the car either. they just confirmed the top speed of a standard car.. no one knows if it was modified.

scary fast tho :P
 
time/distance depends on a coppers reaction time - its fallable.... - dubious it could achieve that speed even with a lary engine conversion, though the fact he flogged it to germany is suspicious....:rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom