sorted... 8 court appearances, 10 months later... 3 hours in court yesterday... magistrates retired for 45 minutes... 73mph in a 40... not guilty...

am i chuffed or what???



o.

[Edited by owbow - 8/27/2003 10:53:47 AM]

 

So you didnt do it then?

 

Excellent, well done. Fight them on the beaches and all that stuff...

Are you in a position to briefly detail the circumstances and your defence? It might help others in a similar position and give people encouragement to fight them.

Either way a good result.

 

So, what's your secret Mate?

 

for future reference, if u r pulled, but not camera'd or officially clocked by a cop electronically, always say that u were doing exactly the speed limit for the road; eg say 40mph officer, not about 35mph or 42mph. A mate of mine in Brighton has got off twice doing this (last time 60+ in a 30 zone) The police give u a right bollocking but cant prove anything.

 

Surely its only a good result if he didnt do it?

I'm not having a go at Owbow, and I admit I do speed from time to time, but 73 in a 40!!!

47 in a 40 or even 50 in a 40 is within the realms of respectability but 73 [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

To reiterate, I'm not having a pop, as i dont know the circumstances, its just attitude like this that fuels the anti-speeding lobby. if everyone was a little bit more sensible, the widespread use of safety cameras may get relaxed.

 

Should have stopped there, IMHO mate... He's been found "not guilty" of committing the offense of 73 in a 40. That means that, in the eyes of the law, he's innocent. End of story.

Saying that, I'd be interested to hear what happened and it'd be good to know that it was really a case of "not guilty" rather than getting off on, for example, a technicality

Cheers,
Nick.

 

Very true Chiark. And there are some real stupid 40mph limits. for example they have a new bypass in Swindon which is set to 40 FFS [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

However, being found not guilty of speeding is 99.99999% (IMO) likely to be a technicality. i.e. You must have been there, you must have been photographed or stopped etc etc.

Dont lob me in with the "you bad man doing over 41mph in 40" brigade, I'm just pointing out that 73 is a little excessive.

 

RichWalk - I hope you'll be supporting your "mate" when he kills his first 6 year old. 60+ in a 30? Not funny, not clever.

Yes, we all speed from time to time, but there is a time and a place and as Matt says, there are respectable limits to what should be seen as acceptable.

Arthur.

 

Arthur Fowler you cant make a comment like that without knowing the circumstances....

There are plently of 3 lane national speed limit dual carriageways which suddenly hit a 40 zone...

if they were hiding just after the change in limit etc...

I would be worried if your kids were playing in a plaace like that away, more fool them then if they get hit

Its like kids on trainlines....

No fault but thier own...

Untill you know the facts maybe its best not to "speculate" the circmstances

 

For another "Not Guilty" story go here. hopefully it will mean fewer people simply accept their speeding tickets and fight the system. Unless of course they were seriously speeding in a stupid place.

 

agreed 73 in a 40 would be excessive if true, but we don't know the circumstances of the not guilty verdict which, after all, means owbow ain't guilty of the offense!

Enough speculation! It'll take us nowhere and just get people very heated under the collar for no reason whatsoever!

Perhaps Owbow would like to (or not like to ) comment further ?

BTW, did you hear the story about two members of the police force being found not guilty of speeding despite being caught bang up to rights? Their defense was that the speed limit signs are not legally enforcable (black border around the edge) and hence they were found not guilty. If the police can use technicalities as a defence, I don't see why anyone else can't try the same.

BTW^2, I don't condone speed inappropriate for the conditions before this turns into something that it really shouldn't turn into

Cheers,
Nick.

 

Ow, this is great news mate, well happy for you.
Bollox to all the blouses who are getting all "oh wont someone think of the children" on ya, *** em, I'm happy for you. Now dont get caught again!!!!
astraboy.

 

ROTFLMAO - just got visions of Astraboy in the Simpsons (or quite possibly a rave) popping up occasionally in a fluorescent jacket shouting, "Please, for God's sake, won't someone think of the children?"

You'll have to forgive my mind, it's diseased.

 

Owbow, send the story to 'speed trap bible'.

F
PS I can't see the relevant story on GIXXER.

 

How can you say that with such certainty? Even a standard scooby can go from 40-75 without needing much road. Perhaps he hit a stretch with no parked cars, houses with low fences that are set back 20m from the road and fancied a wee 'blat' - perhaps he had visibility that would have allowed him to travel safely at 90mph? You just don't know unless you were there. Of course, there is not getting away from the fact its still illegal - considerably so!!

 

and perhaps it wasn't safe - I think we need to wait and hear the circumstances.

I think that saying "Bollox to all the blouses who are getting..."
is a bit harsh considering you don't know the facts astraboy.

I live in a 40mph limit. I've got a young child. If you are saying people shouldn't respect the people who live in 40's - that's very selfish.

Lets wait and see.......

 

This is going to be a long thread!!!!

 

owbow,tell us more! did they catch you on camera or not?In what cicumstances you got away?

 

Re Arthur Fowler, no not supporting my mates actions at all, just advising where the loop holes are...

 

Come on Owbow, you can't come in and post that, then disappear without an explanation!!

We all await a response, otherwise I'll assume you slept with the hairiest magistrate on duty to influence the decision.

 

Bugger, didn't realise you had to be a member to view that particular forum.

Long story short:

A bloke gets pulled by the police, according to their VASCAR unit he was doing 98.7mph in a 70 zone. Bloke insists he was not doing that speed (he reckons maybe 85mph at a push, but doesn't tell the coppers this )

During the court case he proved that

a) the officer couldn't see the point he claimed was the "start" point for the VASCAR from where he was parked

b) for the officer to be within 200 metres of the bloke at the time he passed the "start" point he would have needed to have been travelling at an average speed of 156mph over the distance, from a standing start.

c) the officer then changed his evidence

Not Guilty.

 

Good one. Vascar strikes me as a dodgy technology in some ways, as parallax errors will make it bloody difficult to use, and will never be as accurate as it claims to be...

 

thought it might be a long one....

73mph through what is loosely described as a 'village' although it only has a church and a drum shop(?) at 3am on a Sunday...

The officer did not have enough space to have locked his Speedar Radar device on for 3 seconds AND bring me to a halt... this would have taken a minimum of 196m, assuming a reaction time of 0.6 seconds and a fricton rate on the tarmac of mU 0.66... the tarmac actually had a much lower friction rate... and his visibility was only 140m, which was described as being "almost criminally short a distance" by my expert witness, who commented also that the officer had put himself and his colleague at considerable risk by using that particular spot.

conclusion being i was either not speeding, or the device was not used correctly having only being locked on for less than 3 seconds, which would not allow to check for fluctuations caused by spurious signals, or my vehicle will stop in 50m at 73mph... lots and lots of cross examination later, and the fact that it came to light i have a CB radio in the car, which could have further affected the radar device...spurious signals and badda-boom, verdict not guilty...

i must admit, i have learnt from the experience, as anyone who knows me will agree, i have slowed down a lot, at least where it matters...

i fully expect to be slated by some, which is fair enough, but if the police want to use these means and technology to catch speeders, and particularly if they want to try slating me in court just because i have a loud car... then they should LEARN TO READ THE INSTRUCTIONS for the device...!

anyway, they can try and try but they'll have to prise my licence from my cold lifeless hands...

 

That is very strange as I was done about 8 years ago for 98.7 as well, with VASCAR, and I absolutely know I was not doing that speed, unless my speedo was momentarily incorrect by 30mph and my speed changed dramatically without my realising. I was taken to court, all I could do was plead guilty as I was alone in the car etc. etc.

When the policeman read out his lies the magistrate stopped the show and said words to the effect of "This is one of a number of cases that have come before me today of almost exactly the same speed. I would suggest that there is something odd about this and that you look into what is going on."

It was before points in Northern Ireland so I was fined 100 quid and sent home to behave. The policemen involved should have gone to jail for perjury.

I can't help but suspect that there must be some reason why they do people, when they are lying, for speeds of 98ish. Probably something to do with the calibration speed of the system or a test mode or something.

A chap I work with was driving at 30mph in a 30 when they tried to do him for 59mph with one of the radar guns. Luckily, because of some work he had been doing, he knew that 59 was the calibration speeed of the radar gun and he was positive he was doing 30mph. When the policeman came to the window of the car, full of it, and showed him the reading on the radar gun the chap I work with uttered very strong words to the effect of "I believe you are not a very nice man and that you may be being economical with the truth." At this point the policeman turned, walked away and didn't say another word.

My personal experiences indicate a definite economy with the truth on the part of the police. Perhaps I've been unlucky. However, my view is that I wouldn't trust them to sit the right way around on a toilet, specially when it comes to relating the details of alledged motoring offences.

 

Fantastic result

Basically, if I read it correctly, you proved that the speed they claimed you were doing would have made it impossible to stop in the distance you stopped in.

Case dismissed.

If only it had been that easy, eh? God only knows how much that particular instance of bullishness/arrogance in the face of facts/... from the force has cost the tax payer.

A good result, IMHO, for three reasons... No harm done, police dubious practise openly questioned in court and you say you've thought more about your driving since.

Cheers,
Nick.

 

cost??? i don't like to think... expert witnes from Leeds, visited the site on 3 occasions, all long weekends i should think... came to court too... not a cheap guy i bet...

he looked almost as happy as me when we came out... not like the coppers...

o.

 

oh yeah, forgot to add, it was my birthday yesterday, what a present...

 

So it is a good result, beacause you didn't do it

 

There are a number of roads in Surrey that have recently changed from National speed limits to 30/40's for no reason other than to place a few speed cameras and collect some money. Unless you know the road in question it can be quite safe to do 70 in a 30/40.

We also have a downhill 20 limit with a camera. The 20 limit lasts for less than 50 yards !!!!!