[Closed] Trying to get off a speeding ticket

oh dear

They should both be procescuted for crimes against hair for a start!

Without knowing all the facts, their agumemnt that radar works in straight lines and they were going round a corner so it was innacurate seems fatality flawed. Yes it will be slightly innacurate, but that inacuracy will result in it under reporting your speed.

For the sake of 6mph over the limit (assuming it was a 30mph limit).

Fools!

'e wouldnt let it lie!

Ah from google

"For those who want a summary:
the radar unit is approved for use set up to 20 degrees away from the direction of traffic; the radar unit cannot be placed exactly in line with the direction of traffic – for obvious reasons
I guess they 20 degrees was chosen for practicality (minimise depth of sensor zone) without adding too much of a 'fudge factor'. This angle of operation means the speed detector will always underread, resulting with it giving 94% of the actual vehicle speed (just like an LTI2020 would if used at that angle - the cosine effect). The good people at Gatso added the fudge factor of +6.4% to compensate for this underread. This works well if the target vehicle is travelling at the 20 degrees from the angle of the beam; it doesn’t work so well if the vehicle is travelling directly in line with the beam - like when on a bend where a true 30 would be read as 32; that would already be 66% of the allowable tolerance used up."

THey do have a point, but it should be fairly easy to prove mathematically whether the error is 6mph. IF it is not, they were speeding.

Though that would only get her down to 34mph, so still speeding. ISTM they're attempting to get off on a technicality, when there is no law which allows such a technicality as a way of getting off (unlike other tecnicalities due to procedure not being followed correctly).

in August 2007 after her VW Polo, in which her husband was a passenger, was [b]photographed[/b] on the A619 at Brockholes, West Yorkshire.

I thought it took 2 photo's as proof (so the markings can be counted as proof?), does this not happen anymore?

I thought it took 2 photo's as proof (so the markings can be counted as proof?), does this not happen anymore?

"photographed" does not preclude "photographed twice" - surely it covers it entirely? "I photographed a wedding" does not mean you only took one shot 😀 Only the Gatso's require 2 photos as proof anyway.

sorry, that wasnt meant to be an assumption that it only took 1 photo, more a question 'do speed cameras not take photo's that can prove you are speeding by using the markings on the road? or do they use lasers instead now? or were these two caught by a man with a radar gun?'

Ill try and be more clear next time coffeking ;0)

If they wanted to get off on a technicality they would have had more success claiming that there isn't an A619 in Brockholes, its the A616. This road is on the way to where I go turbo training and is on a steep downhill just after it goes from 40 to 30 I've nearly broken the limit on my road bike.

there isn't an A619 in Brockholes, its the A616.

🙂

[i]Mrs Fielden vowed to take the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg[/i]

Epic sense of proportion fail. 😯

typical bloody acedemics!

Its Mulligan and O'Hare!

[img] [/img]

My rose has left me
she's in a mood
she's gone to Kenya
with the bloke from Allied Carpets
She wasn't immunised
that's a legal requirement
I'm getting all arsey
because I can't take my foot off the accelerator and obey the law.