http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/7033353.stm
(put in Idle rather than Bike, as can speed in any vehicle and case illustrated is in a car)
Curious story, inventor has allegedly more accurate GPS sat tracking device which states he was doing 29.18 in a 30 zone rather than 42 as claimed by the prosecution.
CPS took an interesting line in abandoning the case saying that the police officer involved had retired and therefore couldn't give evidence to the required standard to maintain a prosecution. Interested as to what evidence the CPS expected the police officer to give? Surely he was not expected to argue the relative scientific merits of the technologies involved? Can only assume therefore that the prosecution was based on either a "I pressed a button as target went under bridge A and pressed another button as he went under bridge B", or "I followed at a consistent distance and my calibrated speedo read 42mph".
Assuming that inherently unreliable measuring methods were used by the police
in this case (ie. time/distance based on human interaction, whether using visual markers or maintained distance), then we're left with a staggering margin of error - potentially the police being 12mph out of whack on a 30mph target. Even if we go with 50/50, the police being out by 6mph in one direction and the defendant being out by 6mph in the other direction - we're still left with a 6mph difference on a 30mph target - that's 20%. That's staggering.
Not wanting to police-bash, but could this in any way set a precedent for convictions based upon human interaction coupled with a time/distance calculation?