101mph in a 60.

Originally Posted by simesb

I think multi-lane cameras mark which lane has triggered the money-making opportunity.

And on the subject of the lines on the road; it appears that there is no fixed separation for the lines, and increasingly cameras do not have them. Try proving the camera wrong then!

Don't have to prove the camera wrong.
2 pieces of evidence must be present to convict. 1 is the radar of the static cam, and the second is the number of painted lines travelled over in the photo.
If there are no painted lines, there are not two pieces of evidence and the case will be thrown out of court.

All this changes of course depending on the type of gun etc. And if it is handheld/manually operated, as said previously, the evidence is the "prior opinion" of the operator that you were speeding, and the reading from the gun (presumbly confirming you were).

Originally Posted by Baph

I gave some laws of physics earlier in the thread, they don't discount the law of the land.

I fail to see how anyone could get a solid conviction based on evidence that's phsyically impossible. The best you could hope for is to put the evidence into question, not disprove it totally.

Find the follow up on that thread at pepipoo.
He has won the case at the first court, but prosecution asked for something which would result in a retrial so they could submit more evidence. Judge pointed out he didn't have to , but the case would then not set a precedent. He elected to let the prosecution appeal (or whatever), and the case was retried. The high cost is because of all the so called expert witnesses they brought in. The short answer is still that he was right and the reading given by the equipment was wrong, but as he was not an "expert" the court chose to ignore his argument.

Something like that anyway. I think its going to appeal again... the costs awarded are (theoretically) illegal as they do not reflect his ability to pay or the offense so they will be set aside on appeal.

edit: browser went weird and posted halfway through

Originally Posted by Baph

When talking about lasers, the spread from a beam is minimal at best. Think snipers out in the field (not using optical zoom alone, but also using laser scopes). The main thing to worry about is refraction when passing a glass surface etc.

Nope.
Snipers do NOT EVER use laser sights. Friend of mine is a sniper back from Iran. Why tell the platoon of men you are shooting at that you are about to kill them? Besides, laser travels in a straight line, bullets don't, especially over the distances that a sniper fires from.

Laser does spread significantly. If the laser you are using does not, it is an industrial one and will blind anyone you shine it at.
My work collegue used to be in the RAF and was in a room where they were testing targeting lasers. Guy in the room with his back to it took off his safety goggle and his eyeballs burst from the reflection off the far wall/roof/etc. of the targeting range.
The figures for laser spread can be found at pepipoo somewhere.

[JamesMio]

Well, just got the dreaded text from home to say there's a letter from the Procurator Fiscal there waiting for me... joys oh joys...

Good luck mate.

FWIW some years back I got pulled in the car, doing 108 in a 60, 3 points would have got me a ban under totting up.

Decent lawyer made case of needed for business, brief spurt of acceleration to get past slow moving vehicles (was a TVR), other employees will be affected (stretching the point a loooooooooooooooooooong way on that), and really laid it on with a trowel.

result? 6 points, no ban (exceptional hardship), £400 fine.

legal bill? £600 or thereabouts But I stayed on the road.

No effect on insurance, which astonished me.

Still I kept licence - I'd recommend seeking legal advice.

Originally Posted by AndyW

Snipers do NOT EVER use laser sights.

Sorry, they do and I did. It all depends on the target and conditions, a sniper doesn't just shoot long distances you know.

Originally Posted by AndyW

laser travels in a straight line, bullets don't, especially over the distances that a sniper fires from.

This I can confirm and agree with.

Originally Posted by AndyW

My work collegue used to be in the RAF and was in a room where they were testing targeting lasers. Guy in the room with his back to it took off his safety goggle and his eyeballs burst from the reflection off the far wall/roof/etc. of the targeting range.

Targeting lasers cannot do that, they are a safe laser designed for quidance only. I think your colleague has been watching too many Sci-Fi films.

[Stu]

Originally Posted by Dangerous Dave

This I can confirm and agree with.

I guess a simply adjustment of having the sight & the barrel pointing in different directions depending on the range? Which I imagine would be the case whether it's laser or just optical sight?

Originally Posted by Stu

I guess a simply adjustment of having the sight & the barrel pointing in different directions depending on the range?

Yes, depending on the range.

Good luck mate!

I read the OP, not read the full 11 pages. And not sure if anyone else has pointed it out, but I am not sure 101 is the big problem here ...

I think the law is speed restriction +30mph is an instant ban ...

Hence 100mph on a motorway tears it, but you only need to be doing 90 in an NSL (60 in a 30) to get limit plus 30 .. its prolly not beyond reasonable doubt and your own admission you were doing ~90 ...

I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong on the limit +30 = ban thingy.

EDIT: ... had a rummage ... here you go ... its actually +40% (not +30mph) so >85mph in a 60 = ban (scroll down a bit) http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingb...ngoffences.htm

By the looks, at 101mph, you are staring down the barrel of a potential 70+ day ban I am afraid