![]() |
#21 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
I think the evidence is his prior opinion that you are speeding, corroborated by the gun.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
Corroboration of equipment that ranges in terms of accuracy isn't the more reliable either. ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
A single officer can't give evidence alone, but what he is doing is backing up the evidence of the equipment - similar arguments are used when a lone policement stops you speeding whilst in his car, he uses his speedo as the primary evidence and he is the back up for the primary evidence. I forget the exact details, i.e. the exact laws that use/require that, but that's the gist of it unfortunately.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
Yeah i've read quite a few times that they need two forms of verification.... speedo and officers 'expert' opinion
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Trinity
Mega Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Guildford
Posts: 8,027
|
![]()
But surely that shouldn't be strong enough to do him for 101 which is way more serious than just speeding - which I would accept that a single officer would be able to judge.
Any case I've heard about, the police are usually content to do you for speeding at a figure less than 100 even if you were doing more than. Which makes me think that in this case it is just scare tactics. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
I am sure that those hand helds dont work on bikes at all thy need a flat surface to relect from. bikes dont have them especially the pointy.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
Yep. All the evidence seems to point that they are not accurate on bikes, yet when questioned about this, they give their stock "there's no reason to believe there's a problem, so there's no need to test it" answer. Nice to see an attitude more akin to religious dogma than scientific rigour applied to speed detecting equipment.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]() Quote:
![]() There is all sorts of evidence of radar guns being influenced heavily by angle of use, distance, surface etc, but the type approval wins everytime. I think the only people to have got off are when it has been demonstrated that the equipment was used incorrectly, not any fault with the equipment itself. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
![]()
Take my advice:
Go to court say your very very sorry and admit fault, if you wriggle & try to squirm your way out of it the court will hammer you. Trust me I know. |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 | |
Member
Mega Poster
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotland's Deep South
Posts: 1,461
|
![]() Quote:
If I'd thought on I'd have written things like this down but it's easier said than done when you're in the back of PC Plods car |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|