101mph in a 60.

I think the evidence is his prior opinion that you are speeding, corroborated by the gun.

Originally Posted by simesb

I think the evidence is his prior opinion that you are speeding, corroborated by the gun.

Last I heard, a single officer couldn't give evidence on his word alone. For that, you have to have two officers.

Corroboration of equipment that ranges in terms of accuracy isn't the more reliable either.

Originally Posted by Baph

Last I heard, a single officer couldn't give evidence on his word alone. For that, you have to have two officers.

Corroboration of equipment that ranges in terms of accuracy isn't the more reliable either.

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.

Yeah i've read quite a few times that they need two forms of verification.... speedo and officers 'expert' opinion

[Stu]

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 21QUEST

Those frigging things lie like hell and only a lying or ignorant officer will swear blind that they are accurate.....whilst looking straight into your eyes.

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.

Originally Posted by Ceri JC

Yep. All the evidence seems to point that they are not accurate on bikes

That is true, but once the equipment is type approved (which it will be if it was in active use) you would have a hard job convincing a court otherwise. And if you went to court, it would be a magistrates court so you wouldn't get a sympathetic jury of drivers

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.

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.

[JamesMio]

Originally Posted by Baph

If it was the same as I got, I'd imagine a brief look at the gun, explanation of the readings, and maybe a flash of the calibration sticker.

Exactly that - shown the 101 reading on th back of the gun, and when asked they pointed out the calibration sticker, which was last carried out in either March of May this year, and was within it's expiry date.

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