Safe Speed Forums

Apologies if it's already being discussed elsewhere:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090320/tu ... 23e80.html

"A man clocked by police driving at 173mph in a 50mph zone has avoided jail - after it was found his sports car was incapable of travelling that fast. Officers recorded the remarkable speed for Tex O'Reilly's Lotus Elise as he drove along a country lane in Derbyshire last July, Derby Crown Court was told.

But defence lawyers successfully argued the 36-year-old Derbyshire builder's unmodified car had a top speed of 127mph and he pleaded guilty to dangerous driving on the basis that he had driven at just 105mph.

A recording of 173mph would usually have warranted a jail term, but the prosecution failed to disprove the defence claims and accepted O'Reilly's basis of plea.

The father-of-three from Canal Bridge, Willington, pleaded guilty to a charge of dangerous driving and was given a £5,000 fine and two-year driving ban.

Judge Andrew Hamilton said: "May I make it absolutely clear that had you been driving at 150mph you would have been going immediately to prison.

"However, you were not driving at 150mph, you were driving at 105mph, and for whatever reason the prosecution have accepted that basis of plea, and that puts the case in a different light."

After the hearing, a Derbyshire Police spokesman said: "As far as we are concerned these (Police Pilot) devices are used by a vast number of police forces and are highly accurate.

"There are systems built in to detect errors and to make sure that the devices are working."


It seems very odd. OK, I'm always wary of commenting on stories like this because there is often a lot more to them than actually gets reported, but when you see statements like this:

"After the hearing, a Derbyshire Police spokesman said: "As far as we are concerned these (Police Pilot) devices are used by a vast number of police forces and are highly accurate. There are systems built in to detect errors and to make sure that the devices are working."

One does start to wonder exactly which bit of the "systems built in to detect errors and to make sure that the devices are working" WASN'T actually working and how often that happens!

I'm still trying to wrap my head round this one.

For starters how did this Hamilton get to be a Judge? ""May I make it absolutely clear that had you been driving at 150mph you would have been going immediately to prison.....However, you were not driving at 150mph" So a judges job is to tell us the penalties for things we haven't done. Sheesh

And I'm still not sure why the accused pleaded guilty at all (as is often the case we've only got the very basics to go on). He was accused of 176mph by a piece of equipment that has "systems built in to detect errors and to make sure that the devices are working". So how come they had a reading of 176mph then? Surely it should have been dismissed. The speed stated is surely right or wrong, not open to being reduced to suit. If the figure the equipment gave has been proven to be inaccurate surely there is no case to answer?

Barkstar

_________________
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has limits.

No. The Judge is perfectly entitled to comment on the sentence for the offence with which the accused is charged.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

I agree, BUT...

...if the MANNER in which it was said is true (and that's a BIG "if"), then it does rather sound like he's trying to somehow give credibility to a speed measurement system that has been shown to have been talking UTTER rubbish. A sort of "now I'm letting you off lightly here out of the goodness of my heart" kind of statement - almost as if trying to defelct attention from what (as Barkstar suggests) should have been a complete acquital.

Very strange...

Mind you. we've seen poorly-reported cases plenty of times before on these pages ad I'm reluctant to try and draw any firm conclusions. Very odd though! 173 ina 50 is such a ludicrously high speed for a BIKE - never mind a car, that it makes you wonder how the case ever came to court in the first place! Certainly raises questions over the notion that the speed measuring device was used to "confirm the officer's prior impression of excess speed". You'd imagine anyone with even the most basic training in the use of the equipment to look at the car, look at the instrument, tap it a few times and say "nah...."

Apparently the police pilot is another version similar to vascar. The officers obviously were poorly trained or ignoring thier training. How could they get it so wrong????

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code

I reckon defendant stupidly "confessed" to doing 105 to try and mitigate the punishment expected when told he was doing 173, or else was pressured in to doing so when plod decided the measurement was iffy.

I also suspect he may have got off scot-free if he'd kept his gob shut.

What do we think is the significance, if any, of selling the Elise pronto to Germany? It looks fishy, but if I also had a Ferrari, I don't know if I'd put the effort into tuning an Elise to do 173mph, if that's even possible.