Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:54

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 13:58 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
See http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-12182321

Devon driving instructor jailed for sat-nav speed fraud

Image

Richards feared a speeding conviction would stop him from becoming a driving instructor

Related stories
Clock change foils sat-nav crook http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11938711


A driving instructor who falsified sat-nav data to evade a speeding charge has been jailed for four months.

Shaun Richards, 49, of Exeter, Devon, was caught speeding on the A386 on 1 June 2009, Plymouth Crown Court heard.

He drove the same route in January 2010 at the correct speed and changed the date on the sat-nav data to 1 June, but forgot to change the time back to BST.

He admitted perverting the course of justice.

The court heard he had used software on his computer to doctor the data on his sat-nav system.

'Planned manipulation'
He had been accused of speeding at 54mph in a 40mph zone while driving between Exeter and Tavistock.

Pc Dave Williams, of Devon and Cornwall Police, said Richards had gone to "extreme lengths" to try to prove his innocence.

He added: "The big problem he had was that he forgot about the clock change [from BST to GMT] and there was an hour difference in the time."

During a police interview, when asked why he had not accepted the original speeding penalty, Richards said he had started training as a driving instructor and feared he would not be able to complete his course if he had a motoring conviction.

Sentencing Richards, Recorder Stephen Parish said it had been a very carefully planned manipulation.

"You deliberately manufactured data to show you weren't speeding," he said.

The judge said had Richards not admitted the charge, his sentence would have been longer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 21:42 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
No comment on this one then?
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=24016

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 22:56 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
I wonder....
If he hadn't tampered with the sat-nav data (all else remaining the same), would he have been able to prove himself innocent?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2011 23:46 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member

Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 13:50
Posts: 2643
We can all sleep easier tonight, safe in the knowledge that yet another dangerous criminal is behind bars. :roll:

_________________
Only when ideology, prejudice and dogma are set aside does the truth emerge - Kepler


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 18:15 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Hey Greenshed, as you've surfaced again, would you care to address some of the other points you were dodging when you last submerged?

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2011 22:53 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2004 23:26
Posts: 9260
Location: Treacletown ( just north of M6 J3),A MILE OR TWO PAST BEDROCK
RobinXe wrote:
Hey Greenshed, as you've surfaced again, would you care to address some of the other points you were dodging when you last submerged?


Suspect he's consulting Mr Jones .I did suggest that he might comment on the SCP /CPS Bournmouth disaster, but that's another one I think he'll want to forget .

_________________
lets bring sanity back to speed limits.
Drivers are like donkeys -they respond best to a carrot, not a stick .Road safety experts are like Asses - best kept covered up ,or sat on


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2011 21:21 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
Steve wrote:
I wonder....
If he hadn't tampered with the sat-nav data (all else remaining the same), would he have been able to prove himself innocent?


The question is would he have been convicted answer YES

second question "Was he actually exceeding the speed limit" answer the evidence suggested NO

However this evidence was never tested in court

Tim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 01:54 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
No, I think the question was definitely about him proving his innocence, and I suspect intentionally so!

I notice that Greenshed has seemingly capitulated from entering into debates where he will almost certainly be shown to be wrong again, and has resorted to drive-by spamming in the hope that some of his sh*t will stick!

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 15, 2011 20:02 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
timtjf wrote:
"Was he actually exceeding the speed limit" answer the evidence suggested NO

Tim

really? How so?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 20:32 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
GreenShed wrote:
timtjf wrote:
"Was he actually exceeding the speed limit" answer the evidence suggested NO

Tim

really? How so?


I have the evidence, but it was not tested in court, although the prosecution were served with this evidence, but never addressed it due to the developments that came after and ended the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 21:50 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
I wonder how you evidence of Richards NOT speeding stacks up against his evidence that he was. I agree, perhaps you should have had that tested in court.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 20, 2011 22:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
GreenShed wrote:
I wonder how you evidence of Richards NOT speeding stacks up against his evidence that he was. I agree, perhaps you should have had that tested in court.


Unfortunately it wasn't my decision as he decided to plead to the speeding charge, in view of the additional offence, so no evidence was tested in court from either side.

Therefore any evidence is only a matter of individual opinion until it has been fully examined by all sides and the court


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 09:39 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
timtjf wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
I wonder how you evidence of Richards NOT speeding stacks up against his evidence that he was. I agree, perhaps you should have had that tested in court.


Unfortunately it wasn't my decision as he decided to plead to the speeding charge, in view of the additional offence, so no evidence was tested in court from either side.

Therefore any evidence is only a matter of individual opinion until it has been fully examined by all sides and the court

He admitted driving at 54mph at the time he passed the camera. I understand about the evidence being tested in court and its examination.

My point is, the vehicle was being driven at 54mph, the driver said so, you say you have evidence it was not; what does that say about your evidence?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:24 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
GreenShed wrote:
timtjf wrote:
GreenShed wrote:
I wonder how you evidence of Richards NOT speeding stacks up against his evidence that he was. I agree, perhaps you should have had that tested in court.


Unfortunately it wasn't my decision as he decided to plead to the speeding charge, in view of the additional offence, so no evidence was tested in court from either side.

Therefore any evidence is only a matter of individual opinion until it has been fully examined by all sides and the court

He admitted driving at 54mph at the time he passed the camera. I understand about the evidence being tested in court and its examination.

My point is, the vehicle was being driven at 54mph, the driver said so, you say you have evidence it was not; what does that say about your evidence?


I said "The evidence SUGGESTS" and until and unless that evidence was fully investigated that is all it was.

It has always been my understanding that, in this country, any evidence should be investigated and assessed by all concerned if and when a defended case comes to court

The prosecution, in this case, were served with this suggest evidence and they did not dispute or make any comment on it, possibly due to the additional evidenec we now know all about but that was not known at the time of this suggested evidence.

Please do not make sarcastic comments on evidence that was not tested and only suggested, even in motoring and speeding cases we must ensure that all the evidence is at least looked at and investigated before convicting the defendant


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 14:49 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
I'm not being sarcastic; it's a serious question.

Have YOU reviewed your evidence in the light of Mr. Richards saying he was driving at 54mph?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 21, 2011 17:43 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
GreenShed wrote:
I'm not being sarcastic; it's a serious question.

Have YOU reviewed your evidence in the light of Mr. Richards saying he was driving at 54mph?



The evidence was served and the prosecution did not challenge it

For the record Mr Richards pleaded guilty due to the far more serious charge he was facing and a guilty plea was the th e best way of dealing with the speeding offence.

As he had admitted alterring the GPS data he stood no chance of being found not guilty, had he not alterred the GPS data and just challenged the speeding then there was evidence that could have been used to say he was not speeding, and this evidence was not challenged and not tested.

It is a well know fact that people who genuinly believe they were not exceeding the speed limit plead guilty because of the obscene costs they could incur due to the Hughes comment "Come and get us if you thing you are tough enough" and we will make you pay.

In the British justice system one is innocent until proven guilty, with the exception of speeding case where one is guilty until proven innocent

In all speeding cases the onus is on the defence to prove that the device used was
1. Not calibrated correctly
2. Different in some way from the type approved device
3. Not operated correctly
4. Had a fault

Unless you are a golfer with lots of money it is impossible for the average person to even contemplate defending a £60.00 and three points

Since 1996, with the exception of one dropped and one run over, there is not a single record published of any LTI has ever been found to be faulty or out of calibration specification.

I say this as if one device had been found faulty then all the enforcements since its last know calibration would have had to be investigated, and this has not happened.

As someone who has spent over 50 years in electronics I ask is this claim even remotely credible considering the number of LTI's in use, or have Lastec inc designed the perfect piece of electronic equipment?

If this is so then the likes of JCV, Sony and Panasonic would pay a lot of money for the secret


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 18:57 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 13:03
Posts: 685
timtjf wrote:
...As someone who has spent over 50 years in electronics I ask is this claim even remotely credible considering the number of LTI's in use, or have Lastec inc designed the perfect piece of electronic equipment?

If this is so then the likes of JCV, Sony and Panasonic would pay a lot of money for the secret

There is no secret; the way it works is clearly explained and is available to all. Well it is if you can do the sums. :readit:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 19:16 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 19:08
Posts: 3434
Ok, don't be shy. Enlighten us all.... ;-)


Sounds of submarine disappearing into the depths.

_________________
My views do not represent Safespeed but those of a driver who has driven for 39 yrs, in all conditions, at all times of the day & night on every type of road and covered well over a million miles, so knows a bit about what makes for safety on the road,what is really dangerous and needs to be observed when driving and quite frankly, the speedo is way down on my list of things to observe to negotiate Britain's roads safely, but I don't expect some fool who sits behind a desk all day to appreciate that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 21:00 
Offline
User

Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:49
Posts: 76
GreenShed wrote:
timtjf wrote:
...As someone who has spent over 50 years in electronics I ask is this claim even remotely credible considering the number of LTI's in use, or have Lastec inc designed the perfect piece of electronic equipment?

If this is so then the likes of JCV, Sony and Panasonic would pay a lot of money for the secret


There is no secret; the way it works is clearly explained and is available to all. Well it is if you can do the sums. :readit:


Presumably then you confirm the claim it never does and never has ever gone wrong or given an inaccurate speed calculation, by the way it calculates speed it does not measure speed as claimed by the manufacturers

I presume the claims for the equipment were written by someone technical or at least claiming to be technical, but then what is the difference between a measurement and a calculation

However this is only a claim, not one single shred of CREDIBLE evidence has ever been produced in court to substantiate this, just rhetoric from people who have a vested financial interest in the device and its continued use.

If the equipment is a good as claimed then produce the evidence, OH dear I forgot it is "Classified Information" despite the fact that the secret it is protecting is technology that was in use pre 1993, which is still classified!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 22:15 
Offline
Friend of Safe Speed
Friend of Safe Speed
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16
Posts: 7986
Location: Moved to London
GreenShed wrote:
There is no secret; the way it works is clearly explained and is available to all. Well it is if you can do the sums. :readit:

But is the explanation correct?

Given what I have read on forums, and what I have directly examined, tested, measured and confirmed for myself, I have to conclude that people who like to portray themselves as all-knowing are in fact somewhat mistaken :liar:
:popcorn:

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 68 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.508s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]