Safe Speed Forums

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/4270151.stm

Speed gun 'should be withdrawn'

A motorist has been cleared of a driving charge after contesting evidence from a speed gun.

James MacGregor was clocked at 132mph on the A9 - but tests showed that the top speed of his imported Subaru had been limited to 107mph.

Campaigners want the guns withdrawn after the case was found not proven.

But Northern Constabulary said it would continue to use the equipment - and the Crown said it had "no concerns" over its accuracy.

Mr MacGregor, 34, from Dalcross, Inverness, was cleared of driving dangerously by Sheriff Alexander Pollock.

He had been accused of travelling at 132mph at Daviot on 6 August last year - almost twice the 70mph limit.

Traffic police told Inverness Sheriff Court that the ProLaser III speed gun had operated correctly when it recorded Mr MacGregor.

His car had been about 2,000ft away at 2100 GMT, as it was getting dark.

But his lawyer David Hingston produced evidence in court which proved the vehicle was a "grey import" from Japan and had been fitted with an electronic speed limiter, which is a legal requirement in the country.

Defence witness Gavin Wallace, of Aberdeen-based Wallace Per4mance, said he tested the car on a rolling road and found its top speed was 107mph. He said the Subaru had at no point been tampered with.


The court heard the car could not have reached the speed recorded

Sheriff Pollock found the case against Mr MacGregor not proven.

Afterwards, Mr Hingston said: "This has huge implications throughout Scotland and the whole of the UK.

"In this case we had a reading of 132mph from a vehicle that is not capable of doing that speed. We have proved that this so-called 100% accurate machine is unreliable.

"Everybody being stopped as a result of a ProLaser reading should now be pleading not guilty."

Paul Smith, of the Safe Speed road safety campaign, said: "We must cease all use of these devices to prosecute motorists until such time as the errors can be fully explained and confidence restored."

The website for the US-based manufacturer of the ProLaser says the gun has a range of 1,000ft - half the distance involved in the case.

No-one from the company was available for comment.

Inspector John Smith, of Northern Constabulary, said the force would not stop using the devices.

"There is nothing to suggest that the equipment does not work," he said.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "Having reviewed the circumstances of the case and spoken to senior officers of Northern Constabulary I have no concerns as to the general accuracy of Pro-Laser III equipment.

"As a matter of practice, Pro-Laser III equipment - which has been approved for use by the secretary of state - is checked for accuracy in accordance with its operating instructions and standard police procedure on every occasion before it is used."

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

See today's Telegraph

Long-range speed cameras unreliable, says judge

The Home Office launched an investigation yesterday into the use of a long-range speed camera after it emerged that its readings were unreliable.

The decision came after a driver, accused of doing 132mph, was cleared when it was established that his car could not be driven that fast.

John MacGregor, 34, of Inverness, had his case dismissed by a judge after it emerged that police recorded him travelling 25mph above his car's top speed.

The ruling at Inverness Sheriff Court has cast doubt on the device and the legality of prosecutions.

It could have implications for motorists trapped by the £8,000 ProLaser III gun since it was introduced last year.

David Hingston, the lawyer for Mr MacGregor, called for all convictions based on ProLaser III readings to be reviewed and advised motorists charged with speeding on evidence of the device to contest their case.

"This case is very much a milestone," he said. "My client's car could not do more than 107mph yet the ProLaser III gave a reading of 132mph. It recorded something that cannot possibly have happened. Therefore it is not a reliable machine."

The ProLaser III is a handheld device to catch vehicles more than a mile away. It was designed to prevent drivers evading penalties by slowing down for roadside cameras then speeding up afterwards.

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

From discussions I've read on a police forum, the consensus is that the limiter will have been removed, or indeed the chip might have been replaced with a European one then simply replaced to provide the defence.

I don't know of many self respecting ‘Scooby Doo’ drivers who would keep such a limiter on his vehicle in this country.

The case itself was ‘not proven’. As Wilkipedia states below and as has long been the case The "not proven" verdict "is often taken by juries and the media as meaning "we know he did it but there isn't enough proof"."

Having used this laser many times, I have never had any unusual readings from it, so I would be inclined to agree that the defence provided was very dubious indeed.
This is why this 'not proven' verdict in my mind will not and should not have any value in any argument about the credibility of the laser.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

I have a joint degree in Computing Science and Law from Strathclyde University.

The jury and media can take what they want from not proven, but it means precisely that and no more, and (as the definition states) it is merely another term for what every other legal system in the planet (including English) calls not guilty. The 'we know he did it part' holds as much weight as JJ over in the CSCP forum saying that he knows he's reducing KSI's in Cumbria.

PS There have been continual calls to get rid of the not proven verdict as it has no practical value in law.

I'd have thought it was a dead cert the driver put back in the original Japanese speed limiter chip after being caught. Why didn't the prosecution look at that?

Also I'm surprised they didn't do some reliability tests on the laser to confirm its accuracy.

The chip swapping is no more than a maybe. If it had been my car I wouldn't have bothered as I'm never likely to want to do as much as the 107 his was limited to.. so why spend the money? Lasers have got a history of some dodgy readings which TPTB really don't seem to be interested in checking out.

_________________
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler - Einstein

So we've reached the point where the law is reduced to arguing over technicalities, and those who are able to take advantage get away with murder.
Whatever speed he was actually doing is largely irrelevant unless it was excessive for conditions, or he was otherwise driving in an unsafe manner.
If speed limits were used as originally intended, then the cop would probably not have bothered taking a speed reading had his driving being reasonable and his speed not excessive for conditions. Had he being driving dangerously then the cop's word would probably have been sufficient, and the speed reading merely used as corroborative evidence. If the speed reading was unsound, it shouldn't have been used as evidence - although the case may have been a bit more difficult to prove.