the pool man wrote:
...he claims that I was doing 70mph as there is no way on this earth I was doing that speed as I was driving a 2002 4x4 Mitsubishi Shogun and also towing a very large three seater jet ski (almost the size of a small car) and also with three further passengers so no way was I doing 70mph
I don't think that'll wear in court. FWIW, I've got a Mk 2 2.8 (125ps) and can cruise (on French A-routes) at 80mph with 1400kg of caravan on the back. Your 2002 Mk 3 or 4 will have a lot more oomph than my ol' Paj and so should have no difficulty in physically achieving the claimed speed.
the pool man wrote:
Also my car is fitted with the latest sat nav unit the MIO C710 to which monitors the speed limits on every road and sounds an alarm should you go over the limit and this alarm DID NOT sound.
Two things here - satnav measures point-to-point times and calculates the speed based on the time taken between the two points. If there's a bend or two in the road (either vertically or horizontally) the system is likely to under read. Also, there is no legal requirement for the satnav to be accurate (unlike the requirements of the speed measurement device that plod used), and so in a fight between satnav and even an LTI20/20 dodgyscope, the speed gun will win in court.
the pool man wrote:
The police then sent me a letter some two to three weeks later stating the offence they claim I have done so I then wrote straight back explaining that there was no way I could of been doing that speed and that I would like to see some proof that the speed gun was aimed on my vehicle. I then heard no more until yesterday (Friday) almost six months later with a summons to appear in court or plead guilty through the post,
Get thee to
PePiPoo with all haste because there are things you need to do to obtain the evidence and some very dodgy tricks that a pratnership will try on - and PePiPoo probably offer the best advice on the 'net.
the pool man wrote:
and now the officer claims that not only was I speeding I was not wearing a seat belt (which I was) and I had no break lights (which I did have) but he states that the issue with the break lights and the seatbelt wasn’t worth reporting me for and just report me for the speeding (what is all that about). With the newer shoguns their are lights at the rear quarter panels that are purely for show and their are lower lights in the rear bumper that are the working lights why I have no idea but I am in the process of getting this in writing from Mitsubishis.
The reason why the wing lights might be dummies (although I thought that they worked) and why the real brake and side lights are in the bumper is the Construction and Use Regs, which require those lights to be visible from behind with the rear door open (the spare wheel obscures the offside wing cluster). UK is (AFAICT) the only country where this is needed, which explains why Pajeros don't have bumper lights but Shoddies do. In any case, if the trailer is as wide as the towcar, it is the trailer not the car that needs working brake lights.
Sorry to hear of your plight - but hope this is of some help.
BTW, you might want to pay a visit to
POCUK (the owners club) if you're not already a member. Although we do rib Shoddy owners about the lack of chrome and toys, you'll be very welcome there
