What a sight!

BigRab said:

There I was, eating my dinner and watching Reporting Scotland about a
poor motorist caught doing 130odd mph and getting away with it cos he
said that his vehicle was limited to 107 (ok so he was probably on the
limiter then)when who should appear on screen....... PS!

Aaaaarg! Nearly chucked my dinner up again!

BigRab

I suppose if I was caught at 130+, I'd get a speed limited fitted asap and
claim to plod that I'd had it for ages.

Why on earth would you fit a speed limited otherwise? And if you're going to
have one, whats wrong with 70mph?

Pete.

"PeteC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

BigRab said:

There I was, eating my dinner and watching Reporting Scotland about a
poor motorist caught doing 130odd mph and getting away with it cos he
said that his vehicle was limited to 107 (ok so he was probably on the
limiter then)when who should appear on screen....... PS!

Aaaaarg! Nearly chucked my dinner up again!

BigRab

I suppose if I was caught at 130+, I'd get a speed limited fitted asap and
claim to plod that I'd had it for ages.

Why on earth would you fit a speed limited otherwise? And if you're going
to have one, whats wrong with 70mph?

Pete.

I would normally be the first to criticise speeding but there are some
interesting points from this prosecution. The car was an import from Japan
and the limiter was fitted in Japan as 'standard' fit for this car. The
second point is that the police camera must have been incorrect as the
alleged speed was greater than the maximum speed of the car and finally the
Scots have the rather useful "Not Proven" verdict. In other words - you are
a guilty b*****d, but we can't prove it.

Gavin

Gavin Collinson said:

Scots have the rather useful "Not Proven" verdict. In other words - you are
a guilty b*****d, but we can't prove it.

True, but despite an unending stream of people claiming that they have
been found innocent if they are found "not guilty", that verdict only
means the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, in either English
and Scottish jurisdictions. It is not for the court to find someone
innocent. The court quite often has considerable doubts about the
defendant's innocence, but not quite enough to go all the way to a
guilty verdict.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

JLB said:

True, but despite an unending stream of people claiming that they have
been found innocent if they are found "not guilty", that verdict only
means the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, in either English
and Scottish jurisdictions. It is not for the court to find someone
innocent. The court quite often has considerable doubts about the
defendant's innocence, but not quite enough to go all the way to a
guilty verdict.

<naive>Surely there is no need to prove innocence, since innocence is
assumed until proven otherwise?</naive>

Jon

Gavin Collinson said:

I would normally be the first to criticise speeding but there are some
interesting points from this prosecution. The car was an import from Japan
and the limiter was fitted in Japan as 'standard' fit for this car. The
second point is that the police camera must have been incorrect as the
alleged speed was greater than the maximum speed of the car

<snip>

This does assume that the limiter was a) calibrated correctly & b)
working at all!

WRT maximum speeds, the maximum speed of a F-reg Vauxhall Astra 1.3 is
105mph. I can verify that with appropriate conditions it is possible to
exceed 115mph.

Jon

JLB said:

Gavin Collinson said:

Scots have the rather useful "Not Proven" verdict. In other words -
you are a guilty b*****d, but we can't prove it.

True, but despite an unending stream of people claiming that they have
been found innocent if they are found "not guilty", that verdict only
means the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, in either
English and Scottish jurisdictions. It is not for the court to find
someone innocent. The court quite often has considerable doubts about
the defendant's innocence, but not quite enough to go all the way to a
guilty verdict.

just as the guilty verdict does not say the person did it, just that the
evidece says he did - and sometimes the evidence (even honest evidence) is
wrong.

pk

Gavin Collinson said:

"PeteC" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

BigRab said:

There I was, eating my dinner and watching Reporting Scotland about a
poor motorist caught doing 130odd mph and getting away with it cos he
said that his vehicle was limited to 107

I suppose if I was caught at 130+, I'd get a speed limited fitted asap and
claim to plod that I'd had it for ages.

Quoted message said:

I would normally be the first to criticise speeding but there are some
interesting points from this prosecution. The car was an import from Japan
and the limiter was fitted in Japan as 'standard' fit for this car.

I'm surprised that the driver got away with this.No-one knows if he fitted
an after-market chip to his car to restore full-power, and it was a few
days after when he took it to be tested.
If he had fitted an aftermarket chip/ecu, it would be a quick job to refit
the original, get it tested, and show that the top speed was 107mph.
IMO, he had it tested, to try to get the fine/ban/jail sentence reduced
for when it went to Court, as he was expecting a lengthy ban/jail time.

He then got extremely lucky when it came up before the beak, and the
judgement went his way, but with the warning that they knew he was
speeding, but the evidence wasnt total proof.
Because of the 'not proven' verdict, can the Police re-charge him if
further evidence is turned up?
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling in the North Midlands.

Jon Senior said:

Gavin Collinson said:

I would normally be the first to criticise speeding but there are some
interesting points from this prosecution. The car was an import from
Japan and the limiter was fitted in Japan as 'standard' fit for this
car. The second point is that the police camera must have been
incorrect as the alleged speed was greater than the maximum speed of
the car

<snip>

This does assume that the limiter was a) calibrated correctly & b)
working at all!

WRT maximum speeds, the maximum speed of a F-reg Vauxhall Astra 1.3 is
105mph. I can verify that with appropriate conditions it is possible to
exceed 115mph.

Most speedometers are 10% fast or worse. Don't ask me how I know, but
my first car (an F-reg Micra) could do an indicated 92. The
manufacturer's quoted top speed was 83.

The upshot is that to be caught speeding in a 30 zone (you'd have to be
clocked by the police at 35mph, i.e. add 10% and 2mph) your speedo would
have been showing around 38-39mph. 90% of people who say they just
"drifted" over the limit are lying [censored].

Who's PS?

--
Vivian
-------
"We learned more from a three minute record than we ever learned in school".
No Surrender

"BigRab" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

There I was, eating my dinner and watching Reporting Scotland about a
poor motorist caught doing 130odd mph and getting away with it cos he
said that his vehicle was limited to 107 (ok so he was probably on the
limiter then)when who should appear on screen....... PS!

Aaaaarg! Nearly chucked my dinner up again!

BigRab

BigRab ([email hidden]) wrote:
: There I was, eating my dinner and watching Reporting Scotland about a
: poor motorist caught doing 130odd mph and getting away with it cos he
: said that his vehicle was limited to 107 (ok so he was probably on the
: limiter then)

It's not the first time this has happened;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3605446.stm

Blair.

Quoted message said:

Because of the 'not proven' verdict, can the Police re-charge him if
further evidence is turned up?

Not to my knowledge. Annoying in individual cases, but I suppose a good
way of ensuring the police don't put together too mant half-arsed cases.

Jon Senior said:

JLB said:

True, but despite an unending stream of people claiming that they have
been found innocent if they are found "not guilty", that verdict only
means the case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, in either
English and Scottish jurisdictions. It is not for the court to find
someone innocent. The court quite often has considerable doubts about
the defendant's innocence, but not quite enough to go all the way to a
guilty verdict.

<naive>Surely there is no need to prove innocence, since innocence is
assumed until proven otherwise?</naive>

Yes, that's the general starting point. (There are circumstances where
the burden of proof reverses, though that's not what we're talking
about.) Since there is no need to prove innocence, of course the court
does not pronounce on that question. It decides guilt, which is different.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Quoted message said:

Who's PS?

He's a full time road safety campaigner, which I think basically means he's
scrounging off the state. His site wwwdotsafespeeddotorg tries to present
itself as reminding drivers that the speed limit is not necessarily a safe
limit, and one must often go slower; and that speed cameras are evil.

In reality, his agenda is to get speed cameras removed and speed limits
relaxed, so that he can drive around at the "safe speed" of whatever he
feels is "safe".

He is notorious here after unsuccessfully arguing that reducing speed
limits to 12mph wouldn't make any difference to KSIs.

He also thinks that automated enforcement of speed limits is bad in part
because drivers spend to much time concentrating on the speedometer.

(And there was me thinking the 10%+3mph and speedometers providing
exagerated readouts meant we don't need more than a quick glance every now
and then.)

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Because of the 'not proven' verdict, can the Police re-charge him if
further evidence is turned up?

Not to my knowledge. Annoying in individual cases, but I suppose a good
way of ensuring the police don't put together too mant half-arsed cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1204095.stm
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/files/cp156.pdf
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmhaff/190/19002.htm

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Vivian said:

Who's PS?

He is a man whose name is an anagram of "A [censored] Lump"

--
Jesus was apparently betrayed by 8.3% of his disciples.

Richard Bates said:

Vivian said:

Who's PS?

He is a man whose name is an anagram of "A [censored] Lump"

That's worth post of the Year :-)))

Superb.

John B

Vivian said:

Who's PS?

For those of a nervous disposition, avert your eyes now.
If not....

http://www.jbaird.org.uk/abd/paul.html

John B

JLB said:

Mark Thompson said:

Quoted message said:

Because of the 'not proven' verdict, can the Police re-charge him if
further evidence is turned up?

Not to my knowledge. Annoying in individual cases, but I suppose a good
way of ensuring the police don't put together too mant half-arsed cases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1204095.stm
snip other URLs.

These 3 URLs all involve English law.The 'Not Proven' verdict is only
available in Scottish Courts, thats why I asked if the trial can be run
again.
After a bit of Googling, a retrial is not permitted after a 'not proven'
verdict.
Alan.

--
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
http://www.dvatc.co.uk - Off-road cycling in the North Midlands.

in message <[email hidden]>, A.Lee

('alan@darkroom.+.com') said:

Because of the 'not proven' verdict, can the Police re-charge him if
further evidence is turned up?

No. Standard double jeopardy rules apply. He's off scot-free, as they
say.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; If God does not write LISP, God writes some code so similar to
;; LISP as to make no difference.