If you are not in direct line with the detecting device your recorded speed will be lower than the actual speed of your vehicle.
Not true anymore...You are of course referring to the "cosine effect", but modern cameras can now take this into account and so the angle of approach is not an argument depending on the camera's age.
The fact that a camera is under-reading due to cosine effect does not help you much if your recorded speed is in excess of the limit. "I wasn't going 80mph, it was actually 85mph, dismiss the case Your Honour" is, or should be, a poor defence. Except of course in a Court of Law, where barristers and judges conspire to fuck justice into a cocked hat whilst "playing lawyer".
Mate of mine who was police had a case thrown out because the device he was using had not been calibrated according to Home Office guidelines using 5 data points between 30 and 80 IIRC. The driver was doing 115.
Whether it’s over or under is largely irrelevant. If you are able to prove a device is inaccurate, there is a good chance of the outcome going in your favour. The proving part is becoming more difficult these days.
Whether it’s over or under is the most relevant thing. If it’s inaccurate, but never overestimates, then you can’t have a case against it logically.
Must be that time of year again. The missus got a NIP through the post earlier in the week. The funny thing is, whilst she was definitely driving on the piece of road in question on that morning, there is now way the time they have on the NIP is correct. She was flashed 50 miles away at 9:50am and yet only left our house at 9.20am. I know the time she left for a fact as the presence sensor on her keyring logged the time she left. I really doubt she managed to cover 50 miles in 30 minutes in the family people carrier.
That camera may still be set on British Summer Time? In any event I'd think she has a strong case for the charge to be dropped.
You might think so but an expensive lawyer might disagree. If something is in error then it is not correct and if it is not correct then it is unreliable evidence ? See post 46.
I agree that incorrect evidence is unreliable regardless whether it makes the offence greater or lesser. But in my case you've highlighted the Catch 22, the expensive lawyer. I'd prefer to pay £95 into the Chief Constable's fund rather than many times that to the said lawyer for the pleasure of winning a point of law. In any event, I know I was exceeding the speed limit so I'll let it rest.
This is an alarming development, fortunately I can truthfully say no. Does anyone know whether speed awareness course attendance is recorded anywhere and is accessible by insurance companies ?
