Crosswords0 min ago
mobile speed vans.....
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by andizuki1982. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.andizuki1982, if you keep that up it'll be andizukirip2006. I just hope you don't take any innocent person with you.
Why don't you speed on a track if you have to? The roads are for the general public going about their lawful business not for inconsiderate maniacs like you to put everyone in danger. Sooner or later you will get caught, or worse.
Many traffic police cars (marked and unmarked) are fitted with video cameras which are mounted in the windscreen. They record the speed, but are normally used to supplement the evidence of the officer and the calibrated speedo.
As Toureman says, the vans are not operated by the police and are unlikely to have calibrated speedos. However, it only matters in Scotland if the driver is alone because two witnesses are required there. In England one credible witness is enough, but there must be a second source of evidence, which can be a calibrated speedo, stopwatch etc.
It is not necessary, despite popular belief, to provide a court with photographic evidence to prove a speeding offence. Further, it is not actually necessary to show by how much you exceeded the speed limit. Both these things are done routinely to make prosecutions easier.
All that is necessary is for one person, not necessarily a police officer, to provide convincing evidence of their assessment of your speed. The court would obviously take into account the occupation of the witness, and hence the experience they might have had in Road Traffic matters. It would also assess the situation in which the observation was made.
In the circumstances you describe it would be easy for the crew of the van to estimate their speed and so have a good idea of yours. Furthermore, since your speed was so greatly in excess of the speed limit they would have a wide margin to play with. (If the court considered that their estimate might be +/- 10mph they would unlikely to convict you if they suggested you were doing 80mph. Accepting the same margin of error with their estimate of 120mph still means you were speeding). They would also be considered as �good� witnesses in such a case as their job involves watching vehicles and measuring their speed.
I made a New Year Resolution not to be drawn into debates or provide moral judgements via AB (though I�ve broken it once or twice). So I will resist the temptation to suggest that your driving was stupid, inconsiderate and dangerous. In any case you would probably pay no attention. To avoid having to worry about things like this, and to avoid killing yourself (or, more importantly, somebody else) it might be wiser if you slowed down a little.
Andizuki,
A friend of mine was once stopped when he was doing 130mph by a police bike. He hadnt been clocked but was still done for speeding. In the end he admitted driving at a maximum speed of 99mph.
I can understand the speeding, we have all been there and done that.
What does bug me a bit is the fact that car drivers are constantly being told to 'think bike' and keep an eye out for bikes approaching when we pull onto roads or change lanes. How would anyone have seen you coming at that speed?