Ouch!

[bednobs]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-32733002
can they really make hom pay, and what on earth could the test have been?

[ludwig]

It seems strange. Surely the accuracy of these cameras is regularly challenged - it would be a standard ploy for anyone with a reading just over the legal limit. I can't believe the prosecution need hire an airfield each time to prove the thing was working correctly.

[SlackAlice]

He wasn't just over the limit. He knew his fine was going to be large for being over the magic 100mph, so tried to get the police to accept a lower figure.

[mushroom25]

he's lucky that Richard Brunstrom retired in 2009 - so far as he was concerned, speeding was worse than any capital crime you could mention or imagine, and ending up with a huge fine would have been the least of his problems.

[Bazile]

//He denied breaking the 70mph speed limit and said that a number of people from Cheshire had second homes in Abersoch, which he called a millionaire's paradise.//

''a number of people from Cheshire had second homes in Abersoch, which he called a millionaire's ''
What's that got to do with the price of fish ?

[Baldric]

The answer is in the Link you supplied, hiring Airfields and Audi A8's doesn't come cheap!

///The defence questioned the accuracy of the in-car police speed camera so the prosecution hired an expert who rented an airfield and an Audi R8 to carry out tests, the results of which were presented to the court.
Pickup was fined £675, given six points on his licence and ordered to pay the full prosecution costs - which included the testing - of £10,384.///

[hc4361]

Yes, they can make him pay. I assume the reference to second homes is in relation to his assets

[mikey4444]

He is a smart Alec, who drove far too fast, and lied in Court.

As far as I am concerned, he should pay up and shut up. There is enough idiots like him on the roads as it is. Anyone driving at over 100 MPH on the A55 should be banned. Any way, if he really is a "Millionaire" £11,000 is hardly going to bother him.

[mushroom25]

i really can't understand why some drivers are so precious about their clean licences. if you drive fast, you run the risk of being caught and have no complaints if you do. why is it that some risk punitive fines, or even jail, just to avoid a conviction which, whilst serious, isn't in the crown court league?

[hc4361]

He's a director of a financial management company. He can borrow the money if he needs to :)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3081793/Prosecutor-hired-airfield-sports-car-prove-businessman-driving-Audi-R8-101mph-challenged-speeding-fine-foot-11-000-bill.html

[mikey4444]

Mush...its the Jeremy Clarkson defence...it goes like this ::

1......I am very rich and very (self) important.

2.......Therefore I can afford a car that is capable of doing twice the legal speed limit.

3......Because of 1 and 2 above, I should be allowed to drive as fast as I like.

4......Anyway, all these speed cameras are only there to make money. They have nothing to do with making our roads safer.

5.......The speed limit should be much higher anyway, so its not my fault I got caught. If the ruddy Police/cameras hadn't been there, I wouldn't have got caught !

Most of the above have been used by some here on AB, when we have debated speed cameras in the past. They are entirely disingenuous arguments and don't fool anybody, least of all the local Bench.

By the way, at 101 mph, this driver should have been banned. Fines are unimportant to rich people....taking away the keys to their Big Boys Toys is much more effective !

[Baldric]

Said the Fiesta Driver ^^^ !

[mushroom25]

//....taking away the keys to their Big Boys Toys is much more effective ! //

i would refer you to clarkson defence #1. "I don't need a licence".

[mikey4444]

Mush...I forgot that one !

Although it would seem that the make of the car is also important in deciding whether it's a good idea to exceed the speed limit by 42%...posh cars OK.....small family hatchbacks...its a no-no apparently !

[mushroom25]

it looks as if the driver questioned the accuracy of the speed recording device; as such, it wouldn't have been possible for the police to verify the speed gun accuracy for speeds over 70mph on a public road, so had to hire a location where speeds of 100mph or more were possible. then they needed a car capable of the speeds they needed to verify. and it needed to be a car "similar" to the car stopped, in case the different shape of a different car caused variations in the recording ability. the police had to cover off any technical possibility of doubt, which would have seen the driver get off.

it soon adds up to a tidy sum.

[mikey4444]

Mush....I bet he wished he had just said " Its a fair cop guvnor" or something of the sort. Being a clever dick hasn't helped him very much.

Still think he should have been banned !

[chrissa1]

Ha ha. Silly man. Media URL: http://youtu.be/enqNl7tdLR4
Description:

[chrissa1]

chrissa1
Ha ha. Silly man.

http://youtu.be/enqNl7tdLR4

[ludwig]

Ok, so the guy's a tw4t. Fair enough, but no-one's answered my original question - do the police/council really need to hire an airfield to validate the calibration of their speed cameras, and if they do, why doesn't everybody who questions whether they're working correctly get charged £11k if it turns out they are?