Laser speed camera - distance could be wrong

iolanthe07

AdrianC wrote: »

If you can't manage an hour and a bit journey without a toilet stop, you really should be seeing your doctor.

I can barely manage an hour without a toilet stop. My doctor says it is not unusual for men of my age.

MEM62

Yesmilady wrote: »

Would it then matter that a layman explained the relationship between the measurements, photographs, distances and incident?

Yes, precisely because he is a layman. He is not qualified to measure and present this kind of data.

Jackmydad

I'm always amused by the arguments for higher speed limits, and how 70mph seems "slow"
And how there are "faster drivers".

I can assure anyone reading that when things go wrong, and your comfortable mobile sitting room, that can easily do umpteen mph over the limit, suddenly isn't under control any longer, for whatever reason, 40mph seems extremely fast. let alone 70.

And these "faster drivers" have passed exactly what driving assessment to make them "faster"?

I'm quite happy to have the speed set as it is. I don't trust other drivers, or the state of repair of their vehicles.

There's really no argument for breaking the speed limit by the amount in this case. We all know what the limit is.
Take the risk of going that fast, get caught, take the punishment for it.

Scrapit

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

How much time is actually being "wasted" though?

A 100 mile journey at an average speed of 90mph will take 67 minutes.
The same journey at an average speed of 80mph will take 75 minutes.
The same journey at an average speed of 70mph will take 86 minutes.

On this perfect, no-traffic journey you save somewhere between 9 to 19 minutes. You'd lose that with one toilet stop. Is it really worth worrying about the speed limits when the risk rises but the rewards are so paltry?

9-19 minutes in the toilet would be of concern

k3lvc

Good luck OP - North Yorkshire aren't exactly being soft on speeders or those who try to challenge the system at the moment

https://northyorkshire.police.uk/news/woman-laser-jammer-given-suspended-sentence-for-perverting-course-of-justice/

98 in a 70 is well beyond the boundaries for being justifiable and arguing as a layman could well land you (or them) with a hefty bill

System

They're not being soft on speeders due to the number of bikers on the county's roads taking the mick and often having an accident as their belief in their ability outweighs their actual skill level.

I go up that stretch of the A1 almost daily in a truck with a tacho calibrated to 2% accuracy so if you can post a photo of the actual point the car was picked up by the laser I could measure the distance to the bridge. If someone could be so good as to go along with a tape measure, measure the height of the bridge above the road and add the height of the laser detecting device from the road surface then a quick bit of maths will give us the hypotenuse of the resulting triangle which will be the distance from the speed gun to the vehicle and which will be greater than the distance on the road from the point of detection to the bridge.

Aylesbury_Duck

Scrapit wrote: »

9-19 minutes in the toilet would be of concern

It would be, but you'd easily lose that time slowing to exit the motorway, parking at the services, walking in, doing your business, waiting for the crappy hand-dryers to actually dry your hands then walking back to the car, driving out and getting back up to speed.

Mind you, if you were that desperate, you'd probably be doing 98mph into the services, emergency stop and a sprint.

AdrianC

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

Mind you, if you were that desperate, you'd probably be doing 98mph into the services, emergency stop and a sprint.

If it's good enough for Alex Ferguson...

MEM62

Tarambor wrote: »

They're not being soft on speeders due to the number of bikers on the county's roads taking the mick and often having an accident as their belief in their ability outweighs their actual skill level.

An interesting tactic considering that speed is a factor in only 8% of motorcycle accidents.

[Deleted User]

Unfortunately these LTI 20.20 things are basically random number generators, they are unreliable and often produce incorrect readings. There are so may things that can go wrong - operator error, improper calibration, vibration (especially on a motorway bridge) etc.

The problem is proving it. The courts generally are not interested unless you have really strong evidence that something isn't right. The police and courts have spent years finding ways to make it impossible to challenge mistakes.

Your best bet is to find an expensive solicitor who specialises in this kind of thing.