Tests on the police equipment proved it was working correctly.
Police caught up with the car when it was stopped in traffic. Driver admitted speeding but disputed the 173mph and told the officers he had been doing between 105 and 120mph.
So 105-120 in a 50mph limit. But never mind, we'll ignore that.
Edited by PoloGirl on 21/03/2009 at 12:30
|
If there's a laugh to be had it must be in the first name of the bloke done for speeding: Tex. In Derby?
Edited by PoloGirl on 21/03/2009 at 12:31
|
|
|
mlc,
Even though the world, his wife, and everyone else is against you, are you not the least bit curious how a car can be booked at 50mph more than its top speed?
Why not let the job speak for itself? If the guy's done 120mph, book him for that, not 119mph, or 121mph, or 290mph, but 120mph.
Do the job right and there's no comeback.
And don't think I'm sticking up for the speeder. Doing 120mph in a 50mph limit would be a trip to the big house, if it was up to me.
|
I know you may wish to blur the story with 'the world is against you' malarky, but I'm afraid you're wrong on that account.
The guy's just bought a Ferrari as a replacement. You don't think it's conceivable that he may have improved the performance of his car. I'll guarantee that the Officers involved in this are hopping mad at yet another CPS Lawyer taking the easy option by accepting the 105mph.
I'm more alarmed that the focus of this story is on the Officers, rather than the numpty driving at (admitted) speeds of 120mph in a 50mph limit.
|
mlc,
No wish to blur the story, so please excuse my sarcasm.
I just think alarm bells should have rung at the roadside when this car was clocked at 173mph.
I suppose we are all interested in cars on here, and maybe I'm wrongly assuming that anyone should know 173mph takes some doing in anything.
Fully with you on the CPS, by the way.
I've watched some of their advocates prosecute (non-motoring) trials.
The defending barrister runs rings around them - they are just not up to the job.
|
|
|
The guy's just bought a Ferrari as a replacement. You don't think it's conceivable that he may have improved the performance of his car. I'll guarantee that the Officers involved in this are hopping mad at yet another CPS Lawyer taking the easy option by accepting the 105mph. I'm more alarmed that the focus of this story is on the Officers rather than the numpty driving at (admitted) speeds of 120mph in a 50mph limit.
>
wooo hold on. Wheres the evidence the car was modified? whos job to get that? the police. Who bothered to check the top speed of a standard lotus? sounds more to me like a carp job done of collecting evidence and presenting the poor cps lawyer with a barrel load of egg on his face.
|
|
|
That's a big, big increase in top speed if it was. 47 mph faster. Even if the Lotus was a slippery shape you are talking a lot of power needed, and unless the engine now does a heap of extra revs, a raised final drive is also needed. Anyone driving it would know, and I'd suspect it would be audible too.
I'm not defending the speeder in the slightest here, but the likely answer is the equipment was used wrongly or mis-quoted. CPS lawyer has taken the option that led to a conviction. Don't know the full facts, but I'd say there was a chance of no conviction at all if he'd stuck to the higher speed.
Just seen midlfecrisis's point. Could have been hugely worked on and we'll never know
Edited by SlidingPillar on 20/03/2009 at 20:22
|
|
|
|
And don't think I'm sticking up for the speeder. Doing 120mph in a 50mph limit would be a trip to the big house if it was up to me.
Now steady on there; you're in danger of sounding like one of those ridiculous ignorant anti speed zealots who beleaves all speed limits are right.
It would depend on the 50 mph limit in my opinion. About 10/12 years back I remember doing 120mph along an arrow straight stretch of country road (in Derbyshire as well as it happens) that has no opening's on to it, early on a sunday morning in perfect weather conditions and no other traffic about (you could see for miles). At the time the limit was 60mph, it is now 50 mph and I can't see any good reason why this stretch of road should have had it's limit reduced. Ok i'm not saying we should all make a habit of doing 120, but some of these limits (brought in since Labour got to power!) are just a nonsense and an aid to raising revenue.
|
|
|
|
Tests on the police equipment proved it was working correctly
How can you tell?
It's a pity the guy wasn't a police officer as he'd have been able to say he was "just testing".
|
The Police didn't get the chance to examine the car because he exported it to Germany sharpish after the event...now why would he export a 'standard' Lotus!! Couldn't possibly be to hide something could it??
Even the judge criticised the CPS decision to accept the 105mph. So just perhaps, two Professional Police Officers presented a solid case and were let down by the CPS who would be happy to have the 'successful prosecution' tick to add to their stats that a guilty plea would give.
Edited by midlifecrisis on 20/03/2009 at 20:14
|
so who didnt impound the car as evidence then?
|
Because they probably didn't want another 100 post thread on HJ about Police illegally impound speeders car!
(Are you actually going to condemn the driver at any point)
Edited by midlifecrisis on 20/03/2009 at 20:27
|
(Are you actually going to condemn the driver at any point)
I think it goes without saying that what the driver did was wrong, there's nothing to debate there.
|
|
|
(Are you actually going to condemn the driver at any point)
Of course. Clearly he was guilty of major speeding - 120 in a 50 should be jailble anyway - and he sounds like an arrogant ass.
On the other hand, didnt the officers at the time even think slightly that 170 plus would take some believing and they had better rmake sure they all the evidence to nail the clown? Didnt one of them think "how the hell can that car do 170 plus?"
Didnt they think that 170 plus would take some proving in court?
|
|
|
|
>>So 105-120 in a 50mph limit. But never mind, we'll ignore that
No, its not being ignored. He admitted it and was punished accordingly. Whats up for debate here is how did the officers got a reading of 173mph.
MLC - you seem very quick to go on the defense and seem to assume that everyone on here is just out to have a pop at the police - that is not the case. Can you not explore the possibility that the device was not used correctly?
173mph would be quite impressive even if the car was modified, anyone know the top speed of a modded car?
|
On the contrary..you seem to miss the point that everyone is assuming the Police were wrong. I'm just pointing out that the CPS buckled and the circumstances suggest that the Police may actually be right.
What I find more concerning is that the focus is on the Police, rather than the idiot behind the wheel (who appears not to give a monkeys if the BBC news report is anything to go by)
Police sometimes get it wrong, but they don't get it wrong ALL the time.
|
if the BBC news report is anything to go by
Off topic, so apologies, but a BBC report is always a product of a very specific cultural agenda which it is obliged to promote as part of its Charter. A participant rather than observer, it regularly portrays the police as "the aggressors" and motorists as misguided fools. Consequently, with no side to fall on, this is one BBC report that might be free from bias, though the facts which haven't been included are always worth seeking out and comparing with those given.
|
|
|
On the contrary..you seem to miss the point that everyone is assuming the Police were wrong. I'm just pointing out that the CPS buckled and the circumstances suggest that the Police may actually be right.
The CPS buckled becuase they had no way of proving that the car could go that fast. They didn't buckle, more like cocked it up.
What I find more concerning is that the focus is on the Police rather than the idiot behind the wheel (who appears not to give a monkeys if the BBC news report is anything to go by)
I think we are all in agreement that the driver was an idiot. That's why there is no discussion on the driver being an idiot. What is much more interesting is how the car was clocked at 173mph when its top speed is only 127mph.
Police sometimes get it wrong but they don't get it wrong ALL the time.
We all make mistakes, and for all we know the car may well have been modded in some way that meant it could do 173mph.
|
|
|
Were they using Tetra in the police car? If so then it could be that as it seems vascar is susceptible to interference so if this pilot thingy is older then it is perfectly reasonable to consider that possibility.
If he did hit 173mph on the A515 there is no way his balls would fit in an elise.... or his head!
|
|
|
|
|
|
mlc, for the record my late (and very Great in my mind) g'father was a very senior policeman in the Met in the 1960s, about which I'm very proud. He was one of my heroes and was notable for his strongly anti-Masonic Lodge stance which spared him a top job. Anyway he told me to always remain sceptical considering the very immediate and real-world power that POs can exert. You know, I know - he certainly knew - that "police officers are fallible human beings". Just so you know I'm not anti-police in any way.
There's no doubt this guy is as guilty as sin (give him a dose of porridge I say), and, on reflection, I think I'll bow to your superior knowledge but writing off a forum member's opinion before they've spoken is a bit, y'know ... like the Daily Mail that everyone's so fond of mentioning (very tiresomly) at times like these.
|
|
|
|
|
Tests on the police equipment proved it was working correctly.
>>Mr O'Reilly's car, which was unmodified, was not able to reach 173mph after Lotus confirmed the car had a top limit of only 127mph
So... what your saying is its normal for the police equipment to over-read by about 35%?
Of course the fact he was speeding by twice the limit he deserves more than he got... but..a reading of 173???
Edited by the swiss tony on 20/03/2009 at 20:49
|
|
I feel that mlc has a point... if the car was "unmodified" then why export if so quickly... to me it sounds like a modified car and to experts an increase of speed to 170mph would not be all that difficult on that type of car... new engine would probably do it quite easily... and if he can afford a Ferrari then he has the money...
Edited by b308 on 20/03/2009 at 21:13
|
|
|
I wonder how many people on this site have actually travelled at even 120mph. True, not indicated speed. I have travelled at 146 (indicated) in a modified (Turbo Technics) 1984 Sierra 2.8 V6 twin wing thingy and to be perfectly honest the road kept appearing as a point like looking through a funnel and was not sustainable concentration wise, made all the worse when the rear decided to shift left at this speed. Mr. Brown! then took over. We went home and thanked our lucky stars. A lot of carp talked about speed.
VBR.......MD
|
I wonder how many people on this site have actually travelled at even 120mph. True not indicated speed. I have travelled at 146 (indicated) and to be perfectly honest the road kept appearing as a point like looking through a funnel and was not sustainable
Yes I have, but I did not have the same reaction to it as you, but its not something I would do in this country as I don't feel the roads are safe enough, but I do know that the sort of speeds we are talking of some people are daft enough to do them on our roads, madness though it is. Everyone will react differently at speed, you were obviously struggling, but its worth pointing out that there are plenty of people around who could drive that quick without any issues and I certainly didn't have any at 120... maybe at 170 it would be a different matter! ;)
You're right, there's a lot of carp talked about speed...
|
Everyone will react differently at speed you were obviously struggling but its worthpointing out that there are plenty of people around who could drive that quick without any issues and I certainly didn't have any at 120... maybe at 170 it would be a different matter! ;) You're right there's a lot of carp talked about speed...
I was the co-pilot with a proficient driver, but that heel kick soon had us back to reality. Of course we were much younger then and today, in a car with modern suspension etc etc the whole thing may be different, but one other thing that people 'may' overlook when attempting such tricks in modified (engine) cars is that those cars may try and take off when pushed. And as you so rightly point out....not in this country. Our roads are so appalling.
Best reg's.......MD
|
|
I make no secret I used to do it quite regularly on a bike - before speed became politically incorrect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
