Thread: How avoid a speed fine.....

Well, that Magistrate has **** for brains...

Some kid is going to read that and think, Hmmmm. My R1 will outrun an SS/XR8. Then he'll give it a go, crash, and get dead and.....he's dead.

At least in NSW a prima facie case is extablished when you can show a vehicle has exceeded the speed limit - the penalty only increases with the speed in excess of the limit.

What a load of DUNG!

Matt.

I agree with you Matt.
I just wonder which kind of legal implications can have this precedent for future cases.

Yeah. I guess we'd have to find out why (on what grounds) the Magistrate dismissed the charge and therefore accepted the application for costs ($18k) to be awarded.

I reckon that if the charges are flawed, then the matter should be dismissed but from what I read, the bloke made admissions to flogging the crap out of the Lambo (he's only human) and such matters are pretty hard to deny having happened....

It seems it was in a Local Court so it doesn't set any legal precedent...it's just a dopey decision.

Ah well.

Matt.

I read a little bit more on this the other day. It seems that the officers involved saw the lambo go past and then chased it. They based their estimation of it's speed on the speed they had to do to catch it. The driver of the Lambo admitted to doing 130 or so but the police insisted he was going faster and then delayed doing anything until a news crew showed up when they then impounded the car and arrested the driver.
Sounds a bit sus to me, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two stories but it created some uproar as the impounded car was one that the driver was road testing for a customer. Created an interesting situation where the car was impounded under hoon legislation even though the owner of the car had nothing to do with the offence commited.

Regards,
Tote

our polies here in the west are the smartest in the country when it comes to makeing laws

Originally Posted by Tote

I read a little bit more on this the other day. It seems that the officers involved saw the lambo go past and then chased it. They based their estimation of it's speed on the speed they had to do to catch it. The driver of the Lambo admitted to doing 130 or so but the police insisted he was going faster and then delayed doing anything until a news crew showed up when they then impounded the car and arrested the driver.
Sounds a bit sus to me, the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two stories but it created some uproar as the impounded car was one that the driver was road testing for a customer. Created an interesting situation where the car was impounded under hoon legislation even though the owner of the car had nothing to do with the offence commited.

Regards,
Tote

From other reports, the police car's GPS recorder did not support the allegation that they were doing 160 where they said they were. They had no way of measuring the speed of the Lanborgini other than their speedo. Given that the recorder disagreed with the account of the police in this respect, the magistrate probably had little choice but to doubt their statement that they were doing the same speed as the other car rather than trying to catch up with it.

This case does show the flaws in the legislation, although it was probably written that way to block the loophole of having the car owned, for example by a doting parent. It does, however, point out the problems of applying penalties without a trial in all cases.

John

As said there was no evidence at all apart form a police officer word that the Lambo was doing 160 plus. The guy admitted to 130 (but of course he would not admit to 160 without a radar reading). The police should never have prosecuted this case without evidence, just shows the abuse the anti hoon laws are open to with our police.
The police vehicle GPS did not back up their claims even though it is quite likely he was doing this speed. They would have been better off just charging with dangerous driving.
I thought the Lambos had data loggers in their ECU that could have proved or disproved the speed and time????
Not condoning speed but there does have to be evidence, not estimation.
Was pretty much just a matter of time before someone actually had the money to fight one of these and rightly so the guy was awarded costs. As far as the owner seeking compensation, well I disagree with that and he should be questioning his mechanic about the way they test the cars. Should be done on dyno or test track if speed is required. I think the magistrates findings were correct without any hard evidence, but his comments about being a Top Gear nut were a bit misplaced and irrelevant.

Slightly off topic, but my wife got pulled over last night, in the rain for doing 80 in a 100 zone..The road she was on has minimal street lighting and the cop said he could fine her $80 for not doing the correct speed limit..

Night time, raining, and not well lit road, and he tells he to go faster..

Road Toll..What road toll..


Cheers Ean