'173mph driver' spared jail term - Yahoo! News UK

How?! was my first thought, then you read on....

Mark

173 in a Lotus Elise?? I don't think so. not even with modifications.

But 105 in a 50 limit???

How did they know he was doing 105 if they first said 173 :confused:

So what would of happened if he pleaded not guilty?

Wow I want that Elise, shame they can't go that fast

How did they know he was doing 105 if they first said 173 :confused:

Probably because if he accepted he was doing 105, he was probably doing a hell of a lot more

I guess he admitted to 105 mph as he knew he was going faster than that, but as the police claim of 173 was above the car the top speed of the car. If the cars top speed when new was 127mph it raises the question of how acurate was the speed detection device? Also has the car been on a rolling road to test the bhp or performance to check it's top speed?

105 in a 50 should be a ban for life and a custodial sentence. That's rank stupidity.

i would have admitted to 95 if he was going to admit anything then it been 6 points and a big fine, not quote anything over the ton band.

Interesting that the police still insist that their speed detection device is accurate, when it is very obviously very suspect in this case .

Wow I want that Elise, shame they can't go that fast

Maybe they never found the nitrous button

How did they know he was doing 105 if they first said 173 :confused:

exactly, its a pretty random figure.

I suppose as to verifying the top speed, provided the gearing hasn't been changed (easy to prove at 30), then it's almost certain it would run out of revs before 173.

There was a similar case a while back. Some guy in a Suzuki swift or old astra can't remember cought at over 100 and he had his car tested to prove that it wouldn't even do 90. Think the police's devices must loose accuracy at higher speeds.

Still i'm suprise they were that leaniant when its obvious he was and admitted he was going over a tonne.

Phil

Why didn't he just deny all charges :confused:

Why didn't he just deny all charges :confused:

Maybe because he knew he was bang to rights.

No self-respecting (are there any ? ) defence lawyer would advise anyone to plead guilty to something like that if they thought there was a good chance of being acquitted.

Notwithstanding that he knew he wasn't going at 173, he clearly knew he was doing a darn site more than 105. His brief presumably felt that a guilty plea on that basis was the better option than being found guilty of a much higher speed. Without credit for a guilty plea he'd have been undoubtedly looking at a custodial sentence.

Who says there's no such thing as 'plea bargaining' in English law ?

Surely he should have just kept is gob shut once he had proved beyond doubt he could not have committed the offence he was charged with (173mph) Sounds like it was the prosecution doing the plea bargaining.............

Surely he should have just kept is gob shut once he had proved beyond doubt he could not have committed the offence he was charged with (173mph) Sounds like it was the prosecution doing the plea bargaining.............

That's exactly my point - he wouldn't have been advised to plead if his legal team thought he could get off - that's why he was probably more than happy that the prosecution came down to 105

The whole thing sounds like cr*p to me. I suspect there are a number of things not being mentioned. Why would you plead guilty to an impossible speed, or after that to 105 when the old bill would have no proof whatsoever that you were doing over 30?

Something smells very fishy about this one.

The guy sold the Elise abroad after being caught.

The prosecution had to accept the manufacturer's claimed top speed as they could not prove it had been modified. So the benefit of the doubt went his way.

A suspicious person might think the car was highly modified!

The Police Pilot speed system is also rubbish though - too much room for human error. I once got stopped for supposedly doing 80+ in a 40 with this system. It was impossible to get over 50-55mph on the short section of road concerned in my car before you hit a NSL.

This makes interesting reading:

Police Ban Unreliable Car Speed Detectors (from The Herald )

It's difficult to get an Elise up to 105 really, if he clearly wasn't doing 173mph then I'm not sure why he didn't just tell them to feck off.

Seems very odd.

and isnt 5k and a 2 year ban a bit extreme for a speeding rap?

blah blah, breaking the law and all... but is it not a bit harsh?

and isnt 5k and a 2 year ban a bit extreme for a speeding rap?

blah blah, breaking the law and all... but is it not a bit harsh?

It was actually dangerous driving that he pleaded guilty to, not just a 'speeding rap' - hence the severity of the penalty

105 in a 50 should be a ban for life and a custodial sentence. That's rank stupidity.

don't be so silly, there is absolutely no way on earth you can such a thing without knowing the road or conditions at the time, there is a 3+ mile section of bypass in oxford that used to be NSL and i have in the past in good conditions had my speedo read above 70mphand it was perfectly safe yet a couple years ago they changed the limit down to 50mph after some stupid bint crashed her car and killed the 7 kids she had as passengers( in a hatch back) and at the same time they added some huge solid concrete barriers as a central reservations along the entire length. would 80/90/100mph be extremely dangerous and stupid along this bit of road bearing in mind that there is a section 1-2 miles long that has no bends, junctions, dips or anything on it and has very good visibility.