Comments by "Mentat" (@_Mentat) on "The offence with almost no defence @ASPRoadSafety" video.

  1. The speeds recorded were -76 mph, -88 mph and -106 mph. So no offence committed. 😀
    2
  2. You should have held back from the overtake until you weren't in the cross hairs of a camera.
    2
  3. Tell the court you identify as a slow driver and to say otherwise is racist.
    2
  4. If I had no tax or insurance, I wouldn't do 53 in a 30. 😁
    1
  5. 31 in a 30 zone would be better defended by raising the issue of the margin of error in the device. No measuring device is 100% accurate.
    1
  6.  @eddier9455  This isn't strange. They trust their judgment about the maximum safe speed and use that rather the opinion of someone who isn't there, hasn't factored in the prevailing conditions and only had the choice of 3 or 4 options anyway.
    1
  7. Ban with mandatory re-test is already a thing.
    1
  8.  @JimGDMAC  The laser has to bounce back into the gun for there to be a speed measurement. If it does then it found a flat surface. If not, the vehicle is effectively a stealth vehicle whose speed cannot be measured. Mounting your number plates with a slight downward angle would be 'interesting'. However, note unmanned cameras use radar not lasers.
    1
  9.  @rickconstant6106  The evidential challenge with motorbikes is that its approaching speed is measured, but there is no number plate on the front so the number can only be read as the bike recedes - which is fine - but the Crown has to proof that the number was taken from the same bike that the laser bounced off.
    1
  10. A hospital dash works in court; it's even a valid defence for drink driving.
    1
  11. A "public place" is any place used by the public, so yes. A "public place" may be privately owned if the owner opens the land to the public. A well-known aristocrat was convicted of drunk driving on his own land because he had a car boot sale going on there at the time.
    1
  12. Yes, but it's a hard defence to use. In theory the Crown must prove your vehicle was not cloned if you say it was, due to the presumption of innocence. In practice, you will need to show the court some evidence, eg material differences between your car and the car in the photo.
    1
  13. Incorrect or obscured signage is a defence that works. You will need to show that ALL signs were somehow unreadable, but I think if you turned up with a lot of photos the Crown wouldn't have the material to defeat you. I've often though in the spring signs get overgrown and it takes the authorities a while to trim bushes etc so you could miss a sign then.
    1