Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

DaveGPz wrote: Sorry, just stirring

It's more to do with the quote below than the copper being wrong.

Naked Twin wrote:I would not be so confident about getting off in the same circumstances. Lidar does not require 3 seconds to take a reading, despite of what that expert says. The recommendation is to track a vehicle for 3 seconds, not that it has to be locked on for 3 seconds.

More about having friends or family in the right places

aardvark, would I be wrong in saying that a police officer in their training would be taught about judging speed, that is surely the officer in this case would have known the difference between 80km/h and 150km/h.

I am thinking that maybe the police officer was actually not in the wrong but rather the defendant was able to prove enough doubt either that or the barrister was having drinks on Friday night with said judge.

Naked Twin wrote:aardvark, would I be wrong in saying that a police officer in their training would be taught about judging speed, that is surely the officer in this case would have known the difference between 80km/h and 150km/h

They aren't taught it over here, but the more time you spend doing speed detection, the more accurate your estimations become.

Anyone here could stand out on the street and guess the speed of cars going past to within 10km/b.c. It takes years of experience to be able to estimate that speed to within 2 or 3km/h.

As you could imagine, the visual difference between 80 and 150 would be quite apparent.

Without reading the judges remarks, I'm only speculating, but I doubt they proved the lidar was inaccurate. If they did, it would provide a precedent for future cases. I suspect his Daddy got him off on a technicality which pushed the balance of probability in his favor.

Sounds like one of the factors that threw the case in the favour of the accused was the fact that the officer had some difficulty judging distance.