Bristol 'speeder' proves his car was too slow

Trusted article source icon
Monday, January 19, 2009
Profile image for This is Bristol

This is Bristol

A Bristol motorist "caught" on a speed camera driving at 98 mph has escaped a ban - after he proved his car had a top speed of just 85mph.

Dale Lyle, 21, of Staple Hill, spent £1,200 proving his innocence after his L-reg 1.3 litre Honda Civic was clocked by a mobile speed camera.

He contested the accusation in court and magistrates challenged him to "prove it".

So Mr Lyle, who had sold the 14-year-old car, bought it back for £600 and paid an independent driving expert £600 to take it on a two-mile test circuit at top speed.

The results showed that even when driven flat-out the Honda could only do 85.4mph in fourth gear and 81.3mph in fifth.

Mr Lyle, a financial worker, who has a clean licence, was cleared of speeding after he presented his evidence in court.

He now intends to return to court to ask magistrates to award him £1,200 compensation to cover his costs.

He said: "The whole thing has been a complete shambles and waste of money. It's shocking how hard it has been for me to prove my innocence.

"I was in total disbelief when I opened the letter because I've never driven my car over the speed limit, let alone at 98mph.

"It's such a small car I wouldn't feel safe - it's a glorified Japanese shopping trolley.

"I told the magistrates 'I'm not being funny but this car is ancient and has 130,000 miles on the clock - there's no way it will do that speed'.

"I was very nervous and my heart was going 90 to dozen but they just turned around to me and said 'prove it'. So I did.''

Mr Lyle was accused of speeding at 98mph on a 70mph three-lane carriageway of the A38 near Plymouth, on December 13, 2007.

He immediately pleaded not guilty and was ordered to appear in court in June last year.

But Mr Lyle had already sold the red Civic to a friend and had to take out a bank overdraft to buy it back for £600.

He then shelled out a further £600 to have it speed tested at a circuit in Bedfordshire.

Mr Lyle also obtained the mobile speed camera footage of his alleged offence from the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), which showed another car in the same frame when the camera claimed his car was doing 98mph.

He added: "When the three-minute film starts the mobile speed camera is panning into the sky, then it focuses on the middle lane but it doesn't take any readings.

"Then you see the operator point the camera at me as I pull out into the third lane, but cars on the inside lanes obstruct the view.

"When the 98mph reading flashes up there is another car in the picture - I think the camera must have confused the distance with the other car.

"It makes you wonder how many people say 'fine, give me the points' when they are not guilty."

Mr Lyle had been told he faced a maximum £1,000 fine and six-month ban.

A CPS spokesman said: "We came to the conclusion that there was no longer sufficient evidence to provide a prospect of a conviction.

"Recompense is a matter between the defendant and the court."

21
Tweet this article
Report

21 Comments

  • Profile image for This is Bristol

    by Richard, Us Yanks Across the Pond

    Thursday, February 12 2009, 6:48PM

    “If the officer was using radar, he got the reading of another vehicle or a ghost image. If it was LIDAR (laser radar), this sounds like what is called a panning or slip error, when the laser gun incorrectly reads the distance from the laser beam hitting the car. Basically, in the latter scenario it adds the length of both vehicles, which the way the laser gun's math works out it appears the car is going much faster than it is. That's a common problem with either radar or laser, and a trained operator should have known better. It is also why here in the States federal law requires a 2-3 second MINIMUM tracking history.”

  • Profile image for This is Bristol

    by alex, southmead

    Tuesday, January 20 2009, 9:36AM

    “Well done to you my son. good luck getting your money back”

  • Profile image for This is Bristol

    by JC, Bristol

    Monday, January 19 2009, 6:44PM

    “As an after though, why were they pointing the camera up to the sky and then panning in and zooming on his car with another car in the frame....

    I can almost BET that the speed camera operators KNOW for a FACT that this is a CRAFTY WAY to catch people and that they do it all the time....!!!!!!”

  • Profile image for This is Bristol

    by JC, Bristol

    Monday, January 19 2009, 6:42PM

    “I had this theory for years:....

    By moving the camera from a farther away vehicle to a closer vehicle, the sensor would assume a higher speed... I think this probably proves it...

    However, it wouldn't really be possible the other way round so as for the comments about guilty drivers going free, It's almost an impossibility....

    Jolly good work to young lad that proved his case and I HOPE he gets his money back. After-all, he has proved his innocents and therefor should be entitled to loss of earnings and other items.”

  • Profile image for This is Bristol

    by Monsieur Rioux, Canada

    Monday, January 19 2009, 6:25PM

    “Interesting comments about inaccuracies - wonder how many GUILTY speeders have escaped.”

        Add your comments

        max 4000 characters
         
         
         
         
         
         

        Tell us about your area

        Got some interesting news? Write about it and let your whole community know.

          Write an article