Speedo accuracy - spin-off from QLD tolerances

[JC]

Originally Posted by JC

If you were in a pre 2006 car, and you got pulled over for doing 117 in a 110 zone, but you say you were doing 110, then the police may test your car. If you have the correct size tryres etc fitted, then they may let you off with an official warning, but don't expect to be let off a second time (depends on the copper, though).

Further to this, if you are booked in a new car (post 2006), then that's on you. With the prevalence of GPS these days, it's not that hard to know what speedo inaccuracy your car has - mine is at least 5km/h, so I just make allowance for that and sit slightly above the posted limit (as indicated) so I am doing around about the correct speed in actual terms.

What annoys me is people that have no idea their speedo is inaccurate, so they sit 5 or 10 under the indicated speed, which in reality means they are in a different speed zone altogether! Which means they may be doing as little as 60 in an 80 zone, which is perfectly legal, thopugh extremely annoying to every other user on the roads and can and does lead to accidents as described by MAD (assuming good conditions, otherwise good traffic flow etc).

[XB GS 351 Coupe]

Originally Posted by MAD

What if someone robbed a bank and in the course fired a few shots in to the teller's chest, but it was unknown to the robber that the teller was wearing a bullet proof vest? Does intent come in to play when sentencing even though the teller survived? <- I would really like to know the answer to this. I wouldn't know where to begin researching the laws around this.

You seem to be slightly confused, between traffic law and criminal law.

Traffic fines have what is called 'strict liability' attached, which means you do not have to intend to break the law to be found guilty of the offence, so you do not have to 'intend' to speed, run a red light or drive an unregistered car. But if you do you are guilty of the offence. A perfect example, might be missing a change of speed sign, were the speed limit changed but you missed it, thinking you are still fine doing 100km/hr, but you are in an 80km/hr zone, even though your mind is guilt free and you think you are doing the right thing, you are still guilty of the offence by the fact that you are speeding. Another example would be not realising your car is unregistered when it ran out yesterday etc etc

In your example of the bank teller, the robber might have intended to kill the person but they did not, so they can not be charged with 'murder', but 'intend to murder'. Should the robber be successful in killing the teller, but they only intended to fire warning shots (or may be shoot up in the air and the bullet bounced off a steel beam in the roof killing a customer), they might only be charged with manslaughter, or may be 'recklessly causing death' or similar, as there was no intend to kill anyone at the time of pulling the trigger.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by XB GS 351 Coupe

You seem to be slightly confused, between traffic law and criminal law.

Traffic fines have what is called 'strict liability' attached, which means you do not have to intend to break the law to be found guilty of the offence, so you do not have to 'intend' to speed, run a red light or drive an unregistered car. But if you do you are guilty of the offence. A perfect example, might be missing a change of speed sign, were the speed limit changed but you missed it, thinking you are still fine doing 100km/hr, but you are in an 80km/hr zone, even though your mind is guilt free and you think you are doing the right thing, you are still guilty of the offence by the fact that you are speeding. Another example would be not realising your car is unregistered when it ran out yesterday etc etc

In your example of the bank teller, the robber might have intended to kill the person but they did not, so they can not be charged with 'murder', but 'intend to murder'. Should the robber be successful in killing the teller, but they only intended to fire warning shots (or may be shoot up in the air and the bullet bounced off a steel beam in the roof killing a customer), they might only be charged with manslaughter, or may be 'recklessly causing death' or similar, as there was no intend to kill anyone at the time of pulling the trigger.

Thanks for the response. That is some good information.

I didn't know that detail regarding traffic offenses. I've always understood that ignorance is not an excuse (ie. Missing a change of speed zone) but it seems to me like it should be different when a measuring device needs to be used to assist our judgement.
Now, if cars were not fitted with a device and it was up to the user to supply the method, it would make more sense.

It certainly explains why it is OK to intend to speed without actually speeding, as in my examples.

[irish2]

Currently in Greece. I was travelling 50km/h over the limit. Overtaken by everyone. No stuffs given.

Also some people claiming that police speed measuring devices take off a certain amount for inaccuracy are kidding themselves. Search 'Lidar Slippage effect' and you will see that recording stationary objects as moving is not hard at all. This is then effected on vehicles if the lidar beam is 'slipped' from the roof to the grill or from the rear to the front. The amount of variation this can produce in the reading is alarming.