Strange advice in the Telegraph Options

[Mono]

The Honest John advice column in this weekends Telegraph had some strange advice.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/advice/hon...-duped-insurer/
It is pay walled, but you can bypass the paywall if you set your browser user agent to googlebot. Any way I'll quote it.
A reader asks about being caught by a speed camera. Rather than offer actual advice they post a third party theory about how laser speed guns are illegal.

Robbie the Pict (your local radio DJ) has made an argument that there is no basis in law for using laser speed traps. He believes pulsed laser-beams are not legal. Only timing between transverse solid beams in a double-gate arrangement has actually been authorised in law. No radar or laser guns pointing at the front of an oncoming or the rear of a departing vehicle are legally authorised, and that has been the case since the 1996 arrival of LTI 20-20 laser guns. These earned £1.5 billion in fines, never mind the fall-out (court costs, insurance hikes, losing your job, etc). Under the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, subordinate legislation S.I.1993/1698 authorises, at Section 2(b): “A device designed or adapted for recording a measurement of the speed of motor vehicles activated by means of a light beam or beams for the purpose of criminal prosecution of those deemed to have exceeded any prevailing speed limit.” However, a single beam of light cannot measure speed without any frame of reference.

Then another query from someone who is looking to buy a pre-reg car from a dealer, but the dealer wants to delay transfer of the V5C. An admittedly dodgy practice. But the reply includes the advice...

You will not officially own it until registered keepership is transferred to you and you start paying VED.

This is advice from a national newspaper!

[Advertisement]

[The Rookie]

About par for Dis.... John.

[typefish]

However, a single beam of light cannot measure speed without any frame of reference

Like uh, blueshift or redshift?

[The Rookie]

Well yes light suffers from Doppler shift just like sound and radar.

Love how it jumps from beam or beams to ‘single beam’

His defence was roundly dismantled in 2009.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/local-ne...guments-2611786

[andy_foster]

Part of his argument had legs - the Type Approval for laser speed meters has no basis in law as the prescribing Order relied on does not describe their use (a truth the courts far far too inconvenient to follow). However, s. 20 RTOA 1988 only explicitly precludes* evidence from unapproved prescribed devices - it does not apply to devices which are not prescribed for the purposes of s. 20 - e.g. speedometers and stopwatches. The defence relies on a vague principle that evidence from complex devices (as opposed to simple tools such as speedometers and stop watches) is not admissible unless made so by statute - a principle which to the best of my knowledge was not elaborated upon (or argued in any meaningful manner)

* Another inconvenient truth.

[cp8759]

Part of his argument had legs - the Type Approval for laser speed meters has no basis in law as the prescribing Order relied on does not describe their use (a truth the courts far far too inconvenient to follow). However, s. 20 RTOA 1988 only explicitly precludes* evidence from unapproved prescribed devices

It doesn't really preclude it though, as you could still introduce evidence by means of a witness statement, and as the advice seems to relate specifically to speed guns which would have a human operator, s20 would not be in play as there would always be a witness statement from the operator of the device.

[TryOut]

Part of his argument had legs - the Type Approval for laser speed meters has no basis in law as the prescribing Order relied on does not describe their use (a truth the courts far far too inconvenient to follow). However, s. 20 RTOA 1988 only explicitly precludes* evidence from unapproved prescribed devices

It doesn't really preclude it though, as you could still introduce evidence by means of a witness statement, and as the advice seems to relate specifically to speed guns which would have a human operator, s20 would not be in play as there would always be a witness statement from the operator of the device.

If a section 20 certificate is used to adduce the record from the device then there is no need for a witness statement. Some Type Approved devices have "human operators" but no statement from them is required if a section 20 certificate is used.

Robbie the Pict's argument never had legs. He attempted to convince the high court that Perliament had erred in its legislation allowing the prescription and type approval of devices. He didn't consider that if parliament had erred then parliament could simply undo what they had done almost 20 years before he challenged it. As parliament and its politicians were more than happy not to right the claimed wrong for many years then the courts saw thsi as the legislation being exactly what parliament intended and had made no effort to change.

The single beam/twin beam argument was absolute nonsense and still is.

Laser speedmeters don't use Doppler.

Not sure why thsi subject has made the news again, Pict and his friends were soundly stuffed many years ago...nothing has changed.

[sean5302]

The Telegraph's profits were 98% down last year. It only made about £1m and has got rid of almost all of the experienced staff, leaving the teenage numpties to write their "stories".
You'll see the accomplished names in The Times, The Sun (yes, really) and the daily Fail.
The DT is currently up for sale by the Barclay brothers and is expected to be subsumed into the Daily Fail.