it was a van on a bridge, cleverly placed just after a nice long sweeping bend on a downhill section, whilst driving a modern car on a sunny day with perfect visibility and an empty carriageway. cunts
You need tommy the brick (renowned forum mathematician) to prepare your defence but, basically, they were not measuring your speed acurately as your apparant speed (which they would have been measuring) would have been greater than you true speed - it's all about triangles, ie the distance from your car to the camera would have been greater than the distance to the point on the road directly below the camera.
Armed with a suitable arguement like that you can push the police to into a corner where they have to admit the reading on the camera was inaccurate. An admission of inaccuracy would be sufficient to get the case slung out of court - Cliveo???
You need tommy the brick (renowned forum mathematician) to prepare your defence but, basically, they were not measuring your speed acurately as your apparant speed (which they would have been measuring) would have been greater than you true speed - it's all about triangles, ie the distance from your car to the camera would have been greater than the distance to the point on the road directly below the camera.
Armed with a suitable arguement like that you can push the police to into a corner where they have to admit the reading on the camera was inaccurate. An admission of inaccuracy would be sufficient to get the case slung out of court - Cliveo???
This could however be total BS....