Presumably you could measure the speed at a distance then image the number plate as the car gets closer.

Anything involving fines needs to be absolutely 100% infallible. Taking a speed reading then the plate leaves a lot of loopholes.

I don't think any speed operation would work unless the car has been sighted, number plate read and speed detected simultaneously.

I was prosecuted and fined for speeding in the UK on the basis of two Police officers' testimony that they observed their own speedometer while following me. A UK Police officer can assert that he saw a thing recorded on a calibrated device and it will stick in court.

I would imagine that a Police officer could testify that he measured the speed using the calibrated device and continued to observe the same vehicle until it was possible to read the number plate.

In many countries the word of a police officer carries more weight by virtue of the authority they represent. It's considered that they are qualified to be entrusted with a lot of responsibility, so they are also inherently more trustworthy. This sounds reasonable especially given how many incidents are witnessed with no hard evidence - like jay walking, littering, disturbing public peace, etc. and probably also a lot of more serious offenses. You could be caught trying to steal a car in a dark street and all that stands between you and freedom is the police officer's word.

In this day and age with the possibility of just using body cams to cover this it should no longer matter. But the real qualm I have with this logic is that it's never turned on its head: if a trusted officer of the law breaks that trust they should be punished far more harshly. This almost never happens.

Their testimony is given more weight not because of virtue of authority but by the familiarity and working relationships they enjoy in judicial system.

Same reason they get lesser punishment, a familiar colleague or someone from the organization you work daily with, or any persona you identify with better ( same school, ethnic/ racial background etc) will likely be treated more favourably .

Lawyers enjoy an even better familiarity but not the same level of trust. Police officers are trusted to run after criminals and catch them so implicitly with the authority to do this also comes that trust. They need it to do their job. Otherwise they would face the same reaction when doing their job as you would as a normal person trying to act like a police officer.

As for the punishment, there is no reasonable analogy here. They only get the privileges enshrined in law and are treated equally everywhere else (e.g. punishment), it's not a matter of favoritism. I'm not aware of cases where a country imposes substantially harsher punishment for police officers convicted of a crime, especially when during the line of duty.

Lawyers can be in adversarial roles to the judge, i.e. it easier to antagonize a judge as a lawyer than a police officer.

Lawyers do enjoy preferential treatment than you and me in the system for couple reasons, one they the rules and are likely to use/exploit them, also various agents of system tend to be careful about procedure around a lawyer, one of the reasons you should hire a lawyer asap if ever arrested.

>Their testimony is given more weight not because of virtue of authority but by the familiarity and working relationships they enjoy in judicial system.

In the civilized parts of the world this is part of the law - not some "hey I know a judge therefor I am above the law" BS. If you are in a country that is as corrupt as you say it is at least mention which it is.

This happened to my friend in the US. He presented evidence for why it was impossible for the officer to actually measure his speed from where the officer was and where they said he was at the time of measurement (around a corner I believe). The judge simply asked the officer if the device was calibrated, to which he replied 'yes', and my friend was deemed guilty.

At least say which evidence so this doesn't turn into a reddit thread.

Sounds like civil suit time. At least file a complaint against the officer (with IA) and the judge (judicial conduct board).

> Anything involving fines needs to be absolutely 100% infallible.

No it doesn't: not even criminal trials, with the possibility of the death sentence, are done to that standard.

It can be done to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or even "balance of probabilities" / "preponderance of the evidence" which the civil trials tends to be. Given that it's 'only' fines involved, then the latter is often used for traffic violations:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)

This can get tricky in places where there are many plate designs. Some US states such as Georgia, reuse the same number on multiple plates. They're distinguished by the plate design. Those can be difficult enough for a human reviewers to distinguish, can't imagine software will have an easier time of it. Then throw in plates from other states, things get even messier. And though license plate frames aren't suppose to block any relevant information on a license plate, they often do.

it looks like its manually operated, so I don't see why that would be any different than a normal cop speed gun and pulling the driver over.

Unless you're driving on a salt flat, I doubt the curvature of the earth is a bigger concern than the contours of the terrain or turns in the road.

Isn't there meant to be a curve of around 8 inches per mile?