Man arrested for going 147mph - in a Hyundai Sonata

[bmagni]

The new speed record clocked last month by photo enforcement cameras along Loop 101 in Scottsdale — at 147 mph — is 16 mph more than the one set by an unknown motorcyclist on Feb. 14.

Lawrence Pargo, 26, of Goodyear was arrested by Scottsdale police at his home May 26 on suspicion of four counts of excessive speeding, reckless driving and endangerment, Scottsdale police Lt. Frank O’Halloran said.

Pargo was clocked and photographed in a silver Hyundai Sonata traveling at speeds ranging from 102 mph to 147 mph on four occasions between 5:47 and 6:20 a.m. May 21.

“He endangered the lives of others as well as himself,” O’Halloran said. “The car was beyond its capabilities, and he was beyond his capabilities of controlling it. The tires aren’t rated for 147 mph. They’re stock tires on a rental car. The car probably was shaking.”

The controversial speed enforcement program includes six cameras along a 7.8-mile stretch of Loop 101 between Scottsdale Road and Shea Boulevard. A proposed bill in the state Legislature that could ban speed cameras from state highways still is being discussed.

Arresting the worst offenders has been a top priority for the city as part of an effort to send a message to motorists along Loop 101 in Scottsdale, where drivers frequently exceed 100 mph.

Police also have arrested Darren Sucato, 27, of Scottsdale — who had paid four previous speeding violations — on suspicion of excessive speeding, reckless driving and endangerment, O’Halloran said. Sucato was clocked and photographed at 107 mph in his 2005 silver Pontiac Grand Prix at 11:02 p.m. May 23, according to O’Halloran.

The Hyundai that Pargo was driving was either leased or rented. It is owned by P.V. Holding in Virginia Beach, Va., O’Halloran said.

Pargo couldn’t be reached for comment.

Gauging by the e-mails sent from O’Halloran to other officers, Pargo’s arrest was a top priority.

“Please put your best guys on this one and let’s get him this week,” O’Halloran said in an e-mail to officer James Butera on May 22.

If convicted on all counts, Pargo could receive 12 points on his driver’s license — it takes eight points to get a license suspended — and he’ll be placed on a high-risk list among rental car agencies, O’Halloran said.

Tickets start at $157, but each of Pargo’s speeding tickets could cost $200 or more.

“There is no doubt that it is the same car and driver in all four incidents,” Bruce Kalin, the contract administrator for Scottsdale police who is overseeing the program, said in an e-mail.

There were 30,169 speeders clocked at 76 mph or more on Loop 101 during the warning phase of the photo enforcement program between Jan. 22 and Feb. 21. The number of speeders dipped nearly 30 percent the next month, when citations began.

However, in the last two months, the number of speeders has increased to nearly what it was during the warning phase, according to information from the city.

[jakaracman]

Downhill ... He should be given a car by Hyundai ... Valuable PR for them...

[ZfrkS62]

Downhill ... He should be given a car by Hyundai ... Valuable PR for them...

Loop 101 is a flat freeway. THe biggest hills anywhere in the Valley are the speed bumps in parking lots.

Given it's a rental car, i'm sure that it only has a 4cyl engine. There's no way in hell it was doing 147.

That section of Loop 101 goes right by the Penske Auto Mall. The biggest complex of dealerships in Arizona. Among them are Aston Martin, Bently, Porsche, BMW, and Audi. about 4 miles away on McDowell is Ferrari/Maserati.

Any given day i could drive down 101 in this strip and get passed up by countless Porches and at least 1 Ferrari. Usually a 360.

PaulGT lives in Mesa which isn't far from that area. I am sure he can attest to the cluster of high ends in that area that neccesitate (use of this word depends on which side of the line you are on) constant watch for speeders. Scottsdale has used speed cameras on the surface streets for a number of years, so i'm really not surprised they have move them to the freeway.

[RC45]

^^ Agreed - its bullshit and his lawyer will get it thrown out. I rented a Sonata once - it was governed to 115mph.

[SilviaEvo]

147 mph in a Sonata thats bullshit

[DeMoN]

did he have nawwwzz?

[Mattk]

How can you fight a speeding ticket? The best one I've seen is to question the validity of the photo evidence because a security code is missing. I don't think saying "Well, the car was clocked a bit faster than it could physically travel", is really any sort of defence. The prosecutor would just get the cops to do a test on the camera to ascertain the accuracy.

[RC45]

How can you fight a speeding ticket? The best one I've seen is to question the validity of the photo evidence because a security code is missing. I don't think saying "Well, the car was clocked a bit faster than it could physically travel", is really any sort of defence. The prosecutor would just get the cops to do a test on the camera to ascertain the accuracy.

Simple - the camera shows his car, but the radar may have been tracking a low flying squirrel.

The facts are - a Sonata could not go 147mph, therefor the car in the picture could not be going 147mph - therefor the man driving can not be cited for driving 147mph - case dismissed.

[TT]

Well, they should arrest him anyway for driving a car with such silly name, no matter the speed :roll:

[Mattk]

It's still easier for the prosecutors to win. Besides, who the hell would go to court over a few hundred dollars worth of fines?

A class action would be ridiculous! What's the cause of action? Negligence, possibly? Hard to prove.

[RC45]

It's still easier for the prosecutors to win. Besides, who the hell would go to court over a few hundred dollars worth of fines?

A class action would be ridiculous! What's the cause of action? Negligence, possibly? Hard to prove.

WTF?

How is it "easier" for the prsecution to win on obviously false testimony?

If anything it is easier... nevermind...

[ZfrkS62]

"only an Impala driver would mistake the Sonata LX for a high-performance sedan


:roll: just a peek at the ignorance of the Arizona media :roll: It's the ricers that think this is a high powered car :roll:

[666fast]

[quote=Mattk]
Simple - the camera shows his car, but the radar may have been tracking a low flying squirrel.


Thats exactly what got the red light cameras here shut off! LOL

He'll walk from this, they say he was going faster than the car can actually go, any judge that wants to keep their job would tell the prosecuters to shove it.

[1zippo1]

Here a Smart FourTwo was caught doing 195kmh... :? :lol:

Obviously something was wrong with the speed camera... so the speed ticket was finally retired :wink:

lol, that's electronically limited to 130km/h

[Mattk]

Fact: Man caught driving at 147mph. This is way over the speed limit. Caught by camera, which is in good working order (after all, no-one else has complained yet).
Fact: The car isn't supposed to be able to go that fast.

However, according to the camera, it did. It is hard to prove that the camera wasn't tracking the car (the onus is on the defendant). As much as the Pargo bloke can argue that the car just can't go that fast, it is difficult to argue against actual facts. He was speeding. He was clocked at 147mph. My decision, if I were a judge, would be to fine the bugger. Keep in mind policy arguments: it would be in the driving community's interest not to have crazy people driving cars at dangerously high speeds.

Dani, of course he will walk. Who the heck gets jailed for speeding?

[ZfrkS62]

Fact: Man caught driving at 147mph. This is way over the speed limit. Caught by camera, which is in good working order (after all, no-one else has complained yet).
Fact: The car isn't supposed to be able to go that fast.

However, according to the camera, it did. It is hard to prove that the camera wasn't tracking the car (the onus is on the defendant). As much as the Pargo bloke can argue that the car just can't go that fast, it is difficult to argue against actual facts. He was speeding. He was clocked at 147mph. My decision, if I were a judge, would be to fine the bugger. Keep in mind policy arguments: it would be in the driving community's interest not to have crazy people driving cars at dangerously high speeds.

Dani, of course he will walk. Who the heck gets jailed for speeding?

No, burden of proof is on the prosecution. All the defense has to do is cast a shadow of a doubt and they win. Of course, being in Australia, you can't be expected to know that.

The car cannot physically do 147 mph. Case closed. You cannot beat physics, and physics say the drag on that car keeps it from breaking the 140 mark. Even Troy McLure could win this case :wink:

And in AZ, double the speed limit is criminal speeding, and you can be jailed for it :wink:

[RC45]

Fact: Man caught driving at 147mph. This is way over the speed limit. Caught by camera, which is in good working order (after all, no-one else has complained yet).
Fact: The car isn't supposed to be able to go that fast.

I thought you were captain of the debating team or sumfink?

How can a "camera catch" you? The camera simply takes a picture - that is all. It is NOT a speed measuring device. The camera is TRIGGERED by a speed measuring device --- which was obviously faulty, as is measured a speed that was not physically possible to be attained and then triggered the camera to take a picture..

See if the picture is used as "evidence" then the case is lost - as the evidence is obviously missleading and not applicable. If the "speed measurming device output" is used as evidence, it is obviously FALSE as the device "measured" a speed not possible.

:roll: :P

My decision, if I were a judge, would be to fine the bugger.

Which is why you are not a judge (even though you play one online ;))- your grasp of the legal system seems to be zero... ;)

[ZfrkS62]

[quote=Mattk]
Simple - the camera shows his car, but the radar may have been tracking a low flying squirrel.


Thats exactly what got the red light cameras here shut off! LOL

He'll walk from this, they say he was going faster than the car can actually go, any judge that wants to keep their job would tell the prosecuters to shove it.

i just rememberd what triggers these cameras is not radar, but two sensors spaced a certain distance apart. they then use the time x distance=speed method to trigger the camera. I think someone forgot to carry a 1 when calibrating :wink: The red light cameras around Phoenix are triggered the same way.

[666fast]

[quote=Mattk]
Simple - the camera shows his car, but the radar may have been tracking a low flying squirrel.


Thats exactly what got the red light cameras here shut off! LOL

He'll walk from this, they say he was going faster than the car can actually go, any judge that wants to keep their job would tell the prosecuters to shove it.

i just rememberd what triggers these cameras is not radar, but two sensors spaced a certain distance apart. they then use the time x distance=speed method to trigger the camera. I think someone forgot to carry a 1 when calibrating :wink: The red light cameras around Phoenix are triggered the same way.

I honestly don't know what triggered the ones we used to have. Or should I say, still have but can't use. It was ruled unconstitutional as the burden of proof is on the state and all they have proved is that your car went through a red light, but not who was actually driving.

EDIT- my editing of a quote in my original post has really messed up all quotes afterwards! heh cool

[RC45]

i just rememberd what triggers these cameras is not radar, but two sensors spaced a certain distance apart. they then use the time x distance=speed method to trigger the camera. I think someone forgot to carry a 1 when calibrating :wink: The red light cameras around Phoenix are triggered the same way.

A gatsometer?

Well - if they are buried in the road surface, 2 adjacent cars can trigger the sensors and give a false reading - if they are beam sensors 2 adjacent cars can trigger them again giving a false reading - pretty much why gatso based systems are most likely to fail the old smell test in court.

DO you know what the trigger sensors are?

[Mattk]

Thinking more about this, I recall an instance of some truck driver who was caught driving at a speed beyond what his truck was capable of. The judge could interpret that precedent narrowly and say "well, I'll just do what he did".

However, this fails to take into account other factors, like the fact that this bloke is a serial speedster, the fact that people speed on this road all the time etc. The whole thing would probably come back to public policy. Most judges have views on this. Should a mad speedster get away with speeding on a narrow interpretation of a precedent? Probably not. Why? Because it is not in the public's interest to have such people on the roads. The judge will probably manipulate precedents to get what he wants.

[RC45]

Thinking more about this, I recall an instance of some truck driver who was caught driving at a speed beyond what his truck was capable of. The judge could interpret that precedent narrowly and say "well, I'll just do what he did".

However, this fails to take into account other factors, like the fact that this bloke is a serial speedster, the fact that people speed on this road all the time etc. The whole thing would probably come back to public policy. Most judges have views on this. Should a mad speedster get away with speeding on a narrow interpretation of a precedent? Probably not. Why? Because it is not in the public's interest to have such people on the roads. The judge will probably manipulate precedents to get what he wants.

What proof will you use to "prove" the serial speeder charge?

You have failed to use any piece of the legal system as designed - you simply made shit up like a kangaroo court judge... you are trying to be the judge not the prosecutor - your job would be to adjudecate not prove guilt... wtf????

....oh wait... kangaroo court...

...nevermind :roll:

[sameerrao]

Great publicity for Hyundai wouldn't you say. I drove a 2005 Sonata from SF Bay Area to Grand Canyon, Vegas and back about 2000+miles in all.

I think I got it up to about 120 a couple times. The car is a bit too spongy and marshmellow-like in feel - I wasn't too comfortable above 100mph in it

[Mattk]

Judges are some of the most opinionated people you'll ever meet. Most are arrogant and like to flaunt their authority. They'll twist the law any way they can. Seriously, two different judges will be able to offer a different verdict on this case, and both will be 100% legal and 100% right.

[RC45]

Judges are some of the most opinionated people you'll ever meet. Most are arrogant and like to flaunt their authority. They'll twist the law any way they can. Seriously, two different judges will be able to offer a different verdict on this case, and both will be 100% legal and 100% right.

Judges adjudicate - they don't prove guilt or prosecute.

Its a good thing then that this chap could have a jury trial - as you seem to subscribe to the kangaroo court method.

[ZfrkS62]

i just rememberd what triggers these cameras is not radar, but two sensors spaced a certain distance apart. they then use the time x distance=speed method to trigger the camera. I think someone forgot to carry a 1 when calibrating :wink: The red light cameras around Phoenix are triggered the same way.

A gatsometer?

Well - if they are buried in the road surface, 2 adjacent cars can trigger the sensors and give a false reading - if they are beam sensors 2 adjacent cars can trigger them again giving a false reading - pretty much why gatso based systems are most likely to fail the old smell test in court.

DO you know what the trigger sensors are?

they are pressure sensors that are set beneath the asphalt, much like the sensors used to trigger the stop lights. That's as much as i know for sure. As far as i can tell, there is probably a dedicated circuit for each lane.

[TNT]

^^ its a magnet not pressure common mistake

[Mattk]

Its a good thing then that this chap could have a jury trial

Trial by jury for traffic offences? Back here, they're brought before a stipendiary magistrate and it's over quite quickly.

[RC45]

they are pressure sensors that are set beneath the asphalt, much like the sensors used to trigger the stop lights. That's as much as i know for sure. As far as i can tell, there is probably a dedicated circuit for each lane.

What happens if 2 people change lanes.. the second sensor could be triggered by a 2nd vehicle *shrug* - either way these triggered time difference gatso's are quite unreliable.

[ZfrkS62]

they are pressure sensors that are set beneath the asphalt, much like the sensors used to trigger the stop lights. That's as much as i know for sure. As far as i can tell, there is probably a dedicated circuit for each lane.

What happens if 2 people change lanes.. the second sensor could be triggered by a 2nd vehicle *shrug* - either way these triggered time difference gatso's are quite unreliable.

I've never like the idea of them except for red light runners. In that instance they work really well and are very rarely unreliable since it is a network of 2-3 cameras which capture the face of the driver, the license plates, direction of travel, and speed.

[RC45]

Its a good thing then that this chap could have a jury trial

Trial by jury for traffic offences? Back here, they're brought before a stipendiary magistrate and it's over quite quickly.

And pray tell why shouldn't you have a fair trial by a jury of your peers?

This is the difference between the US system of Justice - the greatest and fairest in the world and all the other ex-British colonial-source bastardized systems.

Roman Dutch etc - all presuppose your GUILT and require you to prove your innosence.. right?

Where as this system presumes innocence and requires guilt be proven to varing degrees of certainty depending on the court.

One of the reasons I made my to the USA from South Africa, was because of the nature of the judicial system.

Bill of rights etc etc.

The way I understand it, the Australian constitution does not guarentee any rights or common civil liberties - in other words it would seem you are property of the state - not the other way round ;) :P

[ZfrkS62]

And pray tell why shouldn't you have a fair trial by a jury of your peers?


Because some countries train their citizens to bend over and take it :wink:

[Mattk]

The way I understand it, the Australian constitution does not guarentee any rights or common civil liberties - in other words it would seem you are property of the state - not the other way round

We actually have some rights enshrined in the constitution, like freedom of religion. We have rights defined by common and statute law, and they are good enough. Better, even. They can be changed by a democratically elected government without much fuss, enabling reform when we need it.

The prosecution has to prove guilt. They must provide an answerable case. Thereafter, the defendant must disprove what evidence and arguments now lies on the table. The judge then decides. In certain cases, like murder, there is a jury, but not civil cases, and not traffic offences.

[davide]

In sweden you are forced to have a good picture of the driver and the license plate, if you can't identify the driver behind the wheel they can't charge you with the fine.

That's why you just put your sunscreen down when a camera comes along... ;)

[RC45]

The way I understand it, the Australian constitution does not guarentee any rights or common civil liberties - in other words it would seem you are property of the state - not the other way round

We actually have some rights enshrined in the constitution, like freedom of religion. We have rights defined by common and statute law, and they are good enough. Better, even. They can be changed by a democratically elected government without much fuss, enabling reform when we need it.
.

This needs to be taken to the Poli-SCi forum -

http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?p=661422#661422

- but Australia has NO bill of rights - you have no constitutionally protected rights - if you did, then you would have a mechanism built into your judicial system allowing a citizen to bring a case against the govenrment that their rights were violated - Australia has NO such mechanism - therefore that surely means that you have NO protected rights - afterall, if you don't have a mechanism to challenge violation of said rights, how can you claim to have those rights or that they are protected in the first place?

While the ratification of ICCPR in 1980 shows that Australia will endevour to respect and protect freedom of religions beliefs it is still not a protected civil liberty and right. Far from it.

Here is some reading material to bone up on Aussie Rules :P ;)

http://libertus.net/censor/fspeechlaw.html


Contrary to popular belief in some circles, Australians have no right to freedom of expression under the Australian Constitution. This section contains links to articles and briefing papers on "rights" the High Court has found to be implied in the Constitution and on international covenants signed by the Australian Government, but not necessarily adhered to, which may give rise to a legitimate expectation by Australians of a right to freedom of expression. (It should be noted that decisions of the government and/or the High Court affect the situation. This page is updated intermittently and does not necessarily contain the latest information.)


So - unless Aussie Rules have been substantially updated and changed since 2000, I think we know what your rights are... ;) - You have more right to freedom of expresson on these forums, than you do in your own country.. :P ;) hehe

[Mattk]

We can do everything that's not illegal. Which is a lot of things. This puts onus on the govt to prove that you have committed a wrong. Things like freedom of speech etc. are allowed if there is no legislation against it.

The Australian Capital Territory has a Bill of Rights.

You have to look at the context behind the Constitution. It was a facilitating document for federalism and outlines separation of powers and other such things. It wasn't to outline rights.

A Bill of Rights will become anachronistic. Like the American Bill of Rights. For example, the right to bear arms. That right was enacted so that people could defend their property from American Indians, and the British, and the Mexicans. But now, people just buy them to feel safe, even though if a robber comes into the house, it would be highly unlikely that they would be able to grab their guns and shoot up the robbers.

More to this case, not sure what the law is over there, but it is 50/50 for me. It could go either way. It depends on whether the judge is more Ralph Nader or Jeremy Clarkson.