[viraptor]

> say every individual police officer who is a witness to a speeding offence, to be a technical expert on the technological tools they are given to do their job.

That's what I was going for. If the officer doesn't understand the limitations of their tool, they shouldn't testify in court beyond "I pointed it that way and read the number, as trained".

There are existing cases where the speed reading is contested because the handheld speed cameras can move slightly and bounce first off the side mirror then off the reg plate giving you "extra speed".

My point was that if you say "that person was speeding" you should be responsible for that statement afterwards, but you can say "I used the provided tool and got reading X", at least the doubt is there.

[Silhouette]

FWIW, I'm reasonably sure that's exactly what does normally happen in that particular case. Police officers sometimes speak in a slightly stilted way in court here in the UK, partly because they use words carefully chosen to be statements of fact as they know them and not to draw conclusions that are a matter for the court to decide.