Ending to a previous thread. 160 mph speeder

[DL84]

http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ng-caught-doing-record-speed-on-a47-1-7793765

 

[Kennybush]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-38883098

This is how the courts in Scotland deal with speeding, poor fellow, 5 year ban and a custodial sentence as well

 

[soofsayer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-38883098

This is how the courts in Scotland deal with speeding, poor fellow, 5 year ban and a custodial sentence as well

I think that's put me right off going to Scotland. Poor bloke, half a mile with the throttle open ffs in quiet, clear and dry conditions.

 

[MacRR]

You watch Police Interceptors and see people stealing cars / doing a runner from the Police and driving in away that has complete disregard for anyone over many miles and they get a ban for a couple of years and a few hundred quid fine or involved in some other criminal activity where many appear to get away with very light penalties and yet this guy has only possibly endangered himself and gets all that.... crazy. I notice in Lincs road deaths are up from 39 to 59 this year, clearly the obsession with driving road safety through speed cameras and not a lot else isn't working that well...

 

[Amadeus]

Drunk driving which I'd suggest is normally done in built up areas and thus puts more people's lives at risk is a 1 year ban.

He has to appeal that, surely. Do we learn that acknowledging what speed you were doing is the best thing to do? I've never known what the best thing to say if you're asked if you know what speed you were doing. A copper said that you should say that you should say that you were making good speed but didn't want to say if it would incriminate yourself.

 

[MacRR]

I've been stopped a few times over the years for speeding, I've always politely acknowledged if I had been exceeding the speed limit ie 'yes I was doing over 70' as there's no point denying it if you clearly were as that just antagonises the situation, but have never said what speed I was doing - that's up to the Police to demonstrate

 

[soofsayer]

I think he hasn't 'confessed' because he really didn't know, the guy is/was a racer.

I read it as the guy was very likely doing 149+ at the time, but he wasn't aware of the speed because he was testing the engine so was distracted with that, speed was not his interest.

 

[DL84]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-38883098

This is how the courts in Scotland deal with speeding, poor fellow, 5 year ban and a custodial sentence as well

smh

 

[P0u1]

On the note of speeding has anyone seen the new laws planed.
http://metro.co.uk/2017/01/24/speeding-laws-are-changing-and-theyre-getting-tougher-6401553/

So looks like the punishment for speeding is only going to get worse.

 

[FreudianSlip]

Pisses me off tbh .. 71 in a 70 gets you 3 points and a class A fine. Have these people actually tried to do *exactly* 70 mph for any kind of distance? I know there will be some leeway when humans are involved (unless the person behind the speed gun is having a period moment) but automated speeding incidents will get issued however nice a day the person is having.

The bikes we all ride are incredibly capable road machines (and for those skilled enough (/me bows in their direction), track monsters) that'll earn us a class C fine in 2nd gear if we tried hard. Trying to reign these things back according to the speedo takes a lot of attention, and personally, I'd prefer to keep my eyes on the road.

I know a few coppers personally and they all say they wont even raise an eyebrow unless you're doing over 80, and even then, only if you're driving/riding like a pillock - but having it written down and documented means that some enviro-friendly, polar bear hugging, tree worshipper can fine you if they do desire. This nanny state is really starting to wind me up ... wait until the revolution when I'm president of the world - then things will change I tells ya

</rant>

 

[andyf]

Pisses me off tbh .. 71 in a 70 gets you 3 points and a class A fine.

No it doesn't. It is unheard of to be prosecuted below the ACPO threshold (10% +2mph over the limit). For up to 10% +9mph over the limit, they will ask you to bribe them to drop it (Speed Awareness Course), and for up to 25mph over the limit (40mph limits and above - 19mph over a 30mph limit) you will be offered a fixed penalty (?100 and 3 points).

There are plenty of things to be pissed off about, but getting 3 points and a band A fine for doing 71 in a 70 limit isn't one of them.

 

[FreudianSlip]

Those are the old (current) regulations no? Still winds me up - if the speeding limit is x+10% + 2 then why isn't *that* the advertised limit? I have friends (honest...) that have been stopped and prosecuted (points and a fine) doing 33 in a 30 and another that had a roadside warning doing 41 in a 40! Knowing the individuals concerned I can imagine it was their mouth that actually got them the fines, but still they had to be stopped in the first place.

 

[andyf]

On PePiPoo we have had loads of people who swore blind that they got NIPs for speeds below the ACPO threshold - but when asked for proof they either noticed that they mis-remebered, or simply didn't respond.

The legal speed limit is the speed limit. However, for various reasons, there is a widespread policy of not prosecuting below 10% +2mph above the limit - this gives motorists who are genuinely trying to stay within the limit a bit of breathing space, and reduced the chances of cases being dismissed due to reasonable doubt. Speedometers can over-read by up to 10%, so if you were doing 70mph and a copper in a panda car without a calibrated speedo was doing a follow check, he might see that you were doing 77mph. Even the most accurate speed cameras have a quoted margin of error of at least 1mph - so if you were to be prosecuted for doing 1mph ovber the limit, the prosecution's own evidence would effectively say that you might not have been speeding.

 

[FreudianSlip]

From what I've just read it appears a ticket can be entirely discretionary, and on a motorway, the officers word is enough, no need for evidence:

<snip>
This means that most police forces will not prosecute until you’re driving at more than 46mph in a 40mph zone, for example, or 79mph in a 70mph zone. However, it should be noted that the guidance is exactly that, and that the decision over whether to give a driver a speeding ticket or not is entirely at the discretion of individual police forces and officers.

In other words, you can already be prosecuted for driving at speeds that are above the limit but below the suggested threshold.
</snip>

I'm learning as I type so your insight into this is valuable (to me at least).

 

[andyf]

In most if not all areas, the decision to prosecute, etc. is no longer taken by the copper that stopped you - he completed a Traffic Offence Report and the decision is made centrally (almost invariably based on the ACPO guidelines). His only discretion os whether or not to submit a TOR.

The guidelines (10% +2mph) are not a replacement limit above which action is taken, they represent the lowest speeds at which action is taken - in other words, you get done for 46 or more in a 40 limit, not just "more than 46".

The officer's word *is* evidence. However, other than on motorways, you cannot be convicted solely on the *opinion* evidence of a single witness - it needs to be corroborated (e.g. approved device or speedo reading during a follow check). Subject to certain rules, the witness can give evidence of that corroboration.

Strictly speaking, the prohibition on being convicted on the opinion of a single witness does not apply to motorway speeding offences, but the CPS don't seem to know this, and I've never heard of such a case ever going to court.

 

[Amadeus]

Sorry, not sure I understand.

You said that an officer's word is evidence but then opinion of a single witness on a motorway does not count. So does that mean that if I was pulled on a motorway by a single copper in a car, if there was not video footage, I could not (would not?) be prosecuted unless I accepted 3 points on the spot?

thanks

 

[andyf]

Sorry, not sure I understand.

Try reading it again.

You said <...> opinion of a single witness on a motorway does not count.

No I didn't.

So does that mean that if I was pulled on a motorway by a single copper in a car, if there was not video footage, I could not (would not?) be prosecuted unless I accepted 3 points on the spot?

I don't know what you're smoking, but can I have some?

 

[FreudianSlip]

I think, the fact that it's documented that doing 71 in a 70 *can* (or *will* - as written down in law) earn you a fine & points is the problem for me. Whether or not allowances are made, or cases have or have never been seen is by-the-by, the simple fact is that someone, somewhere could enforce that should they so desire.

I get the whole calibration thing, wheel sizes, speedo's (not the budgie smugglers), moving shadows for time & distance calc .. all that stuff, but all that aside, if some guy or guy-ess decided that you doing 71mph was enough to earn you points (either the copper or higher up the chain), then it could be done. I'm not saying that it ever has, but it *could* be done.

My daughter is hoping to join the police force (as a traffic cop!) so I've go no axe to grind about they boys and girls in blue, after all, they're only there to enforce the laws that someone else has dreamt up.

 

[Amadeus]

Try reading it again.



No I didn't.



I don't know what you're smoking, but can I have some?

Sir, your reply added no value.

 

[MikePotteRR]

Essentially if there is one police officer in a car then they would require video evidence to support their claim. It is only when on the motorway that one officers word is enough to prosecute.