# Was i caught??! - UPDATE



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

I was driving down the dual carriageway past Maranello's garage in Egham, Surrey on Sunday morning and going past the garage see a sporty looking Lotus creep in behind me in the right hand lane, he sits on my arse and always like going fast down there so put my foot down.

I was given a warning by the old man a few weeks ago that they have lines on the road - not white but black that you can only make out if you know they are there, otherwise you might think it's previous roadworks.

Anyway, i get about half way down the road and i see a white van parked up on the grass, i am doing about 80 at this point with the Lotus still on my arse and suddenly my Geodesy goes spastic and starts bleeping and flashing like there's no tommorrow.

I look to the left and the white van i partially saw a few seconds ago has got it's back doors open and a speed camera logo stuck on it.

I slammed my foot on the brake and went into 3rd gear and remember looking at the speedo trying to get down to 50 (the limit) and think i must have been somewhere between 55 and 60 when i was level with the white van but never saw any flashes.

After passing the van i wondered what had happened to the Lotus and looked in the left hand mirror to see it quite a way back!

It's a silly question, but do these mobile cameras flash at you or do they get you in another way as i don't whether that little "race" cost me 3 points.


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Laser - no flashes :-/


----------



## andy761 (Jul 27, 2003)

Id be tempted to say you were caught :-/. But only the 14 days will tell! sorry


----------



## cw955 (Apr 8, 2003)

You could be lucky and it was only checking tax disks/number plates using a digital camera. Once chatted to a police officer at silverstone and he told me they were correlating number plates with tax disks via a link to DVLC - they hadn't caught many tax dodgers but they had caught a man wanted for deviant behaviour!!
If your garage door opener was switched on it usually beeps or flashes to tell you there's another garage door opener about, did it? Otherwise you just gotta sweat the 2 weeks.


----------



## t7 (Nov 2, 2002)

afaik they can get you from some distance with hand held laser... and 30 or more above the limit is almost certainly a ban (but it could be as short as a week/fortnight for a first offence) 

so here's hoping it was ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) :-/


----------



## maersk (Feb 1, 2004)

:-/
The 'traffic vans' use a mobile GATSO type of camera.
It can be radar operated or plugs into a piece of road furniture previously set in the surface - in effect an induction loop - similar to those found at traffic light junctions. You will have seen the thin black diagonal checkerboard pattern on sealing bitumen in the road surface. It clocks all vehicles and superimposes a recorded speed on the image which is digital. It does not rely on flash photography for its results.
Basically youdrive past at above their threshold speed and you are nicked. 

This threshold speed can be as low as 52 in a 50 limit - zero tolerance.

The upside is that as you were not stopped at the scene and cautioned, you must recieve a 'Notice of Impending Prosecution' by post to your DVLA registered address.
No NIP in 14 days FOLLOWING the alleged offence then ;D you are in the clear.


----------



## GRANNY (Jun 18, 2002)

For sure they have got you.  

Your car will be confiscated, crushed, and turned into ashtrays.

You on the other hand will be publically flogged.

Anything short of the above is a bonus. :


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Christ, you know this for sure, Carol


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Ask to see the picture if you'll get a NIP!!


----------



## GRANNY (Jun 18, 2002)

> Christ, you know this for sure, Carol Â


Sure as concrete boots aint the thing to wear if your paddling, And what to come home ;D ;D


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

L8_0RGY :- You naughty boy *slaps your botty*


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Well one got my Mother the other week, she's just turned 70, drive a Punto and has never been caught speeding in her 45 yrs of driving. Now she has 3 points Â£60 fine and all for going over the limit by 5 MPH, what is the world coming to Â :-/ I know exactly where it was and was about 30yrs after a 30 zone into 60.
Must admit i couldn't stop laughing when she told me as u just couldnt imagine it.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

Awwww bless. Just out of interest what was her reaction? Your a horrible son for laughing


----------



## ANT (Oct 2, 2002)

L8_ORGY
Hope you werent caught but what Geodesy are you using ? Â My Geodesy does fixed positions only. ???............. do they also have the ability to do Laser and Radar?
What does everyone use and which is the best?
ANT


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

chances are fella, that you've been done :-/

time taken to get a reading for a hand held unit is circa 3 100ths of a second IIRC.

Not even a DSG can get to 3rd that quick....

Sweat it, hope that your plate confuses them, with crossed fingers that your garage opened......

BUT - not looking to pass judgement (he who casts and all that) - 80 in a 50. 
Not sure what the boundries are for bog std Â£60 3pts vs 'this is your court date' - but if you get a NIP and offer of coughing up, I'd bite their hand off...

(I may be well off on this, long time since I've looked into it - anyone with more up to date info?)


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Thanks all for your replies.

maersk - you've got it spot on about the induction loop on the road - my father spotted this weeks ago on the other side and whilst scooby's try and race me on that side i always make sure i'm doing 50 or below when i go over that. I hadn't however noticed they had done the same thing on the other side of the road.

Abi - Â 

Ant - i'm afraid i don't know whether it's Geodesy Plus or the standard. I've just looked on their website and of course they both look identical so sorry i can't help you on that one.

Don't i - i can't remember what gear i was in, i think it was 5th but my hand moved to the gearknob as fast as it has ever done and it went it to 3rd - it went in but i don't know what revs i was doing in it.

Here's hoping i don't get anything for my naughty behaviour


----------



## EKZ225 (May 16, 2003)

Ant,its the Geodesy plus you get a radar detector that fit behind the grill .
Phill


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

does it also go mental at traffic lights (some), outside petrol stations, supermarkets...... :-/

cos if it does - it's got radar detection


----------



## ANT (Oct 2, 2002)

Thanks L8_0RGY, and once again hope you don't get a ticket.....sounds like you'll be ok.
Phil does that pick up lasers aswell as radar or are they the same thing? I've only got the one in the car so I will look for the radar bit and see if you can get it as an add on.
ANT


----------



## s3_lurker (May 6, 2002)

> Well one got my Mother the other week, she's just turned 70, drive a Punto and has never been caught speeding in her 45 yrs of driving. Now she has 3 points Â£60 fine and all for going over the limit by 5 MPH, what is the world coming to Â :-/ I know exactly where it was and was about 30yrs after a 30 zone into 60.
> Must admit i couldn't stop laughing when she told me as u just couldnt imagine it.


Email that to the news editor of your local rag ... I reckon they'd love to do a story about it!


----------



## EKZ225 (May 16, 2003)

ANT, not sure if it does lazer, they are different, the radar uses the 3rd light from the left and when you go past a gatso it seems to go off on some and not others the radar that is so maybe it know if there live or not ! but I dont rely on it . The other difference is the approach to gatso you only get a single light at a time come on so to make that clear first red goes on , second red goes on first red goes off and so on right up to ten , without radar they all stay on .
Hope this helps,
phill


----------



## taura (Nov 19, 2003)

From your description you should end up with a fixed penalty notice as they'd be measuring your speed via the induction loops and you'd already scrubbed off most of the speed by then. You might even get away with it, if you allow for the usual +10% inaccuracy on your speedo i.e. 55 = 50 mph

To be honest your lucky, if they'd been using the laser they'd probably have got you at 80mph.

Haven't they got anything better to do, like catching the little sh*t breaking into your house!!!


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Haven't they got anything better to do, like catching the little sh*t breaking into your house!!!  Â


So a little sh*t breaking into your house is any more worthy of catching than someone breaking one of the other laws of the land, namely exceeding the posted speed limit? :-X


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

i hope you're not being serious Brett as i was having a bit of a laugh with a Lotus and no one got hurt so what's the harm in it?


----------



## bajers (Nov 22, 2003)

Guys,
I think I am right on this. The garage door opener only detects lasers and not radars or inductive loop detectors, gatsos etc, hence it would not have reacted if the trap was one of these.

From what I have read, they detect the laser pulse, give you an audible warning and return a similar pulse which sends the 'garage door' into error.

You then have 5 seconds to get into the 'garage' before your opener shuts down and becomes passive
for when the original 'door' becomes active again and zaps you again. This second zapping is not responded to.

Just as a final thought. Wouldn't it be a hoot if the Lotus was actually a plant and was being used by plod to 'encourage' us law abiding road users to speed!!

Stranger things have happened...


----------



## MonsTTer (Dec 2, 2003)

In Italy they did actually acquire a number of sportcars, in order to bait drivers to speedracing.
Guess what kind of car enforces this particular branch of our Motorway Police?
Subaru Impreza! ;D ;D


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

Brett, get a life and be real.

Jeremy Clarkson's Mother is 80 years old and has 11 points on her licence because of Gatso's. She drives like a Granny, and i'm talking 3mph over the speedlimit each time, that's why he's running this Gatso/Camera Van Ban campaign.

Ive been caught 3 times in my TTc by Camera Vans and have Nil Point. 8)


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

> Brett, get a life and be real.


Too right 



> Ive been caught 3 times in my TTc by Camera Vans and have Nil Point. 8)


How do you manage that then?

I seiously doubt the police set the Lotus up as Maranello's is full of fast cars and was most likely either a client or someone going on a test drive but stranger things have happened.


----------



## bajers (Nov 22, 2003)

Yep, stranger things have happened!

Like the police that set up a lorry trailer full of cigarette cartons and left the back doors wide open and then laid in wait.

Joe public comes along, says 'ere, I'll ave a carton of them fellas'....bing, bang, bosh...your nicked squire!!!

Off topic, I know..sorry :-X


----------



## ddycool (Dec 9, 2003)

> Ive been caught 3 times in my TTc by Camera Vans and have Nil Point. 8)


Please explain ??


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Yes, please let us know how you managed to do that, tt500


----------



## scottm (May 7, 2002)

Digressing slightly from the debate on whether this particular driver was caught by the van in Egham, to a more general point about said vans...

Some nice quirk of the law means the police have to advertise the location of the vans in advance. I believe there's even a website that publishes the info. But the van's location is not necessarily the stretch of road the police are targetting, they have a neat way to hide the van's location:

Some of the detectors they use have a range of two miles (not wanting to start a debate on what type of detectors they might be). So the police will position the van beside a road that has a good view of a _totally different_ road, and target drivers on that road, without those drivers having any knowledge of the van being there. Well, so the police themselves have claimed, and I suppose they would know.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> i hope you're not being serious Brett as i was having a bit of a laugh with a Lotus and no one got hurt so what's the harm in it?


Ok, so you were having a little fun. Had you had an accident with someone coming the other way and someone had died? I'm sure everyone will have had a good laugh. :-/


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

> Ok, so you were having a little fun. Had you had an accident with someone coming the other way and someone had died? I'm sure everyone will have had a good laugh. Â :-/


Brett, if you'd have driven down this road you'd have seen it's got two lanes on both sides of the road with metal girders stopping you going onto the other side of the road.

I would never do something so dangerous.

I may be young but i'm not stupid and many parents of my friends have asked me if i'll teach their sons to drive.

Can't be that then can i?!


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

It appears to me that these mobile vans always patrol dual carriage ways or large roads that seem safe to speed on.

Some of these dual carriage ways have a 40MPH speed limit, the reason for this must be to catch out motorists.

Its very hard to drive on a big dual carriageway at 40 MPH you have to constantly keep checking your speedo as your brain is telling you its a big road with two lanes and clear visibility - its safe to speed up.

Vote conservative and end the car cash cow economy.

Also I see someone complaining about you speeding? Only compalin if you have never done so yourself which I doubt - he who cast the first stone.....


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

Every saturday in the mercury (local rag) there is a colum that lists where the van will be everyday of the week. It just gives a list but no times or where on the road it will be though.

Not nice seeing a speed van at 9:30 on a sunday morning :-/



> Digressing slightly from the debate on whether this particular driver was caught by the van in Egham, to a more general point about said vans...
> 
> Some nice quirk of the law means the police have to advertise the location of the vans in advance. Â I believe there's even a website that publishes the info. Â But the van's location is not necessarily the stretch of road the police are targetting, they have a neat way to hide the van's location:
> 
> Some of the detectors they use have a range of two miles (not wanting to start a debate on what type of detectors they might be). Â So the police will position the van beside a road that has a good view of a _totally different_ road, and target drivers on that road, without those drivers having any knowledge of the van being there. Â Well, so the police themselves have claimed, and I suppose they would know.


----------



## Rhod_TT (May 7, 2002)

> I seiously doubt the police set the Lotus up as Maranello's is full of fast cars and was most likely either a client or someone going on a test drive but stranger things have happened.


Too right. But have you thought that the van was positioned their to catch people out on test drives from Maranello's. If they can aford a nice car then they can afford a speeding tax.

Rhod


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Brett, if you'd have driven down this road you'd have seen it's got two lanes on both sides of the road with metal girders stopping you going onto the other side of the road.
> 
> I would never do something so dangerous.
> 
> ...


I know the road well - I used to live in Surrey. The point that I am making is that you were doing 80 in a 50 and that is just plain dangerous. My partner works in the fire brigade and ends up having to counsel firefighters that have had to pick up the pieces (literally) after accidents where excessive speed is the main factor.

The point behind my original post was not to have a go at you, it was to highlight that a lot of people seem to think that catching a burgular (who is breaking the law) is somehow more worthy than catching someone that is speeding excessively (and therefore breaking the law). The police's job is to enforce the law, and that is what they are doing.

I don't necessarily agree with the manner in which they enforce the law, but that is their job isn't it?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Another way to avoid being flashed by Gatso's is by doing 175mph. Apparently it can't respond that quick.
> 0 Points Â ;D


Didn't Clarkson try do this on a runway and found it to be a myth? Or am I getting mixed up with some other motoring program that did this as an experiment?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Yep, it's an urban myth. The theory goes that you will not appear in the second picture so the police will not be able to calculate how far you have travelled and hence calculate your speed. Thing is though, if you are in the first pic and not the second then you must have been speeding!

Probably not a good tactic. What about the website that sells number plate covers designed for 'car exhibitions' which are clear unless activated whereby they either obscure the plate or display an alternative message? No, if that could be light activated...


----------



## taura (Nov 19, 2003)

No, it true 175mph and your safe the Gatso doesn't even register.

On the subject of the burglar vs the speeding car driver, I agree that both are guilty but I'm sorry the technology and focus being directed at the speeding motorist far outweighs the resources been targeted at said burglar. Hence frustration and initial comment.

Why? Because its a far easier to catch a speeding motorist and prosecute successfully than a burglar. Furthermore, I am sure we are all aware that since the introduction of speed cameras, speed limits are coming down, in some cases from 60mph to 40mph. 
Suddenly your favourite 60mph road is now 40mph and in many cases there is little justification.

If the targeting of motorist was fair and reasonable why has DAvid Blunkett suddenly announced a review of the system?

It's a myth that speeding alone kills. Yes, speed is often the cause of accidents but its inappropriate speed and in many accidents people are actually within the limit!

Meanwhile, the little attention given to the burglar forces you and me to pay ever higher insurances, spend a fortune on security protecting our homes, cars and bikes and all this on top of the ever higher taxes we already pay for inadequate policing

Apologies for dragging thread off topic. I'll need to adjourn to the flame room if I continue to rant on :-X


----------



## scottm (May 7, 2002)

Top Gear did indeed test it on a track and at 175mph the Gatso didn't flash.

To lie to the police about who was driving is foolhardy at best; to publicise the fact on a public website is totally stupid (maybe I should print out the posting and send it to plod), but to do so as though bragging about it is just pathetic.

>> Some of these dual carriage ways have a 40MPH speed limit, the reason for this must be to catch out motorists.

No, it will be based on whether there is a footpath, pedestrian crossings, side roads, sharp bends, general visibility, etc.

>> Its very hard to drive on a big dual carriageway at 40 MPH you have to constantly keep checking your speedo as your brain is telling you its a big road with two lanes and clear visibility - its safe to speed up.

Hmmm, any driver who is not intuitively conscious of their approximate speed, without needing to look at the speedo, on any road in any conditions, should seriously consider some driver training. Whether or not it's safe to speed up depends on a lot more than it being a big road with clear vis.

As for the road in Egham, it has houses, side roads, pedestrians, children crossing (even though they're not supposed to), a long sweeping bend leading to a junction that invariably has a queue of stationary traffic, etc, hence why a 50 rather than 70 limit. I'm afraid I have to agree with Brett that 80 on that particular road is not sensible (although of course 80 on many other roads would be fine).


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Hmmm, any driver who is not intuitively conscious of their approximate speed, without needing to look at the speedo, on any road in any conditions, should seriously consider some driver training. Â Whether or not it's safe to speed up depends on a lot more than it being a big road with clear vis.

Rubbish! try covering up your speedo....

------------------------

Whether or not it's safe to speed up depends on a lot more than it being a big road with clear vis.

Please elaborate


----------



## scottm (May 7, 2002)

>> you will not appear in the second picture

Even at 170mph, the highest speed I recall being tested in which the camera did take a picture, you still appear in both of them, within the limits of the white lines on the road.

>> number plate covers ...

Current number plate laws explicitly make them illegal for road use

>> catch a speeding motorist...

Agreed. Good quotation: "Measure what's important, don't make important what's easy to measure." Current camera technology (SPECS, etc) should monitor how closely one car is following another, and prosecute drivers who drive too close for their speed, rather than just speed alone.


----------



## scottm (May 7, 2002)

>> Rubbish! try covering up your speedo....

Not at all. I did say 'approximate' and are you telling me you really have no idea whether you're doing 30 or 50 or 70 unless you look at the speedo?

>> Please elaborate

As I said before, take an advanced driving course. I don't claim to be anything better than an average driver, but my days out with Big Jon for example were very enlightening.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> No, it true 175mph and your safe the Gatso doesn't even register. Â
> 
> On the subject of the burglar vs the speeding car driver, I agree that both are guilty but I'm sorry the technology and focus being directed at the speeding motorist far outweighs the resources been targeted at said burglar. Hence frustration and initial comment.


I don't dispute that this is frustrating for the motorist with a persecution complex ( ) but if fewer motorists broke the law, the traffic police would have less to do and could be redeployed in other duties such as catching burglars etc.

However, the (traffic) police's job is to enforce the law of the land and whilst we (note the use of the word) continue to offend, it is their duty to catch and prosecute us.


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

I know Scott its stupid, and i got away with it and have still got my licence still. One of these days they will probably catch me out and i'll be banged up in Broadmoor as an insane TT driver!

Why is it stupid to publicise on this site how to get off from losing your licence anyway when half the posts on here talk about radar detectors (which i believe are illegal too) ???


----------



## taura (Nov 19, 2003)

> I don't dispute that this is frustrating for the motorist with a persecution complex ( ) but if fewer motorists broke the law, the traffic police would have less to do and could be redeployed in other duties such as catching burglars etc.
> 
> However, the (traffic) police's job is to enforce the law of the land and whilst we (note the use of the word) continue to offend, it is their duty to catch and prosecute us.


SAdly the number of traffic police is declining, a proven fact and its civilians manning the vans. Hence we are seeing fewer convictions for dangerous driving and an increase in untaxed, uninsured cars on the road.

I'm all for an increase in the number of traffic police if it makes our roads safer.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Been on advanced driving course.

Its obvious that if the road has very clear visability then you can speed up depending on weather conditions.

Clear visability means clear visability. Its true that there are not many roads with true clear visability.

One of the things they tell you :

The best way to drive is to get from point to point safley and as fast as possible. 

Obviously fast as possible means within the speed limit however you are encouraged to use the whole road and not just stick within the white lines - where the markings allow and there is "clear visability".

Also this Jon guy your talking about im sure hes brilliant at track racing but this is completley different from advanced driving on normal roads. :


----------



## justinp (May 7, 2002)

> Also this Jon guy your talking about im sure hes brilliant at track racing but this is completley different from advanced driving on normal roads.


Big Jons driving course is all on roads and has nothing to do with tracks what so ever.

JustinP


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

I stand corrected then ;D


----------



## Steve_Mc (May 6, 2002)

> Also this Jon guy your talking about im sure hes brilliant at track racing but this is completley different from advanced driving on normal roads.


:: [smiley=dunce2.gif] [smiley=stupid.gif]


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

[smiley=bigcry.gif]


----------



## bajers (Nov 22, 2003)

> half the posts on here talk about radar detectors (which i believe are illegal too) ???


No they are not, only the garage opener is questionable


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

> No they are not, only the garage opener is questionable


Yeah as you drive down the street everyones garage door opens.


----------



## scottm (May 7, 2002)

>> Why is it stupid to publicise on this site

Because you've not only admitted to committing the original offence, you've also admitted to committing a further offence of purposely giving false information about who was driving. If you'd presented it as a hypotehtical possibility, you'd be ok.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Jeeeez Scott chill out man..... 8)


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

SCOTT....FOR GODS SAKE CHILLLLLLLLLL 

Who is going to turn me into the plod anyway, Do you really believe anyone is going to investigate me when all you have is an email address and credentials registered to an Internet cafe in the Falklands that was blown up during the war :

Hypothetically speaking of course (even though YOU can't spell the word)


----------



## scottm (May 7, 2002)

I'm perfectly chilled, just pointing something out (you asked a question, I answered).

I can spell hypothetically, I just can't type it very well


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Some of the things that get posted on this site certain users should be very careful about as in the last week we have had a thread asking people's age and their job, another thread has asked about users income, other people reply to posts with user actual names and not their TT forum usernames and a lot of people have signatures stating what they're car looks like.

If someone was to register on here who wasn't interested in TT's but wanted to assume an fake identity it could be very easy for them to do so as there as so many personal details given away that i think we all need to be careful about we say.

Some might say i am being OTT but the internet can be a dangerous place and it only takes one hacker / user to screw everything up for someone.


----------



## whitty (May 17, 2002)

By the time this thread ends L8_ORGY will be able to tell us whether he was caught or not !!


----------



## lambreTTa (Jan 20, 2004)

Orgy,
Will you post on this thread if you get a Fixed Penalty or Ban. Then we can continue with the plot :-X

How did you get your name, i'm intrigued. Is it 3 in a TT by any chance


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Hi lambreTTa, i certainly will post on here the verdict of whether i get anything through the post or not - that's if i can find the thread.

After two weeks it will have probably disappeared to page 50.

My numberplate is simply made up of the characters in my username - the plate is L80 RGY and i have cleverly  moved the letters around - no sticky tape, screws or anything!!

See image below;


----------



## ddycool (Dec 9, 2003)

"Current camera technology (SPECS, etc) should monitor how closely one car is following another, and prosecute drivers who drive too close for their speed, rather than just speed alone."

SPECS technology links directly to the DVLC computer in Swansea and generates a speeding ticket in a fraction of a second. Could this technology not be put to better use in alerting the police to the location of stolen vehicles?

.. or is there not enough revenue involved in this?

???


----------



## sattan (Sep 10, 2002)

Just to drag up an old post and make a point...

this thread was *specifically* mentioned by the very helpful trafpol guy at the AmD rolling road day.

Being that someone has openly admitted to comitting perjury (sp?), Scott makes a very valid point that its not exactly rocket science for the powers that be to begin looking into it..... remember they will have a record of your NIP appeal/response and I'm sure it wouldn't be too dificult for them to dig it out and re-examine it.

and from memory aforementioned trafpol mentioned that 3 counts of perjury is 18months?

if they wanted to, the powers that be can request that the TTforum turn over all info on said users - IP address post was made from, registration details etc.

they have ways and means to track the IP via the responsible ISP if they wanted to.

saying inapropriate or personal things on a public forum is potentially risky for the individual and a potential headache for the volunteers that run the TTF if they are forced to comply with evidence requests/legal mumbo-jumbo...

Anyways back selling crack and ;-)


----------



## A3DFU (May 7, 2002)

Good of you posting this SaTTan [smiley=thumbsup.gif]


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

I am usually quite careful posting info as i can imagine them using posts on here as evidence and will be more careful in future now.

Nice one saTTan.

p.s. what was said at the AMD day??


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

> SCOTT....FOR GODS SAKE CHILLLLLLLLLL
> 
> Who is going to turn me into the plod anyway, Do you really believe anyone is going to investigate me when all you have is an email address and credentials registered to an Internet cafe in the Falklands that was blown up during the war :
> 
> Hypothetically speaking of course (even though YOU can't spell the word)


just to reitterate on Sattan's post above. Â The traffic Police had seen and read this thread without anyone else informing them of it.

Specifically mentioned it and told those gathered to be very careful about what they post.

Posting that you did 150mph down the M1 isn't so bad, because there is no evidence to back it up. Posting that you evaded fines by commiting perjury is somewhat easier to prove.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

I learnt a valuable lesson in my early 20's when a mate who was also plod, gave me a producer one night.

Next time I saw him he intimidated me one evening, by greeting me in a night club car park with "have you been drinking" then following me all the way home (10 miles)

Friendship ended!


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

> The traffic Police had seen and read this thread without anyone else informing them of it.


Just goes to show how careful you've got to be about what you write.

I didn't pervert the course of justice in anyway as to my knowledge, no laser or radar was fired.

How have the police managed to find this forum!?

I'll be screwing now if i get an FPT.


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

> How have the police managed to find this forum!?


Wasn't hard... and it wasn't "the police", it was the two very friendly, realistic and down-to-earth guys who came along to give us the benefit of their experience....

If you were invited to come and chat to a bunch of enthusiasts who share views on a forum wouldn't you ask which forum and go have a look to give you some idea of the audience?


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I don't think anyone was saying that you shouldn't take advantage of a loophole in the law, what people are saying is that telling all and sundry about it on a public access forum is not perhaps the best way to go about it.

The guys at AMD were basically giving out free and realistic advice about keeping your nose clean.

You have seen their response to what you posted and if you choose to ignore it then fine. Â They are not likely to persue it as they were there in non-official capacity, but the fact of the matter is, it could be pursued if they were so inclined. Â

Me? Â I'd be tempted to remove the offending post just in case.


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

which post is that then.... ;D


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

I know of at least one traffic policeman that is a TT owner and reads this forum. Nuff said. :-/


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Right, i've deleted one post and edited one, they were at the beginning of this thread, on the first and second pages.

As i don't know what the "offending" articles were, i have removed and edited what i think are the two that could have got me into trouble.

Can someone check please!!

thanks


----------



## tt500 (Nov 29, 2002)

....someone has logged in as me and been using my Forum name to spread vicious rumours which aren't true.

That's the last time I leave my laptop unlocked in an open plan office


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Same with me, nothing's safe anymore.

I disabled my screensaver as i find it annoying when i'm at my desk but several times in the last month i've come back to my computer to find it on the TT Forum.

Do we not have any privacy anymore?


----------



## Chip_iTT (Nov 14, 2003)

I think i must have a virus in my laptop.... it keeps bringing up the TTForum or the Bentley Audi TT CD whenever I'm not looking at it.... makes it hard to work


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2004)

Well if its going to happenL8 ORGY the brown envelope will dropping on the mat this weekend or early Monday or Tuesday by my reckoning.
Bye the way why don't you use your dash warning bleeper to set your limit when your knocking around town especially in 40 limits it hepls to curb the right foot!!!

regards malc 8)


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

Well, it's now Thursday and i checked the mail last night and there still wasn't anything from the DVLA / an FPT ;D

I have to say i didn't actually think there would be as i would probably have known about it if i was flashed / had a laser gun fired at me.

The post hadn't come when i left this morning (Thursday) but i'm hopeful that i got off scot free and it was a good lesson learnt


----------



## Dont I Recognise You (Oct 10, 2003)

*phew*


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

Well I'll sleep better tonight knowing that.  

Seriously though, hope it was a lesson learned. Not saying I don't ever speed though. :-/


----------



## L8_0RGY (Sep 12, 2003)

> Well I'll sleep better tonight knowing that. Â


 : It was a good lesson learnt and i'm always on the lookout for them now.

I was on that stretch of road only yesterday and was watching people race down there but i didn't get draggged into it


----------

