# got done for 82mph!!



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I was actually asking about this last week. I was wondering if anyone was done for speeding at 80 and nobody said yes. The lowest speed that attracted a speeding ticket was 84.

So I am very upset because the letter says between exit 7 and 10 of the A14!!  Don't they know where they had the bloody fun parked up? What is this rubbish?

Also as I know where the police van was, on which bridge, I actually checked my speed by re-runing my Road eye software. At that point I was doing maximum 79 mph!!!

So I guess the police is actually lying and I am a victima for having a nice car! No picture came with the letter.

Also don't you think that it is strange that the letter doens't say which exit it was? How can it be so vague between 3 exits? Is this legal?

Finally the letter says that it was a camera. In fact it was a laser inside a police van. 

Is 82 mph the lowest speed that anyone has ever been done for speeding? I was thinking if this is a new record.


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

Looks like you should deny it was you. They will pull you into the station and if the pic is clear - fair (or not so fair) cop gov! If it is not you have got away with it. A cop used to own my house and told me this.

Also they have to check their equipment every day and you could ask them if they did.

Or failing that grin and bare it. Sorry to hear your news all the same.


----------



## Newbie123 (Nov 25, 2002)

I know someone who is being done for 77mph on the M62 (and no there were no roadworks) Obviously he is contesting it !


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

It is a fairly well known fact that police guidelines are "the speed limit" +10% +2mph which means that in a 70 limit you can reasonably be expect to be let off doing a maximum of 79mph. I know you *think* that you were doing a maximum of 79mph so challenge the police. Ask for the photo.

Then swallow your indignation, pay the fine and accept the three points like a good little boy. Â ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Brett,

I actually have GPS evidence from Road eye to prove it. So it is not just what I think!

But they may still say that 79 is above the 70 mph speed limit if I go to the court. :-/


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

...and I am NOT a good boy!!  ;D


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> But they may still say that 79 is above the 70 mph speed limit if I go to the court. :-/


You done the crime now pay the fine....


----------



## mattreader (Jul 10, 2002)

Personally I'd ask for photo evidence - that's absolute cr$p about between junctions 7 and 10, almost sounds like they can't be sure, in which case I can't see how they could hold it up in court.

Does it also state the date and time?

For all you know, someone could be driving another car cloning your reg plate.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Also as I know where the police van was, on which bridge, I actually checked my speed by re-runing my Road eye software. At that point I was doing maximum 79 mph!!!


Thats a pretty interesting piece of kit. However, what is the accuracy of it? Do you get any assurance that it is accurate. i.e. could a maximum indicated speed of 79mph actually turn out to be 84?

Seems pretty poor that they dont know exactly where you commited the offence though... :-/


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Oh, & I got done for 84 as well. It was in a 60 though


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

You know you were doing over the speed limit, why contest it and put more work through the legal system?? OK, their _guidelines_ may be 10% + 2mph... but it's only guidelines, the law still says 70mph (unfortunatly  ).

However, I have a feeling that they targeted you because of the TT... it's still an eye catcher of a design.

Hmm - IIRC, P1PTT was caught some time ago (before your time here) and I think the Police said to him that they checked his speed because he was in a TT :-/

IIRC Police statements are always slightly vague, that way if they said between junction 8 and 9, one defence could be that you were 100 meters past junction 9.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

> Brett,
> 
> I actually have GPS evidence from Road eye to prove it. So it is not just what I think!
> 
> But they may still say that 79 is above the 70 mph speed limit if I go to the court. :-/


GPS takes about 3-5 seconds to update your speed so when u were caught the speed showing on the road angel would of been 5 seconds b4 the pic was taken . As it was a Laser camera that cought you its instant rather than an average. :-/ pay the fine and take the 3 points
Jonah


----------



## paul_w (May 6, 2002)

This has to be the funniest thing I've heard in ages. It's almost like saying:

"I'm sorry officer, but I can prove I wasn't burgling that house, because I have evidence I was stealing something of slightly lesser value somewhere else"

Doh Doh Doh :

Pay up!!


----------



## SBJ (Jun 29, 2002)

Sorry to hear about this Nick. 
Following on from KevinST's post, this morning I was driving along Belstead road (30 zone), going about 35 and far in distance I spotted two policemen. I lifted off down to 30 well before them, other cars in front continued at 35-40, only spotting them at the last moment and braking, but the police only pointed their radar gun at me! 

So, if they spot someone in a nice car, we must be fair game. Equality.....

SBJ


----------



## andy (May 17, 2003)

*vlastan said*



> So I guess the police is actually lying and I am a victima for having a nice car! No picture came with the letter.


You dont know how right u are, i got done for doing 46mph throu the clyde tunnel [30mph zone] when a *Volvo estate* was undertaking me at the same time. When i pointed this out to the rozzer he just said u were still speeding. So its alright to speed and undertake at the same time aslong as u dont drive a flash car.

I was really pissed off.

I should challange it as victimization because i drive a nice car, but at the end of the day i was still speeding so i'll just take my 3 points.


----------



## vagman (Sep 6, 2002)

Hey, Vlastan,

Stick to walking yer dog and looking for topless birds....it's cheaper.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Hey, Vlastan,
> 
> Stick to walking yer dog and looking for topless birds....it's cheaper.


I would love to do this...but there aren't any topless birds in the UK...which is a shame!! ;D

I may have been doing over the speed limit that it is 70 at this occasion but I still feel that they sent me this ticket because they I have a nice car and therefore, I can afford to pay them. If it was another car, they could have let him without a ticket.

So I am indeed a victim of the system, but this is life I guess.

Roadeye is accurate as it is GPS based. So I actually believe that they lied that I was doing 82 so they could send me a speeding ticket. At 79 it is still within the guidelines and I could have been OK.

After all when you drive you look at the road not the speedo. And there must be a margin for error.

Also I checked the speed at the moment that the laser detected was beeping and it was 80. And as we know the speed over reads by about 3%.

I have now lost all respect for the men in uniform.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

> I have now lost all respect for the men in uniform.


Sheeesh.

What a rediculous comment. :

Pay the fine and move on. It's not the world versus you. Stop being paranoid.

You were speeding. You got caught. The police's kit is much more accurate than yours.

Get over it and move on. If you don't like it, don't speed.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Sheeesh.
> 
> What a rediculous comment. Â :
> 
> ...


It is not just what happened to me. It is also the fact that they discriminate and they target our cars more than the others. This is not a fair game and certainly not fair policing of the law.

Perhaps a speed camera wouldn't have flashed...so why the laser should be any different?


----------



## Major Audi Parts Guru (May 7, 2002)

> I would love to do this...but there aren't any topless birds in the UK...which is a shame!! Â ;D


There are plenty Vlastan,you just gotta know where they hang out ;D



> I have now lost all respect for the men in uniform. Â


I lost all respect for them many years ago :


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

> The police's kit is much more accurate than yours.


And that's a very good point!
How accurate are GPS receivers?
Do they require calibration regularly?
Could a manufacturing error resulted in a receiver that is slightly out?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

Lifes a Bitch and then u die :-/


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2003)

Actually if everyone is saying pay the fine as you broke the law...
Well, if we're going to follow the letter of the law, then ask for picture evidence. If the Police letter states that you were caught by camera, then they will have that photographic evidence. No probs then, just pay the fine and take the points... But if they cannot produce the photo, then you should get away with it due to the Police giving false information to get a conviction. They slipped up so it should get thrown out of court if it was to go there...
I don't mind paying for it if everything has been followed correctly, but there are too many false convitions these days. More and more people should fight this. Do you really think that coppers shop they own work collegues, give me a break. I know a couple of them one both have gotten away with speeding...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Lifes a Bitch and then u die :-/


At least try to die happy! ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Actually if everyone is saying pay the fine as you broke the law...
> Well, if we're going to follow the letter of the law, then ask for picture evidence. If the Police letter states that you were caught by camera, then they will have that photographic evidence. No probs then, just pay the fine and take the points... But if they cannot produce the photo, then you should get away with it due to the Police giving false information to get a conviction. They slipped up so it should get thrown out of court if it was to go there...
> I don't mind paying for it if everything has been followed correctly, but there are too many false convitions these days. More and more people should fight this. Do you really think that coppers shop they own work collegues, give me a break. I know a couple of them one both have gotten away with speeding...


I agree with the points raised here. I actually took some advice from my solicitor neighbour who used to work in the magistrates and was dealing with speeding convictions on a daily basis.

You won't believe how many rights we actually have and how many loopholes there are there to play the system.

It is ignorance of the system that is causing us grief. If you challenge the system then you can get away from it.

So I plan to follow the good advice I got and see what happens.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

While ur at it then ask to see the said police vehichles log for the day, if they havent filled it in then they cant do you, also neglect to sign the form they have sent you when u send it back.
Jonah


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> also neglect to sign the form they have sent you when u send it back.
> Jonah


Very true!! Did you know that by law you only need to complete the field on the form that identifies the driver? No need to sign or put your license number or date of birth! Without this info...it gets very difficult for them.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Re: the comment about picking on people in nice cars. I have been done twice in the past, both times 3 points and Â£40. The first time was in a Renault Laguna and the second a borrowed Citroen Xantia - neither of them particularly unusual or nice cars.

If you are over the limit you are fair game. You know the risks when you speed (and they are not limited to getting a fine) but if you choose to take the chance and get caught, pay up.

As I said in a previous post, ask for the photo if you think that the police are "lying". If there is evidence to back their case, pay up, take your points and move on.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Re: the comment about picking on people in nice cars. I have been done twice in the past, both times 3 points and Â£40. The first time was in a Renault Laguna and the second a borrowed Citroen Xantia - neither of them particularly unusual or nice cars.
> 
> If you are over the limit you are fair game. You know the risks when you speed (and they are not limited to getting a fine) but if you choose to take the chance and get caught, pay up.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, ask for the photo if you think that the police are "lying". If there is evidence to back their case, pay up, take your points and move on.


If your Xantia was next to a TT, you would have been fine! But as it was next to a Mondeo then you were unlucky.

I think that they target sports/flash cars for two reasons:

1) you have money so you can pay
2) it is more likely to speed.

After all in a busy flow of traffic they can't read the speed for every single car so they must use the above criteria.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> If your Xantia was next to a TT, you would have been fine! But as it was next to a Mondeo then you were unlucky.
> 
> I think that they target sports/flash cars for two reasons:
> 
> ...


Oh stop being a big baby :'(, take your punishment like a man. Next topic please! :-*


----------



## Guest (Aug 7, 2003)

I don't know about the vagaries of GPS and laser. However what I would point out is that they have to be able to provide specific evidence as to precisely where the alleged offence took place. Between junctions 7 - 10 sounds way to vague to me and would certainly require clarification to satisfy a Magistrate so that he was 'sure' the offence took place as described. This still remians the level of evidencial proof. If you can question the officers during the hearing and raise an element of doubt, the Magistrate will be bound to find the case not proved.


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

> If your Xantia was next to a TT, you would have been fine! But as it was next to a Mondeo then you were unlucky.
> 
> I think that they target sports/flash cars for two reasons:
> 
> ...


Mr. V i think its a case of the tt you never really realise that you're speeding until you look at the speedo, whereas with the mondeo, the car will be screaming and sounding knackered that way you will know you are speeding.

Oh yeah, I would have been caught for doing 147mph on the M11 when going to Burghley, luckily no police about ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I am certainly very happy for you, that there was no police around at the time!


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

We all break the speed limit, we are all criminals, BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!   :-X


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> We all break the speed limit, we are all criminals, BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY!   :-X


Lets vote mighTy Tee for a president. He has brilliant ideas!! ;D


----------



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

I'm with V on this one. Fair game, if you speed excessivly on the motorway, take it on the chin, but when there's doubt about an offence taking place.....why should anyone be singled out, when others get away with it?

Why should we believe everything the traffic police tell us? They're all t*ss pots anyway who should be out catching real criminals. It's about time people started challenging these things, making them work harder and maybe they'll think twice about targetting individuals because of the car they drive. Maybe their line of thinking should be "TT drivers can afford to pay, are more likely to speed, but are also more intelligent ;D so they're more likely to challenge it" :-/

V, if you can share with us what your solicitor neighbour said, maybe we can all use this information if we're unlucky enough to be caught.


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

There is a book on the market that is written by some ex-copper that tells you all the loopholes.

Now there is hypocrisy for you!


----------



## jcamain (Mar 6, 2003)

I was caught in a Renault Megane Cab a couple of years ago doing 92 down the hill towards Swindon on M4 West. I wrote a long letter, blaming the hill, the car, the wind etc.. It was on a hand held laser camera. Neither did I go to court. They fined be about Â£200 and 4 points.

Wish I had just kept quiet. Probably would have been a lot cheaper and less points!!

Jules


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> I was caught in a Renault Megane Cab a couple of years ago doing 92 down the hill towards Swindon on M4 West. Â I wrote a long letter, blaming the hill, the car, the wind etc.. Â It was on a hand held laser camera. Â Neither did I go to court. Â They fined be about Â£200 and 4 points.
> 
> Wish I had just kept quiet. Â Probably would have been a lot cheaper and less points!!
> 
> Jules


I don't think that you had strong case like this.

I will let you know what happens next. I will return the letter back to them with very little info in it that I am obliged to provide by law and attach a little note explaining that I provide the necessary info that I am oblige to provide by law. Everything is written in caps as well.

So they will know that I know what I am talking about and I can play the system.


----------



## markp (Apr 29, 2003)

I was pulled at 3am on the M11/A14 interchange last weekend for doing 'between 80 and 90mph - they let me off! 'Nice car mate, yep we know it'll do 150 but the limit is 70, so please try to stick to it'. They said there was some leeway on the limit, but wouldn't tell me how much. The 10% + 2mph seems about right then ...I'd say I was averaging about 80mph. They followed me nearly to Duxford before they stopped me. Unmarked Volvo Estate (Dark Blue). I felt that they saw my TT and thought that if they followed me long enough then I'd speed at some point. A few cars went past me doing 90mph plus but they did not pull them...

It does seem to be who pulls you though as I got had for 69mph in a 60 a couple of years ago. The copper who did me was Hitler's love child - big tash, no sense of humour and didn't like silver cars


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

This thread throws up a number of interesting points:-

1. Most people would admit that driving in excess of 100mph deserves to be prosecuted if caught. But you can drive in excess of 150mph on some German unrestricted autobahns and most people think this is also OK! Why is it OK in Germany but not OK in UK - completely inconsistent. However, I think most of us instinctively feel that getting prosecuted for 82mph in a 70mph limit in good conditions is just not right - I know I do.

2. Some people say 'take it on the chin' - its the law. Well the law is very clear and pedantic so why should Lord V not make the 'system' show that it has complied 100% with the law? Why do the Police feel it necessary to blatantly intimidate motorists with the statement in their letters that if you don't 'cough up' immediately but elect to go to court instead (a basic right by the way) you could face a fine of Â£1000 - total rubbish in most cases (although theoretically possible if its your umpteenth conviction) and designed to intimidate. Why should we put up with such intimidation?

3. Should acceptance of such laws without question continue? There is obviously a significant proportion of the population who think the current speed limits and enforcement are archane and unfair. If people do not challenge these laws then they will continue - if continually challenged then the proper debate can be had 'in public' and the majority view will win (which is what law is about really - isn't it?) this can either be that the laws are relaxed, maintained or tightened!

4. The more people are prosecuted for speeding then the more anamosity is generated between the public and the law enforcement agencies - and generally the police in this instance. The Chief Constable of (I think) Merseyside has gone on record recently as requesting that his Officers deal with speeding more 'sympathetically' - a sure sign that he detects public opinion going against the Police on this issue.

5. When speed cameras first appeared the Police clearly stated, to gain initial acceptance, that they would only be used at known accident blackspots. Well they sure lied then didn't they? Why should we allow ourselves to be lied to by these people? We have, by our own apathetic responses, allowed speed cameras to multiply as a revenue generating (i.e. stealth tax) exercise. Does anyone really still believe that they are all sited to reduce accidents?

Therefore I would encourage Lord V to take this all the way. Firstly because it may well be that the Police do not have all their evidence stacked up correctly; and secondly, because I would like everyone to do the same, guilty or not, to make sure their protest is heard and force the powers that be to be more sensible (because I feel they have overstepped the mark by a long way now). If we all just requested the information and ensured it was 'correct', even though we may not intend to actually contest the prosecution, then this simple act would make a huge public statement to the Police. I know that it is easy to encourage others to do such things but we can all see the result of dumb compliance - the technology already exists for satellite tracking of all cars so we know what's coming next don't we!


----------



## Jazzedout (May 8, 2002)

Nick, I do not know how the system works over there, but when I was caught by a speed camera I once claimed that my father was driving and the other time that my sister was! This way they get the points (Of course they agreed to do so) and I saved my liscence, since I already have a lot of points!
My other half is going to be the next victim! ;D
I have to agree that cops are "racists" with cars, since they let me go without a ticket when driving at 140km/hour with a Golf IV but have given me a fine for doing 130km/h with the TT (same area 120km/h speed limit!)
One other thing I would like to add is that it seems a litle unfair for people that drive 60000km per year (like myself) to be in the same point system like people who only do i.e. 10000km per year. The probability that I will get caught for speeding are much higher than someone who does not drive as much, and it is a fact that since I drive a lot for business reasons, I need my liscence more than my sister for example who only drives to the supermarket! :-/ I wish there was a way to arrange the point system according to each drivers milage per year! It seems more fair this way!
Anyone had similar thoughts?


----------



## christtopher (May 7, 2002)

> One other thing I would like to add is that it seems a litle unfair for people that drive 60000km per year (like myself) to be in the same point system like people who only do i.e. 10000km per year.


No I disagree. You can't turn expect the police to say "Ok there mate, you're speeding offence isn't as serious as your sisters because you do more miles per year than her" which effectively what you are saying by having a 2 tier points system. If you speed then you break the law. This applies to anyone and everyone, regardless of the car you drive. Any old clapped out piece of rubbish with an old man drving, can break a speed limit. It's the inconsistancies and the general police attitude that really get on my nerves.


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

Why is it OK for the speed limit to be different in Germany than it is in the UK??? 'cause it's a different country! : Each country has it's own laws that the population is expected to abide by. Maybe your opinion is that all the laws in Europe should be considered together and the most lenient is used?? OK, no speed limts on motorways, poor driving standards will be accepted (as it is in many other countries), speed limit in built up areas will be 37MPH (anyone happy with cars passing schools at almost 40MPH??) I guess the drink/drive alcohol limit will go up. Wonder what other laws we would inherit from other countries... wonder how many of them would be incompatible with each other??

You may not agree with the laws generated by the government, but we are expected to live by them. If we don't and we challenge everything through the legal system then 1) the legal system will probably colaps, resulting in "real" criminals also getting away with nicking your car / TV etc 2) our taxes going up as the government need to employ more judges, court systems etc.

Is it not the duty of a citizen to help obay the laws? If you don't agree with them... get into politics and do something about it!

Why is it that drivers (probably world over) believe that they should be exempt from speed limits? Being able to drive on the public roads is a privledge, not a right.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Lifes a Bitch and then u die :-/


You mean I dont have to marry one?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Being able to drive on the public roads is a privledge, not a right.


This is not right of course! We earn the right to drive on the roads by paying road tax!!


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

> Why is it OK for the speed limit to be different in Germany than it is in the UK??? 'cause it's a different country! Â : Each country ..............


The point I was trying to make is that any law has to be seen to be reasonable for people to obey it. There are issues in your response that most people will agree with, and that's fine, and the law should stay where the majority believe it is reasonable. However, if I travel at 70mph (where permitted) my experience is that more people will overtake me than I will overtake by a quite considerable margin. This leads me to believe that, quite possibly, the majority view some (not all) speed limits to be unreasonable. In this case I would propose that such a law is unreasonable because the majority are not obeying it and should be reviewed. This will only happen if the 'majority' make their views known - I was suggesting one way of doing it that would have an impact. I also stated that if after public debate/review or whatever the majority didn't want it changed then so be it!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Nick, I do not know how the system works over there, but when I was caught by a speed camera I once claimed that my father was driving and the other time that my sister was! This way they get the points (Of course they agreed to do so) and I saved my liscence, since I already have a lot of points!
> My other half is going to be the next victim! Â ;D
> I have to agree that cops are "racists" with cars, since they let me go without a ticket when driving at 140km/hour with a Golf IV but have given me a fine for doing 130km/h with the TT (same area 120km/h speed limit!)
> One other thing I would like to add is that it seems a litle unfair for people that drive 60000km per year (like myself) to be in the same point system like people who only do i.e. 10000km per year. The probability that I will get caught for speeding are much higher than someone who does not drive as much, and it is a fact that since I drive a lot for business reasons, I need my liscence more than my sister for example who only drives to the supermarket! Â :-/ I wish there was a way to arrange the point system according to each drivers milage per year! It seems more fair this way!
> Anyone had similar thoughts?


Agis...great idea mate...I will tell them that it was you driving my TT so they will give you some English points!! But they can't actually do this as you have a Greek license!! So nothing will actually happen!!


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> It is not just what happened to me. It is also the fact that they discriminate and they target our cars more than the others. This is not a fair game and certainly not fair policing of the law.


hmm... rubbish.

What evidence from the road pilot ?? - is it timestamped and absolute location stamped ?? - i wouldnt rely on this for evidence.


----------



## ChasTT (Oct 17, 2002)

I just don't see why you assume you've been discriminated upon and picked out because you have a flash car.

How on earth do you know that the cops haven't mailed out dozens of summons to just about everyone who was driving along the same piece of road at a similar speed at the same time??? :-/

There's probably a thread on the www.boringrepscar.com site about this rite now. 
'Boring Rep' complaining that he's been mailed a summons for doing 82mph whilst 'Flash Greek' in the TT, who was alongside, has got away with it....


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

> This is not right of course! We earn the right to drive on the roads by paying road tax!!


Don't be niaive Vlastan. You have no right what so ever to drive on the public roads. The UK government _allows_ you to drive. They could remove that privledge by revoking your license.
You pay road tax as a result of the privledge that you have.

If we all had a right to drive on the roads, why have a minimum age? why have driving tests??


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

> The point I was trying to make is that any law has to be seen to be reasonable for people to obey it. There are issues in your response that most people will agree with, and that's fine, and the law should stay where the majority believe it is reasonable. However, if I travel at 70mph (where permitted) my experience is that more people will overtake me than I will overtake by a quite considerable margin. This leads me to believe that, quite possibly, the majority view some (not all) speed limits to be unreasonable. In this case I would propose that such a law is unreasonable because the majority are not obeying it and should be reviewed. This will only happen if the 'majority' make their views known - I was suggesting one way of doing it that would have an impact. I also stated that if after public debate/review or whatever the majority didn't want it changed then so be it!


IIRC the 70mph speed limit was set in the 1960s, an era when most people were driving Ford Anglias, with skimpy cross ply tyre, drum brakes all round, no ABS, power steering, air bags, electronic aids etc and seat belts were not compulsory. And top speed 80mph.

Nearest comparible car today is probably a 1.4 Focus (Anglia replaced by Escort replaced by Focus). Top speed over 100mph, ABS, Fat Radial tyres, Disc Brakes etc. Wouldn't mind betting the focus would stop in half the space that the Anglia would! Motorway and Dual Carriageway speed limits should be higher, but like France 2 limits a wet weather one and a dry weather one.

Still GPS Tracking will mean that it will be impossible to exceed the limit one day.


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

seems to me garvin is right. it is widely agreed that drinking and driving is inherently dangerous, but here the uk government says if you drive over 100mph you are a dangerous madman and will throw the book at you. in germany their citizens are credited with the sense to drive as fast as they see fit/conditions dictate on certain roads so obviously there is plenty of room for argument between these two positions. speed itself is not inherently dangerous, unlike being drunk, it just means you have to drive accordingly.
i have a "friend" who has been known to do 100mph+ on a deserted m6 in the early hours of the morning in cumbria and i he would be pretty agrieved about being done for this.
as for not applying the regs equally depending on what mileage you do - where on earth did that come from?


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

> IIRC the 70mph speed limit was set in the 1960s, an era when most people were driving Ford Anglias, with skimpy cross ply tyre, drum brakes all round, no ABS, power steering, air bags, electronic aids etc and seat belts were not compulsory. And top speed 80mph.
> 
> Nearest comparible car today is probably a 1.4 Focus (Anglia replaced by Escort replaced by Focus). Top speed over 100mph, ABS, Fat Radial tyres, Disc Brakes etc. Wouldn't mind betting the focus would stop in half the space that the Anglia would! Motorway and Dual Carriageway speed limits should be higher, but like France 2 limits a wet weather one and a dry weather one.
> 
> Still GPS Tracking will mean that it will be impossible to exceed the limit one day.


hmmm.... the cars have improved immensely, but have the driving skills. up the limits, but make retests compulsory every 5/10 years whatever and make retests part of motoring offenses...


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> hmm... rubbish.
> 
> What evidence from the road pilot ?? - is it timestamped and absolute location stamped ?? - i wouldnt rely on this for evidence.


It is the road eye product and not the road pilot! Are you familiar with this product? You can play back up to six months on a map your speed and location changing every 10 seconds. It is normally tracked by about 5 satellites when on the open roads, so it is very accurate.


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

> It is the road eye product and not the road pilot! Are you familiar with this product?


Sorry typo - but whatever the device, its not a calibrated device you are using and so you could not rely on it in court for evidence - what stops you tampering with the recorded data to modify it - etc etc.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Sorry typo - but whatever the device, its not a calibrated device you are using and so you could not rely on it in court for evidence - what stops you tampering with the recorded data to modify it - etc etc.


I guess you may be right on this. But I didn't think I could use this as evidence anyway but just as an indication for my own purposes. In any case I hope I won't need to go to court but still avoid paying or getting the points.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Don't be niaive Vlastan. You have no right what so ever to drive on the public roads. The UK government _allows_ you to drive. They could remove that privledge by revoking your license.
> You pay road tax as a result of the privledge that you have.
> 
> If we all had a right to drive on the roads, why have a minimum age? why have driving tests??


These are the legal requirements that you have to satisfy of course. You earn the right for YOUR car to be on the road by having paid road tax and have MOT and insurance.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Thing is, if you dont want to get done, dont break the speed limit. I am sure most of us here 'flaunt' the limit as we see fit, but it is inevitible to be caught from time to time.

Personally, I drive as fast as I feel is safe in the conditions, & as fast as I _think_ I can get away with. I think this is what most of us do, so whilst the current motorway limit might be archaeic & not suitable, if they raised the limit to 80, people would drive at 90+. Add to this the ever-increasing amount of traffic on the roads, & increasing the speed-limit (which would have to be nationwide) seems like a bad idea.


----------



## newcasTTle (Nov 29, 2002)

> Thing is, if you dont want to get done, dont break the speed limit. I am sure most of us here 'flaunt' the limit as we see fit, but it is inevitible to be caught from time to time.
> 
> Personally, I drive as fast as I feel is safe in the conditions, & as fast as I _think_ I can get away with. I think this is what most of us do, so whilst the current motorway limit might be archaeic & not suitable, if they raised the limit to 80, people would drive at 90+. Add to this the ever-increasing amount of traffic on the roads, & increasing the speed-limit (which would have to be nationwide) seems like a bad idea.


yes, of course, if the conditions dictate then we should adjust or speeds accordingly - heavy traffic etc, but doesn't it also work conversely - if you've got an empty motorway there is no rational to piddling along at 70mph in safety terms...


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

> You earn the right for YOUR car to be on the road by having paid road tax and have MOT and insurance.


Vlastan,

I don't recall saying anything about the right to have a car on the road, my comment was:


> Being able to drive on the public roads is a privledge, not a right.


I said nothing about your car, or any car. I'm talking about you the driver, and that it is a privledge to drive on the roads (in any car), not a right.


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

> but like France 2 limits a wet weather one and a dry weather one.


I'm not too sure how well that works to be honest.
How wet has it got to be before it's classed a wet road? Talking to the French employees here they say that it's almost pot luck if the Police think it's a wet road or not. If you are pulled over, there's little chance at arguing the case - pay up or else :-/


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

Sorry to add my 2p to this thread.....

You were 'unlucky'

What I mean is, you were speeding, of that there is no doubt

BUT, you got caught

Some people speed and get caught, some don't

I'd take the points and fine, and worry about where you're gonna walk your dog this weekend


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> I'm not too sure how well that works to be honest.
> How wet has it got to be before it's classed a wet road? Talking to the French employees here they say that it's almost pot luck if the Police think it's a wet road or not. If you are pulled over, there's little chance at arguing the case - pay up or else Â :-/


Actually the french signs say when it rains...not when it is wet!!


----------



## mattreader (Jul 10, 2002)

The whole issue that annoys me about these speed checks and in general is they just take the easy option, for example

1) How many times have you seen the local barryboys going past your local infant/junior school at 90 in a $h1te car with cornflake packets for brakes - how many times are they checking speeds there where speeding is unacceptable - rarely unless I've missed it, they're sitting above bridges on A roads and motorways where there is less chance of danger and more chance of catching people.

2) Why are they doing people for speeding on clear, trouble free stretches of road. Take for example, the A46, in Coventry, the "talivan" is regularly above the bridge by Warwick Uni - a largely clear, straight, jam free part - why is it not nearer the end of the A46 at the junction by the M40, where queues build up and there is danger?

3) Read the local newspaper - every night there's people caught without tax, insurance, MOT, even those nicking cars and they are getting less fines/points than those caught speeding - what the hells' going on?

Perhaps if they situated cameras in more appropriate places and reviewed the whole speed limits across the UK, ie up the motorways to 80 and lower residential roads to 20, we might have more respect for the system.

In addition I think EVERY road should have a speed limit sign as well. 40 should be marked as 40, 30 should be marked as 30, it's all often too unclear.

:-X Damnit how can I add the guns and the hangman!


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

> .... map your speed and location changing every 10 seconds. It is normally tracked by about 5 satellites when on the open roads, so it is very accurate.


If it takes a reading every 10 seconds, how can you possibly get upset with a reading from a device that takes a reading in a fraction of a second, especially when you are quibling over 2mph? Â :

I can't honestly believe that you feel you have been harshly dealt with and assume theres some other reason for your posts Â :-/

I also encourage you to challenge the system as I'll be interested to see what the risk and penalties are over just taking the fine and points.

p.s. in case you think I'm all high and mighty over speeding, I'm not. I got caught doing 117.8mph about 6 years ago. It was a fair cop and I took the punishment that came with it. Seems fair enough to me. Did I feel victimised because I was in a Mondeo? errr no! Â ;D


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

When there are traffic jams and heavy traffic there is no police to help and they are not interested you do only 10 mph. When the road clears a bit later they set up cameras to catch all the frustrated drivers that have been late and have to catch up now!!

In the spot where it was the van it was a dry sunny day with only one more car on the A14.

Who said life is fair!!

My neighbour wants to join the police...but she is a bit of a b*tch and very bossy!! So now you understand who is doing this policing job...so be very afraid when she is out there!


----------



## imster (Apr 26, 2003)

> ley link=board=WebTTForum;num=1060192777;start=50#52 date=08/07/03 at 15:42:14]seems to me garvin is right. it is widely agreed that drinking and driving is inherently dangerous, but here the uk government says if you drive over 100mph you are a dangerous madman and will throw the book at you. in germany their citizens are credited with the sense to drive as fast as they see fit/conditions dictate on certain roads so obviously there is plenty of room for argument between these two positions. speed itself is not inherently dangerous, unlike being drunk, it just means you have to drive accordingly.
> i have a "friend" who has been known to do 100mph+ on a deserted m6 in the early hours of the morning in cumbria and i he would be pretty agrieved about being done for this.
> as for not applying the regs equally depending on what mileage you do - where on earth did that come from?


Interesting bit about the germans being able to regulate themselves, I guess the british government is telling us that we are less sensible than germans? or are less capable? or we aren't as intelligent to choose our own speed?

anyone care to comment?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Interesting bit about the germans being able to regulate themselves, I guess the british government is telling us that we are less sensible than germans? or are less capable? or we aren't as intelligent to choose our own speed?
> 
> anyone care to comment?


A lot of motorways have restrictions these days to 130km/h. But there are still a lot of them with no speed limits.

So where there is danger there is a restriction which sounds very resonable.

Also Germany used to have great motorways. So they have trust to their road network. I guess here in England they don't trust the shit roads to allow us to do fast cruising.

Also there were calls before to introduce speed limits but the German protested a lot. So the proposals were dropped.

So they have great motorways, better cars and they are most likely to protest against any restrictions.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> If it takes a reading every 10 seconds, how can you possibly get upset with a reading from a device that takes a reading in a fraction of a second, especially when you are quibling over 2mph? Â :
> 
> I can't honestly believe that you feel you have been harshly dealt with and assume theres some other reason for your posts Â :-/
> 
> ...


The playback updates every 10 seconds. I am not sure if the actual real time tracking is also every 10 seconds. And I am quibling over 3 mph!! Because I think that if my GPS box is correct, which I think it is, I think they inflated the speed to convict me. These 3 mph make the difference between getting or not getting a speeding ticket.

I think that the GPS is correct because at the time that the laser was reading my speed ( used friend's laser detector on the day) I looked at my speedo and was reading about 80. Taking into account that the speedo has a 3-4% over reading error, then the 79 mph that the tracking device indicates appears to be correct.

If I was caught doing 90mph I would accept it and wouldn't be protesting now.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

> I think they inflated the speed to convict me. These 3 mph make the difference between getting or not getting a speeding ticket.


I think you should leave Captain Paranoia at home :-/


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

Classic thread V

The law is 70 mph you were above it. Thats speeding.
Infact at 84 mph thats 120% of the limit.

PS I drive that fast too on occasions. You just had some bad luck. Take it on the chin and get back to enjoying life and TT.
Set the speed alarm for 80 to remond you in future.

Andy


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> Because I think that if my GPS box is correct, which I think it is, I think they inflated the speed to convict me.


I dont think that will form a very strong defence...


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

If you have been pulled and had the reasons why you were nicked explained, would you be happier?

In this situation, we rely on Vlastans perspective of the road ahead (which may or may not be correct) and not that of plod.

Surely Plod should educate drivers, making them more aware of the dangers, not alienate them by issuing anonymous speeding ticket carte blanche.

If I got the picture in the post, I would probably pay up and take the 3 points and think nothing more, but know that if was pulled and given a polite strong lecture, then would take the offence more seriously and be educated.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

V,

How long have you been driving in the UK, and on what proportion of that time, have you regularly exceeded the posted speed limit?

So you got caught once in all that time, and you have *admitted* that you were doing *at least* 80mph in a 70mph limit. Take the fine and stop making a big issue over it.

On another note, I caught the tail end of the traffic police program last night on BBC and there was a boy doing 74.22 in a 50 limit and his excuse was "I am a surgeon and I was coming back from an important operation". AND?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> On another note, I caught the tail end of the traffic police program last night on BBC and there was a boy doing 74.22 in a 50 limit and his excuse was "I am a surgeon and I was coming back from an important operation".


Maybe Nick is the Doctor of Love and was on his way to a patient in need of his good medicine?


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> If I got the picture in the post, I would probably pay up and take the 3 points and think nothing more, but know that if was pulled and given a polite strong lecture, then would take the offence more seriously and be educated.


Why don't they post the picture then? I guess they know that the picture of a bad quality and difficult to identify the driver. What if they don't have a picture at all? 

Perhaps this is where they play this game...hoping that they won't be challenged, because there is no picture to prove it.

Brett...I am a fighter...I don't just accept things!


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Brett...I am a fighter...I don't just accept things! Â


Request the photo, fight, fight, fight, then pay up.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

I would rather try and fail than just accept it and move on. Especially as I know that there are ways to get away with this as it is not a full proof system.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

> Don't be niaive Vlastan. You have no right what so ever to drive on the public roads. The UK government _allows_ you to drive. They could remove that privledge by revoking your license.
> You pay road tax as a result of the privledge that you have.
> 
> If we all had a right to drive on the roads, why have a minimum age? why have driving tests??


Anyone who is of a suitable age and who had passed their driving test and is not intoxicated and has insurance etc has a RIGHT to drive!!! You are PAYING for that RIGHT.


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

> On another note, I caught the tail end of the traffic police program last night on BBC and there was a boy doing 74.22 in a 50 limit and his excuse was "I am a surgeon and I was coming back from an important operation". AND?


I have seen that program before. Not sure why he thought he would be let off for that excuse!


----------



## whitty (May 17, 2002)

Got my letter yesterday - 83 in a 70, got mad, thought of what letters I could send, paid up, sent off license, moved on, will be more careful in future


----------



## CH_Peter (May 16, 2002)

Why does it always slip people's attention that if you were doing 71 in a 70mph your were breaking the law. You aren't breaking the law when you hit 10% above the limit - you are reaching the point where the police are reasonably going to be able to convict you.

If you go to court and argue " i was doing 75mph", you've just confessed to a crime!

Just my 2p worth. And I've paid up well over Â£100 worth of fines here in Swizterland, and it narks me off just as much as the next guy...

Pete


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Peter,

It not the fine I am worried about but the points!

There are always margins to allow for misreading on the speedo and for actually paying attention on the road ahead instead of the speedo all the time.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Peter,
> 
> It not the fine I am worried about but the points!
> 
> There are always margins to allow for misreading on the speedo and for actually paying attention on the road ahead instead of the speedo all the time.


"Sorry m'lord, I was too busy watching the road to pay any attention to my speed."

So not only were you speeding, but you were driving without due care and attention as well? Are you SURE you want to pursue this any further? Sounds like you are digging a hole for yourself.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

Lets for a moment agree that you were going 80mph.

Did you not know that the limit was 70mph?
Did you not know that the police are gracious enough to allow 10%+2mph (i.e. max 79mph)?
How much margin did you want?
Will you ever concede that you did wrong and will now pay the price?

P.S. I still want you to challenge it!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Lets wait and see what happens next! I submitted the form by post today in which I identified myself as the driver. And a post it saying that I submitted the required information in which I have a legal obligation, i.e., who was the driver.

So far I have done all I am obliged to do by law.

In case of prosecution and appearance to the court (I don't think that it will get that far anyway) I do not use excuses like this of course. They have heard them before and they reject them.

But did you know that when they bring witnesses on the court (these are the people that process the speeding tickets and say that the correct procedures were followed) you can dismiss them and they can't do anything about it?

I think that you forget that we have human rights and intimidation doesn't work very well.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

> I think that you forget that we have human rights and intimidation doesn't work very well.


Although I'd hardly say that a speeding ticket when you were, erm, speeding, is an infingement of your human rights.


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

IMHO the post it note was a dumb move. Why go on the defensive when they have not even asked you why you haven't signed it yet..? Someone on the receiving end is now just going to think you are some flash harry know it all - and will go for the jugular. I'd hire a barrister if I were you - and make plans to go in to hiding too while you are at it.. 
W


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> IMHO the post it note was a dumb move. Â Why go on the defensive when they have not even asked you why you haven't signed it yet..? Â Someone on the receiving end is now just going to think you are some flash harry know it all - and will go for the jugular. Â I'd hire a barrister if I were you - and make plans to go in to hiding too while you are at it..
> W


The idea behind this is that I understand the process and to tell them that even if I am prosecuted I can get away from it.

But hopefully they will not bother any more with me.

Clive,

by human rights I didn't mean the speeding of course. I meant what information you give them and how this is handled by them.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Just noticed that on the back of the letter says: "All mobile vehicles are marked to be highly visible; park where they can be seen by motorists..."

So how come I didn't see it on the bridge till it was late? It was hardly visible as it was at the edge of the bridge and you could only see it the very last minute!

It looks like they also failed to compile with the rules that the Central Government has set.

Anyway...lets stop this now and wait and see what happens next! In the meantime I will try to think in which parts of the country there will be some topless women to take my dog for a walk!! ;D  ;D


----------



## jgoodman00 (May 6, 2002)

Even if they werent meant to be there, you still broke the law, so that wont help your defence much.

However, do you not have a greek license? If so give them that. They will never trace it, & hence it wont make any difference to you. Failing that (& naturally, I would never do this), give the name of one of your relatives in greece. Again, they will struggle to trace the person & make the conviction. 

P.S. You would need to make sure the photo could not be used to identify you, unless you have a twin-brother


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

James...you are on fire today mate!! ;D

My brother looks very much like me actually. 

I gave my Greek license to the DVLA ages ago as the insurance was cheaper with the UK one. I know that if I had the Greek one still then they wouldn't be able to endorce any points!

But again all this will be illegal!! And as far as I am concerned I am not doing anything illegal now but just playing the loopholes of the system! ;D


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

V perhaps you should follow the actions taken by this person who managed to get his fine/points overturned 

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=51875&f=10&h=0


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Nick...this is exactly how you challenge the system. And I will play it in a very similar way.


----------



## NickP (May 6, 2002)

Keep us informed!

(I'm sure you will )


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

Intentionally trying to get around the legal systems of any civilised country is, in my opinion, just wrong.

Once you've done this, I wonder what the next law will be that is broken and then attempt is made to avoided.
Which laws are OK to break, and which ones are not? where's the line ?
I wonder if in the future you would continue to drive without a license? (because the Police targetted you and you don't think it's fair).

As with ScoTT*y* - I'm keen to see you attempt to avoid this fine


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> Intentionally trying to get around the legal systems of any civilised country is, in my opinion, just wrong.
> 
> Once you've done this, I wonder what the next law will be that is broken and then attempt is made to avoided.
> Which laws are OK to break, and which ones are not? where's the line ?
> ...


I didn't make this law that says 70 is the limit...when quite clearly 80 should be!

Also it is withing my rights to challenge anything that I don't think is right. And of course it is not my fault that the legal people left these loop holes open!

...and as my Greek driving instructor told me in the past...the speed limits are for the police only, not for you! 

I appreciate that you find this wrong...but it is not your fight!


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> I didn't make this law that says 70 is the limit...when quite clearly 80 should be!


I didn't make the law that says thou shall not steal. Come to think of it, I didn't make the law that says thou shall not kill. Hell, I am in the clear if I do either of these then.

Vlastan, you are speaking through your rear passage!


----------



## mother (Feb 6, 2003)

how long does it take for the notice to come through as I think I may have been caught on thursday doing around 80 on the M3? 

I can understand a speed limit of 70 for some cars but the TT deserves, neigh, must be driven faster!


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Brett, you can't compare murder with this! Don't be silly!

Mother,

It can take up to two weeks. Mine took 10 days.


----------



## emvisi (Nov 18, 2002)

> Peter,
> It not the fine I am worried about but the points!


If you don't like the penalty, don't exceed the speed limit.



> There are always margins to allow for misreading on the speedo and for actually paying attention on the road ahead instead of the speedo all the time.


Then set the audible speed warning on your car. And if you're concerned about measurement errors, set it conservatively.

Sorry, Nick. Despite the often sneaky methods of enforcement and slim margins by which the limit is exceeded in some cases, the only honest way to avoid being done for speeding is to stay at or below the speed limits.

It's very simple. Whether you like it or not, 70mph is the motorway limit here, and if you choose to go faster then it's at your own risk. Whether it's the risk of a fatal accident (as we're apparently being educated to fear) or the risk of being caught (much higher IMO), it's entirely YOUR choice how fast you drive.

If you don't want points on your licence, DON'T SPEED. Otherwise, just count yourself unlucky to have been caught, take the medicine and carry on driving as fast as you like.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Brett, you can't compare murder with this! Don't be silly!


Where do you draw the line as to which laws apply to you and which don't? Apparently the 70mph one doesn't apply to you, so I am interested in knowing which ones do apply to you, just in case I ever come south of the border.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2003)

Been looking at the thread more out of interest of peoples views rather than pasing any judgement.

One item did draw my eye, sas a comment about cloning car / number plate.

It happened to our registratration and car (model and colour identical) We got a phone call from the Northhampton police at 6:30 AM asking us to collect our car from the motorway.

Ours was in the garage, No fines to date come through, but quite how you prove you are somewhere else at the time could be probmatical.

If I'd been awake, may be should have said "i'm on my way! and got some spares !!


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Been looking at the thread more out of interest of peoples views rather than pasing any judgement.
> 
> One item did draw my eye, sas a comment about cloning car / number plate.
> 
> ...


Don't know how much judgement is going on here as most people that have commented have been done for speeding at some point. I think the argument is that speeding is somewhat of a calculated risk and if you choose to do so, you should accept the consequences if you are caught.

Interesting point you make about cloning though. It has come up for debate a few times on the forum. Personally, I was not too bothered about it as the colour Black Cherry (as mine was) is officially recorded as Red on the V5. So if someone had cloned my plate and the DVLA/Police had investigated, I would have had some grounds to have things looked into a little further.

You will see a number of people on the forum, however, do blank their plates to ensure this doesn't happen to them. Of course, that doesn't stop someone that is following you down the road from taking a note of your number... :-/


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

Something for the critics...if you bought Sunday Times yesterday read on page 12 of the main section with heading: " Car-tax dodgers go free as police target speeders"

It basically says that police will not catch people with unsafe cars and without tax or insurance but are willing to trap speeding cars.

"Many critics believe police are opting for the easy revenue to be gained in speeding fines from otherwise law-abiding drivers. As a result, it is claimed, forces have cut the number of traffic police and ignored offences that are just as likely to lead to road deaths."

Even some senior metopolitan police officer said that speed on its own is not the killer, but dangerous driving is.

There are 1.25 million uninsured drivers in the UK (1 in 20) and they cost us...law-abiding people Â£30 extra in our insurance. 

There are more details but I won't type them here.

You must bloody open your eyes and don't be so narrow minded guys.

After all it is a lot easier for the copper to sit in his fat arse inside the van and taking pictures than chasing old bangers!

Now I hope that the critics will calm down. You may pay all your speeding fines the day they arrive..I don't care. I will do what I think it is right and I will not be intimidated by the police actions.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> You must bloody open your eyes and don't be so narrow minded guys.


And you should take some responsibility for your actions.


----------



## Nimbus (Sep 20, 2002)

> Something for the critics...if you bought Sunday Times yesterday read on page 12 of the main section with heading: " Car-tax dodgers go free as police target speeders"
> 
> It basically says that police will not catch people with unsafe cars and without tax or insurance but are willing to trap speeding cars.
> 
> ...


Vlastan, wtf has the above to do with your case ?
You were speeding, you admit you were speeding, and you got caught. End of story...

Pay the fine, take the points, and stop kidding yourself that you will get off with it. You wont !


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

Nimbus your registration plate is illegal spaced - the fine is in the post


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> Nimbus your registration plate is illegal spaced - the fine is in the post


He'd probably just pay up as well....


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

So the moral of the story is break the law as long as you (can afford to) pay the fine! If you pay up - not a problem.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> So the moral of the story is break the law as long as you (can afford to) pay the fine! If you pay up - not a problem.


That is not what I am suggesting. My view is that if you *knowingly* break the law, be prepared to accept the punishment - whatever that may be.


----------



## Sim (Mar 7, 2003)

But nobody has questioned the rationality of this law. Everyone instead has become morally opposed to Nick's attitude towards receiving and paying the fine.

If the consensus is that this is a good law then we should not be moralistic about the lack of fine payment but about the fact that Nick was speeding in the first place.

I shall say no more as this thread has hung around for far too long as it is without me contributing to its longevity.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

The Dutch have the Tuf Tuf Club in protest to the Police action against drivers (some bloody funny photos IMO).

If the Brits feel strongly what do they do, moan and nothing else.

Maybe thats where Vlastan's Greek blood show us Brits up.

Example - road fuel tax in 2000, the demos brought the country to it's knees, with solid support, then we just gave up and achieve nowt. Now if it had been French Truckers/Farmers/Fishermen, there WOULD have been a result.


----------



## Nimbus (Sep 20, 2002)

> Nimbus your registration plate is illegal spaced - the fine is in the post


Nah.. I think you've doctored my sig pic to increase your prosecution levels


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

I waiting for when the points and fine are enforced and the penalty goes up for pleading not guilty.

I'm sure that will be simply a case of victimisation as well! :


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> The Dutch have the Tuf Tuf Club in protest to the Police action against drivers (some bloody funny photos IMO).
> 
> If the Brits feel strongly what do they do, moan and nothing else.
> 
> ...


That's my point...the British apathy is beyond me!! If we all challenge this system it will just collapse because we all speed in our TTs and we all know that it is not right that we are victimised by police or anybody else.

British folk will just pay anything is asked without any significant protest.

If all of us in this forum that we drive nice sports cars and speed will protest in any way we see fit then we could force changes to the system. Instead you just say "pay up and shut up".


----------



## Dubcat (Jun 10, 2002)

can someone explain to me why the penalty should be more if you plead not guilty? Surely you are just exercising your rights. Also, you will have paid for your right to exercise these rights through the court costs you incurr and more importantly the taxes you pay.

So why should the penalty be more if you plead not guilty?

W.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> I waiting for when the points and fine are enforced and the penalty goes up for pleading not guilty.


 But I doubt that the fine or the points will go higher. When the picture comes it will be decided what is the best course of action. If no driver can be identified then you plead not guilty and end of story. If you are identified (quite unlikely as the pictures are of very poor quality) you plead guilty and you only pay the current fine without need for a hearing to the court.

It looks to me that you terrified of courts and the legal system because you don't understand it.


----------



## KevinST (May 6, 2002)

> If we all challenge this system it will just collapse...


And then anarchy takes hold as there's not a seperate legal system for road offences so the legal system is no longer to cope. People speed anywhere they like, 60MPH past infant schools is fine (after all, once the 70MPH limit is changed, then it'll be the 60, 50, 40 etc etc). Maybe the government put up the penalty for speeding - crushing cars on the roadside will become normal?

Tell me, have you written and complained to your MP? If not, why not? As your elected representive to the UK government (whether you voted for him/her or not) they have the responsibility of voicing your opinion to the government of the day.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

> can someone explain to me why the penalty should be more if you plead not guilty? Â Surely you are just exercising your rights. Â Also, you will have paid for your right to exercise these rights through the court costs you incurr and more importantly the taxes you pay.
> 
> So why should the penalty be more if you plead not guilty?
> 
> W.


Scotty's brain is too hot and can't think!! ;D 

I guess it is something to do with wasting court time etc. There are also costs associated with the hearing that you have to pay as you lost the case. But I don't see the points going up anyway.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

> That's my point...the British apathy is beyond me!! If we all challenge this system it will just collapse because we all speed in our TTs and we all know that it is not right that we are victimised by police or anybody else.
> 
> British folk will just pay anything is asked without any significant protest.
> 
> If all of us in this forum that we drive nice sports cars and speed will protest in any way we see fit then we could force changes to the system. Instead you just say "pay up and shut up". Â


So is it only the UK that has speed limits and only the UK that enforces them? Do you really think that a bunch of motorists protesting (with a shout of "no fair") because they broke the law will suddenly lead to the collapse of the justice system? Don't be daft.

Anyway, this is my last post on this subject, it has gone on long enough. You know what the speed limit is (whether it is right or wrong in your eyes, it is the law of the land) and you have been caught breaking it. By all means protest that the limit is "too slow" but do not try convince me that you were picked on "because you were driving a TT". That is utter crap.

Good luck in your protest. You know my views, but it is your right to state your case in a court of law. Don't be surprised if the fine and points tally are higher though.


----------



## scoTTy (May 6, 2002)

> Scotty's brain is too hot and can't think!! Â ;D
> 
> I guess it is something to do with wasting court time etc. There are also costs associated with the hearing that you have to pay as you lost the case. But I don't see the points going up anyway.


A strange post. You suggest my brains not working and then agree with the fact that the penalty may go up. Puzzled :-/

P.S. There were complaints in our office today as it was too cold


----------



## Nimbus (Sep 20, 2002)

> If no driver can be identified then you plead not guilty and end of story. If you are identified (quite unlikely as the pictures are of very poor quality) you plead guilty and you only pay the current fine without need for a hearing to the court.
> 
> It looks to me that you terrified of courts and the legal system because you don't understand it.


Vlastan, 
if you think you'll get off just because they cant identify you in the picture you are very wrong...
You are I suspect.. the registered owner of the car, therefore you are and will be obliged to tell the police who the driver was at the time... ( dont believe the crap you've probably read on the net about your 'human rights' it got thrown out on appeal...)
Pretending you cant remember etc wont wash, you'll just end up in front of the magistrate, and a much bigger fine..

But really... I dont get this.. whether you disagree with what the speed limits are, or whether life is fair....
You admit you were speeding, and you got caught !

I await the outcome with great interest...


----------

