# 80mph & 3 points!



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

Ok I think speeding through built up areas/outside schools etc is dangerous and needs measures to stop the idiots that do this.

But 80 mph on a clear motorway (in Cumbria) & 3 points!

Have the police got nothing better to do ...or do all those who speed deserve the dreaded three points?


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Done for 80mph?  

I'd always thought that you were safe up to 85/90 - especially on a clear motorway (and that stretch of the M6 beyond J36 is generally very clear).

What were you doing ... talking on your mobile whilst eating a Mars bar and undertaking a marked police car ???


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Generally accepted guideline is speed limit +10% +2mph so on a motorway 79mph max. Not much sympathy from me but only because I once got done for 81mph.


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

TTonyTT said:


> What were you doing ... talking on your mobile whilst eating a Mars bar and undertaking a marked police car ???


Nah, he was doing his hair and applying his make-up!


----------



## juggler (Sep 29, 2006)

It does depend on where you are. Cumbria & North Wales are very definitely 'don't push your luck territory'. It's a while since I've been that way but you used to be able to see everyone slam on the anchors as they crossed the border from Lancashire into Cumbria - and conversely open the gas as they crossed the line in the other direction.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Philr said:


> Have the police got nothing better to do ...or do all those who speed deserve the dreaded three points?


I meant to say, their job _is_ to enforce the law, so no, they don't have anything better to do.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Motorists = easy money to the police and government :evil:


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

YELLOW_TT said:


> Motorists = easy money to the police and government :evil:


Law obiding motorists don't pay a penny extra. Your turn.


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

BreTT said:


> YELLOW_TT said:
> 
> 
> > Motorists = easy money to the police and government :evil:
> ...


Punch someone in town on a Saturday night ,if you get caught you get a caution ,when was the last time speed cameras gave out cautions?


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

wallsendmag said:


> BreTT said:
> 
> 
> > YELLOW_TT said:
> ...


Steal a car or rob a house you will get a caution if you are very unlucky you will get a fine but as these people are scum they just wont pay the fine as motorists are generaly genuine honest people they pay up


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> BreTT said:
> 
> 
> > YELLOW_TT said:
> ...


I didn't say you had to like the law. It is an easily enforceable law which is why it is not popular with people that break it. Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced though.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

I understand the point that "it's a law, so if you break it, don't complain about the points and the fine". OK, no argument about that view being legally correct.

Indeed, I always try to stick to 30mph and 40mph limits - those are usually in place for a sensible, safety-based reason. So, legally *and *morally, those are "right" limits and laws.

But c'mon. On a quiet motorway, driving with all due care (etc), a limit of 70mph is ridiculous. _As a general rule_, traffic police don't stop you at 80mph (I know, I've overtaken plenty at that speed), although at 85mph it's probably a grey area.

There are plenty of other - more dangerous - aspects of driving that don't get penalised. How may HGVs do you see driving @ 56mph, 5ft behind the one in front? Surely, that's dangerous. How many HGVs indicate, and pull out regardless of what's behind (or alongside) them. Dangerous again. How many cap wearing Volvo drivers see 70mph as the maximum speed - in the outside lane with two clear lanes inside them? And middle-lane only drivers? The number of van drivers I've noticed in the last few months, on their mobiles (and looking at their satnav screen rather than in front of them). The number of mothers on the school run who seem to believe that they're supposed to drive with 2 wheels to the left of the white line down the middle of the road, and the other 2 wheels on the right side of that line. And parking around school gates ... Arrrgghhhh.

But if you do over 70mph on a clear motorway ....

Surely that law isn't enforced only because (a) it's easy, (b) it's remunerative and (c) once you're caught you just pay up and drive off with little or no argument (and consequent paperwork for the police).

Surely not ....



BreTT said:


> Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean it shouldn't be enforced though.


That approach undermines the moral / cultural acceptability, credibility, belief and support in "the law" generally, and "the police" as the enforcers of that law. Why are "jobsworths" rightly ridiculed?

Laws that are "right", popular and generally accepted are enforced as much by social responsibility and peer pressure (drink driving) as they are by the police.


----------



## YELLOW_TT (Feb 25, 2004)

Speed cameras only catch speeding motorists not drunk /dangerous etc drivers and the more cameras they fit the less traffic cops there are making the roads more of a danger not less


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Guys, my point remains. The law is the law - the way to change it is usually at the ballot box. We don't have the right to choose which laws to obey and which ones to break. Yes, some are more easily enforced than others, and we may have reason to feel aggrieved by the methods by which they are enforced. However, the police are doing their job by enforcing the law, and in this particular case, it sounds like it was traffic cops enforcing the law which is most definitely their job.

Remember it usually elected officials that draft legislation, not the police officers.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Am with Brett on this one. The law is quite clear. 3 points quite fair.

The full circumstances and ensuing dialogue is not clear. Perhaps one was a tad lippy?

I have been let off with a caution a few times just through being polite and apologetic to the cops. But would never count on it. It's an occupational hazard. But so too is dying in a car...

Mind you I also got pulled over outside Harrogate a couple of years back at 6 am when passing a marked 69 mph police car at 71 mph set cruise control, GPS confirmed. They can be arses too.

Get over it.


----------



## jgray (May 8, 2002)

I think the big problem is the perception of what they are doing, are they preventing "crime" or earning revenue.

Whichever way you look at it, catching and fining motorists has now become a great revenue earner.

I am sure it will all become obsolete in the near future when our cars speed limites will be controlled or governed by the roads we drive on unless the safety issue becomes offset by the potential revenue to be earned.


----------



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

Just for clarification:
no mobile
no mars bar
no hair brush/lipstick etc 
No dialogue, just a scamera on a bridge.

If the law is to be upheld 100% then 71mph is not acceptable.

Ok if you drive at 80mph on a motorway you take the risk of being fined, but as with other issues motorist are easy targets, I would question if some of these recources could be better used in other areas.

As for the ballot box, which party takes a sensible line on cars, global warming etc ?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Philr said:


> Just for clarification:
> no mobile
> no mars bar
> no hair brush/lipstick etc
> ...


None really Phil. They all see it as a way to raise taxes to pay for their policies, wars etc.

And as we all know taxes will not save the planet.


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

As I have 3 points from 46 in a 40, then yep you should have some for 80 in a 70 :?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

Philr said:


> Ok if you drive at 80mph on a motorway you take the risk of being fined, but as with other issues motorist are easy targets, I would question if some of these recources could be better used in other areas.


Typically these are not operated by uniformed police, as you no doubt know, but camera partnerships who are "empowered" to uphold the law. So their police resources probably were being better used in other areas. Sad to say, I got done in a similar manner to you. I'd (like you) assumed that up to 85mph was safe (a calculated decision on my part) and found I was wrong.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Unfortunately, it's a different situation with cameras (fixed and vans).

The former will flash at whatever speed they've been set at, regardless of any other factors (weather, density of traffic, driving characteristics, etc). The latter, being more human than the former, should take into account those other factors. Plus they'll consider (a) whether they can be arsed with the paperwork, and (b) whether they filled their quota for the week!

You can't argue with a camera. Unless you have a chainsaw in the boot or a missile launcher in the front bumper. :?


----------



## spain (May 28, 2005)

Police take the piss full stop.

DonÂ´t know if any of you are unlucky enough to catch those police programs where they have a camera crew following the cops around?

Well howÂ´s this for a piss take?

They stop a woman in a "dodgy" car as they describe it. She has no license, no MOT , no insurance and the car is not in her name - this information only comes out after lying to the police byt telling them she has all of the above , talk about perversion if justice.

Now normally you would expect them to bung the cuffs on and bundle her off - but no, they give her a warning and tell her not to drive the car - WELL DONE PLOD.

But this is the best bit, 20 minutes later, they see her again, DRIVING ANOTHER CAR!!

This is where I thought they would throw the book at her, but no, another fucking warning.

And then thicko plod jokes that she will probably be off in another car any minute .

Now if they say speeding is dangerous, how can that not be? She knocks someone over what happens then?

TWATS


----------



## Philr (Oct 10, 2006)

scott28tt said:


> As I have 3 points from 46 in a 40, then yep you should have some for 80 in a 70 :?


I bet you were a tell-tale at school! :wink:


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I read an article recently (which I meant to copy) about the fact that some cameras generate so much paperwork that their limits are being raised.

Some cameras on 30mph stretches will not flash until a driver exceeds 45mph as setting it at 35 means too many people are caught for them to process. The problem is that no one will want ot test the theory to find out though.

It would seem therefore, that to be caught doing 80mph on a 70 stretch and penalised for it is unlucky, but not unfair.


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

There is anaother angle to this; we've all heard about some forces offering 'driver retraing' instead of 3 points.

YES PLEASE make me an offer of a whole day listening to someone waffle on RE the dangers of speeding in exchange for a hefty fine and no points.

Bloody unfair this is not offered across the board :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

Oh and btw BreTT to say the way forward is via the ballot box is laughable


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

foojeek said:


> Oh and btw BreTT to say the way forward is via the ballot box is laughable


What I actually said was "The law is the law - the way to change it is usually at the ballot box."

How else do you suggest? Mass disobedience? Where do you draw the line?


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

The laws are made by those those voted into power. The idea that that my single vote can influence the outcome is simplistic, dated and naiveve


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

foojeek said:


> The laws are made by those those voted into power. The idea that that my single vote can influence the outcome is simplistic, dated and naiveve


I assume you mean naive - back to my original question then. How else do you suggest we deal with this? If you don't vote you definitely don't have a say. I'm all ears if you can suggest a legal viable alternative.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

BreTT said:


> foojeek said:
> 
> 
> > The laws are made by those those voted into power. The idea that that my single vote can influence the outcome is simplistic, dated and naiveve
> ...


Bit of naivety here chaps. _New_ laws are introduced by Parliament. All parties vote. Existing statutes can be repealed by Parliament using similar process, and the Judiciary administers all current legistlation.

The 70mph speed limit was introduced in 1965. Blair was just a little twat then and cannot be blamed. New technology and socio-political climate has simply made enforcing this law both easier and more acceptable.

Is there any party or independent MP campaigning on raising national speed limit above 70 mph or abolishing the limit/decriminalising speeding. I very much doubt it.

That's the only way your vote will impact an existing law.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

garyc said:


> Is there any party or independent MP campaigning on raising national speed limit above 70 mph or abolishing the limit/decriminalising speeding. I very much doubt it.
> 
> That's the only way your vote will impact an existing law.


That's the crux of the matter here. There is no party campaigning on this matter as there doesn't appear to be enough groundswell of opinion to make a difference. So it would _appear_ that the _majority_ of people are in favour of the status quo. Let's face it, politicians are in the game of being as popular as possible - that is how they keep their jobs.

Agreed that you may not affect change via a single vote on a single law, however change per se is effected at the ballot box if there is sufficient groundswell of opinion.

However we digress...


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

I think the issue is consistency of application of the law - or the lack of it. Cameras are fine - I always assume they are set to the limit, and don't risk passing one over it. It's the human element that is at fault.

In the sawf, if your travelling at 70mph it usually only because there's a bit of traffic and every nonce on the planet is in the fast lane. All other times, 85-90mph seems to be the norm. On the way back from Devon on Friday night, 90-100mph seemed to be quite acceptable on the M5.

Whereas in some parts of the country, it seems 5mph over the limit and you are at serious risk of getting stopped and fined.

I think Kell has made a good point, which suggests it's not just the police who create the inconsistencies, but drivers also. I guess historically there has been more tolerance across the board in the south to people driving over the limit, which perhaps has resulted in the compromise that is a higher police tolerance to speeding. In other parts of the country, not just that police have been more resilient to public "pressure" but I suppose a large proportion of the public they serve are also just as resolute that the law should be applied firmly.

So two possible reasons why the 70mph will stay - there would be no point to raise it as we drive fat enough in the south anyway; and those in other areas of the country would not tolerate it.


----------



## spain (May 28, 2005)

70mph is quite a ridiculous speed limit these days, no matter what they say.

My dad was telling me how when they enforced that limit, there werenÂ´t many cars that had 4 gears never mind that could reach that speed.

Why build all these cars that can comfortably and safely cruise at higher speeds, and then restrict everyone to crawling speed?

I just do not understand that train of thought. Why not control everyones speed by remote satellite, then there would be no need for any of this shite. No money thats why. :x


----------



## head_ed (Dec 10, 2002)

I got done for doing 80mph on the motorway too. My 3 points come off next week :?


----------



## foojeek (Nov 22, 2004)

And another thing; speed limits are designed around the lowest common denominator. The cars we all (supposedly) drive are one hell of a lot safer than a lot of other vehicles on the road. A 60yr year old LandRover can still drive at 30mph past a school but I wouldn't care to take a bet on its stopping distance or stability.

Oh and Brett stop being an arse over the spelling, thats been done to death on here already. No one like a smartarse


----------



## WozzaTT (Jan 15, 2006)

Karcsi said:


> I think the issue is consistency of application of the law - or the lack of it. Cameras are fine - I always assume they are set to the limit, and don't risk passing one over it. It's the human element that is at fault.
> 
> In the sawf, if your travelling at 70mph it usually only because there's a bit of traffic and every nonce on the planet is in the fast lane. All other times, 85-90mph seems to be the norm. On the way back from Devon on Friday night, 90-100mph seemed to be quite acceptable on the M5.
> 
> ...


I agree - consistency is the key, then everyone would know exactly where they stand.

I got stopped by an unmarked car about 6 months ago - they had clocked me at 102mph and I had undertaken a car just before my exit junction. I'm not boasting about this - I never normally undertake, although generally always speed as I'm sure the majority of us do. Nice blokes - just a bollocking, then on my way. Nearly shat myself though.

We should be happy we live in this country - I've driven here for 18 years and never got any points. I lived in Germany for 5 years and got done 3 times. No qualms there about hiding behind a hedge with a radar gun and then jumping out - pure money-making exercise.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

foojeek said:


> Oh and Brett stop being an arse over the spelling, thats been done to death on here already. No one like a smartarse


I do believe it was you that called me "naiveve" - I checking my understanding of your view as I didn't have a dictionary handy to look up the word. Unfortunately I don't know every single word in the English dictionary and it won't be the first time I have seen a new one used on here. To be fair, it is usually garyc that introduces them.

Good post Kell by the way.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

WozzaTT said:


> I got stopped by an unmarked car about 6 months ago - they had clocked me at 102mph and I had undertaken a car just before my exit junction. I'm not boasting about this - I never normally undertake, although generally always speed as I'm sure the majority of us do. Nice blokes - just a bollocking, then on my way. Nearly shat myself though.


A few years back, I actually flashed an unmarked to get out of my way on the M6  We had a quick chat on the hard shoulder, and I carried on my journey being a little more patient ...

Agree absolutely that consistency is key. I think we've now established that speeding laws aren't enforced consistently across the country and different police forces. So it's a law that you're allowed to break one day on the M5, and are then penalised for breaking the next day on the M6. That's a ridiculous situation when a law is an enforced law one day, and is an ignored law the next day - how can we have respect, belief or confidence in such laws, or in the police who might, and might not, enforce it?

A consistently enforced limit of 80-85 would be more widely respected, and could be more consistently enforced.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

TTonyTT said:


> A consistently enforced limit of 80-85 would be more widely respected, and could be more consistently enforced.


Or an alternate view is that if you don't exceed 70mph you will be dealt with in the same way throughout the land...

(Not necessarily one I subscribe to given the car I drive).


----------



## carly (Mar 24, 2007)

The speed limit on French motorways is 80mph isn't it? Much better. We drove to the South of France last summer for our honeymoon and being able to do the extra 10mph made all the difference.

About time we changed the speed limit here!!


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

carly said:


> About time we changed the speed limit here!!


This has been a discussion point that has come up over at least the past 20 years. Usually the argument that is posted for not allowing it is that "everyone" does at least 80mph anyway, so if the limit is changed to this, will "everyone" do at least 90mph?

By the way, I do agree about 70mph on the motorway being out of date with modern times and technology.


----------



## carly (Mar 24, 2007)

BreTT said:


> carly said:
> 
> 
> > About time we changed the speed limit here!!
> ...


It is out of date, yeah.

And I do remember reading quite a while ago that 80mph was proved to be a safer speed in some tests that were done - it's supposed to be easier to stay awake driving at 80 than at 70. Of course you shouldn't be driving when you're half asleep anyway, LOL, but it would help with drowsiness.


----------



## scott28tt (Jul 30, 2002)

BreTT said:


> "everyone" does at least 80mph anyway, so if the limit is changed to this, will "everyone" do at least 90mph?


Of course that's what would happen - 100%


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

Speed limit is fine as it is. What we really need is a Gold Level road tax with a mandatory one day high speed driver training and an extra lane on the motorway system. Then, anyone who pays gold level tax can use the extra lane and the speed limit is 125mph and its an offence to go under 90mph in that lane.

Ill pay a grand a year road tax for that one ta very much.


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

Leg said:


> Speed limit is fine as it is. What we really need is a Gold Level road tax with a mandatory one day high speed driver training and an extra lane on the motorway system. Then, anyone who pays gold level tax can use the extra lane and the speed limit is 125mph and its an offence to go under 90mph in that lane.
> 
> Ill pay a grand a year road tax for that one ta very much.


That's available already.

You just need one of those cars with the stripey paint job, and blue lights.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

TTonyTT said:


> That's available already.
> 
> You just need one of those cars with the stripey paint job, and blue lights.


...and as an added bonus, you get to play "snooker" on the motorway...


----------



## Leg (Jan 11, 2006)

BreTT said:


> TTonyTT said:
> 
> 
> > That's available already.
> ...


hence the black cars and new found desire for a white one. Never touch red.


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

carly said:


> BreTT said:
> 
> 
> > carly said:
> ...


I don't exactly agree with the implication that cars are safer so you should be allowed to be driven faster. What is "safe" is relative and dependant on an awful lot more than the standard of car. As said many a time, it is the appropriateness of the speed that's important. A higher speed limit on it's own will undoubtably be detrimental to human life (and insurance premiums!). For some driver's it's irrelevant what the speed limit is - they're a danger to human life whatever speed they are travelling at.

I think education and a focus on proper driver etiquette will do a lot more to making travel on our roads faster and safer than raising the speed limit. I'd love to travel about at 100mph. But both the volume of traffic and the twats that dawdle in the fast lane or inches from the car in front make that either impossible or dangerous most of the time. It's great driving on the unrestricted roads in Germany. But often the results of some fool getting his MSM in the wrong order are heart stopping. They do quite often drive to the limits of their modern "safe" machinery, and it's not always fun and far from safe. I don't want that coming to our roads.


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

Just because it's the law doesn't mean that it's right.


----------



## X4RCN (Apr 18, 2006)

Watch out for the blue subaru on the A65, he collars loads of speeders!!
Bobby in a unmarked car :?


----------



## TTonyTT (Apr 24, 2006)

UK Performance said:


> Watch out for the blue subaru on the A65, he collars loads of speeders!!
> *Bobby *in a unmarked car :?


You're on first name terms with him??


----------



## DXN (May 18, 2002)

UK Performance said:


> Bobby in a unmarked car :?


It couldn't be an audi if its unmarked, seems you can't get an audi from the dealer without it being marked in some way :lol:


----------



## Karcsi (Mar 6, 2003)

DXN said:


> UK Performance said:
> 
> 
> > Bobby in a unmarked car :?
> ...


PMSL :lol: Painfully true.


----------



## sandhua1978 (Sep 11, 2006)

carly said:


> The speed limit on French motorways is 80mph isn't it? Much better. We drove to the South of France last summer for our honeymoon and being able to do the extra 10mph made all the difference.
> 
> About time we changed the speed limit here!!


Agree don't think the system in france works too badly. The speed limit changes depending on the weather and conditions.

If motorway is clear and weather good 80mph is more than acceptable i think for most modern cars.

If only they could get rid of the middle lane hoggers. (does my nut in not end!)

Tough one bud. agree a bit of common sense should have prevailed there I think.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Feisty wee thing today Mr W?

Fi denied sex for the past couple of weeks?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

John C said:


> Feisty wee thing today Mr W?
> 
> Fi denied sex for the past couple of weeks?


Look back through the dates; co-incided with you being away on your ski trip, lover :wink:


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

Some will castigate me for such a puerile reply to this thread but do we steal a Mars bar at 40p due to it being only slightly outside the law?

We all speed, we all take a chance and we all get caught from time to time.

What makes me think this was not the first and will not be the last thread like this?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

John C said:


> What makes me think this was not the first and will not be the last thread like this?


Farewell until the next one... 8)


----------



## bilbos (Jan 16, 2004)

Doing 80mph over here could land you in a lot of trouble. With the speed limit at 55mph ( :lol: ), 25 mph over will almost certainly book you an appearance in court. This could result in a few hundred dollar fine and 6 points.

If you were to be caught doing 90+ you would probably be arrested on the spot, slapped in handcuffs and carted off to the local nick for the night. Your car will also be taken to the local pound.


----------



## John C (Jul 5, 2002)

bilbos said:


> Doing 80mph over here could land you in a lot of trouble. With the speed limit at 55mph ( :lol: ), 25 mph over will almost certainly book you an appearance in court. This could result in a few hundred dollar fine and 6 points.
> 
> If you were to be caught doing 90+ you would probably be arrested on the spot, slapped in handcuffs and carted off to the local nick for the night. Your car will also be taken to the local pound.


ahhhhh the land of the 'free' :roll:


----------



## bootha2 (Oct 9, 2006)

I got a parking ticket on the M1 !!!!!!!!!!!! go figure that one

Was parked on the hard shoulder half way up a slip road looking at my map to avoid the queue I was sat in minutes earlier.

Got Â£30 parking fine and no points.

The copper must have been really bored that day.

Was absolutely speechless and no one believed me when I got to work


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

Yep, must have been bored with no rear end shunts on the hard shoulder to clear up, I can't recall reading in the Highway code that you can use it for a spot of map reading............you'll be picnicing next  [smiley=cheers.gif]


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

As i have done 2 naughty things lately according to the local traffic police and as I have been readng traffic law for the past 6 months and as I m going to challenge my NIPs in court and as I can not really understand the British mentality to accept anything that the police says on a piece of paper under the door, let me give you my points.

1) The fact that it is the law means nothing to a democratic society. The law has to serve the citizen and not vice versa. If everybody thought like that then we would all be under Nazi rule by now or the French would still be suffering under a tyrrany. ( I am not French). The first word that comes into my mind when people say "its the law" is "SHEEP". That's what sheep do when the shepperd calls them, they obey.

2) If this situation was in France or Holland or Italy the govermnet would be halted by huge demonstrations and in the case of Holland the scameras were chainsawed from their base. In UK we just send the NIP back with our details saying "its the law".

3) The NIP breaches your human rights as a European citizen. Search Idris Francis for more. So we all send back the NIP and accepting a breach of our human rights because its the law. The law has many sides and it is there to protect you from abuse from the authorities.

4) On the techy side, the TT waists a lot more petrol at 70mph than 80mph plus the fact that at 70 the revs are too low and you will have to change down to 5th often.

5) Personaly i have tried to go on 70mph for a few miles and i found my self playing with the stereo more that looking in front of me. I was weaving and could not concetrate. At 80 or 90 i could concetrate and i was a safer driver. Do you think the judge will buy that? :? :lol: :roll:


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

Good Luck in court mate................you may need it!


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

Thank you fastasflip but I will not needed since I have an EU lisense and they cant give me the points, they can only fine me. I am doing it cause if we allow the goverment to breach our human rights over a speeding offence, then what's next? Maybe we should all stop voting and accept our fate, that's what they do in North Korea.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

slineTT said:


> Thank you fastasflip but I will not needed since I have an EU lisense and they cant give me the points, they can only fine me. I am doing it cause if we allow the goverment to breach our human rights over a speeding offence, then what's next? Maybe we should all stop voting and accept our fate, that's what they do in North Korea.


Very brave of you to hide behind an EU license whilst you fight the just fight.


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

My lisence has nothing to do with the breach of human rights. I was actually thinking of changing it this year as i can get cheaper insurance with a UK one and i will still go to court. Its not about bravery its about democracy and the law.The law has many sides and it s not only the Section 172 on the traffic act.
READ THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

slineTT said:


> READ THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS.


Or live by the law of the land, and if you don't like the law of the land, leave. It's an option.


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

The law of the land is the European convention of human rights as signed by the British goverment. Its just that they apply it whenever they want.
And if you dont like the European convention of human rights i suggest moving to countries such as North Korea, great fun, no human rights whatsoever :lol:


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

slineTT said:


> The law of the land is the European convention of human rights as signed by the British goverment. Its just that they apply it whenever they want.
> And if you dont like the European convention of human rights i suggest moving to countries such as North Korea, great fun, no human rights whatsoever :lol:


Not sure why I should leave, I live by the law of the land and when I transgress, I take my punishment. Well good luck in front of the judge, as has already been suggested, you may need it.


----------



## fastasflip (May 13, 2003)

slineTT said:


> Thank you fastasflip but I will not needed since I have an EU lisense and they cant give me the points, they can only fine me. I am doing it cause if we allow the goverment to breach our human rights over a speeding offence, then what's next? Maybe we should all stop voting and accept our fate, that's what they do in North Korea.


Your welcome, however I think you may find that you can get points and banned from driving in this country either by way of totting up or any other penalty the court may impose. DVLA upon recieving info from the court issue you with a Ghost UK Licence, you will never recieve it unless you apply for a UK licence however it is a UK driver number, your points or ban will go against this number and should you be stopped by police again they can carry out checks via the DVLA database to show the current state of your UK driving entitlement.

I would imagine that you would have to disclose any endorsements to your insurance too.

Let me know your court date, my TV has broke, I'm broke and could do with a bit of light entertainment


----------



## slineTT (Feb 24, 2006)

I have never heard of the ghost lisence fastasflip, I will look it up. But i have been to court before with a speeding offence and my EU lisense and the judge clearly told me that they can not endorse the points on a non UK Licence. As for the insurance again a grey area as insurance companies dont know what to do when you tell them that technically you dont have points in your license but the DVLA has got my offences record, Usually they take them into account and charge me for them, well no surprise. But you are right the judge can actually impose any penalty or ban or they can force me to change my lisense and take it away from me. Well as i said the other option is to accept what the police has sent via second class mail under the door. I wonder if i do something more serious will I at least get a recorded delivery notice?
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## dazza66 (Jun 20, 2007)

Caring vets.....! I have a 2 year old Rottweiler who was feeling a little bit poorly over the week-end. Gave the vet a call & discribed my dogs symptoms to him..........! Expecting the vet to give me some sound advise,
" Is your dog insured........? " was his first question. My reply " yes " Two days later & a Â£538 bill later....! Dogs fine now. Lot of dosh for a upset tummy ay.....


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

Well, all my speeding offences have been a fair cop. I enjoyed all of them as I was well over the limit  

That's the way to do it 

Joe


----------

