Penny for your thoughts?
Discussion
A mate of mine was pulled over tonight for speeding. He was told that he was doing 136 mph in a 70 and didn't argue.
The strange thing was that at no point was he sat in the squad car and shown footage nor even given a producer or any bit of paperwork but was merely told to expect something in the post very soon?
The officers were most stern and apparently seemed quite cross about his behaviour and did even mention at one point about reporting driving without due care and attention to their superiors but he was simply given back his licence and told the above.
Do you think they may have been trying to put the wind up him and maybe not got what was needed by way of video footage?
That's what I said that I thought may have happened, at least he may sleep a little easier tonight?
The strange thing was that at no point was he sat in the squad car and shown footage nor even given a producer or any bit of paperwork but was merely told to expect something in the post very soon?
The officers were most stern and apparently seemed quite cross about his behaviour and did even mention at one point about reporting driving without due care and attention to their superiors but he was simply given back his licence and told the above.
Do you think they may have been trying to put the wind up him and maybe not got what was needed by way of video footage?
That's what I said that I thought may have happened, at least he may sleep a little easier tonight?
Unmarked car, lights in grill.
A 25ltr tub of liquid damp roof was left in the boot (apparently he wasn't aware that it had been deposited in there?) and it fell over at some point during his journey. He was obviously in a hurry to get home and clean it up. It's a right mess, I sent him home to do it at his place, cheeky begger wanted 'us' to do it at mine!
A 25ltr tub of liquid damp roof was left in the boot (apparently he wasn't aware that it had been deposited in there?) and it fell over at some point during his journey. He was obviously in a hurry to get home and clean it up. It's a right mess, I sent him home to do it at his place, cheeky begger wanted 'us' to do it at mine!
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
136 requires a proper motor. Carrying Damp roof, whatever it is ?
Yes sorry, my fault that, damp 'P'roof it should have said. It is an aquious membrane that is painted on to a concrete floor and then has a sand and cement screed applied once dried. The first coat is applied in a 50/50 mix (emulsion/water) with two further undiluted coats applied successively.It's an absolute b
h to clean of when you want to, almost impossible when you don't. mybrainhurts said:
Terminator X said:
Was he doing 136 and if so what was his hurry?
Wrong forum. I think you want mumsnet...I like driving quickly as much as the next PHer but I don't think I'd ever push it that much in the UK (mental limit of about 100). Risks of getting caught (and the associated punishment) don't outweigh the benefits imvho.
As mentioned above, way too quick for a FPN. Court summons in the post.
He could be in a spot of bother.
Second hand info ahead; told to me by a trusted mate in the law business.
Apparently deliberate speeding like this gets a much harsher penalty than 'speed creep'.
Sort of like the difference between premeditated or spontaneous.
If it was unmarked it's possible it was armed response doing a bit of traffic work
That could be why they didn't put your mate into their car.
Second hand info ahead; told to me by a trusted mate in the law business.
Apparently deliberate speeding like this gets a much harsher penalty than 'speed creep'.
Sort of like the difference between premeditated or spontaneous.
If it was unmarked it's possible it was armed response doing a bit of traffic work
That could be why they didn't put your mate into their car.
carreauchompeur said:
GTWayne said:
Oh yeah, the motor was a trusty old 200K+m BMW e46 320d touring!
Will that even do a genuine 136mph? I'd be surprised.Fight it OP; and to all those who say they don't need video, they do if you question it and they want to prove that kind of speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
J
jith said:
Fight it OP; and to all those who say they don't need video, they do if you question it and they want to prove that kind of speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
J
Suspect if the chump, as implied in the OP, has already admitted to and/or agreed with the officers to his speed that a lack of video will be a problem.J
jith said:
I would absolutely concur with that. These old BM diesels seriously lose power when they get to that kind of mileage. But I would think it would struggle even when new to achieve that.
Fight it OP; and to all those who say they don't need video, they do if you question it and they want to prove that kind of speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
J
Bad advice I would have thought. There's no obvious grounds for fighting it.Fight it OP; and to all those who say they don't need video, they do if you question it and they want to prove that kind of speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
J
The speed itself is largely irrelevant - he'll be reported for the offence of exceeding the posted speed limit (presumably NSL?), not "for doing 136mph".
tigger1 said:
Bad advice I would have thought. There's no obvious grounds for fighting it.
The speed itself is largely irrelevant - he'll be reported for the offence of exceeding the posted speed limit (presumably NSL?), not "for doing 136mph".
It's a Newton hearing iirc (ianal) where he admits he was speeding but not to the extent claimed. Whether he could admit to 90 and therefore get a lesser ban is another question though.The speed itself is largely irrelevant - he'll be reported for the offence of exceeding the posted speed limit (presumably NSL?), not "for doing 136mph".
tigger1 said:
jith said:
I would absolutely concur with that. These old BM diesels seriously lose power when they get to that kind of mileage. But I would think it would struggle even when new to achieve that.
Fight it OP; and to all those who say they don't need video, they do if you question it and they want to prove that kind of speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
J
Bad advice I would have thought. There's no obvious grounds for fighting it.Fight it OP; and to all those who say they don't need video, they do if you question it and they want to prove that kind of speed beyond a reasonable doubt.
J
The speed itself is largely irrelevant - he'll be reported for the offence of exceeding the posted speed limit (presumably NSL?), not "for doing 136mph".
The speed is most definitely NOT irrelevant. If he admits to that kind of speed he will almost certainly face a charge of DWDCA or even worse. Some judges in the lower courts now just simply assume the speed is dangerous because of the numbers, despite the fact they have absolutely no evidence in front of them to substantiate this. There are numerous cases of this. If the police make claims of this kind of speed, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the accused to disprove or simply "take it on the chin".
J
jith said:
No it's not. It's absolutely first class advice based on years of experience in fighting this kind of crap.
The speed is most definitely NOT irrelevant. If he admits to that kind of speed he will almost certainly face a charge of DWDCA or even worse. Some judges in the lower courts now just simply assume the speed is dangerous because of the numbers, despite the fact they have absolutely no evidence in front of them to substantiate this. There are numerous cases of this. If the police make claims of this kind of speed, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the accused to disprove or simply "take it on the chin".
J
The driver admitted to speeding at the time of the offence. Police officers (more than one by the sound of it) witnessed the speeding - and have written down 136 as the number. In what way do the police have to prove it - any more than they already have (by corroboration)?The speed is most definitely NOT irrelevant. If he admits to that kind of speed he will almost certainly face a charge of DWDCA or even worse. Some judges in the lower courts now just simply assume the speed is dangerous because of the numbers, despite the fact they have absolutely no evidence in front of them to substantiate this. There are numerous cases of this. If the police make claims of this kind of speed, it is up to them to prove it. It is not up to the accused to disprove or simply "take it on the chin".
J
I've not said it's dangerous, but your original comment (unlike one from another poster re:Newton hearing...which sounds like better advice) didn't mention anything other than fighting it, when there doesn't seem much to fight.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff