Top 10 tips if you get pulled over

[hornetrider]

NOT THIS st AGAIN

[Munter]

hornetrider said:

NOT THIS st AGAIN

:wiggles fingers:
This is not the st you're looking for?

[fat tony]

Munter said:

hornetrider said:

NOT THIS st AGAIN

:wiggles fingers:
This is not the st you're looking for?

[FunkyNige]

Mr E Driver said:

Nowadays, 'failing to stop' will usually result in a 'Blues Brothers' high-speed chase by highly-skilled drivers in seriously fast specially-equipped pursuit cars. If things escalate include 'helicopter' and 'officers from three other counties' into the previous sentence.

Is anyone else now really tempted to do this?!

[TheTardis]

I guess the resposne to "Do you know why I have stopped you ?"
"Is it because my car is better spec'd than yours ?" is a no no then ?

[mister_ee]

point 11
If you are in the right and you know it, absolutely do not give in and stick to your story. I spent 15 minutes with a North Yorkshire Traffic Plod "discussing" why he wanted to give me a ticket for overtaking on double white lines and why, because I hadn't crossed the lines in the overtake I would damn well see him in court. Funny how it all changed when he got out the Highway Code he realised he was wrong and went on my merry way with a big smile

[thunderbelmont]

What about "Good Morning/Afternoon/Evening Chief Inspector, how can I help you" in a pleasant manner?

[Dr Jekyll]

eldar said:

Dr Jekyll said:

eldar said:

Dr Jekyll said:

Are you seriously suggesting wearing leather trousers as a matter of routine while riding?

Yup. If you place any value on your continued mobility.

So spend the day in leather trousers when I get to my destination? It's hardly practical is it.

Carrying a spare pair of trousers is less inconvenient than not being able to ride a bike again?

I know plenty of people who have come off without benefit of leathers and without ill effects. On the track when there is a serious possibility of falling off and sliding for a long distance I can see the point of leathers, but not on the road.

[Engineer1]

The point of leathers in the advice is that if you are going for a spirited ride wearing full leathers gives the impression you have put some thought into safety and could help the I was only a couple of miles an hour over the limit.

[Druid]

Engineer1 said:

The point of leathers in the advice is that if you are going for a spirited ride wearing full leathers gives the impression you have put some thought into safety and could help the I was only a couple of miles an hour over the limit.

The point exactly.

Not a biker so correct me if I'm wrong but you are more likely to reduce injury by wearing leathers? Therefore wearing jeans/shorts and a T shirt tells me you have little interest in your own well being should some idiot pull out in front of you, so how much thought do you have for your fellow road users? Just a thought!

[Wyvern971]

Full leathers will make a massive difference in terms of abrasion resistance, however it won't do much for impact damage (other than the armour which is usually put in as well).

Best bet, in a car or on a bike, would be to not act like a bell end surely......

I tend to wear leathers, but ride in bike jeans when commuting on the odd occasion.

When I have come off my bike though I've always been in leathers and they stand up very well

[Odie]

TheTardis said:

I guess the resposne to "Do you know why I have stopped you ?"
"Is it because my car is better spec'd than yours ?" is a no no then ?

If your driving an mx5 -

Plod "Do you know why I have stopped you ?"
Me "Because you want me to give you a hair cut?"

Wouldnt be very clever either? huh

[jazzyjeff]

Dr Jekyll said:

I know plenty of people who have come off without benefit of leathers and without ill effects. On the track when there is a serious possibility of falling off and sliding for a long distance I can see the point of leathers, but not on the road.

Then they are extremely lucky.

My mother once attended a road accident involving a biker who had collided with a car then skidded down the road (sans bike). He had been wearing jeans. She couldn't tell where the jeans started and the skin ended

On a totally different subject, what's the need in wearing a parachute? Surely flapping your arms hard enough will do?

Caveat viator

JJ

[M5Dave]

fat tony said:

vonhosen said:

fat tony said:

14-7 said:

fat tony said:

So a non motorbike riding/owning copper can make a judgment on what clothing is correct for me to wear on my bike? I dont think so.

It doesn't really take a lot of sense to realise that someone coming off a bike at 30mph in full leathers will fair far far better than someone wearing t-shirt and jeans.

fat tony said:

And even if he/she is a rider its my freedom of choice,

You are correct it is freedom of choice. If you choose to limit risk then fair enough. If you crash you know what happens if you are wearing jeans and a t-shirt. If you have a crash that is not your fault though and have been scarred for life due to your idocy in wearing said t-shirt and jeans instead of leathers then surely you should not be paid out as much. After all, any sensible person would do what is appropriate to limit that risk.

fat tony said:

As for being retarded, i've seen car drivers with hoodie tops up, baseball caps pulled over their eyebrows and ear phones in, or does that not matter?.

I've seen that as well and wonder how the hell they can drive properly. But surely your anaology of the car drivers is just the same as you wearing a t-shirt and shorts whilst riding? Or are we not allowed down that route because you are a biker and therefore know everything about driving/riding?

I agree with what you are saying, I just think its a persons choice to wear what they want. We live in a very free country, And I am grateful for it. I just don't want the health and safety loonies telling me what to do. I don't think my observations of some car drivers is the same, if choose to wear jeans and t-shirt i'm not putting anyone else at risk by reducing my visual/auditory zones. I am in no way a driving/riding god, unless its on my playstation . I have however found that riding my bike has made me a more observant car/van driver.

They're not telling you what to do. If you weren't offending you wouldn't be getting reported for the offence in the first place.

I have no problem being pulled for any offence that I may have committed, what I do have a problem with is the officer then "advising" me on my choice of clothes.

Casualty reduction is probably the major remit of a traffic cop, so it's his duty to advise you on your choice of clothes, if he feels what you are wearing puts you at increased risk of injury in the event of a crash.

[Rusty Arches]

Mr E Driver said:

6. Be honest

Cops hate liars, so if you know you were doing 40mph in a 30 then admit it. "I've no idea why you stopped me, mate," are not words any traffic cop likes to hear, especially the word 'mate'. Be honest, admit you're in the wrong and you may just get away with it. Trust us on this one, it works.

Never admit that you broke the law, that's their job to prove.

Probing questions such as "Do you have any idea how fast you were going" should be met with what ever the speed limit is. After all, it's easy to sneak over the limit on a bike, you should have most of your concentration on the road ahead.

[Conian]

+1 don't be honest about what you were doing speedwise!
It may be that they only have proof you were doing one speed, so dont go and confess to your top speed.
I got away with this one time
confession would have meant loss of licence, court case, possible jail time
what they had proof of was £60 and 3 points.

[havoc]

Rusty Arches said:

Mr E Driver said:

6. Be honest

Cops hate liars, so if you know you were doing 40mph in a 30 then admit it. "I've no idea why you stopped me, mate," are not words any traffic cop likes to hear, especially the word 'mate'. Be honest, admit you're in the wrong and you may just get away with it. Trust us on this one, it works.

Never admit that you broke the law, that's their job to prove.

Probing questions such as "Do you have any idea how fast you were going" should be met with what ever the speed limit is. After all, it's easy to sneak over the limit on a bike, you should have most of your concentration on the road ahead.

I sort-of agree with this...that particular question could easily be them trying to get a confession when they've actually got insufficient evidence to convict.

BUT...it could equally be them giving you an opportunity to show you're being honest with them, at which point they may decide that 'advice' is better for you than an FPN.


So in that case there is no one right answer - keeping schtum could be talking your way into an FPN or avoiding dropping yourself in it.

[M5Dave]

Rusty Arches said:

Mr E Driver said:

6. Be honest

Cops hate liars, so if you know you were doing 40mph in a 30 then admit it. "I've no idea why you stopped me, mate," are not words any traffic cop likes to hear, especially the word 'mate'. Be honest, admit you're in the wrong and you may just get away with it. Trust us on this one, it works.

Never admit that you broke the law, that's their job to prove.

Probing questions such as "Do you have any idea how fast you were going" should be met with what ever the speed limit is. After all, it's easy to sneak over the limit on a bike, you should have most of your concentration on the road ahead.

That might work if you're 10mph or so over the speed limit, but if it's a 60 limit and you've just been doing 130 then it's a non starter, the cops are just going to think you're treating them like idiots, which isn't going to go down well.

I would say something like "I'm not really sure, but faster than I should've been".

At the end of the day, they probably know exactly what speed you were doing, and if they were undecided as to how they were going to procede, then treating them like their heads button up the back is probably going to seal your fate, whereas putting your hands up, and being contrite might see you walk away from it unscathed.

[Neezer]

To be fair even if you admit that you were speeding, say 40 in a 30, at the time your 'admission' isn't very good evidence of your speed anyway beacuse you won't have a calibrated speedo on your car/bike and you won't know for sure for how long you were doing it for. So if you changed your mind later at court you would easily win. To have any hope of a successful prosecution for speeding the Police would always need reliable evidence of their own (whatever form this may take, follow checks/radar/laser etc). At least that's how it should be, and I would suggest any constable worth their salt would have that evidence properly documented in any case.

[Druid]

Rusty Arches said:

Probing questions such as "Do you have any idea how fast you were going"

Known as the attitude test.