|
jazzyjeff
3,504 posts
128 months
|
daz3210 said: I was told (when doing advanced driver training) that a left signal to move to the inside lane is unnecessary, by virtue of the fact that it should be expected that once an overtake is complete you move over.
Is that not what the unmarked car did? Where there is any ambiguity, a signal is better than no signal. That's what I was told anyway (when doing advanced driver training) 
|
|
|
monthefish
15,729 posts
100 months
|
jazzyjeff said: daz3210 said: I was told (when doing advanced driver training) that a left signal to move to the inside lane is unnecessary, by virtue of the fact that it should be expected that once an overtake is complete you move over.
Is that not what the unmarked car did? Where there is any ambiguity, a signal is better than no signal. That's what I was told anyway (when doing advanced driver training)  Surely no signal is better if there is any ambiguity... (a wrong signal is far more dangerous than no signal)
|
|
|
OlberJ
11,971 posts
102 months
|
If i remember from the video there was a slip road joining where the polis pulled over without indicating.
That, i'm not keen on.
|
|
|
General Bilko
263 posts
55 months
|
Greg66 said: General Bilko said: OP, I sympathise with your predicament but playing devils advocate here, and I'm having to make estimates of the timing but I don't think they are too far out. [prosecution lawyer on] Thank you OP for providing that very illuminating video. You have been charged with averaging 75mph in a 50 mph zone. The police have based their prosecution on measuring the distance you covered in a one minute period, 0:48 to 1:48 in your video. This means you covered approx 1.25 miles in that time. By your own admission you slowed to 50mph at 1:18 in the video and continued at this speed for a 30 sec period until 1:48 before the police decided to stop you. In that time, you would have covered 0.4miles. Looking at your video evidence at 0:58 I can see you passed a van and then slowed somewhat because of traffic, lets assume you were travelling at 70 mph during this period of 20secs (from 0:58 to 1:18) which would have meant you covered a distance of 0.4 miles. Hence we are now looking to account for your speed during a 10 second period (0:48 to 0:58) where you covered 0.45 miles (1.25 mile less 0.4 less 0.4). By my calculation, your honour, this would have required a speed of over 160mph. [prosecution lawyer off] As I said the timings may be out a little and I haven't got time to do a sense check by amending the variables but I would expect however you slice & dice the numbers you'd still be looking at 100mph+ for that period when you lit the afterburners. My advice, delete the video, play the ‘very very sorry, never driven such a powerful car before’ card, and keep your fingers crossed. Good luck Errr, is the prosecution lawyer not very good at sums? He has taken the charge - 75mph from 0:48 to 1:48 - to calculate distance travelled in 60s. Then he has accepted the defendant's claim that he was driving at 50mph for the second 30 of those 60s to calculate the distance travelled in the second 30s. So the defendant is, on the prosecution's case, travelling simultaneously at both at 75mph and 50mph over the second 30 seconds. I know the law is different in Scotland, but I didn't realise that the laws of physics were different there as well.  Err, sorry I don't quite follow your critique. 60secs at 75mph = 1.25mile broken down to 30secs at 50mph = 0.4mile 20secs at 70mph = 0.4mile 10secs at 160mph = 0.45mile Isn't that more or less correct???
|
|
|
jazzyjeff
3,504 posts
128 months
|
monthefish said: jazzyjeff said: daz3210 said: I was told (when doing advanced driver training) that a left signal to move to the inside lane is unnecessary, by virtue of the fact that it should be expected that once an overtake is complete you move over.
Is that not what the unmarked car did? Where there is any ambiguity, a signal is better than no signal. That's what I was told anyway (when doing advanced driver training) Surely no signal is better if there is any ambiguity... (a wrong signal is far more dangerous than no signal) Perhaps I should have been more specific  How would making a left signal when moving from the right to the left lane in those circumstances create an ambiguity, or would be considered in any way dangerous?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
jazzyjeff said: daz3210 said: I was told (when doing advanced driver training) that a left signal to move to the inside lane is unnecessary, by virtue of the fact that it should be expected that once an overtake is complete you move over.
Is that not what the unmarked car did? Where there is any ambiguity, a signal is better than no signal. That's what I was told anyway (when doing advanced driver training) Where there is ambiguity, maybe. But where is the ambiguity in completing an overtake? You are (presumably) travelling faster than the car you have just overtaken, and by right should always return to the furthest left lane possible. Unless you are a MLM. If squeezing into a gap between two cars in a line, that is different....
|
|
|
Milky Joe
3,851 posts
73 months
|
monthefish said:  Blatantly targetted (Anyone who says that targetting of specific cars doesn't happen is naive). The coppers must have thought christmas had come early when the latest Lambo 'sped' on their patch. Fact is you were still speeding, so you don't really have a defence (especially as your video shows the sign!) but I think it would be quite an unfair prosecution in the circumstances and I wish you the best with it. Hogwash.
|
|
|
General Bilko
263 posts
55 months
|
Milky Joe said: Hogwash. How so Joe?
|
|
|
Greg66
1,529 posts
47 months
|
General Bilko said: Greg66 said: General Bilko said: OP, I sympathise with your predicament but playing devils advocate here, and I'm having to make estimates of the timing but I don't think they are too far out. [prosecution lawyer on] Thank you OP for providing that very illuminating video. You have been charged with averaging 75mph in a 50 mph zone. The police have based their prosecution on measuring the distance you covered in a one minute period, 0:48 to 1:48 in your video. This means you covered approx 1.25 miles in that time. By your own admission you slowed to 50mph at 1:18 in the video and continued at this speed for a 30 sec period until 1:48 before the police decided to stop you. In that time, you would have covered 0.4miles. Looking at your video evidence at 0:58 I can see you passed a van and then slowed somewhat because of traffic, lets assume you were travelling at 70 mph during this period of 20secs (from 0:58 to 1:18) which would have meant you covered a distance of 0.4 miles. Hence we are now looking to account for your speed during a 10 second period (0:48 to 0:58) where you covered 0.45 miles (1.25 mile less 0.4 less 0.4). By my calculation, your honour, this would have required a speed of over 160mph. [prosecution lawyer off] As I said the timings may be out a little and I haven't got time to do a sense check by amending the variables but I would expect however you slice & dice the numbers you'd still be looking at 100mph+ for that period when you lit the afterburners. My advice, delete the video, play the ‘very very sorry, never driven such a powerful car before’ card, and keep your fingers crossed. Good luck Errr, is the prosecution lawyer not very good at sums? He has taken the charge - 75mph from 0:48 to 1:48 - to calculate distance travelled in 60s. Then he has accepted the defendant's claim that he was driving at 50mph for the second 30 of those 60s to calculate the distance travelled in the second 30s. So the defendant is, on the prosecution's case, travelling simultaneously at both at 75mph and 50mph over the second 30 seconds. I know the law is different in Scotland, but I didn't realise that the laws of physics were different there as well. Err, sorry I don't quite follow your critique. 60secs at 75mph = 1.25mile broken down to 30secs at 50mph = 0.4mile 20secs at 70mph = 0.4mile 10secs at 160mph = 0.45mile Isn't that more or less correct??? Less correct. First, reality check. You have the OP accelerating from 75 to speed X back to 70 in ten seconds, so as to produce an average speed over those 10 s of 160mph. Fast as an Aventador is, I doubt it can get from 75 to X instantly., where X > 160. In fact, I doubt I wonder whether it can jump from 75 to 160 inside 10s. That leads to the conclusion that your sums bend the rules of physics somewhere. The question is where. If the charge is an average of 75mph over 1 minute, you have to use the data you have to prove that result. You can't use the result to prove itself (as you have done) - that produces a circular argument. What you have is 50mph for 30s-60s, plus 70mph for 10s-30s. That data and your prosecutor's sums shows that unless it had warp drive, it was impossible for the Aventador to have averaged 75mph over 60s. Your prosecutor's sums have disproved mathematically the allegation in the charge, rather than proved it. A prosecutor might instead say the video shows 0-10s @ 75mph (no evidence in the video of braking at the sign; 75mph before the sign admitted; the WPCs corroborate the allegation of no braking at the sign); and an inconclusive speed at 10-30s. So the charge would be driving at 75 in a 50, as per the video at 0-10s. Over what distance/time has the OP been charged with averaging 75mph? Has he said it was a minute?
|
|
|
General Bilko
263 posts
55 months
|
Greg66 said: Less correct.
First, reality check. You have the OP accelerating from 75 to speed X back to 70 in ten seconds, so as to produce an average speed over those 10 s of 160mph. Fast as an Aventador is, I doubt it can get from 75 to X instantly., where X > 160. In fact, I doubt I wonder whether it can jump from 75 to 160 inside 10s.
That leads to the conclusion that your sums bend the rules of physics somewhere. The question is where.
If the charge is an average of 75mph over 1 minute, you have to use the data you have to prove that result. You can't use the result to prove itself (as you have done) - that produces a circular argument.
What you have is 50mph for 30s-60s, plus 70mph for 10s-30s. That data and your prosecutor's sums shows that unless it had warp drive, it was impossible for the Aventador to have averaged 75mph over 60s. Your prosecutor's sums have disproved mathematically the allegation in the charge, rather than proved it.
A prosecutor might instead say the video shows 0-10s @ 75mph (no evidence in the video of braking at the sign; 75mph before the sign admitted; the WPCs corroborate the allegation of no braking at the sign); and an inconclusive speed at 10-30s. So the charge would be driving at 75 in a 50, as per the video at 0-10s.
Over what distance/time has the OP been charged with averaging 75mph? Has he said it was a minute? The OP said he’s going to be charged for an average of 76mph in a 50. I used the 0:48 point in the video as that was when he went past the 50 sign. The 60 seconds measured time for the speed check was a bit of a guess tbh, at around 1:48 the OP was slowing for the exit. I didn’t think I’d developed circular argument, but just used (guessed) some of the data to fill in the blank of his speed during that first 10 secs, and if you recall in the video the Lambo did accelerate very quickly, certainly getting well above 75mph IMHO. Was it 160? Almost certainly not, but my point was the Vmax achieved in that one minute run would very likely be in the licence losing range, hence taking a charge of an average 76mph was, in the circumstances, the better outcome. With sufficient time and inclination I’m sure a prosecutor could come up with some numbers which would “show” the speed during that initial period was achievable, for instance extend the time for the 50mph section or increase the speed during that period to 55mph, either or both would reduce the Vmax speed to a more ‘reasonable’ figure.
|
|
|
redback911
Original Poster
509 posts
135 months
|
Greg66 said: Over what distance/time has the OP been charged with averaging 75mph? Has he said it was a minute? Hmm, I cannot remember if I was told over what distance or for how long my speed was being recorded. I just remember the 76 average in a 50 zone.
|
|
|
matchmaker
3,265 posts
69 months
|
redback911 said: They have me "bang to rights", I guess I feel that the punishment should be proportional. If it was 3 points then I would chalk it to experience and avoid totting up another 9 on top. The fact that guidelines suggest 4-6 points and/or a ban seems harsh (in my completely biased opinion). And of course these "guidelines" have no relevance in a Scottish court! However, I'd have thought that your case may be dealt with a Conditional Offer - £60 and 3 points. It's up to the Fiscal.
|
|
|
Rovinghawk
2,018 posts
27 months
|
RVIANT said: Scottish Police are just obnoxious,jealous Tw&ts, I got pulled in Scotland whilst decently over the speed limit. I saw him as soon as I came over the crest (too late!) and indicated to pull over the moment he pulled out behind me & turned the lights on. A surprisingly polite conversation ensued, ending with him telling me to take it easy & me having an increased respect for their way of doing things. So no, they're not necessarily as you describe. RH
|
|
|
andrew
5,672 posts
61 months
|
i'm not sure that it's any defence, but fwiw it's the easiest thing in the world to miss a traffic sign hidden behind an aventador's a pillar, then behind the low roofline you also have to drive like a saint ( in public  ) as, for some reason, the eyes of the world are always on the lambo
|
|
|
matchmaker
3,265 posts
69 months
|
RVIANT said: Scottish Police are just obnoxious,jealous Tw&ts, sorry to hear of your troubles personally i wouldnt go up their by choice, their laws are draconian  and ignore all the twerps on here that go on about you were speeding, bend over and take the punishment So not just BIB bashing, racist BIB bashing? And what "draconian" laws are you talking about?
|
|
|
bulldog5046
963 posts
47 months
|
I think this is quite un-fair cop.
writing 76mph on a ticket to intentionally push it to court rather than write 75mph and let the guy go with 3 points? its pretty harsh.
Maybe try pleeding guilty to speeding but at 75mph, not the 76mph they recorded?
|
|
|
monthefish
15,729 posts
100 months
|
Milky Joe said: monthefish said: Blatantly targetted (Anyone who says that targetting of specific cars doesn't happen is naive). The coppers must have thought christmas had come early when the latest Lambo 'sped' on their patch. Fact is you were still speeding, so you don't really have a defence (especially as your video shows the sign!) but I think it would be quite an unfair prosecution in the circumstances and I wish you the best with it. Hogwash. I'm guessing you weren't captain of the University Debating Society then?  General Bilko said: Milky Joe said: Hogwash. How so Joe? 
|
|
|
threadlock
1,976 posts
123 months
|
matchmaker said: RVIANT said: Scottish Police So not just BIB bashing, racist BIB bashing? And what "draconian" laws are you talking about? FYI, "Scottish" doesn't define a race.
|
|
|
daz3210
5,000 posts
109 months
|
threadlock said: FYI, "Scottish" doesn't define a race. What does then? Saying someone is Scottish is no different to labelling someone English, or French, or even Pakistani. But pick at least one of those and add the insults and it is then considered racist.
|
|
|
threadlock
1,976 posts
123 months
|
daz3210 said: What does then? Saying someone is Scottish is no different to labelling someone English, or French, or even Pakistani. But pick at least one of those and add the insults and it is then considered racist. To use your example, labelling someone from Pakistan 'Pakistani' is no more offensive than labelling me 'English', or someone from Scotland 'Scottish'. These are not perjorative terms. It is not racist to refer to the police in Scotland as the 'Scottish police'.
|
|
