Good money maker today

[pinchmeimdreamin]

V8forweekends said:

Bet 22Rgt doesn't either.

You wouldn't notice if he did, what with all that sniper training.

[br d]

LoonR1 said:

br d said:

I got a speeding ticket for doing 30 Loon! If I post it up here would you pay my premiums for 5 years?

Admittedly it was in a 20 limit but if you don't ask you don't get.

Errrrrrrr. No.

You beat my records in percentage terms.

I asked for a Safe driving course instead of the points but I was told no, because I had exceeded by 50%.

Recently someone on here (possibly you) posted an official chart which allowed up to 34 for the course, so I was stiffed into 3 points, the buggers.

[LoonR1]

La Liga said:

I have accepted the challenge:

Dammit. Send me your address and I'll send you some Monopoly money to cover it

[pork911]

yonex said:

My main point was exactly how this was set up and what a calculated piece of work it was by a police force who apparently don't have enough resources?

would you prefer their approach to be chaotic and random?

since the course clearly didn't alter your views will your wife (and you in future) just be requesting points instead?

[anonymous-user]

pork911 said:

would you prefer their approach to be chaotic and random?

since the course clearly didn't alter your views will your wife (and you in future) just be requesting points instead?

Of the Police, no, not in the slightest. I did say a few posts back that it (the SAC) changed my driving for the better.

My point is that this speed trap had nothing to do with road safety.

[LoonR1]

yonex said:

Of the Police, no, not in the slightest. I did say a few posts back that it (the SAC) changed my driving for the better.

My point is that this speed trap had nothing to do with road safety.

Why didn't it?

[Devil2575]

yonex said:

My point is that this speed trap had nothing to do with road safety.

There are two aspects to this:
The intention of the speed trap. Unless you know the people who decided to set it up you can't possibly know what the intention was.
The effectiveness of the speed trap. Your comment on this score is an opinion. I doubt you actually have anything much to back this up.

[Bigends]

Carnage said:

Thames Valley don't issue tickets any more. It's a report for summons that goes to a central department who decide an outcome. I'd be amazed if someone was told that get a course at the roadside.

So I don't believe it either.

Surely the only outcome can be a summons? or does the process unit issue tickets retrospectively?
Why do they not allow the option of a ticket anymore?

Edited by Bigends on Monday 2nd March 19:43

Edited by Bigends on Monday 2nd March 19:47

[Cat]

Bigends said:

Carnage said:

Thames Valley don't issue tickets any more. It's a report for summons that goes to a central department who decide an outcome. I'd be amazed if someone was told that get a course at the roadside.

So I don't believe it either.

Surely the only outcome can be a summons? Why do they not allow the option of a ticket anymore?

It isn't a report for summons, it is traffic offence report. There is still the option for a ticket but the decision as to whether it will be offered is made by someone in the central ticket office as opposed to the officer at the roadside.

Cat

[pinchmeimdreamin]

LoonR1 said:

yonex said:

Of the Police, no, not in the slightest. I did say a few posts back that it (the SAC) changed my driving for the better.

My point is that this speed trap had nothing to do with road safety.

Why didn't it?

Why would the police trying to stop speeders near a large cycling event ( so possibly one or two cyclists and pedestrians around ) be anything other than a cash scam

[Red Devil]

Devil2575 said:

However I suspect that some people are not actually interested in a constructive discussion and simply want to start an argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c

[Bigends]

Cat said:

Bigends said:

Carnage said:

Thames Valley don't issue tickets any more. It's a report for summons that goes to a central department who decide an outcome. I'd be amazed if someone was told that get a course at the roadside.

So I don't believe it either.

Surely the only outcome can be a summons? Why do they not allow the option of a ticket anymore?

It isn't a report for summons, it is traffic offence report. There is still the option for a ticket but the decision as to whether it will be offered is made by someone in the central ticket office as opposed to the officer at the roadside.

Cat

Okay - but why no more ticket issues, any ideas?

[Mk3Spitfire]

Bigends said:

Okay - but why no more ticket issues, any ideas?

Part of the reason was the sheer number of tickets being too much for the office to handle. The TPU now analyse the drivers past and determine what option is best. Can't really see how that reduces paperwork, but there we go.
Officers can still put recommendations on the traffic offence report which the office will take into account, so there is still some element of officer discretion. (Although I'm aware you yourself are not a fan of the attitude test!)

[Bigends]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Bigends said:

Okay - but why no more ticket issues, any ideas?

Part of the reason was the sheer number of tickets being too much for the office to handle. The TPU now analyse the drivers past and determine what option is best. Can't really see how that reduces paperwork, but there we go.
Officers can still put recommendations on the traffic offence report which the office will take into account, so there is still some element of officer discretion. (Although I'm aware you yourself are not a fan of the attitude test!)

What can the officer say in mitigation for the driver - they were either speeding or not. Surely the only discretion is not to report them?
Not criticising or picking just wondering why the options been taken away.
I'll see what my lot do tomorrow and report back.

[anonymous-user]

LoonR1 said:

Why didn't it?

You think hiding just after a 30 sign with no immediate danger in sight on a road that reverts to 50 (IIRC) is a safety concern? I'll look forward to your next post in BB titled 'f...ing drivers slamming on the brakes entering 30 limits' it's a shame there is zero common sense from the BIB and that a whole heap of you don't think it wasn't harsh, guess I was naive to think otherwise?

Of course nobody broke the speed limit amongst us today and this kind of recklessness must be discouraged, preferably with owed limiting devices, sooner the better huh?

[singlecoil]

yonex said:

LoonR1 said:

Why didn't it?

You think hiding just after a 30 sign with no immediate danger in sight on a road that reverts to 50 (IIRC) is a safety concern? I'll look forward to your next post in BB titled 'f...ing drivers slamming on the brakes entering 30 limits' it's a shame there is zero common sense from the BIB and that a whole heap of you don't think it wasn't harsh, guess I was naive to think otherwise?

Of course nobody broke the speed limit amongst us today and this kind of recklessness must be discouraged, preferably with owed limiting devices, sooner the better huh?

The logic is obvious. If you encourage people not to speed in areas where there is no obvious danger, then they will stop speeding everywhere. I have. I set out a little earlier and stay within the limits. What I would gain by exceeding the limit to the point at which I would get points or and SAC if caught simply isn't worth it.

[EskimoArapaho]

yonex said:

LoonR1 said:

Agreed. We all know it didn't happen at the speed suggested, but I'm bored of the BS claims on here about being done for such low speeds. I've been done a fair few times in my life and all of them were well over the limit.

I'm going to ask for proof and make offers like te above on all of them. Failure to provide is sufficient proof that it didn't happen IMO. If they provide it then I'll pay.

Thanks for the offer but like I said, the money and course are of absolutely no concern, she'll attend and that will be that. I must admit I'm impressed at the tenacity to disprove the speed though. My main point was exactly how this was set up and what a calculated piece of work it was by a police force who apparently don't have enough resources? Maybe it was a sheer coincidence, I very much doubt it though. If this all has been lost in the thread while you have been arguing among yourselves then you need to read it all again. Or not. I don't mind. Slow day today, 4mph slower than yesterday infact

Loon's right. If you won't provide the easiest and most objective bit of evidence to support your rant, why should anyone here take your other claims about the incident at face value? And this refusal to provide evidence of one of the biggest myths on PH just leaves the impression that yonex = probably liar. Forget Loon's money; surely you don't want that label?

And if you say your SAC made you a better driver (mine did for me, too), how can you claim that it won't do the same for your Mrs?

[LoonR1]

yonex said:

You think hiding just after a 30 sign with no immediate danger in sight on a road that reverts to 50 (IIRC) is a safety concern? I'll look forward to your next post in BB titled 'f...ing drivers slamming on the brakes entering 30 limits' it's a shame there is zero common sense from the BIB and that a whole heap of you don't think it wasn't harsh, guess I was naive to think otherwise?

Of course nobody broke the speed limit amongst us today and this kind of recklessness must be discouraged, preferably with owed limiting devices, sooner the better huh?

I have said very frequently on here, that I regualrly break the speed limit on a daily basis. I do the same on a bike, except for 30 limits where I'm a bit more circumspect on Sunday's when I go out as a weekend warrior. I actually get frustrated by cars that I overtook in the NSL catch me up in the 30 limits and tailgate me, only for me to then clear off as soon as we get back to NSL.

If I get caught speeding, I accept it. I get away with far more than I get caught for. I certainly don't post some cock and bull storupy about being pulled for 34mph, with added indignation, for good measure. I say "cock amd bull", because you've been called out on that and can't prove it, so the rest of your rant and opinion is tarnished.

[Landshark]

Bigends said:

I'll see what my lot do tomorrow and report back.

CID then?

[Mk3Spitfire]

Landshark said:

CID then?

Worse!