Good money maker today
Discussion
JagXJR said:
You need to get over yourself. Not that I care either way.
Back on topic...............
Why would anyone lie on the Internet about getting a speeding ticket? What do they possibly have to gain?
Why would anyone lie about a speeding ticket?Back on topic...............
Why would anyone lie on the Internet about getting a speeding ticket? What do they possibly have to gain?
It may be unintentional - They may genuibely believe that it was for 34 mph. It might have started off as a lie when telling someone they knew to try and make it seem not as bad, but gradually the memory has changed and now thney actually believe it was 34 mph. Peoples memories are subject to errors.
It may be that they feel hard done by and want to get more sympathy. It's fairly easy, and i'd suggest quite common, when recounting a story where we feel an injustice has been done to alter the details slightly to ensure we get agreement from whoever we are telling. Saying 34 mph makes it seem like it wasn't really that bad, after all they shouldn't really even be giving me a ticket for less than 35 mph...
When being faced with a situation where something has gone wrong, in this case a speeding ticket (or SAC) has been recieved, it is typical for people to view the situation in terms of what or who was to blame in the following order:
Others: The speed camera operatives in the case of a speeding ticket, be it location or motivation for setting up the trap. Also the use of words like scamera operators, trying to say others are those really at fault.
Circumstance: This could be some situation where you state that the only safe course of action was to break the limit
You: I got a ticket because I broke the limit.
In this method of thinking by claiming or even believing that the ticket was for 34 mph then you are in some way trying to justify why it wasn't your fault that you got a ticket.
The most productive way of thinking however is the reverse. By focusing on what you did wrong and so how you can avoid a repeat of the situation you take ownership and hence control of the situation. You are no longer a victim of others and circumstance, but the master of your own destiny
Strange way of thinking but some logic to it.
However breaking the law is breaking the law. Seems illogical for people to steal just one tin of beans or a can of beer but yet some do. They still know they are doing wrong surely?
I cannot believe some people would think 34 is ok but 36 is bad, does anyone think that?
OP do you think 34 MPH in a 30 is acceptable? Or is it what you thought you (sorry, your wife) should be able to get away with but then didn't?
Not trolling, genuinely interested!
However breaking the law is breaking the law. Seems illogical for people to steal just one tin of beans or a can of beer but yet some do. They still know they are doing wrong surely?
I cannot believe some people would think 34 is ok but 36 is bad, does anyone think that?
OP do you think 34 MPH in a 30 is acceptable? Or is it what you thought you (sorry, your wife) should be able to get away with but then didn't?
Not trolling, genuinely interested!
JagXJR said:
Strange way of thinking but some logic to it.
However breaking the law is breaking the law. Seems illogical for people to steal just one tin of beans or a can of beer but yet some do. They still know they are doing wrong surely?
I cannot believe some people would think 34 is ok but 36 is bad, does anyone think that?
OP do you think 34 MPH in a 30 is acceptable? Or is it what you thought you (sorry, your wife) should be able to get away with but then didn't?
Not trolling, genuinely interested!
I think the OPs opening line - "Ah I love them, those cheery little boys in blue protecting us all from....speeding" - is telling.However breaking the law is breaking the law. Seems illogical for people to steal just one tin of beans or a can of beer but yet some do. They still know they are doing wrong surely?
I cannot believe some people would think 34 is ok but 36 is bad, does anyone think that?
OP do you think 34 MPH in a 30 is acceptable? Or is it what you thought you (sorry, your wife) should be able to get away with but then didn't?
Not trolling, genuinely interested!
Most of us on here, myself included, just shrug when we get caught and accept the consequences. I'm guessing most of us who have been caught have been at a decent 'over the limit' speed that's not so borderline as the OP suggested. Mine was 66 in a 50 - annoying, but a fair cop. If I had been done at 57 or 56 or 55 I'd only be more annoyed from the point of view that I could have gone much faster, and had more fun potentially, for the same punishment
What this thread has been about though, from very early on, is having someone post up proof that some police/camera partnerships do prosecute below the guidelines. Any driver would want to know if it's possible to be prosecuted at such low speeds so it's not too much to ask for proof - which would be so simple to provide. But, after years of requests, that proof has never been forthcoming.
I think that if you're doing 30mph and a child runs out, you slam on the brakes and miss them by a millimetre, then at 32mph you would have hit them at 11mph and at 35 mph you would have hit them at 18mph.
So guessing at 34 you would hit them around 16mph, when you would have missed them doing 30.
Hitting someone at 16mph is unlikely to kill them, but you could easily break a child's legs. Certainly not pleasant for the kid or the driver.
And no doubt some wag is going to say that if you were doing 50 you'd miss them completely as you'd have passed them before they ran out. Which is an old gag that we've heard before.
So guessing at 34 you would hit them around 16mph, when you would have missed them doing 30.
Hitting someone at 16mph is unlikely to kill them, but you could easily break a child's legs. Certainly not pleasant for the kid or the driver.
And no doubt some wag is going to say that if you were doing 50 you'd miss them completely as you'd have passed them before they ran out. Which is an old gag that we've heard before.
garyhun said:
Most of us on here, myself included, just shrug when we get caught and accept the consequences. I'm guessing most of us who have been caught have been at a decent 'over the limit' speed that's not so borderline as the OP suggested. Mine was 66 in a 50 - annoying, but a fair cop. If I had been done at 57 or 56 or 55 I'd only be more annoyed from the point of view that I could have gone much faster, and had more fun potentially, for the same punishment
We all speed, and we all know it, it's where you speed that really matters IMO. Mine was 62 in a 40... (to be fair it was about to become 60), annoyingly I was on my way to work not out on the bike! I feel very lucky to have got just 3 points, but I wouldn't be any more annoyed if it was 34 in a 30, I've chosen to speed, I'm accepting the consequences and risking getting caught.Was it worth it? Not at all.
Ahh, wasn't aware there was a longstanding request for proof to dispel, what an urban myth or something?
I realise the OP posted a bit inflammatory, but since I have been guilty of that in the past I am in no position to judge
Surely though if they are just guidelines then the police could issue a ticket if someone was particularly lairy with them?
I understand the skepticism now.
I realise the OP posted a bit inflammatory, but since I have been guilty of that in the past I am in no position to judge
Surely though if they are just guidelines then the police could issue a ticket if someone was particularly lairy with them?
I understand the skepticism now.
pork911 said:
WinstonWolf said:
I know for a fact that Yorkshire will send out a NIP even if they know you are no longer the RK...
huh? they will send out a NIP to the RK at the time or send them to previous RKs just for kicks?Cheeky bar stewards don't even send an SAE...
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think that if you're doing 30mph and a child runs out, you slam on the brakes and miss them by a millimetre, then at 32mph you would have hit them at 11mph and at 35 mph you would have hit them at 18mph.
So guessing at 34 you would hit them around 16mph, when you would have missed them doing 30.
Hitting someone at 16mph is unlikely to kill them, but you could easily break a child's legs. Certainly not pleasant for the kid or the driver.
Ah yes, the famous "child runs in to the road" scenario.Could it get any more worn out?So guessing at 34 you would hit them around 16mph, when you would have missed them doing 30.
Hitting someone at 16mph is unlikely to kill them, but you could easily break a child's legs. Certainly not pleasant for the kid or the driver.
WinstonWolf said:
Previous RK if they've got nothing else to go on. They send a separate letter saying you don't have to complete it, but all the threats and YOU MUSTs are still on the NIP.
Cheeky bar stewards don't even send an SAE...
I was just wondering...could you stop doing those adverts now?Cheeky bar stewards don't even send an SAE...
Digby said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think that if you're doing 30mph and a child runs out, you slam on the brakes and miss them by a millimetre, then at 32mph you would have hit them at 11mph and at 35 mph you would have hit them at 18mph.
So guessing at 34 you would hit them around 16mph, when you would have missed them doing 30.
Hitting someone at 16mph is unlikely to kill them, but you could easily break a child's legs. Certainly not pleasant for the kid or the driver.
Ah yes, the famous "child runs in to the road" scenario.Could it get any more worn out?So guessing at 34 you would hit them around 16mph, when you would have missed them doing 30.
Hitting someone at 16mph is unlikely to kill them, but you could easily break a child's legs. Certainly not pleasant for the kid or the driver.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think that if you're doing 30mph and a child runs out, you slam on the brakes and miss them by a millimetre, then at 32mph you would have hit them at 11mph and at 35 mph you would have hit them at 18mph.
Braking distances are certainly going to be longer, but 2mph extra resulting in 11mph faster at the previous stopping point? 5mph resulting in 18mph? Really...?TwigtheWonderkid said:
And no doubt some wag is going to say that if you were doing 50 you'd miss them completely as you'd have passed them before they ran out. Which is an old gag that we've heard before.
I was going to suggest the damn parents kept better control of their feral brats, tbh.TooMany2cvs said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I think that if you're doing 30mph and a child runs out, you slam on the brakes and miss them by a millimetre, then at 32mph you would have hit them at 11mph and at 35 mph you would have hit them at 18mph.
Braking distances are certainly going to be longer, but 2mph extra resulting in 11mph faster at the previous stopping point? 5mph resulting in 18mph? Really...?But the fact that you can't believe it (and most people can't) just goes to show that people moan about getting done at 35 in a 30, but in reality have no real idea about the possible consequences of exceeding the limit by 5mph.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Not my equation, some bloke called Isaac Newton I think. But yes, really. The higher the speed the more experiential the distance. Something to do with kinetic energy multiplying by 4 as speed doubles, or some such technical whatsit. If you're doing 70mph when you hit the anchors, at the point in the road you get down to zero, you'd still be doing 71mph if you'd started at 100mph.
But the fact that you can't believe it (and most people can't) just goes to show that people moan about getting done at 35 in a 30, but in reality have no real idea about the possible consequences of exceeding the limit by 5mph.
And, back on topic, this is exactly the sort of thing you learn on a SAC. Which is why I wondered why the OP was so sure his wife wouldn't benefit from doing one. He didn't answer.But the fact that you can't believe it (and most people can't) just goes to show that people moan about getting done at 35 in a 30, but in reality have no real idea about the possible consequences of exceeding the limit by 5mph.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff