3 points - £100 - Harsh Acceleration
Discussion
AGK said:
Yup, not what I'd have done. I'm sure in a few years with a CD** on his licence he'll wish he'd at least tried to fight it.
I think he made the right decision. Like someone said a few pages back unless your mate has video evidence the chances of him sucessfully defending himself against 2 cops is zero. Even though cops have been found to be dishonest and corrupt on several occassions, the magistrates will usually always believe their version of events.
I have a mate who is in the process of discontinuing a case he brought against the police because the police have sent him paperwork telling him that he will be liable for their costs of over £20,000 should he lose the case.
The police have simply witheld crucial video/audio evidence from him and called his bluff. I see it as gang tactics and it looks like it works.
Eclassy said:
I have a mate who is in the process of discontinuing a case he brought against the police because the police have sent him paperwork telling him that he will be liable for their costs of over £20,000 should he lose the case.
The police have simply witheld crucial video/audio evidence from him and called his bluff. I see it as gang tactics and it looks like it works.
Did He seriously think the police would pay his costs if he lost ?The police have simply witheld crucial video/audio evidence from him and called his bluff. I see it as gang tactics and it looks like it works.
And I thought his case was watertight ? or is this another friend ?
ks, but we will still be reading about it in 10 years. Eclassy said:
The police have simply witheld crucial video/audio evidence from him and called his bluff. I see it as gang tactics and it looks like it works.
Witheld evidence? Why hasn't 'all' evidence in relation to the matter been subpoenaed? Then the officers may be questioned while in the box about the presentation of all evidence. Believe it or not, some police still do take their oath seriously.
No Bend said:
Witheld evidence? Why hasn't 'all' evidence in relation to the matter been subpoenaed?
Then the officers may be questioned while in the box about the presentation of all evidence. Believe it or not, some police still do take their oath seriously.
Subject Access Request made over 18 months ago. It took the intervention of the ICO to get any movement on that front but still Met still refuse to send it to him despite acknowledging video exists. Then the officers may be questioned while in the box about the presentation of all evidence. Believe it or not, some police still do take their oath seriously.
Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
Eclassy said:
AGK said:
Yup, not what I'd have done. I'm sure in a few years with a CD** on his licence he'll wish he'd at least tried to fight it.
...blah blah blah...I have a mate who is in the process of discontinuing a case he brought against the police because the police ....
...blah blah blah...
Eclassy said:
Subject Access Request made over 18 months ago. It took the intervention of the ICO to get any movement on that front but still Met still refuse to send it to him despite acknowledging video exists.
Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
Even if he drops the case, surely there must be a way he could still get ahold of the video..?Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
Joeguard1990 said:
Eclassy said:
Subject Access Request made over 18 months ago. It took the intervention of the ICO to get any movement on that front but still Met still refuse to send it to him despite acknowledging video exists.
Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
Even if he drops the case, surely there must be a way he could still get ahold of the video..?Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
CDP said:
Joeguard1990 said:
Eclassy said:
Subject Access Request made over 18 months ago. It took the intervention of the ICO to get any movement on that front but still Met still refuse to send it to him despite acknowledging video exists.
Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
Even if he drops the case, surely there must be a way he could still get ahold of the video..?Requested as part of evidence in letter before claim and request has been completely ignored.
Claim issued and a date for a CMC hearing has been set but my mate was spooked by a letter he received from the Met's lawyers showing a breakdown of costs.
There was no reason to send him this before precedent H forms have be filled out and the conference had. Just a scare tactic and it seems to have worked as my mate is having none of it.
Cant blame him cause even I who has been egging him on dont have a spare £20,000 lying about.
You live to fight another day and even if this case is discontinued it wont be the end until that CCTV/audio is supplied.
shambolic said:
Article in full.
MOTORISTS caught driving at just over the speed limit are to be targeted in a new police crackdown.
Police Scotland has secured legal powers to issue formal warnings to drivers who are clocked at just a few mph over the limit.
Traditionally, those drivers would not face any action because police only ticket speeders who are 10 per cent plus 2mph above the formal speed limit.
The police warnings are part of a drive by Chief Constable Steven House to make road deaths a top three priority for the force along with violence and anti-social behaviour.
Traffic officers will start to issue the warnings - which will not result in a conviction, fine or penalty points - later this year under a six-month pilot scheme with a clear focus on accident blackspots.f
Senior officers believe early use of formal warnings for drivers who are just over the legal limit could be more effective than existing informal warnings.
Although traffic officers will still have discretion to adopt the disposal they see as most fitting, a driver who already has a formal warning on his record would be more likely to be fined than one who did not.
Chief Superintendent Iain Murray, head of road policing at Police Scotland, said: "We have an agreement to run a pilot of adult formal warnings, which starts in the autumn.You will get a warning that you are committing an offence.
But they are prepared to overlook the relatively minor offence of dying whilst trapped in a crashed car. MOTORISTS caught driving at just over the speed limit are to be targeted in a new police crackdown.
Police Scotland has secured legal powers to issue formal warnings to drivers who are clocked at just a few mph over the limit.
Traditionally, those drivers would not face any action because police only ticket speeders who are 10 per cent plus 2mph above the formal speed limit.
The police warnings are part of a drive by Chief Constable Steven House to make road deaths a top three priority for the force along with violence and anti-social behaviour.
Traffic officers will start to issue the warnings - which will not result in a conviction, fine or penalty points - later this year under a six-month pilot scheme with a clear focus on accident blackspots.f
Senior officers believe early use of formal warnings for drivers who are just over the legal limit could be more effective than existing informal warnings.
Although traffic officers will still have discretion to adopt the disposal they see as most fitting, a driver who already has a formal warning on his record would be more likely to be fined than one who did not.
Chief Superintendent Iain Murray, head of road policing at Police Scotland, said: "We have an agreement to run a pilot of adult formal warnings, which starts in the autumn.You will get a warning that you are committing an offence.
Article in full said:
MOTORISTS caught driving at just over the speed limit are to be targeted in a new police crackdown.
Police Scotland has secured legal powers to issue formal warnings to drivers who are clocked at just a few mph over the limit.
Traditionally, those drivers would not face any action because police only ticket speeders who are 10 per cent plus 2mph above the formal speed limit.
The police warnings are part of a drive by Chief Constable Steven House to make road deaths a top three priority for the force along with violence and anti-social behaviour.
Traffic officers will start to issue the warnings - which will not result in a conviction, fine or penalty points - later this year under a six-month pilot scheme with a clear focus on accident blackspots.f
Senior officers believe early use of formal warnings for drivers who are just over the legal limit could be more effective than existing informal warnings.
Although traffic officers will still have discretion to adopt the disposal they see as most fitting, a driver who already has a formal warning on his record would be more likely to be fined than one who did not.
Chief Superintendent Iain Murray, head of road policing at Police Scotland, said: "We have an agreement to run a pilot of adult formal warnings, which starts in the autumn.You will get a warning that you are committing an offence.
Actual data from road accidents has demonstrated that 2% of road accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit.
This is according to the Transport dept no less. The figures were even included in an official report to the House of Commons Select Committee on Transport. The research was based on 147,509 accidents.
DfT also said:
The most commonly recorded contributory factor in reported road accidents in 2013 was “driver failed to look properly” recorded in around 26 per cent of fatal accidents
The report also showed that even among the youngest drivers aged 17-19 only 8% of accidents were caused by exceeding the posted speed limit. The figure for exceeding the posted speed limit drops to 6% for drivers aged 17-25 and just 2% for drivers above 25. Given that fatacs are only ~1% of all accidents, costly action based on marginal violation of speed limits is no more than pissing in the wind. Education, not enforcement, has a better chance. Any money acailable should be spent on skilled police drivers educating motorists not pinging them for a sternly worded
Police Scotland should look up the word 'priority'.
That's a typical schoolboy howler, it's a falsehood propagated by the ABD:
http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...
The Association of British Drivers (ABD) likes to cite a Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report as a source for the true contribution of speed to road crashes and casualties. ABD members use the TRL report to contradict the 'mainstream' figure indicating that at least one-third of crashes are speed-related. According to the ABD, the TRL report proves that the true figure is under 5%. This is the only source of such a low figure. The ABD and a few motor lobby journalists are the only people to use it, generally to support the argument that "it is not speed but bad driving that is dangerous". The ABD especially likes to use the figure in letters to local papers where highway authorities are implementing speed control measures in response to deaths and serious injuries or local demands for safer communities. (Their preferred technique is for one or two writers to flood papers with pseudonymously penned letters to make it appear they have widespread public support.)
The Slower Speeds Initiative wrote to the Transport Research Laboratory concerning the ABD's use of the study. The TRL referred us to reports on speed. This is because the TRL study cited by the ABD, TRL Report 323, concerns "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents". TRL 323 is not a study of crash causation. It is a study of how to collect data. It was not designed to draw statistically reliable conclusions about the causes of road crashes. The accidents included in the three month study were not a statistically representative sample of all accidents. There is no basis for using the study to generalise about the speed-crash relationship.
The very low figure quoted by the ABD comes from a table which showed pairings of factors: In 4.04% of crashes recorded in the study, the person filling in the form paired 'excessive speed' (nowhere defined) with 'loss of control of vehicle'. 4.04% is only a subset of all speed related crashes recorded in the study. This use of statistics has been described by a professional statistician as "extremely naughty" and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as "mischievous". DETR go on to say "it is interesting that none of the many other TRL reports on speed and accident risk have been mentioned by those using this report as the basis for their argument." The TRL 323 methodology for recording contributory factors simply does not ask the questions which would reveal the inherent dangers of speed:
Would the factor still have been present if the driver, and/or all the other drivers involved, had been driving more slowly?
IF YES, Would the factor still have resulted in a crash?
IF YES, Would the crash still have been so severe?
It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the amount of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that higher speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of reduced speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no mystery. In fact, the TRL study beloved of the ABD and its fellow-travellers, indirectly acknowledges the overriding importance of speed:
"Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur."
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship.
The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that
the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are
Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also found that:
drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads
higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers
For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to aim for. More importantly they use it to show "the sensitivity of accident numbers to a small change in average speed". In other words, speeds that might not seem excessive. Speeds that TRL323's methodology wouldn't even record. Thanks to Stephen Plowden, Rosamund Weatherall and DETR
http://www.fonant.co.uk/wcc/cuttings/2001-03-19-A1...
The Association of British Drivers (ABD) likes to cite a Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) report as a source for the true contribution of speed to road crashes and casualties. ABD members use the TRL report to contradict the 'mainstream' figure indicating that at least one-third of crashes are speed-related. According to the ABD, the TRL report proves that the true figure is under 5%. This is the only source of such a low figure. The ABD and a few motor lobby journalists are the only people to use it, generally to support the argument that "it is not speed but bad driving that is dangerous". The ABD especially likes to use the figure in letters to local papers where highway authorities are implementing speed control measures in response to deaths and serious injuries or local demands for safer communities. (Their preferred technique is for one or two writers to flood papers with pseudonymously penned letters to make it appear they have widespread public support.)
The Slower Speeds Initiative wrote to the Transport Research Laboratory concerning the ABD's use of the study. The TRL referred us to reports on speed. This is because the TRL study cited by the ABD, TRL Report 323, concerns "A new system for recording contributory factors in road accidents". TRL 323 is not a study of crash causation. It is a study of how to collect data. It was not designed to draw statistically reliable conclusions about the causes of road crashes. The accidents included in the three month study were not a statistically representative sample of all accidents. There is no basis for using the study to generalise about the speed-crash relationship.
The very low figure quoted by the ABD comes from a table which showed pairings of factors: In 4.04% of crashes recorded in the study, the person filling in the form paired 'excessive speed' (nowhere defined) with 'loss of control of vehicle'. 4.04% is only a subset of all speed related crashes recorded in the study. This use of statistics has been described by a professional statistician as "extremely naughty" and by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions as "mischievous". DETR go on to say "it is interesting that none of the many other TRL reports on speed and accident risk have been mentioned by those using this report as the basis for their argument." The TRL 323 methodology for recording contributory factors simply does not ask the questions which would reveal the inherent dangers of speed:
Would the factor still have been present if the driver, and/or all the other drivers involved, had been driving more slowly?
IF YES, Would the factor still have resulted in a crash?
IF YES, Would the crash still have been so severe?
It is obvious to almost everyone (with the exception of libertarian motorists with a soap box to drive) that higher speeds reduce the amount of time any driver has to respond to the unexpected and that higher speeds increase the force of any impact. The importance of reduced speeds to crash prevention and reducing crash severity is no mystery. In fact, the TRL study beloved of the ABD and its fellow-travellers, indirectly acknowledges the overriding importance of speed:
"Virtually the only factor that road accidents have in common is that all would have been avoided if those involved had known with certainty, a few seconds in advance, that an accident was about the occur."
Lower speeds provide those few extra seconds.
Among the TRL reports the ABD does not like to cite is TRL 421, "The effects of drivers' speed on the frequency of road accidents" published in March 2000. Unlike TRL 323, this study was designed to discover the speed-crash relationship.
The authors looked at 300 sections of road, made 2 million observations of speed and got 10,000 drivers to complete questionnaires. They found that
the faster the traffic moves on average, the more crashes there are (and crash frequency increases approximately with the square of average traffic speed)
the larger the spread of speeds around the average, the more crashes there are
Significantly for the ABDs argument, and for the rest of us, they also found that:
drivers who choose speeds above the average on some roads tend also to do so on all roads
higher speed drivers are associated with a significantly greater crash involvement than are slower drivers
For these reasons they conclude that the speed of the fastest drivers (those travelling faster than the average for the road) should be reduced. The study confirmed what is described as a 'robust general rule' relating crash reductions to speed reductions: for every I mph reduction average speed, crashes are reduced by between 2-7%. More specifically, the crash reduction figure is around
6% for urban roads with low average speeds
4% for medium speed urban roads and lower speed rural main roads
3% for higher speed urban roads and rural main roads
To put the dangerousness of speed into perspective, how many drivers care about or would notice a 2mph reduction in their average speed? Yet, averaged across the entire road network, a mere 2mph reduction in average speeds would prevent more than 200 deaths and 3,500 serious casualties a year. The authors of TRL 421 suggest that this target (about a sixth of the overall speed related casualty figure) is a 'reasonable minimum' to aim for. More importantly they use it to show "the sensitivity of accident numbers to a small change in average speed". In other words, speeds that might not seem excessive. Speeds that TRL323's methodology wouldn't even record. Thanks to Stephen Plowden, Rosamund Weatherall and DETR
OTBC said:
That's a typical schoolboy howler, it's a falsehood propagated by the ABD...
What's a howler?Presumably the above post, in following mine, doesn't refer to it.
My post cites a Transport Dept report to a HoC Committee, not the two TRL reports in the above post TRL 323 and TRL 421.
OTBC said:
turbobloke said:
Actual data from road accidents has demonstrated that 2% of road accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit.
Out of mild interest, where did you pluck that "fact" from? You must have read it somewhere. Where?
it's in there (twice now). Not a schoolboy howler on your part but not good obs.If you Google "https://www.google.co.uk/search?safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=122&biw=1366&bih=643&sclient=psy-ab&q=The+research+was+based+on+147%2C509+accidents.&btnG=&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&gws_rd=ssl"
you get a Daily Mail link and a load of old guff posted by dead whackjob Paul Smith. I expect Turbobloke has a different, reliable source?
you get a Daily Mail link and a load of old guff posted by dead whackjob Paul Smith. I expect Turbobloke has a different, reliable source?
OTBC said:
turbobloke said:
Actual data from road accidents has demonstrated that 2% of road accidents are caused by drivers exceeding the posted speed limit.
Out of mild interest, where did you pluck that "fact" from? You must have read it somewhere. Where?Not sure what point you are trying to make, but the one you succeed in making is that lots of people who dislike speed will distort or ignore facts wherever they can if it suits them.
Andy
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff