3 points - £100 - Harsh Acceleration
Discussion
Rude-boy said:
Firstly many thanks for your time and input on this Forum. I have seen your username about quite a bit in the last few months and, whilst I am not always in agreement with what you have to say, it is great to have another helpful officer to give people a better idea of how the Police see/deal with many issues.
I would be interested though to learn why it is 'aggressive', or indeed 'impatient' if you happen to spin your wheels when accelerating. I have to say that I can't ever recall spinning my wheels as a result of any form of aggression, and certainly it's not due to impatience as it isn't the fasted way to get off the line!
Spinning the wheels is more on the inconsiderate and dangerous side of things (loss of traction). Accelerating harshly at what im guessing was an inappropriate speed would be the 'Impatient' bit.I would be interested though to learn why it is 'aggressive', or indeed 'impatient' if you happen to spin your wheels when accelerating. I have to say that I can't ever recall spinning my wheels as a result of any form of aggression, and certainly it's not due to impatience as it isn't the fasted way to get off the line!
I wasn't there so cannot comment. My only advice would be for the OP to take it to court and then the 2 officers can give their reasons behind their decision to issue a ticket in a statement.
HantsRat said:
Spinning the wheels is more on the inconsiderate and dangerous side of things (loss of traction). Accelerating harshly at what im guessing was an inappropriate speed would be the 'Impatient' bit.
I wasn't there so cannot comment. My only advice would be for the OP to take it to court and then the 2 officers can give their reasons behind their decision to issue a ticket in a statement.
Thanks for the reply. Sorry I thought that your comment was a general one and not on this particular incident, which obviously you can't speak about!I wasn't there so cannot comment. My only advice would be for the OP to take it to court and then the 2 officers can give their reasons behind their decision to issue a ticket in a statement.
IMO there are two likely answers to the OP's question "Your friend is a twunt and was lucky not to gat something more meaty thrown at them" or "Your friend needs to sharpen up their use of that most excellent bit of equipment one uses in such situations, namely the Mk1 eyeball!"
Rude-boy said:
IMO there are two likely answers to the OP's question "Your friend is a twunt and was lucky not to gat something more meaty thrown at them" or "Your friend needs to sharpen up their use of that most excellent bit of equipment one uses in such situations, namely the Mk1 eyeball!"
Also, in the event of being pulled over and talked to, the MK1 lips, arses for the kissing of.I was pulled by a bike cop for something similar a couple of years ago. We had a fair old argument, during which he tried the "inconveniencing other road users" angle. I expressed surprise, as most of the other road users were trundling along at 40mph in a 70 limit and I merely accelerated up to the NSL - not too sure how I could inconvenience another road user by overtaking them (unless you count waking them up as an inconvenience....)
He claimed I "stuck out like a sore thumb", which I agreed to, on the basis that I was the only one making decent progress amongst the sea of half-asleep commuters
He eventually tried the "dangerous driving" angle and that he would "have me in court" at which point, I accepted his kind offer and told him that I'd be happy to explain that I was in full control of my vehicle and was perfectly aware of all the other drivers around me and that "excessive acceleration" is a relative term
To be fair, the cop was a bit riled when I explained that my "accelerating like a madman" was on the lowest of four boost settings and that if I'd chosen to, I could have been doing 120+ in the time I'd taken to get to 70 (he was winding me up at this point, so I (foolishly) tried to return the favour, thus failing the attitude test, although in my eyes, he'd already failed his side of the same test
The cop baled out in my instance and tried to give me a bit of a lecture instead.
In the OP's case, if the story given is the full story, then I'd say its worth considering contesting, but up against two coppers, there's going to be a strong chance the mags will side with the law. I rather think that in this instance, we're getting only a partial version of events
He claimed I "stuck out like a sore thumb", which I agreed to, on the basis that I was the only one making decent progress amongst the sea of half-asleep commuters
He eventually tried the "dangerous driving" angle and that he would "have me in court" at which point, I accepted his kind offer and told him that I'd be happy to explain that I was in full control of my vehicle and was perfectly aware of all the other drivers around me and that "excessive acceleration" is a relative term
To be fair, the cop was a bit riled when I explained that my "accelerating like a madman" was on the lowest of four boost settings and that if I'd chosen to, I could have been doing 120+ in the time I'd taken to get to 70 (he was winding me up at this point, so I (foolishly) tried to return the favour, thus failing the attitude test, although in my eyes, he'd already failed his side of the same test
The cop baled out in my instance and tried to give me a bit of a lecture instead.
In the OP's case, if the story given is the full story, then I'd say its worth considering contesting, but up against two coppers, there's going to be a strong chance the mags will side with the law. I rather think that in this instance, we're getting only a partial version of events
I'm
It's Police Scotland though and that muppet House has got everyone running scared or running about thinking they can get away with things 'cause they are in his big gang.
Glad when he retires next year.
Dick Turpin said:
I frequently get woken up by tossers wheelspinning and/or very loud revving in the middle of the night/very early in the morning.
If people want to drive like that, that's what track days are for. It's bang out of order.
But not an endorsement!!If people want to drive like that, that's what track days are for. It's bang out of order.
It's Police Scotland though and that muppet House has got everyone running scared or running about thinking they can get away with things 'cause they are in his big gang.
Glad when he retires next year.
Driving without Reasonable Consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
CPS website.
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
CPS website.
interesting...
many (13 ish) years ago I was pulled by the BiB for accelerating hard away from a set of traffic lights in Keighley town centre, on xmas eve.
Not an Evo, but an E30 325.
I clearly exceeded the posted limit - 30, but not by that much.
A friendly chat in the back of their car was had - they were on the look out for drink drivers (I was on the look out for an open fish & chip shop!) - wise words along the lines of 'don't make yourself stand out driving like that' and have a good night.
ahh them were the days !
Wonder if I'd get away with the same treatment today ?
(although AWD & 600+hp would make the conversation potentially more interesting..)
many (13 ish) years ago I was pulled by the BiB for accelerating hard away from a set of traffic lights in Keighley town centre, on xmas eve.
Not an Evo, but an E30 325.
I clearly exceeded the posted limit - 30, but not by that much.
A friendly chat in the back of their car was had - they were on the look out for drink drivers (I was on the look out for an open fish & chip shop!) - wise words along the lines of 'don't make yourself stand out driving like that' and have a good night.
ahh them were the days !
Wonder if I'd get away with the same treatment today ?
(although AWD & 600+hp would make the conversation potentially more interesting..)
shambolic said:
I'm
Why not?Dick Turpin said:
I frequently get woken up by tossers wheelspinning and/or very loud revving in the middle of the night/very early in the morning.
If people want to drive like that, that's what track days are for. It's bang out of order.
But not an endorsement!!If people want to drive like that, that's what track days are for. It's bang out of order.
red997 said:
interesting...
many (13 ish) years ago I was pulled by the BiB for accelerating hard away from a set of traffic lights in Keighley town centre, on xmas eve.
Not an Evo, but an E30 325.
I clearly exceeded the posted limit - 30, but not by that much.
A friendly chat in the back of their car was had - they were on the look out for drink drivers (I was on the look out for an open fish & chip shop!) - wise words along the lines of 'don't make yourself stand out driving like that' and have a good night.
ahh them were the days !
Wonder if I'd get away with the same treatment today ?
(although AWD & 600+hp would make the conversation potentially more interesting..)
It happened to me seven years ago on Holloway Road. I didn't exceed the speed limit, but I did pull off very briskly (E60 M5). Two WPCs. Very friendly. Similar chat.many (13 ish) years ago I was pulled by the BiB for accelerating hard away from a set of traffic lights in Keighley town centre, on xmas eve.
Not an Evo, but an E30 325.
I clearly exceeded the posted limit - 30, but not by that much.
A friendly chat in the back of their car was had - they were on the look out for drink drivers (I was on the look out for an open fish & chip shop!) - wise words along the lines of 'don't make yourself stand out driving like that' and have a good night.
ahh them were the days !
Wonder if I'd get away with the same treatment today ?
(although AWD & 600+hp would make the conversation potentially more interesting..)
red997 said:
interesting...
many (13 ish) years ago I was pulled by the BiB for accelerating hard away from a set of traffic lights in Keighley town centre, on xmas eve.
Not an Evo, but an E30 325.
I clearly exceeded the posted limit - 30, but not by that much.
A friendly chat in the back of their car was had - they were on the look out for drink drivers (I was on the look out for an open fish & chip shop!) - wise words along the lines of 'don't make yourself stand out driving like that' and have a good night.
ahh them were the days !
Wonder if I'd get away with the same treatment today ?
(although AWD & 600+hp would make the conversation potentially more interesting..)
Yes I think that you would.many (13 ish) years ago I was pulled by the BiB for accelerating hard away from a set of traffic lights in Keighley town centre, on xmas eve.
Not an Evo, but an E30 325.
I clearly exceeded the posted limit - 30, but not by that much.
A friendly chat in the back of their car was had - they were on the look out for drink drivers (I was on the look out for an open fish & chip shop!) - wise words along the lines of 'don't make yourself stand out driving like that' and have a good night.
ahh them were the days !
Wonder if I'd get away with the same treatment today ?
(although AWD & 600+hp would make the conversation potentially more interesting..)
When younger and foolisher I was reminded by a nice officer at 3am one morning that if I didn't drive sideways around roundabouts not only my tyres but also my licence would last a lot longer.
I heard someone who is about the same age as when it happened to me, retelling almost exactly the same conversation a few weeks back.
This is why I am totally against almost all Speed Cameras - discretion not only allows education but also empathy and understanding without breeding distrust and creating a "Them and Us" mentality. 3 points in the post days after you went through a speed camera is likely only to achieve a sense of dissatisfaction, regardless of if it was earned or not.
agtlaw said:
Driving without Reasonable Consideration
The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
CPS website.
The CPS won't be involved in this case as the alleged offence happened in Scotland. Up to the PF which way to jump.The offence of driving without reasonable consideration under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed only when other persons are inconvenienced by the manner of the defendants driving, see section 3ZA(4) RTA 1988.
The maximum penalty is a level 5 fine. The court must also either endorse the drivers licence with between 3 and 9 penalty points (unless there are "special reasons" not to do so), or impose disqualification for a fixed period and/or until a driving test has been passed. The penalty is the same as for driving without due care and attention.
A driving without due consideration charge is more appropriate where the inconvenience is aimed at and suffered by other road users.
Note the essential difference between the two offences under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is that in cases of careless driving the prosecution need not show that any other person was inconvenienced. In cases of inconsiderate driving, there must be evidence that some other user of the road or public place was actually inconvenienced; Dilks v Bowman-Shaw [1981] RTR 4 DC
This offence is appropriate when the driving amounts to a clear act of incompetence, selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness in addition to some other inconvenience to road users. The following examples are typical of actions likely to be regarded as inconsiderate driving:
flashing of lights to force other drivers in front to give way;
misuse of any lane (including cycling lanes) to avoid queuing or gain some other advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily remaining in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
driving with un-dipped headlights which dazzle oncoming drivers, cyclists or pedestrians;
driving through a puddle causing pedestrians to be splashed;
driving a bus in such a way as to alarm passengers.
Prosecutors must decide which version of the offence to charge as the section creates two separate offences and there is no alternative verdict provision in the magistrates/youth court: R v Surrey Justices, ex parte Witherick [1932] 1 K.B. 340.
CPS website.
Group 7 Offence Code 300002: Driving carelessly - www.gov.scot/Resource/0046/00464136.xlsx
They are a bit dour north of the border. From what I have heard JPs and Sheriffs take an even harder line with those who contest tickets than is the case in E&W.
HantsRat said:
Wheel spinning (Driving with no traction) is inconvenient to other road users due to an increased danger the vehicle may lose control and collide with them or worse... A pedestrian.
How is it inconsiderate if it doesn't actually happen? It can only inconvenience others if it actually does happen.If it doesn't actually happen it might cause concern but not inconvenience.
More Scottish policing from Stephen House
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/...
I've started a new thread on it!
http://www.scotsman.com/news/scotland/top-stories/...
I've started a new thread on it!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff