Summons - already accepted S59 at the roadside
Discussion
kiethton said:
Opposite direction, was heading back to Kent. It was just after midday on a Saturday/Sunday in February, its regularly quiet - was quieter than the streetmaps image
Oh, the long downhill run towards the M23. I guess that makes it OK then & the mags will just slap your wrists..... 
mph1977 said:
exactly
also 'impecably maintained' and 'within the driver's limits ' are interestign statements should they have to be tested in court against the 'ordinary man professing to hold that special skill' ...
I strongly suspect the OP doesn't have a Standard response qualification nevermind an advanced emergency driver qualification ...
I don't have any qualifications in IT or communications technology but i hold a senior position in communications technology and people that are in lesser roles are more qualified, but less capable.also 'impecably maintained' and 'within the driver's limits ' are interestign statements should they have to be tested in court against the 'ordinary man professing to hold that special skill' ...
I strongly suspect the OP doesn't have a Standard response qualification nevermind an advanced emergency driver qualification ...
Stating the speed the OP was driving at is dangerous without knowing their driving experience, or the car they were driving is pure speculation.
Stating it was illegal is correct. Illegal is not synonymous with dangerous.
Edited by Retroman on Monday 11th July 17:22
Driving with own and car limits
To say it's dangerous on speed alone?
OK what qualifications do you hold that ensure you are qualified to drive at higher speeds through daytime traffic?
I hate it when people make statements like this.
The only defence that I'd have is 'I was well hydrated, had slept well and had considered road conditions'. In no way could I make a statement that I've got some sort of ability to deal with speed and it's consequences.
To say it's dangerous on speed alone?
OK what qualifications do you hold that ensure you are qualified to drive at higher speeds through daytime traffic?
I hate it when people make statements like this.
The only defence that I'd have is 'I was well hydrated, had slept well and had considered road conditions'. In no way could I make a statement that I've got some sort of ability to deal with speed and it's consequences.
Why did the officer say you'd been bullying other vehicles out of the way? I know you've denied that in the OP, but there's a reason for that allegation. A reason which doesn't sit well with claims of:-
"the road is empty"
"so no traffic really."
"well sighted, clear, dry motorway"
"near empty motorway"
but then we have
" after coming behind a car, "
"To say it was dangerous on speed alone is false."
But he isn't saying it's speed alone is he? The S59 is for section 3, ie due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other persons etc.
I'm not doing the usual PH thing of trying to throw bricks at an OP just for the sake of it, but tbh your story doesn't add up in places. Obviously you have said you will plead guilty, therefore need to think of your mitigating circumstances, if any.
"the road is empty"
"so no traffic really."
"well sighted, clear, dry motorway"
"near empty motorway"
but then we have
" after coming behind a car, "
"To say it was dangerous on speed alone is false."
But he isn't saying it's speed alone is he? The S59 is for section 3, ie due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other persons etc.
I'm not doing the usual PH thing of trying to throw bricks at an OP just for the sake of it, but tbh your story doesn't add up in places. Obviously you have said you will plead guilty, therefore need to think of your mitigating circumstances, if any.
FiF said:
Why did the officer say you'd been bullying other vehicles out of the way? I know you've denied that in the OP, but there's a reason for that allegation. A reason which doesn't sit well with claims of:-
"the road is empty"
"so no traffic really."
"well sighted, clear, dry motorway"
"near empty motorway"
but then we have
" after coming behind a car, "
"To say it was dangerous on speed alone is false."
But he isn't saying it's speed alone is he? The S59 is for section 3, ie due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other persons etc.
I'm not doing the usual PH thing of trying to throw bricks at an OP just for the sake of it, but tbh your story doesn't add up in places. Obviously you have said you will plead guilty, therefore need to think of your mitigating circumstances, if any.
Came up behind a couple of cars, one of which pulled into my lane to overtake another. I slowed, it completed its overtake, pulled in and I carried on - nothing more than that."the road is empty"
"so no traffic really."
"well sighted, clear, dry motorway"
"near empty motorway"
but then we have
" after coming behind a car, "
"To say it was dangerous on speed alone is false."
But he isn't saying it's speed alone is he? The S59 is for section 3, ie due care and attention or reasonable consideration for other persons etc.
I'm not doing the usual PH thing of trying to throw bricks at an OP just for the sake of it, but tbh your story doesn't add up in places. Obviously you have said you will plead guilty, therefore need to think of your mitigating circumstances, if any.
Biker 1 said:
kiethton said:
Opposite direction, was heading back to Kent. It was just after midday on a Saturday/Sunday in February, its regularly quiet - was quieter than the streetmaps image
Oh, the long downhill run towards the M23. I guess that makes it OK then & the mags will just slap your wrists..... 
t to me.elvismiggell said:
Wow, you must have some special buffer zone around you that makes motorways quiet, because "regularly quiet" and that stretch of the M25 is smells like bullst to me.
Not my usual neck of the woods admittedly, but I drove that stretch twice a couple of weeks ago - both weekdays, and both times cruising at 90 odd, with certainly no issue pushing into three figures if I'd chosen to do so.t to me.From my experience, it's really not that unusual around there.
SS2. said:
Not my usual neck of the woods admittedly, but I drove that stretch twice a couple of weeks ago - both weekdays, and both times cruising at 90 odd, with certainly no issue pushing into three figures if I'd chosen to do so.
From my experience, it's really not that unusual around there.
As I mentioned before, I'm no angel & I enjoy enthusiastic driving, particularly on my motorcycle, but driving a large lump of metal weighing somewhere between 1 & 2 tonnes (depending on specification of vehicle...) at nearly twice the speed of adjacent articulated lorries spread over a couple of lanes of motorway traffic is simply fFrom my experience, it's really not that unusual around there.
king stupid. This must be one of the busiest sections of motorway in the UK for commercial traffic heading for the continent, many foreign LHD lorries with huge blind spots....Speed limit, whether you agree its correct or not, is 60 for lorries, 70 for cars. End of. Most people seem to stick to it, perhaps creeping up to 80-odd & 'getting away with it', but not cruise control on 95, then accidentally hitting 109.
On another note, presumably if OP was on a 'regular trip to Kent', he would be aware of the managed motorway section soon after junction 7, with umpteen cameras etc., so I wager he knew 100% that he would need to reduce his cruise control to 70 shortly after the point he got pulled anyway. Doesn't sound like a very 'innocent mistake' to me. I suspect this may be taken into account, mitigating his 'mitigating circumstances'....
Pistonheads, where being a sanctimonious hypocritical keyboard warrior matters!
Speedo at 109 on a quiet & empty motorway (as OP states) - call it 100 actual - is hardly text book dangerous in a big powerful barge.
My journey home yesterday I witnessed TWO separate incident of prats pulling off a hard shoulder/out of a junction at single figure speeds onto 60/70mph dual carriageway/motorway before starting to accelerate, both in time to make lorries do a swift lane change. Both had me fully fully clenching waiting for the explosion of debris.
This country needs a re-evaluation of default "dangerous driving".
Speedo at 109 on a quiet & empty motorway (as OP states) - call it 100 actual - is hardly text book dangerous in a big powerful barge.
My journey home yesterday I witnessed TWO separate incident of prats pulling off a hard shoulder/out of a junction at single figure speeds onto 60/70mph dual carriageway/motorway before starting to accelerate, both in time to make lorries do a swift lane change. Both had me fully fully clenching waiting for the explosion of debris.
This country needs a re-evaluation of default "dangerous driving".
Andehh said:
Pistonheads, where being a sanctimonious hypocritical keyboard warrior matters!
Speedo at 109 on a quiet & empty motorway (as OP states) - call it 100 actual - is hardly text book dangerous in a big powerful barge.
My journey home yesterday I witnessed TWO separate incident of prats pulling off a hard shoulder/out of a junction at single figure speeds onto 60/70mph dual carriageway/motorway before starting to accelerate, both in time to make lorries do a swift lane change. Both had me fully fully clenching waiting for the explosion of debris.
This country needs a re-evaluation of default "dangerous driving".
I once exited motorway services, somewhere on the M4 I think, anyway, the old dear in front of me slowed down & stopped as the slip road joined the main carriageway, presumably to 'give way'. I saw a large HGV in my mirror & almost sSpeedo at 109 on a quiet & empty motorway (as OP states) - call it 100 actual - is hardly text book dangerous in a big powerful barge.
My journey home yesterday I witnessed TWO separate incident of prats pulling off a hard shoulder/out of a junction at single figure speeds onto 60/70mph dual carriageway/motorway before starting to accelerate, both in time to make lorries do a swift lane change. Both had me fully fully clenching waiting for the explosion of debris.
This country needs a re-evaluation of default "dangerous driving".
t myself. How he stopped behind me I don't know to this day..... 109 is still knob behaviour thoughAndehh said:
Speedo at 109 on a quiet & empty motorway (as OP states) - call it 100 actual - is hardly text book dangerous in a big powerful barge.
He was reported for 109, I'm guessing recorded by a calibrated means, that would suggest his speedo could well have been showing 5 to 10% over this, so say 114 to 120. That's not a oops or even a momentary lapse, you don't accidentally accelerate from showing 95 on the speedo/cc to 120. If you accidentally do this, you shouldn't have a licence. hacksaw said:
Andehh said:
Speedo at 109 on a quiet & empty motorway (as OP states) - call it 100 actual - is hardly text book dangerous in a big powerful barge.
He was reported for 109, I'm guessing recorded by a calibrated means, that would suggest his speedo could well have been showing 5 to 10% over this, so say 114 to 120. That's not a oops or even a momentary lapse, you don't accidentally accelerate from showing 95 on the speedo/cc to 120. If you accidentally do this, you shouldn't have a licence. Still frustrates me no end the war on speed, but blind eye to everything else though! Once saw a clio on the motorway with the driver holding the ladder on the roof rack, pouring rain. Got a great pic of it from the dash cam. But nope, more speed vans and lower speed limits to make us all safer!!!
kiethton said:
At no stage have I said that I wasn't guilty or that I was trying to get out of it,
well you sort of are:kiethton said:
Been told that a summons has arrived for me to an old address, relating to a stop in mid-February
Was pulled over for 109 and "bullying" cars out of the way (incidentally I wasn't, just cruising home trying to get back for the rugby). I don't think I was going that fast but was likely over a ton so won't bother disputing the speed.
Thing is the officers at the time of the stop gave me a S59 for this, now had a summons for the same offence. I've been given 2 punishments for the same thing! - anyway to tell them to foxtrot Oscar on the summons siting the S59 I've already accepted?
As its gone to an old address (license is up to date at current address and DVLA have been informed that I've moved) is there any get out on that?
How long will it take them to issue it to the current address? - could do with delaying it a few months as can't afford a fine/cope with any ban ATM (currently renovating a house that's taken all my cash and not able to get to work from where currently staying with a ban)
more that it was a momentary slip Was pulled over for 109 and "bullying" cars out of the way (incidentally I wasn't, just cruising home trying to get back for the rugby). I don't think I was going that fast but was likely over a ton so won't bother disputing the speed.
Thing is the officers at the time of the stop gave me a S59 for this, now had a summons for the same offence. I've been given 2 punishments for the same thing! - anyway to tell them to foxtrot Oscar on the summons siting the S59 I've already accepted?
As its gone to an old address (license is up to date at current address and DVLA have been informed that I've moved) is there any get out on that?
How long will it take them to issue it to the current address? - could do with delaying it a few months as can't afford a fine/cope with any ban ATM (currently renovating a house that's taken all my cash and not able to get to work from where currently staying with a ban)
kiethton said:
well within both my own and the car's limits. To say it was dangerous on speed alone is false.
Wrong. There are two problems here which you need to recognise. Firstly, other drivers (there always are, even on the ever quiet M25 at lunchtime) are simply not expecting a car to approach them at 95+mph. The closing speed is substantial. Secondly, your braking distances at 95mph is considerable. Regardless of tyres, it will be so much more then you would realise.Speedo never read above 110.
Just seen photo's of the documents, come through at 105 but with statements littered with spelling errors and even the wrong name (spelling primarily). I know they are able to correct these so that's irrelevant.
Only issue is they've described the situation completely wrong, repeating the bullying cars out of the way which is complete and utter bks. I will plead guilty to the speeding but don't want this crap affecting the fine/sanction.
Ill have to write a statement where it'll be set true but know that it's one word versus the other - fuming
Can the means form be given in on the court appearance date? - bonus month this one so need to adjust it down next to mitigate the fine and am conscious I'll need to be able to prove it if asked.
Just seen photo's of the documents, come through at 105 but with statements littered with spelling errors and even the wrong name (spelling primarily). I know they are able to correct these so that's irrelevant.
Only issue is they've described the situation completely wrong, repeating the bullying cars out of the way which is complete and utter b
ks. I will plead guilty to the speeding but don't want this crap affecting the fine/sanction.Ill have to write a statement where it'll be set true but know that it's one word versus the other - fuming
Can the means form be given in on the court appearance date? - bonus month this one so need to adjust it down next to mitigate the fine and am conscious I'll need to be able to prove it if asked.
kiethton said:
Speedo never read above 110.
Just seen photo's of the documents, come through at 105 but with statements littered with spelling errors and even the wrong name (spelling primarily). I know they are able to correct these so that's irrelevant.
Only issue is they've described the situation completely wrong, repeating the bullying cars out of the way which is complete and utter bks. I will plead guilty to the speeding but don't want this crap affecting the fine/sanction.
Ill have to write a statement where it'll be set true but know that it's one word versus the other - fuming
Can the means form be given in on the court appearance date? - bonus month this one so need to adjust it down next to mitigate the fine and am conscious I'll need to be able to prove it if asked.
Get a solicitor mr big shotJust seen photo's of the documents, come through at 105 but with statements littered with spelling errors and even the wrong name (spelling primarily). I know they are able to correct these so that's irrelevant.
Only issue is they've described the situation completely wrong, repeating the bullying cars out of the way which is complete and utter b
ks. I will plead guilty to the speeding but don't want this crap affecting the fine/sanction.Ill have to write a statement where it'll be set true but know that it's one word versus the other - fuming
Can the means form be given in on the court appearance date? - bonus month this one so need to adjust it down next to mitigate the fine and am conscious I'll need to be able to prove it if asked.
Retroman said:
To be fair the OP accepts he's broken the law, and isn't disputing the offence or punishment but is just looking to mitigate the punishment as much as possible using various loopholes.
100+ might feel dangerous in your average car that most of us drive, but for a lot of supercars (i have no idea what the OP drives) then it's not always as dangerous as most people think.
Not saying that i don't think he should be punished but he's came here for advice, not to be roasted.
This^^100+ might feel dangerous in your average car that most of us drive, but for a lot of supercars (i have no idea what the OP drives) then it's not always as dangerous as most people think.
Not saying that i don't think he should be punished but he's came here for advice, not to be roasted.
I'm amazed at the high proportion of self-righteous twunts that feel they should vent their spleen even when the OP acknowledges their fault.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff