plod catch speeding Elise and Ferrari
Discussion
rospa said:
I agree with some of your comments. I don't think unmarked should be tasked with speed enforcement to be honest and they should not be asked to respond to incidents that will require them to cut throught traffic with their limited blues and twos.
I would like to see them deployed on busy motorway and A/B roads where they can see an offence and immediately stop the car to give advice/FPN/summons.
I think there is something distinctly fishy out holdnig back to see how a situation develops before pulling cars over.
Indeed, and that, along with Scameras, has to be the single biggest reason people are losing faith with Motoring
(we lose faith on the whole as we're now the persecuted, as opposed to protected, in this country! As we all know, the phrase speed kills has caught on, but it just isn't true! Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever died from going fast! You can only die from having an accident at speed. Therefore the saying should be "inappropriate speed kills".
Appropriate depends on many things, not least of which is the vehicle, if the vehicle corners well, and stops quickly (rather than the drum brake stopping distances quoted in the Highway code) then appropriate may be higher than it would be for grandads old A40!
Yes these guys were having a bit of fun with their vehicles, yes they broke a few speed limits which were in many peoples opinions too low anyway, they were not in my opinion wreckless, they were not going mad, (if they had used those vehicles to their full potential, with total disregard for speed limits, then there is no way that, that unmarked Police car would have kept with them.) and the Police vehicle was much more of a hazard with the way he was crossing lanes etc. I am sure on this occassion a quiet word would have sufficed!
Was it jealousy? who knows the motivation behind these things?
I had a 3 litre Capri when I was 19 (23 years ago), I was pulled for suspicious behaviour, for which I gave a satisfactory explanation, and I did at one point put my toe down a bit, but only to accelerate up to the 60mph limit, and all in a controlled maner.....no wheel-sping or anything, but I think that was a bit like this occassion......crikey thats a quick car, and he don't look very old!! But the Officer asked me how fast it went.......strange question so he got the stock answer 70mph!
BTW, dont recommend anyone buy the Lotus, as someones already stated it smokes quite a lot, and if you read the ebay advert, the engine has only done 400 miles, so its not been run in has it?
Kasandrich
>> Edited by kasandrich on Sunday 25th April 16:20
hedders said:
Just downloaded the video...
"They're obviously racing"
Yes officer, but one of those special races where neither driver is arsed about winning.
I thought they said:
"They are obviously Pacing each other'
Quite possibly, I have deleted the video now. If so, I stand corrected.
HarryW said:
crazylegs said:
....I have deleted the video now. ...
Any particular reason
harry
No, was just having a tidy-up and I'd already watched it. I was just saying that I couldn't go back to check so I'll assume Hedders was correct that I misheard.
>> Edited by crazylegs on Sunday 25th April 21:14
Potts said:
Perhaps I'm going to get flamed for this but I live in the area this was filmed in and have driven around far more quickly than they were.
It's an example of appalling limit imposition for the most part - the start and ends of the film are both dual carriageways with 40mph limits. Dual carriageway?! Non-residential area, first one's street lit and the latter one's got great visibility.
Have to say the Fezza driver should be shot for his rearward observation... if I'd have seen anything non-descript (apologies to Omega drivers) keeping up with me while I was driving like that...
I have done about 120mph between the roundabouts out there, it's a perfect test track, no pedestrians, no junctions.
Just seen this from ages ago - and being the driver of the elise, it was interesting reading everybodies comments.
Should we have been driving escorts, this whole ordeal wouldn't have happened
for the record, i got six months. The engine in the video on the elise was the old supercharged engine. When I sold it, it had a 10k QED engine.
Can laugh about it now, didn't feel the same way when it looked like i may lose by job....
Jonny5
for those wanting to see the vid again, look in my profile under "Motorsport Elise"
>> Edited by jonny5 on Saturday 5th March 01:42
Should we have been driving escorts, this whole ordeal wouldn't have happened
for the record, i got six months. The engine in the video on the elise was the old supercharged engine. When I sold it, it had a 10k QED engine.
Can laugh about it now, didn't feel the same way when it looked like i may lose by job....
Jonny5
for those wanting to see the vid again, look in my profile under "Motorsport Elise"
>> Edited by jonny5 on Saturday 5th March 01:42
Go on then Jonny, give us the speal about what the plods said etc. What they actually did you for and what happened in court, assuming youu went.
It looks like you were treated very poorly, just imagine, if you ran over a motercyclist and drove of with his foot in your bumber, you could have got a wopping £300 fine.
It looks like you were treated very poorly, just imagine, if you ran over a motercyclist and drove of with his foot in your bumber, you could have got a wopping £300 fine.
6 month ban, got done for careless driving. They tried to pin Dangerous Driving on us, which carries a criminal record - obviously not good if you work in banking.
It took a year to get to court, every month i'd go to Bow Magistrates and they would adjern it as they couldn't find the video. Finally went to Crown court, i was there for a week. Police had a real chip on their shoulder about it, maybe because we were both quite young. As i've said, if we were in escorts we probably would have got a fixed penalty.
We had good barristers, was amusing seeing the plod getting torn to shreds when asked to repeat what they meant when they were swearing.
Complete waste of time, but beware to anyone driving a nice car. Spirited driving, yes. Dangerous driving, no.
It took a year to get to court, every month i'd go to Bow Magistrates and they would adjern it as they couldn't find the video. Finally went to Crown court, i was there for a week. Police had a real chip on their shoulder about it, maybe because we were both quite young. As i've said, if we were in escorts we probably would have got a fixed penalty.
We had good barristers, was amusing seeing the plod getting torn to shreds when asked to repeat what they meant when they were swearing.
Complete waste of time, but beware to anyone driving a nice car. Spirited driving, yes. Dangerous driving, no.
ed suspension ( look at the sag and the bounce ) who undertook you on a pedestrian crossing ? What is the difference between careless driving and dangerous driving?
surely you can be carefully driving but breaking speed limits etc. to the extent it is deemend "dangerous". But you can also be driving carelessly which is dangerous. More dangerous than carfeully driving fast, anyway.
I've just watched the video and (not knowing the speed limits you broke) can't see anything you did wrong except having slightly noisy and accelerative cars. Not against the law.
surely you can be carefully driving but breaking speed limits etc. to the extent it is deemend "dangerous". But you can also be driving carelessly which is dangerous. More dangerous than carfeully driving fast, anyway.
I've just watched the video and (not knowing the speed limits you broke) can't see anything you did wrong except having slightly noisy and accelerative cars. Not against the law.
D_Mike said:
What is the difference between careless driving and dangerous driving?
There are four offences which in reality can be used againist any driver not driving like Miss Daisy as the test is subjective and compares the driving to miss daisy
Careless Driving
Introduction
This section makes it an offence to drive any type of motor vehicle on a road without due care and attention. It is therefore commonly known as “careless” driving.
Summary of the Law
Your driving is measured against the standard of driving expected from a reasonable, prudent, competent driver. For you to be found guilty, the prosecution convince the court that your driving fell below that standard. Prudent simply means cautious and showing forethought.
The court will apply the standard of the hypothetical careful driver to the facts in the case, and cannot make any allowance for things such as your inexperience or a momentary lack of judgement.
However, the court does have to consider all the circumstances of the case. This is because what might be careless in one situation might not be in different circumstances, for example in different weather or traffic conditions.
In some cases the prosecution may not have actual evidence of carelessness, but the facts of the case are so overwhelming the only logical conclusion is that the driver was careless: for example, where a car mounts a verge and crashes into a telegraph pole three feet onto the verge. If the driver can offer no explanation to the court as to why the accident happened, the court will very likely conclude that the crash must have been caused by the fault of the driver. If, however an explanation is offered, it is the prosecution who must then prove that the explanation is not true. The driver is entitled to the benefit of the doubt if the prosecution cannot do so.
If the driving breaks the Highway Code, then this will tend to suggest that the driving fell below the required standard.
Dangerous driving
Introduction
This section makes it an offence to drive a motor-vehicle dangerously on a road. Different offences deal with the situation when the driving is not dangerous.
Summary of the Law
In order for you to be found guilty of this offence, the prosecution must convince the court:
a) that the way in which you drove fell far below what could be expected of a competent and careful driver; and
b) that it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in the way you did would be dangerous.
What is dangerous?
Dangerous means a danger of physical injury (however minor) or serious damage to property. The prosecution do not have to prove that anyone was actually injured, that damage actually took place or felt in danger.
The standard of the driving
The driving is judged from an objective view. In other words, what was going on in the driver’s mind is not relevant to the decision as to whether his or her driving fell far below the standard expected of the hypothetical competent and careful driver.
Types of dangerous driving
The offence may be committed by simply driving in a dangerous way
The offence can also relate to a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
The offence can be committed by a danger relating to the driver, rather than the vehicle’s condition or the way in which the driver actually drives.
Inconsiderate driving
Introduction
This section makes it an offence to drive any type of motor vehicle on a road without reasonable consideration for other road-users. A separate offence covers the situation where a driver drives without due care and attention.
Summary of the Law
In order for you to be guilty of this offence, the prosecution must convince the Court that the manner in which you drove fell below the standard of driving expected of a reasonable, prudent, competent driver and was without reasonable consideration for other road-users.
An important issue here is that another person must actually have been inconvenienced by your driving. It is not enough for the prosecution to say it was possible or probable that someone may have been inconvenienced.
But the fact that someone was inconvenienced by your driving is not, on its own, enough for you to be found guilty. The Court must also look at what was a reasonable way for the motorist to drive in all the circumstances.
This charge would cover drivers who fail to dip their headlights causing oncoming drivers to be dazzled, or lorry drivers who race through puddles soaking pedestrians. The last example illustrates the fact that the person who is inconvenienced by the driving need not be another driver. It can be any road user, including a pedestrian, cyclist or even a passenger in the driver’s own vehicle.
Wanton or Furious Driving
Introduction
This section makes it an offence to cause injury to any person by driving in a wanton or furious manner, or by some other driving-related misconduct or neglect.
Summary of the Law:
This offence dates back to the 19th century. It stays in force today because it can be properly charged against somebody who drives dangerously on private land. The offence of dangerous driving itself is limited to driving which takes place on a road or other public place.
The prosecution must prove the accused person’s driving was about as bad as if he or she had been charged with dangerous driving. In effect, the driving must fall far below the standard of the competent and careful driver.
For a driver to be guilty of this offence he probably has to have been aware of the risk he was taking and make a decision to go ahead anyway.
The prosecution must also prove that the driving caused bodily injury to another person – however small it may be. It is not enough for someone to have felt in danger.
>> Edited by bluepolarbear on Sunday 6th March 18:46
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff