Maserati fined for noise in London today!!

[Dapster]

If she was wearing trashy stiletto's I'd be interested.

Sorry, did I say that out loud?

[phib]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Clearly louder than it left the factory - so it's illegal.

tts with loud exhausts and stereos deserve every fine they get. End of.

I may have missed something within the thread (can't see where it says it's an aftermarket exhaust) but that does sound like a standard stradale exhaust.

Out of the three granturismo's they are the loudest by far.

Phib

[deltashad]

I might have felt some pity for him if he wasn't a trendy beardy with a chav number plate.

[skyrover]

That ear piercing siren was far worse IMO.

[Pooh]

The driver did nothing wrong, that was a normal downshift and the exhaust certainly sounded standard.

[skyrover]

We don't know the full story...the police might have been informed about this driver revving the knackers off earlier in the day, so they were really just looking for an excuse.

[Pooh]

skyrover said:

We don't know the full story...the police might have been informed about this driver revving the knackers off earlier in the day, so they were really just looking for an excuse.

We have no idea what may or may not have happened earlier but he did nothing wrong at the time he was pulled over and that is what matters. Do you think that people should be done for speeding when they are not speeding because they had been speeding earlier?

[skyrover]

Pooh said:

skyrover said:

We don't know the full story...the police might have been informed about this driver revving the knackers off earlier in the day, so they were really just looking for an excuse.

We have no idea what may or may not have happened earlier but he did nothing wrong at the time he was pulled over and that is what matters. Do you think that people should be done for speeding when they are not speeding because they had been speeding earlier?

How do the police determine what is acceptable?

[Guybrush]

At face value it looks like the police were bored as the noise abatement order was working and they were desperate to catch someone. Like speed limits which keep being lowered, I wonder if the slightest 'blip' will now result in a fine.

[Hungrymc]

Hahahaha.... I love the way the police sprung into action and apprehended the villain so quickly. That 7 point turn, to catch the maserati (with sirens and lights to bring attention to themselves while executing it so poorley), after about 30 seconds, when it was stationary in traffic having covered about 20 yards, was brilliant.

I fully agree with getting control of some of the idiocy we see (revving the nuts off a car and driving like a tit). But this was neither of those. Dodgy number plate deserved a chat / ticket though. I didn't notice the front tints that are suggested, but same there.

This just makes the police in question look daft. Partly for the blues and twos, bringing attention to the hilarious turn, and partly for missing the point of the type of behaviour they are trying to clamp down upon. All the speculation of 'what he might have done previously' just sounds like a attempt to justify a comical bit of policing.

[Pooh]

skyrover said:

Pooh said:

skyrover said:

We don't know the full story...the police might have been informed about this driver revving the knackers off earlier in the day, so they were really just looking for an excuse.

We have no idea what may or may not have happened earlier but he did nothing wrong at the time he was pulled over and that is what matters. Do you think that people should be done for speeding when they are not speeding because they had been speeding earlier?

How do the police determine what is acceptable?

The sign says that you should not rev your engine and cause a disturbance, he did not do that so what offence did he commit?
The car automatically blips the throttle when you slow down and it or the driver changes down a gear so he did not deliberately rev the engine to cause a disturbance.

[skyrover]

Pooh said:

skyrover said:

Pooh said:

skyrover said:

We don't know the full story...the police might have been informed about this driver revving the knackers off earlier in the day, so they were really just looking for an excuse.

We have no idea what may or may not have happened earlier but he did nothing wrong at the time he was pulled over and that is what matters. Do you think that people should be done for speeding when they are not speeding because they had been speeding earlier?

How do the police determine what is acceptable?

The sign says that you should not rev your engine and cause a disturbance, he did not do that so what offence did he commit?
The car automatically blips the throttle when you slow down and it or the driver changes down a gear so he did not deliberately rev the engine to cause a disturbance.

So he could probably challenge that in court?

Would make an interesting test case.

[mwstewart]

This was always going to happen and it will continue to happen until order is restored.

[g7jhp]

The Maser driver thought he'd be 'Billy Big bks' and show off to his female companion by revving his car at exactly the same moment the police car passed.

The police car puts on its blues and twos (which may seem to be worse, but it's visible policing which the residents will like and it'll make other idiots think twice.

The fact the driver then proceeded to argue and start filming with his camera phone (we doubt he'll be claiming he's been victimised) shows the type of idiot he is. The officers should have shoved his phone where the sun doesn't shine!

Good on them, the residents deserve to be able to live in peace.

[Fozziebear]

3 officers to deal with a noise ticket, then the idiot gets aggressive and gets to drive away.

[Pooh]

g7jhp said:

The Maser driver thought he'd be 'Billy Big bks' and show off to his female companion by revving his car at exactly the same moment the police car passed.

The police car puts on its blues and twos (which may seem to be worse, but it's visible policing which the residents will like and it'll make other idiots think twice.

The fact the driver then proceeded to argue and start filming with his camera phone (we doubt he'll be claiming he's been victimised) shows the type of idiot he is. The officers should have shoved his phone where the sun doesn't shine!

Good on them, the residents deserve to be able to live in peace.

I agree that the residents should get to live in peace and that they should target anti social drivers but this is not an example of that. The rest of your post is just uninformed bks.

[Dave Hedgehog]

Fozziebear said:

3 officers to deal with a noise ticket, then the idiot gets aggressive and gets to drive away.

i would be hugely pissed for having my time wasted by the police for such a none event

[TimmyMallett]

bhstewie said:

Anyone else think that the prevalence of people filming everything on mobile phones should be made a crime?

No. Just the ones that film in portrait.

In these cases, an appropriate punishment would be to have their cracked screen iphones shoved up their starfish.




From what I understand, this road is a magnet for overprivileged cock knockers to show how funny they are by making a noise and it's being clamped down on. If you can't see the police car within several feet of you as you daringly stick it to the man, then you probably need to hand your keys over.

Nice car though

Edited by TimmyMallett on Sunday 10th July 10:41

[Bristol spark]

Have the police just had a massive budget increase? And all other crimes are now resolved.

Only 3 officers to deal with a slightly noisy (but possibly standard/legal) that they took offence to?

[egor110]

The fine is up to £1000 , do you think the people causing a nuisance give a fk about £1000?

It's pocket change for them .

If you got a fine of a grand , if you then had a wad of notes on you would you be able to just pay the police straight away?