0-30 Flat out acceleration. Due Care And Attention?

[vonhosen]

telecat said:

vonhosen said:

10 Pence Short said:

They wouldn't ask themselves "what would they do", Von- that would be turning what is supposed to be an objective test into a subjective one. What they should ask themselves is if the driving fell below the standard you'd expect of a notional careful and competent driver, who may drive differently to how they themselves might.

If they consider themselves to be careful competent drivers they are applying the objective standard.

Given the "Standard" of Driving of many of the West Yorks Police Drivers I would be looking at their driving before letting them anywhere near judging that of others. I've also had reports of the vehicles being so badly driven that they "break" the cars they use.

The aren't exempt from the requirements.

[Blackpuddin]

Cat said:

Dr Jekyll said:

I don't think you would fail a driving test for changing into 2nd at 30.

What about if you were "leathering it up to 30 mph in 1st then popping it into top gear" which is what was referred to in the OP?
Cat

I personally wouldn't, because of the racket, but I have no problem whatsoever with this and am unsure as to why you seem to.
If you need an argument in favour of keeping it in 1st gear, I'd say 'response', an important safety attribute.

[Cat]

10 Pence Short said:

The point I made, quite clearly I thought, is that acceleration on its own is unlikely to lead to a failure of the DSA test and, secondly, that evidence of something that might fail you in the DSA test is not then automatically evidence of s3.

For clarity, I have never said acceleration on it own will lead to failure of a driving test. What I did say was driving in the manner described in the OP; "leathering it up to 30 mph in 1st then popping it into top gear", in a built up area, outside a shop, on a damp road, in the presence of other vehicles would probably lead to failing a driving test.

Equally I've not said that evidence of something might result in failure of a driving test is automatically evidence of a section 3 offence - rather that the standards expected of someone to pass a driving test are amongst the factors considered when defining the notional competent and careful driver.

10 Pence Short said:

The simple act of accelerating at whatever rate is not enough to criminalise the behaviour- there has to be something more.

Again, I've never said it was. My point throughout has been that actions described in the OP could well be considered to be below that expected of a competent and careful driver. For whatever reason you are incorrectly attributing positions to me then arguing against them - please stop.

Cat

[10 Pence Short]

You appear to be incorrectly attributing circumstances not given by the OP- please stop.

Apologies if I sound jaded; my dealings with a small number of Police officers in Cumbria recently has tainted what previously was a very positive view of the profession. I have seen them lie, invent and hide evidence at first hand. I'm a bit sick of Police officers acting rashly then trying to create evidence to suit a prejudicial scenario they decided upon, and perhaps it's made me more argumentative on this thread than I might otherwise be.

[Blackpuddin]

Coincidentally I too have had less than satisfactory dealings with the Cumbrian police. An experience that hardened my attitude towards the police force as a whole, which I regret.

[Cat]

10 Pence Short said:

You appear to be incorrectly attributing circumstances not given by the OP- please stop.

What circumstances are they? The points I've mentioned that I think contribute towards the driving, in this instance, being careless are all given in the OP.

10 Pence Short said:

Apologies if I sound jaded; my dealings with a small number of Police officers in Cumbria recently has tainted what previously was a very positive view of the profession. I have seen them lie, invent and hide evidence at first hand. I'm a bit sick of Police officers acting rashly then trying to create evidence to suit a prejudicial scenario they decided upon, and perhaps it's made me more argumentative on this thread than I might otherwise be.

No apology required

Cat

[10 Pence Short]

Blackpuddin said:

Coincidentally I too have had less than satisfactory dealings with the Cumbrian police. An experience that hardened my attitude towards the police force as a whole, which I regret.

I hired a well regarded and senior barrister recently, himself a Level 4 CPS prosecutor. I thought maybe I was being paranoid about the Police and had lost objectivity; he had none of it, and insisted that particular force were a basket case.

Interestingly his own father had been Chief Constable of the force in question.

[Skyrat]

Grenoble said:

All about appropriate usage. In the same way, why do they make bikes capable of 200?

7500rpm is appropriate accelerating hard to match speed on a slip road. I'd say it was inappropriate, at, say 3am in a village in 1st gear. Or outside a school at 3:30 approaching a crossing. All about situation.

Edited by Grenoble on Friday 17th May 19:52

^this. A lot of folk would look at that kind of driving and think: " Bell-end."

[Tannedbaldhead]

Grenoble said:

why do they make bikes capable of 200?

Comes in bloody handy when I'm late for work.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Update. Matey-boy has told me he has received a communication stating that despite having sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution he will avoid points and a record should he decide to attend a National Driver Improvement Scheme Scotland course. £190 for a day and a half (work days so add lost income to his costs). He's decided to take this option as "they said I said" usually ends badly in court.

The "offence" mentions travelling at excessive speed in a built up area (not easy in 1st gear) yet the excessive acceleration doesn't raise its ugly head at all This is in spite of this being the mainstay of all that was discussed when he was tugged.

[Raize]

Kind of st how keeping up with traffic in a low powered car is now an offence.

[vodkalolly]

Tannedbaldhead said:

Update. Matey-boy has told me he has received a communication stating that despite having sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution he will avoid points and a record should he decide to attend a National Driver Improvement Scheme Scotland course. £190 for a day and a half (work days so add lost income to his costs). He's decided to take this option as "they said I said" usually ends badly in court.

The "offence" mentions travelling at excessive speed in a built up area (not easy in 1st gear) yet the excessive acceleration doesn't raise its ugly head at all This is in spite of this being the mainstay of all that was discussed when he was tugged.

Sounds to me like a bluff. I would have said EFF ORF. Its just a liar liar pants on fire case.

[BertBert]

So where does this mad view come from? All the lathering PH'ers who weren't there know that the driving in question was absolutely fine and the plod that were there are lying?

And as for the idea that the offer of a driving course is a bluf...get back to the real world ffs.

Bert

[streaky]

vodkalolly said:

Tannedbaldhead said:

Update. Matey-boy has told me he has received a communication stating that despite having sufficient evidence to proceed with a prosecution he will avoid points and a record should he decide to attend a National Driver Improvement Scheme Scotland course. £190 for a day and a half (work days so add lost income to his costs). He's decided to take this option as "they said I said" usually ends badly in court.

The "offence" mentions travelling at excessive speed in a built up area (not easy in 1st gear) yet the excessive acceleration doesn't raise its ugly head at all This is in spite of this being the mainstay of all that was discussed when he was tugged.

Sounds to me like a bluff. I would have said EFF ORF. Its just a liar liar pants on fire case.

The evidence of two police officers that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the speed limit will usually suffice in court.

Streaky

[10 Pence Short]

streaky said:

The evidence of two police officers that the vehicle was being driven in excess of the speed limit will usually suffice in court.

Streaky

Not for careless in this case, it won't. We probably don't have all the facts of this case, but on the info we do have here I'd turn the offer down, as I believe they're trying it on.

[anonymous-user]

10P - it appears he's being done for speeding; nothing else.

[Cat]

garyhun said:

10P - it appears he's being done for speeding; nothing else.

The NDISS isn't offered for speeding so it would actually appear he was reported for careless driving.

Cat

[anonymous-user]

Cat said:

The NDISS isn't offered for speeding so it would actually appear he was reported for careless driving.

Cat

So the OPs latest post is wrong then? Genuine question.

[Tannedbaldhead]

Cat said:

garyhun said:

10P - it appears he's being done for speeding; nothing else.

The NDISS isn't offered for speeding so it would actually appear he was reported for careless driving.

Cat

Exactly. That said the careless driving is now said to be the speed at which he travelled. The officers report that they had to travel at "excessive speed", though unspecified, in order to catch up with him after he tore off. If speeding was the issue why not say he was speeding?

The lad also said they had a bloody good look at his car for faults and seemed a bit miffed that it was clear.

[BertBert]

I just can't believe the baying hounds of PH are falling for this. We have a second hand report of what's going on. We have no idea what the offence actually is. The OP has said that "excessive speed" was mentioned. Then that was leaped on to mean exceeding the speed limit.

So please OP can you furnish us with some facts? What offence is this person being "done" for and offered a course in place of?

Bert