calibrated speedometers
Discussion
ipsg.glf said:
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
Apologies to anyone that might be thinking I've maligned them. Not intended. I said I thought the above very rare but have no figures.
Its almost as dangerous speaking on here as being out on the road
'all young chaps lie about their speed'
'a young chap on a bike like that needs taking down a peg'
ok he might have been but how do we sort the wheat from the chaff?
As said
police collect the evidence
the courts are there to decide
Its almost as dangerous speaking on here as being out on the road
ipsg.glf said:
Could the young chap be lying about his actual speed?
'lying' is a strong word which I wouldnt use. 'all young chaps lie about their speed'
'a young chap on a bike like that needs taking down a peg'
ok he might have been but how do we sort the wheat from the chaff?
As said
police collect the evidence
the courts are there to decide
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 29th September 10:10
The poor equipment install may be due to the fact that the car is leased and come the end of its lease it will be released for sale, so too many holes and dash alteration affects the resale. Also has calibrated speedo technology improved? if it is electronic can the calibration be checked and adjusted for tyres etc more easily? after all a whole raft of speed measurment equipment has come out since the granada.
vonhosen said:
Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Because if someone sees an assult with thier eyes they would know it happened, if you see someone driving fast, you cannot know they are speeding 100%, and therefore need proof to back it up.I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th April 19:41
It really is as simple as that!
jith said:
ipsg.glf said:
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
I see what you mean
http://www.iam.org.uk/IAM+Policy+and+Research/news...
Are they really expecting every bend, hazard etc to have the correct speed limit for the particular vehicle?
It's difficult enough setting the correct limit on a straight road with few hazards
Crazy stance
http://www.iam.org.uk/IAM+Policy+and+Research/news...
Are they really expecting every bend, hazard etc to have the correct speed limit for the particular vehicle?
It's difficult enough setting the correct limit on a straight road with few hazards
Crazy stance
yet strangely
you can say that again
IAM report said:
"Drivers could keep their foot firmly on the accelerator, secure in the knowledge that they cannot exceed the maximum permitted speed - so they could fail to drop their speed to below the limit when conditions require it," said Mr Greig. "That abdication of driver responsibility would not be helpful to road safety in the long run."
it would not be helpfulyou can say that again
ipsg.glf said:
jith said:
ipsg.glf said:
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
All of these things are of the same negative philosophy as the manner in which these officers performed their duties in this case. They ignored the brutally expensive equipment that we all pay for and switched it off: they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for. Their interference, and I mean that quite literally, in this man's life has cost him dear financially and emotionally, and it has achieved utterly nothing.
You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority. The police have been doing it in one form or another since the automobile was invented and it has made not one jot of difference to road safety. There has never been more draconian enforcement than there is now and the standard of driving is utterly appalling and degrading by the day.
These unmarked vehicles are a wonderful tool in the right hands, but this case demonstrates just how cavalier the attitude towards this equipment in some forces is today, and the opportunity to truly make a difference is wasted.
Hmm I dont believe all officers are like that
Apart from the odd occurence, anecdotally they're reasonably civil (and what if I was in this position) so perhaps give a ticket for 80mph in a 70 when the machine might have shown more
Which is what it sounds would have been more reasonable in this case. They may have done over 100mph to catch up, but a sharp telling off might have been sufficient. Somethings broken down for them to give 100mph.
As for the biker, looking from his point of view, he's gone up a motorway slip road, merged with traffic, passed the traffic to give some space and gone back into the inside lane- all sounds reasonably safe.
Cant see it being anything other than a bad haircut day, but the bikers on the end of it.
Just in case ... no offence to anyone intended
Apart from the odd occurence, anecdotally they're reasonably civil (and what if I was in this position) so perhaps give a ticket for 80mph in a 70 when the machine might have shown more
Which is what it sounds would have been more reasonable in this case. They may have done over 100mph to catch up, but a sharp telling off might have been sufficient. Somethings broken down for them to give 100mph.
As for the biker, looking from his point of view, he's gone up a motorway slip road, merged with traffic, passed the traffic to give some space and gone back into the inside lane- all sounds reasonably safe.
Cant see it being anything other than a bad haircut day, but the bikers on the end of it.
Just in case ... no offence to anyone intended
jith said:
they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for. Their interference, and I mean that quite literally, in this man's life has cost him dear financially and emotionally, and it has achieved utterly nothing.
You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.
Flawless? Says who?You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.
No evidence? Says who?
I don't want to see prosecutions for minor infractions of the speed limit. I know of no-one who does (except the loonies, of course)
But 100mph in a 70mph is over 40% over the speed limit. Hardly a minor transgression if you look at it that way.
I was done for speeding several years ago in Cumbria.
The unmarked police car that stopped me (with driver and passenger in civvies) told me they had followed me for nearly a mile and I was travelling at 94.5 mph. I was so lucky, they told me, as at 95mph it would have been a court appearance.
I told them I didn't agree with them. I had seen them miles away, following a Sierra that they had to flash their bumper mounted blues at to get past and was surprised they stopped me.
Once in their 'office' I asked to see the video from their onboard video machine. Apparently it wasn't turned on.
When I said that they had no evidence on video, and that they were behind several cars when they put their blues on, they responded by telling me that I either accept a fixewd penalty at 94.5 or they would testify I was doing over 100 mph.
They apparently didn't spot the Mk 3 escort they must have overtaken with about 6 passengers and the drivers door tied (roughly) closed with string when asked.
I'm sorry VH, but some of your mates make it up.
You know it, I know it, and a lot of other folk know it as well.
The unmarked police car that stopped me (with driver and passenger in civvies) told me they had followed me for nearly a mile and I was travelling at 94.5 mph. I was so lucky, they told me, as at 95mph it would have been a court appearance.
I told them I didn't agree with them. I had seen them miles away, following a Sierra that they had to flash their bumper mounted blues at to get past and was surprised they stopped me.
Once in their 'office' I asked to see the video from their onboard video machine. Apparently it wasn't turned on.
When I said that they had no evidence on video, and that they were behind several cars when they put their blues on, they responded by telling me that I either accept a fixewd penalty at 94.5 or they would testify I was doing over 100 mph.
They apparently didn't spot the Mk 3 escort they must have overtaken with about 6 passengers and the drivers door tied (roughly) closed with string when asked.
I'm sorry VH, but some of your mates make it up.
You know it, I know it, and a lot of other folk know it as well.
ipsg.glf said:
jith said:
ipsg.glf said:
saaby93 said:
ipsg.glf said:
Do you really think that Police Officers would put their job, pension and liberty at stake for the sake of catching a speeding motorist, who did not seem to endanger anyone in the process?
Afraid that for whatever reason, heat of moment, bored, trouble at home, it happens - but rarely hopefully. You're lucky if you've not been close to being on the wrong end of it, but it is just the luck of the draw. Once it's happened sometime they'll quietly drop it other times continue with it to try to save face.It's a reason to keep judge and jury separate from evidence gathering.
Judge and Jury? what are you on about? Police gather evidence. Courts determine guilt.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
ipsg.glf said:
jith said:
they chased a driver whose driving was absolutely flawless and accused him of speeding with absolutely no evidence. The state of their vehicle is testimony to the mentality they display when doing their job; it is unkempt and uncared for. Their interference, and I mean that quite literally, in this man's life has cost him dear financially and emotionally, and it has achieved utterly nothing.
You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.
Flawless? Says who?You will never, I repeat never, achieve a decent standard of driving until the ludicrous notion that strictly controlling speed is a priority.
No evidence? Says who?
I don't want to see prosecutions for minor infractions of the speed limit. I know of no-one who does (except the loonies, of course)
But 100mph in a 70mph is over 40% over the speed limit. Hardly a minor transgression if you look at it that way.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
loomx said:
vonhosen said:
Spoken testimony is accepted for what it is (& is often good enough) in a court for assaults etc. Why should it not be OK in traffic matters in those circumstances ?
I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Because if someone sees an assult with thier eyes they would know it happened, if you see someone driving fast, you cannot know they are speeding 100%, and therefore need proof to back it up.I've said before though that I am more than happy to record every encounter with the public.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 26th April 19:41
It really is as simple as that!
All you need is the opinion of two officers (formed independently at the same time), or one officer & a speedometer. That's all the back up required.
The officers give their testimony but there is no physical evidence to submit before the court, just as there may be no physical evidence to submit before the court for a common assault or public order offence etc.
It's really as simple as that.
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 29th September 21:20
vonhosen said:
mark1970 said:
what if your vehicle is tracked and recorded by GPS? Would the magistrates take the word of an impartial computer over a Police officer?
Veracity is for the court to decide on a case by case basis.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff