Help settling a debate about speeding
Discussion
I've been driving a little under seven years, and therefore (quite rightly) think I know it all! Dearest Father has been driving for over 30 years and knows that he knows it all! However, for some time we've been disagreeing about a speeding question, and perhaps the powers that be could settle it:
Let's assume (hypothetically, of course) that one is travelling behind a police car in a 30mph limit, all normal - decent conditions/traffic etc, and BiB gradually creep up to, say, 35mph. I argue that if the rozzers are not answering a call, they are to abide by road laws as should the public - and therefore, if i were to follow the Carabinieri up to their speed, they shouldn't be able to pull me over on the basis that they were, effectively, speeding without a reason.
My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed to do something like that in order to check whether I'm paying attention, or 'trick' me into speeding.
Which (if either) is true, or which is closer to the truth?
P.S. I'm not one of those militants who think they can get pulled over on purpose and argue with the Feds - don't fancy prison!
Let's assume (hypothetically, of course) that one is travelling behind a police car in a 30mph limit, all normal - decent conditions/traffic etc, and BiB gradually creep up to, say, 35mph. I argue that if the rozzers are not answering a call, they are to abide by road laws as should the public - and therefore, if i were to follow the Carabinieri up to their speed, they shouldn't be able to pull me over on the basis that they were, effectively, speeding without a reason.
My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed to do something like that in order to check whether I'm paying attention, or 'trick' me into speeding.
Which (if either) is true, or which is closer to the truth?
P.S. I'm not one of those militants who think they can get pulled over on purpose and argue with the Feds - don't fancy prison!
OGR4M said:
I've been driving a little under seven years, and therefore (quite rightly) think I know it all! Dearest Father has been driving for over 30 years and knows that he knows it all! However, for some time we've been disagreeing about a speeding question, and perhaps the powers that be could settle it:
Let's assume (hypothetically, of course) that one is travelling behind a police car in a 30mph limit, all normal - decent conditions/traffic etc, and BiB gradually creep up to, say, 35mph. I argue that if the rozzers are not answering a call, they are to abide by road laws as should the public - and therefore, if i were to follow the Carabinieri up to their speed, they shouldn't be able to pull me over on the basis that they were, effectively, speeding without a reason.
My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed to do something like that in order to check whether I'm paying attention, or 'trick' me into speeding.
Which (if either) is true, or which is closer to the truth?
P.S. I'm not one of those militants who think they can get pulled over on purpose and argue with the Feds - don't fancy prison!
1) They aren't restricted to exceeding the speed limit when on a call.Let's assume (hypothetically, of course) that one is travelling behind a police car in a 30mph limit, all normal - decent conditions/traffic etc, and BiB gradually creep up to, say, 35mph. I argue that if the rozzers are not answering a call, they are to abide by road laws as should the public - and therefore, if i were to follow the Carabinieri up to their speed, they shouldn't be able to pull me over on the basis that they were, effectively, speeding without a reason.
My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed to do something like that in order to check whether I'm paying attention, or 'trick' me into speeding.
Which (if either) is true, or which is closer to the truth?
P.S. I'm not one of those militants who think they can get pulled over on purpose and argue with the Feds - don't fancy prison!
2) They can report drivers who follow them at speeds in excess of the limit.
Even if they weren't exempt, whatever you do, don't take the police on.
They will punish you by lying about you in court, fabricating offences to report you for, and then threatening you verbally within the court building after they fail to win the case.
In short, they will try to hound you off the road. Don't like their authority challenged, don't the police.
They will punish you by lying about you in court, fabricating offences to report you for, and then threatening you verbally within the court building after they fail to win the case.
In short, they will try to hound you off the road. Don't like their authority challenged, don't the police.
OGR4M said:
if i were to follow the Carabinieri up to their speed
My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed
I wish you'd make your mind up if you're in California or Italy. Either way, their laws may differ, so advice given in the UK may not be appropriate.My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed
But if, by any chance, you happened to be in the UK and such a rhetorical situation arose, then you would be fair game. You would be committing the offence, regardless of whether they were or not.
TooMany2cvs said:
OGR4M said:
if i were to follow the Carabinieri up to their speed
My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed
I wish you'd make your mind up if you're in California or Italy. Either way, their laws may differ, so advice given in the UK may not be appropriate.My dad reckons that the LAPD are allowed
But if, by any chance, you happened to be in the UK and such a rhetorical situation arose, then you would be fair game. You would be committing the offence, regardless of whether they were or not.
zarjaz1991 said:
Even if they weren't exempt, whatever you do, don't take the police on.
They will punish you by lying about you in court, fabricating offences to report you for, and then threatening you verbally within the court building after they fail to win the case.
In short, they will try to hound you off the road. Don't like their authority challenged, don't the police.
Am I in a time warp?They will punish you by lying about you in court, fabricating offences to report you for, and then threatening you verbally within the court building after they fail to win the case.
In short, they will try to hound you off the road. Don't like their authority challenged, don't the police.
Hasn't 1984 PACE happened yet?
If the police car is on a call, it still might not exceed the speed limit.
A file came on my desk from a traffic unit for careless where there were on an urgent call, using blues on a dual carriageway at night, around 10pm and around 90mph actual. He was in the outside lane as he were approaching a couple of cars on the inside lane doing well below the speed limit, so they were closing fast. There was a car behind keeping pace but as he was on a call, and on his own, he ignored it.
One car in front pulled out into the outside lane and the police driver lifted off. In the notes he said that as the nose of his car dipped, then went up again his headlights went up and down the rear of the car. He reckoned that was the first time the chap had seen him as he braked sharply. The police driver had to brake but carried on closing at reduced speed due to the car behind.
It seems the bloke in the car behind wasn't paying attention. He braked late and had to take to the nearside, where there was the overtaking car trying for the same space. The police driver 'applied the brakes as firmly as I could', i.e. slammed on everything, and there was a slight gap in front of him, just enough for the undertaking car to drop into. By now it was in the view of the on-board video camera, in those days not a routine fitting.
I looked at the video. It was quite terrifying especially when the car appeared on the nearside. The police driver by then was heavy braking so it seemed to rocket past, heading for a much slower car. I could see the blue lights reflected off the trees in the central reservation - it was the start of the twisty downhill stretch on the A23, Handcross Hill, since, unfortunately, straightened. so he was stuck behind three slow moving cars as they negotiated the first of the corners. The undertaking car was wandering. His bottle had gone.
When all the three or four cars in front had settled their differences, the undertaking car pulled over, allowing the police car to accelerate away, only for the call to be cancelled so they were able to pull the errant driver.
There was a note in the file from the reporting officer: I anticipate a guilty plea.
So don't follow too closely.
I was talking to an Essex PC, this around the mid 80s. He said he had a call to an RTA, persons seriously injured, and was going as fast as his 1.6 patrol car could manage when he saw flashing lights behind. He pulled over to let the car pass and got a cheery wave from the on-call emergency doctor in his own Merc.
A file came on my desk from a traffic unit for careless where there were on an urgent call, using blues on a dual carriageway at night, around 10pm and around 90mph actual. He was in the outside lane as he were approaching a couple of cars on the inside lane doing well below the speed limit, so they were closing fast. There was a car behind keeping pace but as he was on a call, and on his own, he ignored it.
One car in front pulled out into the outside lane and the police driver lifted off. In the notes he said that as the nose of his car dipped, then went up again his headlights went up and down the rear of the car. He reckoned that was the first time the chap had seen him as he braked sharply. The police driver had to brake but carried on closing at reduced speed due to the car behind.
It seems the bloke in the car behind wasn't paying attention. He braked late and had to take to the nearside, where there was the overtaking car trying for the same space. The police driver 'applied the brakes as firmly as I could', i.e. slammed on everything, and there was a slight gap in front of him, just enough for the undertaking car to drop into. By now it was in the view of the on-board video camera, in those days not a routine fitting.
I looked at the video. It was quite terrifying especially when the car appeared on the nearside. The police driver by then was heavy braking so it seemed to rocket past, heading for a much slower car. I could see the blue lights reflected off the trees in the central reservation - it was the start of the twisty downhill stretch on the A23, Handcross Hill, since, unfortunately, straightened. so he was stuck behind three slow moving cars as they negotiated the first of the corners. The undertaking car was wandering. His bottle had gone.
When all the three or four cars in front had settled their differences, the undertaking car pulled over, allowing the police car to accelerate away, only for the call to be cancelled so they were able to pull the errant driver.
There was a note in the file from the reporting officer: I anticipate a guilty plea.
So don't follow too closely.
I was talking to an Essex PC, this around the mid 80s. He said he had a call to an RTA, persons seriously injured, and was going as fast as his 1.6 patrol car could manage when he saw flashing lights behind. He pulled over to let the car pass and got a cheery wave from the on-call emergency doctor in his own Merc.
zarjaz1991 said:
Even if they weren't exempt, whatever you do, don't take the police on.
They will punish you by lying about you in court, fabricating offences to report you for, and then threatening you verbally within the court building after they fail to win the case.
In short, they will try to hound you off the road. Don't like their authority challenged, don't the police.
I think you need help.They will punish you by lying about you in court, fabricating offences to report you for, and then threatening you verbally within the court building after they fail to win the case.
In short, they will try to hound you off the road. Don't like their authority challenged, don't the police.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff