Kind letter from Hants Constabulary - would you reply?
Discussion
Long story short - I went through a semi-rural speed trap in a semi-rural 30mph zone. It was late morning, clear and dry conditions, nobody on the road except me.
The road itself is wide with unrestricted visibility 20' either side - right up to the 8' high hedges.
The device was one of those Smiley/Frowny face jobs on a tripod. I went through it without adjusting my speed at 32mph - indicated on my speedo as fractionally above 30mph.
Stood next to it were two female civilians wearing hi-vis jackets, but otherwise appearing to be mums (for want of a better expression)
I thought nothing more until today when a letter arrived on my doorstep from Hants Police. It contains the usual waffle about 'committed to reducing casualties, improvement of peoples lives, etc'. It also contains the following sentence;
Speeding is not simply about fines and endorsements upon a licence. It is the single most common aggravating factor in 1200 road deaths per year
It then goes on to say 'no further action' and 'please modify your driving behaviour' etc etc.
Aside from the fact that I was obviously speeding and endangering the lives, I wonder what everyones thoughts on that statement are? Those of Paul Smith especially.
My intial reaction was 'cobblers', but upon reading it, it's very carefully worded, as arguably any collision involving one or more moving objects is going to be aggravated by speed of any description.
I also know that they have to get a message over to the lowest common denominator and so that message needs to be unquestionably simple.
I've half a mind to write back thanking them for not prosecuting, and say it was shame that they weren't half a mile down the road where a woman using a mobile phone, driving in a very ropey Cavalier with four kids on board proceeded to skillfully tailgate me as we went past a roundabout and two zebra crossings.
The road itself is wide with unrestricted visibility 20' either side - right up to the 8' high hedges.
The device was one of those Smiley/Frowny face jobs on a tripod. I went through it without adjusting my speed at 32mph - indicated on my speedo as fractionally above 30mph.
Stood next to it were two female civilians wearing hi-vis jackets, but otherwise appearing to be mums (for want of a better expression)
I thought nothing more until today when a letter arrived on my doorstep from Hants Police. It contains the usual waffle about 'committed to reducing casualties, improvement of peoples lives, etc'. It also contains the following sentence;
Speeding is not simply about fines and endorsements upon a licence. It is the single most common aggravating factor in 1200 road deaths per year
It then goes on to say 'no further action' and 'please modify your driving behaviour' etc etc.
Aside from the fact that I was obviously speeding and endangering the lives, I wonder what everyones thoughts on that statement are? Those of Paul Smith especially.
My intial reaction was 'cobblers', but upon reading it, it's very carefully worded, as arguably any collision involving one or more moving objects is going to be aggravated by speed of any description.
I also know that they have to get a message over to the lowest common denominator and so that message needs to be unquestionably simple.
I've half a mind to write back thanking them for not prosecuting, and say it was shame that they weren't half a mile down the road where a woman using a mobile phone, driving in a very ropey Cavalier with four kids on board proceeded to skillfully tailgate me as we went past a roundabout and two zebra crossings.
Dunk76 said:
a woman using a mobile phone, driving in a very ropey Cavalier with four kids on board proceeded to skillfully tailgate me as we went past a roundabout and two zebra crossings.
Had to be a cavalier. Nothing wrong with have 4 kids on board, still undecided about mobile phone use, but tailgating is bad.
I once got stopped by the police with 4 kids on board in my cavalier, but they just wanted to give me a caution for overtaking someone in a honda jazz in case they'd had a heart attack. (OLD biddies should be retested at 70 !!)
They seem to be introducing these do-gooders around this area.
I don't think they can prosecute you, just give warnings, but if you get flagged a few times I think the BiB will be keeping a look out for you.
When asking for volunteers there seems to be little uptake at having abuse taken, but there will always be some that are so thick skinned wanting to put the world to right
I don't think they can prosecute you, just give warnings, but if you get flagged a few times I think the BiB will be keeping a look out for you.
When asking for volunteers there seems to be little uptake at having abuse taken, but there will always be some that are so thick skinned wanting to put the world to right
Dunk76 said:
<snip>
My intial reaction was 'cobblers', but upon reading it, it's very carefully worded, as arguably any collision involving one or more moving objects is going to be aggravated by speed of any description.
I also know that they have to get a message over to the lowest common denominator and so that message needs to be unquestionably simple.
<snip>
My intial reaction was 'cobblers', but upon reading it, it's very carefully worded, as arguably any collision involving one or more moving objects is going to be aggravated by speed of any description.
I also know that they have to get a message over to the lowest common denominator and so that message needs to be unquestionably simple.
<snip>
It's one thing to simplify a concept. It's quite another to lie about it. Or to "carefully word" a statement as means to engender misunderstanding.
I presume the "1200 deaths" is a reference to 1/3 of deaths being caused by speed. Obviously they can't say that now that it's been comprehensively debunked, although it may be that it's still an "aggravating factor" to that many -- though I'm not sure how these factors are defined exactly. Perhaps they're not, which means he can say what he likes.
OTOH, 32mph ?????????????
I can only assume that business wasn't that brisk and they had to resort to picking on people who were over by the width of a speedo needle. Crazy. Imagine the cost of getting that letter sent to you, all because you were speeding by 2mph.
OTOH, 32mph ?????????????
I can only assume that business wasn't that brisk and they had to resort to picking on people who were over by the width of a speedo needle. Crazy. Imagine the cost of getting that letter sent to you, all because you were speeding by 2mph.
Edited by Peter Ward on Friday 15th December 14:57
Write back asking for the evidence that you broke any law. State that accusing people of illegal behaviour without any evidence is very serious. Ask them for the details of the people who have made this accusation against you.
I went through a village (goostry) with do-gooders out in their dayglo vests. I dipped my clutch and gave them a blast of 2.5 litre Boxer engine. They fired the gun at me about 10 times, each time it must have read 25mph
I went through a village (goostry) with do-gooders out in their dayglo vests. I dipped my clutch and gave them a blast of 2.5 litre Boxer engine. They fired the gun at me about 10 times, each time it must have read 25mph
Bingoid said:
1200 deaths out of 60 million people, it's hardly proportionate to the response?
It is far less than that... 3500 or so killed with 5% caused by speeding, ergo 175....
I would be seriously tempted to ask them for video evidence that you were speeding. Then ask for the names of those who claim you are speeding without evidence, and suggest that a libel action may follow.............
Surely it deserves a carefully written response. Clearly the biddies have just written down every car setting off the sign, regardless of speed (e.g. 32 or 40 treated the same). Also the stats are just begging to be debunked.
Maybe it is also possible to interest a local paper in the bully boy tatics being used? E.g. no provable offence, then nasty letter with dubious claims aimed to imtimidate. All based on some local writing down number plates.
Rob
Maybe it is also possible to interest a local paper in the bully boy tatics being used? E.g. no provable offence, then nasty letter with dubious claims aimed to imtimidate. All based on some local writing down number plates.
Rob
Julian64 said:
Tailgating is not bad. Why do people keep saying this?
I suspect because it means that in the event of an emergency, you get a nice smash as the car behind is too close to be safe. This is magnified when I am in say the Chimaera and I have a Nova so close I can hear his stereo (which I admit in some cases = within 1 mile)..I know that if I apply the brakes hard to avoid a cat/person stepping into the road/old biddie with Mr Magoo glasses who decided to pull out on me etc.. then once more, we will have a collision.
Example of this? Last week, country lane, 56mph. Junction way up ahead. Old man there in his volvo. He waits until I am about 100yds away before gently pulling out into my path. He pulls out so carefully that in fact the Merc coming in the opposite direction brakes hard to avoid a front collision and then he manages to turn in tightly enough to stay in his lane. I on the other hand am now hard on the brakes, as due to Mr Merc I cannot just swing out past this fool. I get to within about 3ft of his bumper. Had there been Mr Nova behind, no doubt I would be in a TVR Car sandwich, as he wouldn't have been able to stop as quickly as me, then his impact would have sent me into Mr Magoo...
[quote=jasandjules Then ask for the names of those who claim you are speeding without evidence, and suggest that a libel action may follow.............[/quote]
Your speedo is legally allowed to be 10% in error so if your speed reads 30 mph you could acceptable be doing 33mph.
The Police generally do not take action up to 10% +2mph. You could therefore be done for 35 in a 30.
I have heard about private citizens being trained to use radar guns etc and reporting drivers to the police. However I beleive that before a police officer can can check you speed he has to have sufficient cause.
ie he sees you coming and judges your speed to be excessive. He then checks it.
What experiance have the busy body grannies at judging a cars speed and therefore having due cause to check it?
I would be very tempted to write the letter and ask for the names of the individuals spreading malicious rumours about you and threaten action on the grounds of slander as it was a verbal report or libel if it was written.
Its about time normal motorists were de-criminalised and the law used to catch real criminals, theives muggers etc.
The only difference is that you will pay your fine where as your average ASBO owner will delay and then pay 10p a week out of his dole
Your speedo is legally allowed to be 10% in error so if your speed reads 30 mph you could acceptable be doing 33mph.
The Police generally do not take action up to 10% +2mph. You could therefore be done for 35 in a 30.
I have heard about private citizens being trained to use radar guns etc and reporting drivers to the police. However I beleive that before a police officer can can check you speed he has to have sufficient cause.
ie he sees you coming and judges your speed to be excessive. He then checks it.
What experiance have the busy body grannies at judging a cars speed and therefore having due cause to check it?
I would be very tempted to write the letter and ask for the names of the individuals spreading malicious rumours about you and threaten action on the grounds of slander as it was a verbal report or libel if it was written.
Its about time normal motorists were de-criminalised and the law used to catch real criminals, theives muggers etc.
The only difference is that you will pay your fine where as your average ASBO owner will delay and then pay 10p a week out of his dole
your speedo can over read, by up to 10%, but not under read.
i.e., if your true speed is 30, your speedo could read anything between 30 and 33.
If you were doing a true speed of 33, you would not get away with saying you thought you were doing 30 because your speedo was under reading by 10%.
Having said that, its amazing how inaccurate some speedos are....
Ask anyone who has a GPS / road angle or similar.
i.e., if your true speed is 30, your speedo could read anything between 30 and 33.
If you were doing a true speed of 33, you would not get away with saying you thought you were doing 30 because your speedo was under reading by 10%.
Having said that, its amazing how inaccurate some speedos are....
Ask anyone who has a GPS / road angle or similar.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff