accelerating too hard?

[tim_s]

i got pulled by a riot policeman the other day when i was doing about 30 in a 30! he literally ran into the road and put his hands up signally me to stop. i was accelerating hard BUT stopped at 30 and the road was totally clear and it was 3am on Saturday morning. it seemed like he was just looking for any excuse to have a go. he lost his temper when i wouldn't tell him what speed i was doing cos i thought if i said 30 that would wind him up even more! Then he tried to make out one of my mates in the back wasn't wearing his seatbelt. we then explained that he had just taken it off after we got pulled (which he had). then he had a go about having my fog lights switched on when there was so much fog you couldn't see 30m down the road! not only that but he was also a complete arse to everyone in my car! after about 20mins we were on our way. has anything similar happened to anyone else because that just really pissed me off?fair enough pulling me if it looked like i was speeding but there was no need for him to be such a idiot!

[deltaf]

Shoulda took his name and number and put in an official complaint about the dickhead.

[Agent006]

yep, should've takein his name and number. Also ask him for his seargent's name. This can calm them down a bit sometimes.

[tonyrec]

HHmmmmmmmmmm !

[Richard C]

maybe if there was that much fog about he might have had a half valid point

But then I wouldn't have jumped out in front of you - 30m is a bit marginal to stop

>> Edited by Richard C on Tuesday 25th February 16:27

[tim_s]

30m is a bit of an exageration but there was enough to justify fog lights and he agreed in the end

[m-five]

It could be seen as exhibitive acceleration (i.e. showing off) or even racing on the public highway (trying to find out your 0-30 time).

[angusfaldo]

Sounds to me like you were driving in a manner that was bound to attract attention. 3am, hard acceleration and fog. Not great ingredients for the safety conscious eh?

I'm not condoning unfair treatment from the police but seems to me you could have done with keeping a lower profile.

[Richard C]

Racing on the public highway ? I think you need two to prove racing.

[AlanN]

I don't suppose you have your fog lights on all the time perchance do you

Alan

[tim_s]

no i use my fog lights when its foggy! when i said accelerating hard i didn't mean wheelspinning & attracting attention to my self etc! my car doesn't have a lary exhaust or any of that either!

[Nano2nd]

m-five said: (trying to find out your 0-30 time).

how can that be illegal? my corsa does a 0-30 in about 10 seconds(which in most cases would be classed a very slow start )

yet one of my motors will do it in about 2 seconds!

[JonGwynne]

m-five said: It could be seen as exhibitive acceleration (i.e. showing off) or even racing on the public highway (trying to find out your 0-30 time).

I beg your pardon? Are you saying that "exhibitive acceleration" is actually a criminal offense?

I sure hope not. It's one of my few automotive pleasures left. When I'm first in line and the light goes green, very often I will accerate to the legal limit as quickly as possible. Why? Just for the fun of it. You're saying I should drive my Jaguar XJR like it was a Ford Ka?

[m-five]

Not a criminal offence, rather the choice of words a copper in a Golf VR6 when I didn't let him in front of me after the 3 lanes went to two at a set of lights.

[GreenV8S]

There was a recent thread about trailors where somebody towing a big (but empty) trailor was done for *intent* to overload the trailor, on tha basis that when fully loaded the trailor would have exceeded the safe towing capacity of the car.

On that basis, I reckon all TVR drivers are liable to a charge of intent to accelerate too hard.

(Guilty as charged, m'lud!)

Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

[madcop]

GreenV8S said: There was a recent thread about trailors where somebody towing a big (but empty) trailor was done for *intent* to overload the trailor, on tha basis that when fully loaded the trailor would have exceeded the safe towing capacity of the car.

On that basis, I reckon all TVR drivers are liable to a charge of intent to accelerate too hard.

(Guilty as charged, m'lud!)

Peter Humphries (and a green V8S)

The 'braked trailer' thread covers that and he was done because the trailer alone exceeded maximum permitted weights for the combination without him putting anything on it to make it heavier. Whether he intended to put anything on the empty trailer was irrelevant as the offence was complete just by attaching the trailer to the car and exceeding the weight limit.

Intent does not come into most Road Traffic offences.
They are mainly of strict or absolute liabilitywhich means the fact that they occured makes them complete. The state of mind of the user is immaterial.

The same is applicable to the situation where you were judged to have accelerated too harshly which could be covered under Section 3 Road Traffic Act 1988, Careless Driving.

The definition of careless driving is that the standard of driving that would be expected of a reasonable, prudent and competent driver in all the attendant circumstances

There is one objective standard of driving which is expected of all drivers, even learners. Once you have been proved to have departed from that standard of driving and that the drivers actions were 'volunatry' then the offence is complete. There is no need to prove any knowledge or awareness by the driver that their driving fell below that standard.

The facts alone are enough to see you summonsed without any intent.



>> Edited by madcop on Thursday 27th February 02:25

[P*Ting]

Madcop,

'Giving it large' off a roundabout is one of the few motoring pleasures that are still largely unregulated (so I thought!).

From your last post I understand that any police officer can stop anyone at any time if they percieve the person to be accelerating 'too hard'.

Eek!

Are there any guidelines on this you can share with us?

Cheers,

Alan.

[Richard C]

There is one objective standard of driving which is expected of all drivers, even learners. Once you have been proved to have departed from that standard of driving and that the drivers actions were 'voluntary' then the offence is complete

This is why the law ( not madcop !) is an ass. How can driving be observed, tested subjectively by one officer and that be said to be an objective standard. The wording of the act renders any examination of an instance of driving is necessarily subjective

[madcop]

Richard C said:
This is why the law ( not madcop !) is an ass. How can driving be observed, tested subjectively by one officer and that be said to be an objective standard. The wording of the act renders any examination of an instance of driving is necessarily subjective

It isn't! The law is interpreted by the officer only in as much as he has discretion to decide in his opinion if an offence has been committed.

He then gathers the facts of what he sees and puts it in writing to a CPS lawyer who makes a second examination of the available evidence and if the lawyer believes that there is sufficient evidence to prosecute that alleged offence witnessed by the officer, then a summons will be issued. At this point, there is still no conviction obviously.

The objective test of the definition is only properly tested by three other people who are called magistrates. If they agree that the standard of driving witnessed by that one officer fell below the level require on questions of fact, then a conviction will follow. If they do not, then the accused will be acquitted.

The Police do not prosecute anyone. They only have power to gather facts to put before a legal body who decide whether the officer is right in his assumption or not.

This does not just happen in traffic law. I have recently arrested three people and charged them with 'Affray' under Section 3 of the Public Order Act 1986. In my view, the conduct of all three at the time rendered that charge reasonable which was agreed by the custody Sgt that laid the charges on them. CPS having examined the evidence before the first hearing at court, have reduced the charges on all 3 to Section 4 Public Order Act 1986, fear of provocation of violnce. The lawyers have made an objective test on the available evidence and found that the Police officers interpretation of the facts led to a charge in excess of the circumstances.

This happens in every case that is put to CPS before a prosecution will ensue.
The only exceptions are through the Fixed Penalty system where the driver has the option of short cutting the CPS and court route by accepting the decision of the Police officer gathering the facts in relation to the offence that was alleged to have been committed. Fixed penalty offences are mainly those where strict liablity is the prosecution standard. i.e. the facts about the offence require no more evidence than the fact the circumstances occurred. An example of this is a defective tyre. It was either defective or it was not.

[madcop]

P*Ting said: Madcop,

'Giving it large' off a roundabout is one of the few motoring pleasures that are still largely unregulated (so I thought!).

From your last post I understand that any police officer can stop anyone at any time if they percieve the person to be accelerating 'too hard'.

Eek!

Are there any guidelines on this you can share with us?

Cheers,

Alan.

Think back to the day you took your driving test. If you had larged it up from a roundabout with a driving test examiner sitting next to you and measuring your performance, would you have passed your test?
That driving test is the standard required to pass the definition of a resonable, prudent and competent driver. That is why it is there.

Larging it up from a roundabout could be considered as either Careless Driving under Section 3 of the RTA 1988 or even without reasonable consideration for other road users under the same regulation.

There are also other offences such as creating unecessary noise which could be considered by someone larging it up or failing to maintain proper control if the back end steps out of line in the process. It is not considered to fit within the definition of driving carefully and therefore if CPS agree the facts put before them after examination of those facts, then a sumons may follow!