97 in a 70 - citation mentions dangerous!??
Discussion
For those above, I'll post a redacted copy of the summary of evidence, but not whilst the case is live - just for my own safety more than anything else as I'm not sure about the power of the public domain etc etc..
To clarify though, after hours of research online I understand why they are going for dangerous just for the speed alone. I didn't get it at first but apparently it's quite a common theme.
Just to re-iterate to anyone who thinks there may have been any aggravating factors, there wasn't, summary of evidence is just clear cut "follwed mr X, used machine thingy and speed was Y, pulled over when supposed to, cautioned in car and no comments were made etc etc." Light traffic, dark road, roads damp and in good repair, 1030 at night, light-hearted chat with cops after the formalities were done.
Like the gent said above, just don't speed in Scotland and you'll be fine!
More info as and when.
To clarify though, after hours of research online I understand why they are going for dangerous just for the speed alone. I didn't get it at first but apparently it's quite a common theme.
Just to re-iterate to anyone who thinks there may have been any aggravating factors, there wasn't, summary of evidence is just clear cut "follwed mr X, used machine thingy and speed was Y, pulled over when supposed to, cautioned in car and no comments were made etc etc." Light traffic, dark road, roads damp and in good repair, 1030 at night, light-hearted chat with cops after the formalities were done.
Like the gent said above, just don't speed in Scotland and you'll be fine!
More info as and when.
vonhosen said:
snowandrocks said:
This seems a bit strange - I've heard of very high speeds being prosecuted as dangerous driving in Scotland before but thought the bar was generally set well above 100 mph.
I got caught during a rather enthusiastic overtake on a single carriageway A-road not too far from Inverness at 92 a couple of years back. Even though I was overtaking 4 campervans at once and driving an old diesel Land Cruiser the police at the scene seemed fairly relaxed about it. Had to go to the court in Dingwall and after contritely apologising for wasting the courts valuable time etc. the judge handed out a £200 fine and 4 points. He seemed relieved to have to deal with someone who was properly dressed for court and didn't swear at him!
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2013/34.htmlI got caught during a rather enthusiastic overtake on a single carriageway A-road not too far from Inverness at 92 a couple of years back. Even though I was overtaking 4 campervans at once and driving an old diesel Land Cruiser the police at the scene seemed fairly relaxed about it. Had to go to the court in Dingwall and after contritely apologising for wasting the courts valuable time etc. the judge handed out a £200 fine and 4 points. He seemed relieved to have to deal with someone who was properly dressed for court and didn't swear at him!
Will be interesting to see the eventual outcome. Best of luck OP.
creampuff said:
Rather ironic that in Scotland you can get jail time for speed alone (as per a very recent case) with no crash. But you can crash and kill someone through careless driving and get a fine and points or a fine and ban. That is messed up.
Or you can lie about your medical condition to get a driving job with HGVs, then crash and kill half a dozen pedestrians because of said medical condition, and not even face a single charge. It's OK as long as you don't creep over the speed limit, apparently. Bonkers. Small update:
Evidence (or disclosure) documents received from the crown today consisting of.... a 'Certificate of accuracy' for the Puma SE-6 points accumulation machine.
That's it.
Have spoken to solicitor, and course of action agreed. I'll be silent now until it's all over due to internet being far reaching etc etc.
Will give full update upon completion to give others an idea of the process in Scotland, if nothing else.
Happy St Paddy's day!
Evidence (or disclosure) documents received from the crown today consisting of.... a 'Certificate of accuracy' for the Puma SE-6 points accumulation machine.
That's it.
Have spoken to solicitor, and course of action agreed. I'll be silent now until it's all over due to internet being far reaching etc etc.
Will give full update upon completion to give others an idea of the process in Scotland, if nothing else.
Happy St Paddy's day!
WaspsNest said:
Small update:
Evidence (or disclosure) documents received from the crown today consisting of.... a 'Certificate of accuracy' for the Puma SE-6 points accumulation machine.
That's it.
Have spoken to solicitor, and course of action agreed. I'll be silent now until it's all over due to internet being far reaching etc etc.
Will give full update upon completion to give others an idea of the process in Scotland, if nothing else.
Happy St Paddy's day!
Good luck OP. Evidence (or disclosure) documents received from the crown today consisting of.... a 'Certificate of accuracy' for the Puma SE-6 points accumulation machine.
That's it.
Have spoken to solicitor, and course of action agreed. I'll be silent now until it's all over due to internet being far reaching etc etc.
Will give full update upon completion to give others an idea of the process in Scotland, if nothing else.
Happy St Paddy's day!
TL;DR: 5 points & £300 fine for Careless Driving at 94mph (reduced from 97mph & Dangerous Driving)
OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
still a load of s
t for something which is quite clearly not dangerous. I'd have been inclined to have fought the bds as if the charge was dangerous and that got thrown out you wouldn't have got done for careless, I presume. Instead you negotiated your way into careless, a nice easy win for them as they didn't have to prove anything.
t for something which is quite clearly not dangerous. I'd have been inclined to have fought the bds as if the charge was dangerous and that got thrown out you wouldn't have got done for careless, I presume. Instead you negotiated your way into careless, a nice easy win for them as they didn't have to prove anything.CoolHands said:
still a load of st for something which is quite clearly not dangerous. I'd have been inclined to have fought the bds as if the charge was dangerous and that got thrown out you wouldn't have got done for careless, I presume. Instead you negotiated your way into careless, a nice easy win for them as they didn't have to prove anything.
I was saying the same to the lady, it's almost inevitable that a defendant will take what's offered in the hope of ending it early. If I had the time and the spuds to carry on with the stress of having it looming, I would have taken it to trial. Easier said now it's over, but it crossed my mind at one point to do that.t for something which is quite clearly not dangerous. I'd have been inclined to have fought the bds as if the charge was dangerous and that got thrown out you wouldn't have got done for careless, I presume. Instead you negotiated your way into careless, a nice easy win for them as they didn't have to prove anything.What gets me is that the two officers, who were absolutely cool and polite roadside, never mentioned dangerous, careless or anything. As far as we were all concerned my driving was to a 'good standard' as quoted by them, as I had performed a couple of overtakes about 10 miles back from where I got caught.. He talked about this in the back of the car and said he didn't have a problem with my manoeuvres whatsoever, it's just that I put the foot down a bit too heavy when I did speed up on a downhill section so they put the machine on me.
That's not on, if they were going to say it was dangerous, I should have been told roadside, or at least given an off the cuff warning that PF could upgrade it to dangerous due to excessive speed - I would have had more respect for the system if it was administered fairly and transparently. All the way through the case I never disputed my speed, I was willing to hold my hands up to that the whole time.
Hindisghts always 20/20.
WaspsNest said:
TL;DR: 5 points & £300 fine for Careless Driving at 94mph (reduced from 97mph & Dangerous Driving)
OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
So glad this turned out ok for you WN : it could have been a whole lot worse. Except that is for your solicitor's fees which are scandalous.OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
I am truly and utterly sick to death of this absolute garbage from the enforcement services in my own country. It is way beyond a joke and has to be stopped. I'm going to put a post up in the next few days about the whole situation in Scotland and attack the problem at source; kind of putting the cat among the pigeons if you like.
We have to do something other than come on here and moan about it.
J
jith said:
WaspsNest said:
TL;DR: 5 points & £300 fine for Careless Driving at 94mph (reduced from 97mph & Dangerous Driving)
OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
So glad this turned out ok for you WN : it could have been a whole lot worse. Except that is for your solicitor's fees which are scandalous.OK. Court was done and out of the way yesterday – my solicitor managed to have the case brought forward from July to 24th April.
I left the above at receiving the ‘Calibration Certificate’ (which was no more than a piece of paper signed by the two officers saying the device was calibrated, and not an actual Certificate of Calibration) that turned out to be nonsense.
On the basis of nothing major outside of the speed that pushed my charge into Dangerous Driving, the solicitor negotiated a reduced plea of guilty to a charge of Careless Driving at 94mph. I was advised to take this option on the basis that if I tried to fight it, I could end up with the wrong Sheriff on the wrong day and get hammered.
So, this was the road we took and my accelerated case was heard yesterday...
Court:
I’d never set foot in a courtroom in my life. The waiting area had a 95% populous of scum, and I was well and truly out of place in the full suit/tie etc.When my case was called, the charge was read, my circumstances explained by the solicitor verbally with information I supplied to him beforehand (normal working bloke, nice job in London, 3 kids, only driver in family) and the judge very quickly gave me 5 points and £400 fine reduced to £300 for an early guilty plea.
I expected and budgeted for the fine to be a lot more.
The judge said nothing untoward to me aside from the charge and the whole thing was over in about 10 minutes.
Today I feel re-born. This has been hanging over me for months and will not be something I repeat again. I drove back home from Inverness yesterday with a different head on my shoulders. Whether the system has beaten me into submission or not, I'll be driving a LOT slower and within the boundaries of the law from now on.
The amount of stress this put me and the family through was quite excruciating, and although it could have been a lot worse, I'm glad this is over.
Cost:
- Solicitor: £2,500
- Flights booked for intermediate and trial diets (non-refundable and now lost): £280
- Fine: £300
- And of course my own time to travel yesterday.
Total: £3,080 (without my time)
If caught, in short:
1. Get a solicitor
2. Tell the truth
3. FFS wear a suit in court, I was told that this did make a difference as the court was full of idiots before
me on the day and it was refreshing to see someone who offered respect to the court.
I’ll stick to mountain bikes now.
Kindest regards to the PHers that offered advice outside of the forums.
I am truly and utterly sick to death of this absolute garbage from the enforcement services in my own country. It is way beyond a joke and has to be stopped. I'm going to put a post up in the next few days about the whole situation in Scotland and attack the problem at source; kind of putting the cat among the pigeons if you like.
We have to do something other than come on here and moan about it.
J
Unfortunately, this thread shows just how costly it can be for someone caught speeding, regardless of how 'safe' the offence is deemed to be.
The powers that be simply won't listen. In one way, I agree with certain speed limits as we cannot allow people to drive how they like. Some people are utter morons behind the wheel. Yes, a 60mph limit on motorways as posted in another thread is daft. However, due to the standard of driving I regularly see nowadays, I can understand why some things are enforced so strictly.
One thing I do know is the fact that continually getting caught speeding will not change anything. If anything, so many people getting caught just fuels the fire and gives the powers that be even more ammo to impose lower limits.
OP was eventually done for 94mph in a 70mph zone. The those who don't know better, it's close to 100mph and can be considered dangerous. If you take it from the perspective of what could happen if things go wrong at this speed, you can see why the charge was made.
Personally, I'd rather stick to the limit and avoid all of the hassle.
Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 26th April 10:55
funkyrobot said:
You could just stick to the posted speed limit when safe to do so?
Unfortunately, this thread shows just how costly it can be for someone caught speeding, regardless of how 'safe' the offence is deemed to be.
The powers that be simply won't listen. In one way, I agree with certain speed limits as we cannot allow people to drive how they like. Some people are utter morons behind the wheel. Yes, a 60mph limit on motorways as posted in another thread is daft. However, due to the standard of driving I regularly see nowadays, I can understand why some things are enforced so strictly.
One thing I do know is the fact that continually getting caught speeding will not change anything. If anything, so many people getting caught just fuels the fire and gives the powers that be even more ammo to impose lower limits.
OP was eventually done for 94mph in a 70mph zone. The those who don't know better, it's close to 100mph and can be considered dangerous. If you take it from the perspective of what could happen if things go wrong at this speed, you can see why the charge was made.
Personally, I'd rather stick to the limit and avoid all of the hassle.
This has all been discussed before but it appears that the Scots have the view that a differential of +30mph or more between traffic proceeding at the lawful maximum is a dangerous act by the driver of the faster vehicle. That view is likely to be held by most reasonable and well-adjusted people.Unfortunately, this thread shows just how costly it can be for someone caught speeding, regardless of how 'safe' the offence is deemed to be.
The powers that be simply won't listen. In one way, I agree with certain speed limits as we cannot allow people to drive how they like. Some people are utter morons behind the wheel. Yes, a 60mph limit on motorways as posted in another thread is daft. However, due to the standard of driving I regularly see nowadays, I can understand why some things are enforced so strictly.
One thing I do know is the fact that continually getting caught speeding will not change anything. If anything, so many people getting caught just fuels the fire and gives the powers that be even more ammo to impose lower limits.
OP was eventually done for 94mph in a 70mph zone. The those who don't know better, it's close to 100mph and can be considered dangerous. If you take it from the perspective of what could happen if things go wrong at this speed, you can see why the charge was made.
Personally, I'd rather stick to the limit and avoid all of the hassle.
Edited by funkyrobot on Wednesday 26th April 10:55
While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed.
4040vision said:
This has all been discussed before but it appears that the Scots have the view that a differential of +30mph or more between traffic proceeding at the lawful maximum is a dangerous act by the driver of the faster vehicle. That view is likely to be held by most reasonable and well-adjusted people.
While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed.
The speed was reduced by 3mph to take into account the margin of human error present whilst operating the Puma SE/6 device. Seemed reasonable and fair to me upon investigation into how the machine is operated (i.e. by humans pushing buttons at perceived intervals).While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed.
The OPs experience very closely reflects that of my Nephew who got collared in Aberdeen area a couple of years back, although there the copper was also trying to get him done for racing as well. So what started as racing, dangerous then speeding, ended up in court as careless, with no ban, but points and fine.
No need for it, but in Scotland, it's almost defined as dangerous if you're 30+ over the limit apparently, at least by the Procurate. Doesn't seem to be backed up in court by the judges thankfully.
But does mean lots of people have to go through the stress and expense of court, solicitors etc... even if there's no chance it'll stack up in court.
Seems slightly vindictive to me and I'm surprised the Scots don't make a bit more fuss about it.
No need for it, but in Scotland, it's almost defined as dangerous if you're 30+ over the limit apparently, at least by the Procurate. Doesn't seem to be backed up in court by the judges thankfully.
But does mean lots of people have to go through the stress and expense of court, solicitors etc... even if there's no chance it'll stack up in court.
Seems slightly vindictive to me and I'm surprised the Scots don't make a bit more fuss about it.
Isn't this all about perceptions of what is Dangerous and what is not.....?
One person can legitimatley asses a situation as being dangerous according to their risk levels, whilst another person could asses it in a completely different way. Speed in itself is not dangerous and does not nescesarilly kill..... inappropriate speed is dangerous and can kill. But where each person asses's the risk that speed becomes inappropriate is different.
The OP obvioulsy assesed the risk at the time as being low and considering the conditions, lack of traffic, time of night, it probably was. He was obvioulsy comfortable with the speed and happy to proceed even though it was above the speed limit. The Police obviously assumed differently and he was pulled over. The PF obvioulsy has an even more extreme view of that risk and assesed it as dangerous even though he/she wasn't even there?
Unfortunately, those who asses a high risk at a very low speed will always win..... and that's because nobody can justify doing something that increases a risk of death. This results in namby pamby blanket 50mph limits on previously, safe, NSL roads. Blanket limits of 20mph throughout entire boroughs of London. etc etc... and this is all to stop a few more deaths on the roads, which is already lower than the number of people who die from falling down the stairs!!
Now if a member of your family is involved in a Fatal Accident due to speed, your assesment, will undoubtedly change. But should that affect everyone else? And at what point does your risk assesment have to affect everyone else just because your affraid to drive faster than 50mph. Should we be chasing zero road deaths? And anyway. how many road deaths are actually saved by better, safer cars, with better pedestrian protection compared to reduced speed limits?
One person can legitimatley asses a situation as being dangerous according to their risk levels, whilst another person could asses it in a completely different way. Speed in itself is not dangerous and does not nescesarilly kill..... inappropriate speed is dangerous and can kill. But where each person asses's the risk that speed becomes inappropriate is different.
The OP obvioulsy assesed the risk at the time as being low and considering the conditions, lack of traffic, time of night, it probably was. He was obvioulsy comfortable with the speed and happy to proceed even though it was above the speed limit. The Police obviously assumed differently and he was pulled over. The PF obvioulsy has an even more extreme view of that risk and assesed it as dangerous even though he/she wasn't even there?
Unfortunately, those who asses a high risk at a very low speed will always win..... and that's because nobody can justify doing something that increases a risk of death. This results in namby pamby blanket 50mph limits on previously, safe, NSL roads. Blanket limits of 20mph throughout entire boroughs of London. etc etc... and this is all to stop a few more deaths on the roads, which is already lower than the number of people who die from falling down the stairs!!
Now if a member of your family is involved in a Fatal Accident due to speed, your assesment, will undoubtedly change. But should that affect everyone else? And at what point does your risk assesment have to affect everyone else just because your affraid to drive faster than 50mph. Should we be chasing zero road deaths? And anyway. how many road deaths are actually saved by better, safer cars, with better pedestrian protection compared to reduced speed limits?
WaspsNest said:
4040vision said:
This has all been discussed before but it appears that the Scots have the view that a differential of +30mph or more between traffic proceeding at the lawful maximum is a dangerous act by the driver of the faster vehicle. That view is likely to be held by most reasonable and well-adjusted people.
While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed
The speed was reduced by 3mph to take into account the margin of human error present whilst operating the Puma SE/6 device. Seemed reasonable and fair to me upon investigation into how the machine is operated (i.e. by humans pushing buttons at perceived intervals).While it may be said that the motorways are the safest types of roads they are made less safe by drivers who choose to exceed the limit by large amounts.
How can it be a justifiable or reasonable act to decide that it is OK to ignore the traffic regulations "because it is or in a driver's opinion it's a safe environment"?
The penalty in the case in this thread seems reasonable but I don't agree that the speed should have been reduced from the measured 97mph to a notional 94mph; there's no evidence or justification for that error to be present. The prosecutor has made the offer of a reduced speed to get the guilty plea; it's easier for the case to be dealt with that way but doesn't represent the measurement in any way...well it does, its 3mph less than the measured speed
It isn't reasonable to suggest that there is an error that is large enough to induce a 3mph error. The device is Home Office Type Approved and when tested didn't show errors of that magnitude or it would have failed that Approval test because that error is too large; hence unreasonable.
Sir Lord Poopie said:
OP was in violation of the highway code. That could be deemed dangerous.
I'm not sure that's strictly correct.The HC is not law of itself and can only be used to support a prosecution. It is challengeable.
For driving to be deemed dangerous there needs to be some aggravating factor.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff