Speeding 100 in a 50
Discussion
type-r said:
One the flip side, if the notice of intended prosecutions doesn't get laid within 6 months, you'll face no penalty, points, court proceedings or driving ban.
You're just going to have check your post every day for the next 6 months and hope nothing arrives!
He was warned at the time so a Notice of Intended Prosecution is not required. If it were required then 14 days to serve a NIP on the RK.You're just going to have check your post every day for the next 6 months and hope nothing arrives!
Laid within 6 months probably refers to the rarely used summons procedure. It’s 2024, so expect a SJPN or postal requisition to be issued within 6 months of the index offence.
Super Sonic said:
Absolutely agree, driving like that while unaware of your surroundings is bloody stupid and I have no sympathy for the op.
For clarity, my point about people being judgemental was slightly sarcastic, and directed at stuthe
calling people holier than thou, but I think it went over his head.
Cue the usual suspects saying speed limits are for generating revenue, it's not necessarily dangerous, it's an arbitrary number on a pole, they're set for the idiots blah blah blah.
That makes sense For clarity, my point about people being judgemental was slightly sarcastic, and directed at stuthe
calling people holier than thou, but I think it went over his head.Cue the usual suspects saying speed limits are for generating revenue, it's not necessarily dangerous, it's an arbitrary number on a pole, they're set for the idiots blah blah blah.
georgeyboy12345 said:
As well as the ban, when you have to resit your driving test, it’ll be the more expensive extended test that is more difficult.
Revocation and retest arises only if 6 or more points. A ban avoids a retest.Extended retest!? I’d be surprised if that were required (as the legislation does not specify an extended retest.)
Forester1965 said:
Would this offence ordinarily attract a short term disqualifacation rather than points? If so are courts guided to give points to new drivers instead to trigger the revocation, or avoid doing so (or neutral on the issue)?
Yes.Yes.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/explanatory-m...
Super Sonic said:
Cue the usual suspects saying speed limits are for generating revenue, it's not necessarily dangerous, it's an arbitrary number on a pole, they're set for the idiots blah blah blah.
Purely for info, before senior police work morphed into a political exercise, several chief constables and senior braid (coincidentally, mostly but not exclusively NW and NE regions with the occasional Met and CoL) said what you just posted in that last line, except 'set for the idiots' which they didn't mention. Add them to your suspects list. Quotes from them are in SPL threads starting around 20 years ago. These days they have to kiss the gatso pole to get on. Being well away from the nonsense of the Westminster bubble may have helped them help to keep hold of rationality, and the ability to reason outside of emotive and fashionable dogma.As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
surveyor said:
Factually if you receive 6 points or more (likely), you will not be banned but DVLA will revoke your driving licence.
You are free to book the theory and then the practical test as quickly as you can find available dates.
- apply for a provisional licenceYou are free to book the theory and then the practical test as quickly as you can find available dates.
- wait
- on receipt, apply for theory test
- wait
- pass theory test
- if theory test passed then apply for driving test
- wait
- pass test
It takes a while, because DVLA
turbobloke said:
Purely for info, before senior police work morphed into a political exercise, several chief constables and senior braid (coincidentally, mostly but not exclusively NW and NE regions with the occasional Met and CoL) said what you just posted in that last line, except 'set for the idiots' which they didn't mention. Add them to your suspects list. Quotes from them are in SPL threads starting around 20 years ago. These days they have to kiss the gatso pole to get on. Being well away from the nonsense of the Westminster bubble may have helped them help to keep hold of rationality, and the ability to reason outside of emotive and fashionable dogma.
As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
Can anyone translate this?As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
turbobloke said:
Blah blah several chief constables and senior braid said what you just posted in that last line, except 'set for the idiots' which they didn't mention. Add them to your suspects list. Quotes from them are in SPL threads starting around 20 years ago.<link?> These days blah blah blah
As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
Did they say '"therefore limits should not be enforced"? I doubt it. If they had I'm sure you would have linked the quotes.As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
As I said, the usual suspects.
Petrus1983 said:
I know this is Pistonheads and I know we've all made mistakes - but 110mph in a 50mph zone and not noticing someone following you at that speed - after having your license for 10 months is next level for me. And probably why the new rules have been introduced.
Don't disagree but the new rules were brought in in 1997. agtlaw said:
georgeyboy12345 said:
As well as the ban, when you have to resit your driving test, it’ll be the more expensive extended test that is more difficult.
Revocation and retest arises only if 6 or more points. A ban avoids a retest.Extended retest!? I’d be surprised if that were required (as the legislation does not specify an extended retest.)
I could go on the finance forum and advise about stuff I don't know about, but I don't because I'm not clued up enough about financial matters. I wish I could understand the need to see your name in print at any cost, but try as I might, I can't
Super Sonic said:
turbobloke said:
Blah blah several chief constables and senior braid said what you just posted in that last line, except 'set for the idiots' which they didn't mention. Add them to your suspects list. Quotes from them are in SPL threads starting around 20 years ago.<link?> These days blah blah blah
As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
Did they say '"therefore limits should not be enforced"? I doubt it. If they had I'm sure you would have linked the quotes.As to the OP, thanks to those PHers who offered translation services.
As I said, the usual suspects.
Your comment about 'limits should not be enforced' is a strawman, I didn't make such a claim. I was referring to your own post content. If you'd like to see a quote from a former Chief Constable who was one of those I referred to, see below. Durham former Chief Constable Paul Garvin, now retired, had access to road traffic accident data in his area and based police policy on data, not baseless emotive claptrap which it must be said is attractive to some types. He refused to introduce automated enforcement, this isn't the same as being against all forms of enforcement, giving his reasons (which included the valid polnt that fining people for speeding doesn't reduce accidents, as very few are caused by exceeding a limit, with drink / drugs / carelessness within the speed limit cited). Data beats dogma every single time, except with politicians as per the current generation of senior plod. Here's 2003, 20 years ago as advertised.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1448704/Sp...
If you were old enough to be interested when the Gatso trials were happening, the trial sites had a high accident rate immediately prior to the trials, which seems on the face of it to be a reasonable criterion for site choice, and not surprisingly the accident rate at those sites went down the next year with Gatsos in place. This led to the trial being stopped early, as it was already so "succesful" - iirc it was meant to be 2 years initially but was stopped after 1 year for that reason i.e. it was so "successful". In the second year, accident rates increased significantly as the phenomenon observed had been the statistical phemomenon of regression to the mean where the highest rates one year made a lower rate the next year more likely without any intervention whatsoever taking place. This would have been more obvious if the trial hadn't been stopped, as it was more easily kept under the radar with the trial ended prematurely.
Clearly it had nothing to do with the fines from Gatso automated enforcement, as accidents increased again at the sites with Gatsos in place. Unless it's alleged that speed cameras increase accidents, which in fact is what the Transport Research Laboratory found from one specific study over many tens of millions of motorway vehicle-miles in roadworks, where they found that automated enforcement via cameras increased accident rates, whereas no cameras but with regular police patrols reduced accident rates. The data from, and contents from, the relevant TRL report has also been posted in SPL threads of the same vintage.
All this is common knowledge, or should be, but it can easily be fogged out by the blah blah of self-appointed safety ex spurts and it has indeed duly been drowned out. It won't be lost on those existing well away from the Westminster bubble that increasing trafpol patrols costs money, whereas use of automated enforcement earns money, whatever the final destination of that money may be. Garvin's approach, referring to data, was rightly applauded. For the same reasons, today's approaches involving automation deserve any condemnation they get. Looking good 'on the face of it' isn't good enough.
He wasn't alone. Manchester, W Mids and some Met were of the same reasoned view back then, and their senior officers were quoted to that effect in interviews and spoke from the same perspective at seminars and conferences. W Mids once produced an annual review of road accidents, including causes. The results were generally the same each year. At one point, a WMRAR (annual review) listed 1013 accidents between a pedestrian and a car. More than 1000 of those had no role for vehicle speed, never mind the speed limits, in accident causation. Reports ceased to exist soon after that one, purely coincidentally.
These days TPTB take their chances by brainwashing drivers into thinking slower is somehow automatically safer, misusing kinetic energy rather than using momentum when collision dynamics are key...if the impact means a head hits an A-pillar, the collision is inelastic and 20 is indeed more than plenty to cause serious injury or death. Likewise 15mph or (etc) until we're back to 1895 with 2mph speed limits and red flags. Still, officialdumb rolls the dice, and dominates in the dogma stakes by not trying too hard to prevent accidents by addressing the causes.
These discussions with data at the heart of it took place on here 20 years ago, since when KSI has reduced not due to Gatsos etc but due to far superior road layouts, vehicle safety features, air ambulances and medicare advances. Sadly it's not going to change, blah blah has won, so - time for tiffin.
ETA delayed tiffin gave PH 2005
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=19...
Garvin wasn't alone on cameras, and his views on speed (as opposed to cameras per se) were shared more widely at the time, here's 2008.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/3804073.pol...
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 14th April 16:56
said:
As far as I can tell, you are saying gatso is not as good at improving road safety as people think. I hadn't mentioned gatso, so if anyone is posting strawmen, it's you.
Edited by Super Sonic on Sunday 14th April 16:49
Chasing Potatoes said:
Schools go back tomorrow.
To be fair my mate once did that kind of speeding on the way to school, with L plates on with me as the qualified driver. Upper sixth, circa 1984. 2.0 capri ghia belonging to Barclays Bank. (His dad's company car) I don't look back 39 years and think anything other than, thank f
k we didn't crash. We were dick heads. Petrus1983 said:
Super Sonic said:
stuthe said:
said: Without knowing the time of day, weather, and road conditions it’s hard to gauge where you sit on the scale of unlucky to stupid.
The fact the police let you continue driving for a bit and didn’t immediately blues and twos you suggests you weren’t off the scale stupid… if the risks you were taking were THAT dangerous, I’d hope the police aim to stop you quickly, not after following you for some time.
But by god are there some holier than thou posters on this thread.
Yes, some people are very judgemental!The fact the police let you continue driving for a bit and didn’t immediately blues and twos you suggests you weren’t off the scale stupid… if the risks you were taking were THAT dangerous, I’d hope the police aim to stop you quickly, not after following you for some time.
But by god are there some holier than thou posters on this thread.
Not aimed at you, Petrus…I am amazed by the holier than thou responses…we’ve all been young and we have all broken the limit, I’m sure.
OP needs to learn that when you speed you need to be 100% aware of everything around you, actually always when driving but when at pace you really need to be on it.
I followed a car with 4 young lads in today, the driving was terrible and when I overtook the driver was looking at his phone and was leaning in to the middle of the car…awful driving, he seemed to jump when I rode alongside him and glared in despite my noisy bike having followed him for a few miles.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff