Discussion
Supermono, I must admit to being a bit confused. If you kept in the low 80's (as i would, and wouldn't expect to be pulled over...) how comes the figure quoted is 94+?? If having passed him you're convinced you did nothing like that speed, i presume you'll be contesting it? If you DID attain that sort of speed before noticing him, but don't want to admit it here, just say so! I've said it before, you're amongst friends here....
Hollywood Wheels said:
Supermono, I must admit to being a bit confused. If you kept in the low 80's (as i would, and wouldn't expect to be pulled over...) how comes the figure quoted is 94+?? If having passed him you're convinced you did nothing like that speed, i presume you'll be contesting it? If you DID attain that sort of speed before noticing him, but don't want to admit it here, just say so! I've said it before, you're amongst friends here....
HW ... I've just posted on the 'reasons you've been pulled thread' about a 13mph discrepancy between my displayed speedo and the speed quoted to me by the BiB with the timing gun (not radar - timing!). Sometimes the police equipment gets it wrong, but you've got more to lose by contesting it than by taking the FP.
Sad fact of life, I fear.
fluffnik said:
With a margin like 24mph+ over the limit the likely outcome was always going to be what you got. I'm surprsied really that you expected anything else, the margin over the limit was not samll after all.
There was no complaint about the quality of driving, it was "courteous and safe".
Can it possibly be right to criminalise behaviour which is "courteous and safe"?
Of course it can.
The idea of preventative legislation is that it exercises control over behaviour before it presents a danger. Better to prevent than deal with the consequences afterwards.
Hollywood Wheels said:
13mph?! The speedo was alleged to be that far out?! I really shouldn't comment further. I know nothing about the equipment they use, and i shouldn't let my personal opinions get into this.....
HW ... the particular equipment used in that case has a regular 30% error and under US testing was found to be so inaccurate the most US states refuse to use it. But hey ... it's pretty cheap and it's an approved device over here, so it can be used to convict.
I'm sure you can imagine the difficulties someone could have if a Police Officer stands in front of a bench of magistrates and says something to the effect of 'I monitored the defendant driving at 103mph as shown on my in car speed detection system'.
I know I wouldn't fancy my chances. I was happy to bargain/argue it down to beloww 100.
vonhosen said:
With a margin like 24mph+ over the limit the likely outcome was always going to be what you got. I'm surprsied really that you expected anything else, the margin over the limit was not samll after all.
There was no complaint about the quality of driving, it was "courteous and safe".
Can it possibly be right to criminalise behaviour which is "courteous and safe"?
Of course it can.
Not in a manner consistent with justice, fairness and freedom it can't.
vonhosen said:
The idea of preventative legislation is that it exercises control over behaviour before it presents a danger. Better to prevent than deal with the consequences afterwards.
That might be the idea, but it doesn't work.
All that's left of a "noble aim" is oppression.
gilberninvader said:
see you boys are late birds too any chance you can tell me how i can unpost something ive posted!!
G, there should be an 'unpost' prompt on everything you put on here. As long as no-one else has 'quoted' your post, it should just disappear......
It doesn't actually say 'unpost', it says 'delete' (with a picture of a dustbin....)
>> Edited by Hollywood Wheels on Monday 24th April 00:25
Hollywood Wheels said:
Supermono, I must admit to being a bit confused. If you kept in the low 80's (as i would, and wouldn't expect to be pulled over...) how comes the figure quoted is 94+?? If having passed him you're convinced you did nothing like that speed, i presume you'll be contesting it? If you DID attain that sort of speed before noticing him, but don't want to admit it here, just say so! I've said it before, you're amongst friends here....
I probably reached that speed or perhaps a little more even (after all I tend to look at the road rather than my speedo) just as I passed him. I suspected he was unmarked when I noticed he'd sped up after I'd overtaken him so I eased up a little.
Not contesting it. The magistrates would probably "think of the children" and I'd get screwed over.
SM
vonhosen said:
The idea of preventative legislation is that it exercises control over behaviour before it presents a danger. Better to prevent than deal with the consequences afterwards.
Who's suggesting that my behaviour is going to soon present a danger? Surely the logical extrapolation of your argument is that everyone about to get in a car should be stopped before they drive off so as to "exercise control over behaviour before it presents a danger"? After all every accident on the roads today started by someone getting into a car.
Surely if you follow somebody for about 10 miles and observe them driving reasonably for the conditions at about 1/2 the potential speed they could have been doing (94 vs 190) there's plenty of evidence there to suggest that control is already being exercised by the driver?
It sounds very police state to start taking into account what someone they might do rather than what they've done...
SM
supermono said:Totally agree, that line of reasoning on a 'preventative' basis is a very feeble attempt to justify injustice, and it fails.
Who's suggesting that my behaviour is going to soon present a danger? Surely the logical extrapolation of your argument is that everyone about to get in a car should be stopped before they drive off so as to "exercise control over behaviour before it presents a danger"? After all every accident on the roads today started by someone getting into a car.
It's pure nonsense dressed up as reason. The whole basis is flawed, but you'd think even within the world of claptrap the authorities would choose a better target than speed as exceeding a limit is implicated in only about 4% of accidents. So the preventative measure is aimed at preventing almost entirely safe behaviour. Bonkers.
What we have though is the standard refuge of incompetents - instead of measuring what's important, they make important what can be easily measured.
Yugguy said:Yes, people have had a bollocking for a safe sub-100 but we can't blame the officers for the climate they work in. Agreed it was substantially over the limit but then plenty of people would argue that the limit is substantially too low
In this case with it being so much over the speed limit isn't the police officer really obliged to pull you over and ticket you? I mean he can't really do anything else can he?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff