63 in a 30 and this is how he got off !
Discussion
63 in a 30? Thats just plain mad, criminally insane (I would never, ever do that, ever, incredibly stupid and dangerous).
140 in a 70 pales into insignificance by comparison (I do this a lot, its routine, not in the slightest bit dangerous).
Them and us eh?
Dont even start me on the drink driving off duty bib freinds of my mothers, who used to drink huge amounts and then drive with impunity too.
140 in a 70 pales into insignificance by comparison (I do this a lot, its routine, not in the slightest bit dangerous).
Them and us eh?
Dont even start me on the drink driving off duty bib freinds of my mothers, who used to drink huge amounts and then drive with impunity too.
Balmoral Green said:
63 in a 30? Thats just plain mad, criminally insane ... incredibly stupid and dangerous).
[Devil's advocate mode] Would you do 63mph in a 30mph zone that used to be a 40mph? This road is a wide, well lit, dual carriageway with good extended sight lines. I'd say if you stuck to lane two, late at night, with no other traffic, good weather and clear visibility, it wouldn't be particularly dangerous.[/Devil's advocate mode]
Balmoral Green said:
Them and us eh?
Dont even start me on the drink driving off duty bib freinds of my mothers, who used to drink huge amounts and then drive with impunity too.
For the record, I have stopped and reported Police officers on their way home from work in their own cars for speeding, at the same speeds at which I have reported members of the public (at the same time, on the same road).
I would have no hesitation WHATSOEVER locking anyone up for drink driving, be they a colleague or not. Our force has recently changed the rules on this, in that if you are convicted of drink driving, you automatically lose your job. No argument, no appeal, no nothing, and rightly so, in my opinion.
I have lost too many friends to idiot drink drivers, and have had to knock on too many doors in the early hours to deliver death warning messages following drink drive collisions to see it any other way.
30 mph over the speed limit (any speed limit) and most drivers would be looking at a hefty fine and a ban from driving, however, without knowing the full circumstances it's not really possible to pass judgement on the decision.
Apparently a local politician has just got away with 12 points by pleading extenuating circumstances, well, we all have them dont we? Talk about dual standards.
Apparently a local politician has just got away with 12 points by pleading extenuating circumstances, well, we all have them dont we? Talk about dual standards.
Dibble said:
Our force has recently changed the rules on this, in that if you are convicted of drink driving, you automatically lose your job. No argument, no appeal, no nothing, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Sorry must disagree if the officer is in a department that requires a car they a moved to a non driving job.We have a shortage of BiB and this seems OTT to me.We have many people who are caught DD that dont loose thier job
Pies said:
Our force has recently changed the rules on this, in that if you are convicted of drink driving, you automatically lose your job. No argument, no appeal, no nothing, and rightly so, in my opinion.
Sorry must disagree if the officer is in a department that requires a car they a moved to a non driving job.We have a shortage of BiB and this seems OTT to me.We have many people who are caught DD that dont loose thier job
true - but if the police can't obey the law, why should they be allowed to punish the rest of us for doing the same as they do?
what do you mean, you 'have many people that are caught drink driving that don't lose their jobs'...
I would have thought that being a BIB has certain ethical factors such as complying with the law more closely than J. Public.
In my job in the financial services industry, the Financial Services Authority ( the Gov's regulater) deem that if I get a CCJ for debt, then how can I poss. advise people on their finaces.
I would lose my FSA licence and therefore my job.
Whats the difference with the Police?
If you cannot adhere to the rules yourself, how can you enforce them.
Your only alternative is to become a politician.
I would have thought that being a BIB has certain ethical factors such as complying with the law more closely than J. Public.
In my job in the financial services industry, the Financial Services Authority ( the Gov's regulater) deem that if I get a CCJ for debt, then how can I poss. advise people on their finaces.
I would lose my FSA licence and therefore my job.
Whats the difference with the Police?
If you cannot adhere to the rules yourself, how can you enforce them.
Your only alternative is to become a politician.
Many people do get sdone for DD and dont lose their jobs i know a few myself
as for sticking to the law, where do you draw the line.
For example a copper gets done for speeding does he lose his job? If anybody watched a certain TV prog the other week a talivan operator had been done for speeding and was still catching others
IMO the courts are where sentance is handed out
as for sticking to the law, where do you draw the line.
For example a copper gets done for speeding does he lose his job? If anybody watched a certain TV prog the other week a talivan operator had been done for speeding and was still catching others
IMO the courts are where sentance is handed out
I think I can understand the logic behind not getting sacked for speeding, as everyone is capable of making mistakes and not noticing a speed limit sign.
I have to say that I don't think there's any excuse for drink driving though. You wouldn't "accidentally" drink four or five pints and then drive home would you? Or "miss" the extra double for the road...
In my opinion, there's no excuse. The rules in our force regarding drink driving are well publicised, and as far as I'm concerned, those that fall foul of them have only themselves to blame.
I have to say that I don't think there's any excuse for drink driving though. You wouldn't "accidentally" drink four or five pints and then drive home would you? Or "miss" the extra double for the road...
In my opinion, there's no excuse. The rules in our force regarding drink driving are well publicised, and as far as I'm concerned, those that fall foul of them have only themselves to blame.
Dibble said:
[quote=Balmoral Green]63 in a 30? Thats just plain mad, criminally insane ... incredibly stupid and dangerous).
[Devil's advocate mode] Would you do 63mph in a 30mph zone that used to be a 40mph? This road is a wide, well lit, dual carriageway with good extended sight lines. I'd say if you stuck to lane two, late at night, with no other traffic, good weather and clear visibility, it wouldn't be particularly dangerous.[/Devil's advocate mode]
Well, I dont know the road, so my comment was based on nothing more than 63 in a 30 is not something that 'the public' would get away with. I like your return argument abour road conditions, line of sight etc, sounds like the sort of defence 'the public' might put up, and get ignored!
Also, if it used to be a 40 zone, and has now been reduced to 30, again I dont know the road or why the limit would have been reduced, but whatever, it makes 63 even more unnacceptable. I can only see the logic in your argument if it used to be 30 and was increased to 40, and you got knicked for 63.
You are quite right though, I dont know the roads concerned and so I am replying to pixels on a screen.
Definitely one rule for them and one for us. Was doing about 85 on M40 last night about 12.30 when a marked car, without it's flashing lights went past at least 120+, pulled off the motorway ahead of me and into Wycombe.
How come they can do this withut their lights flashing. they couldnt have been chasing anybody because apart from me and one other there was no-one else around.
I've love to blast along the motorway at these speeds but somehow think if it was me I'd have lost my licence and my job if I did.
F
ing hate the hypocrisy, last time I was stopped in Wales (say no more) on an empty motorway doing 88 and they had to sit me in their car and tell me they were considering doing me for dangerous driving, not because of anything else other than excessive speed. They saw me from a bridge, so to catch up with me they must have been doing 130+, which is probably slightly more dangerous than my 88mph. Fair enough, exceeding the speed limit, give me my ticket and fff but dont sit there lecturing me when we all know they do exactly as most of the rest of us. The law is the law, if we break it then we can get punished but it's not fair that those enforcing it are above it.
How come they can do this withut their lights flashing. they couldnt have been chasing anybody because apart from me and one other there was no-one else around.
I've love to blast along the motorway at these speeds but somehow think if it was me I'd have lost my licence and my job if I did.
F
ing hate the hypocrisy, last time I was stopped in Wales (say no more) on an empty motorway doing 88 and they had to sit me in their car and tell me they were considering doing me for dangerous driving, not because of anything else other than excessive speed. They saw me from a bridge, so to catch up with me they must have been doing 130+, which is probably slightly more dangerous than my 88mph. Fair enough, exceeding the speed limit, give me my ticket and fff but dont sit there lecturing me when we all know they do exactly as most of the rest of us. The law is the law, if we break it then we can get punished but it's not fair that those enforcing it are above it. Here speaks the voice of a man who didn't get off. I was caught doing exactly the same speeds 63 in a 30 zone on a road going into a small market town which I had recently moved into.
I was in a 60mph zone which went into the town along a single carriageway for about a mile. At a roundabout the speed changed to 30mph and I didn't see the signs. One was hidden in bushes on the left hand side of the road and the other was on the right hand side on a pole about 4ft high so when a car passes you can't see the sign. The properties surrounding the road didn't change neither did the lighting so as far as I was concerned it was still the 60mph zone.
Anyway BiB jumps out of the bushes about 100yards into the 30mph zone with his hairdryer and does me. Verbal NIP and eventually a summons to the magistrates court. Along I go with a solicitor and discuss the issues re. signage. The solicitor wrote to the roads dept to complain about the signage as well. Letter from my employer saying that I need to drive etc. for my job.
In the end the magistrates say on the day that I have a 46day ban, plus 6 point, plus a £550 fine. Now you and I know that the magistrates can only give a ban or the points so when my licence came back it didn't have the points.
Comment from the Clerk of Court was "..well they didn't like you did they..." "... guy in here last week doing similar speeds who got a £150 fine and 7 days ban..".
Not a week later did they catch Ant or Dec doing 130mph up the A1M and the bugger got 3 points and a £250 fine.
Where is the equality in the justice system. I am the first to admit that my speeding, in what the locals new was a 30mph zone, was dangerous but why should the level of punishment vary so much!
I was in a 60mph zone which went into the town along a single carriageway for about a mile. At a roundabout the speed changed to 30mph and I didn't see the signs. One was hidden in bushes on the left hand side of the road and the other was on the right hand side on a pole about 4ft high so when a car passes you can't see the sign. The properties surrounding the road didn't change neither did the lighting so as far as I was concerned it was still the 60mph zone.
Anyway BiB jumps out of the bushes about 100yards into the 30mph zone with his hairdryer and does me. Verbal NIP and eventually a summons to the magistrates court. Along I go with a solicitor and discuss the issues re. signage. The solicitor wrote to the roads dept to complain about the signage as well. Letter from my employer saying that I need to drive etc. for my job.
In the end the magistrates say on the day that I have a 46day ban, plus 6 point, plus a £550 fine. Now you and I know that the magistrates can only give a ban or the points so when my licence came back it didn't have the points.
Comment from the Clerk of Court was "..well they didn't like you did they..." "... guy in here last week doing similar speeds who got a £150 fine and 7 days ban..".
Not a week later did they catch Ant or Dec doing 130mph up the A1M and the bugger got 3 points and a £250 fine.
Where is the equality in the justice system. I am the first to admit that my speeding, in what the locals new was a 30mph zone, was dangerous but why should the level of punishment vary so much!
Balmoral Green said:
Well, I dont know the road, so my comment was based on nothing more than 63 in a 30 is not something that 'the public' would get away with. I like your return argument abour road conditions, line of sight etc, sounds like the sort of defence 'the public' might put up, and get ignored!
Perhaps I misunderstood your original post. The point I was trying to make with my reply is one of general agreement with a lot of felloew PHers, in that there are a lot of what seem to be arbitrary speed limits. I didn't say that to do 63 on the above road wasn't illegal, I was merely suggesting that, in certain circumstances, it may not have been dangerous.
Again, I don't know the circumstances surrounding the original post, but I can see why it would give the "One rule for them..." argument a lot of credence.
Blueyes said:
Can I use your quote when I'm next in court on a speeding charge please?
You can use it, but I doubt it will get you off. Speeding is an 'absolute' offence, ie one where intenet or mens rea doesn't have to be demonstrated. The point I was making with this comment was that it is possible to make a genuine mistake with regard to speed limits; in my opinion, it is impossible to "mistakenly " have a drink or seven, and then drive.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff