Police having to drive faster to catch up.
Discussion
This morning i was stopped by the police, apparently i was riding a lot quicker than the speed limit for the road. Although this was said from an officer that was travelling in the opposite direction, with no proof of my speed.
I'm not too fussed about being pulled over, the police were doing their job and acting upon suspicion. But what irks me is the line "i had to drive over the speed limit to catch up with you, at one point i was doing 62MPH. Of course i had to turn around, but you've travelled some distance".
Why is this mentioned?
Of course he did, otherwise how would he catch up?
The fact that i was on a bike would also mean that i wouldn't have been caught up in the traffic, whilst he would have had to force his way through the general flow. But why tell me that he had to travel in excess of the speed limit?
I'm not too fussed about being pulled over, the police were doing their job and acting upon suspicion. But what irks me is the line "i had to drive over the speed limit to catch up with you, at one point i was doing 62MPH. Of course i had to turn around, but you've travelled some distance".
Why is this mentioned?
Of course he did, otherwise how would he catch up?
The fact that i was on a bike would also mean that i wouldn't have been caught up in the traffic, whilst he would have had to force his way through the general flow. But why tell me that he had to travel in excess of the speed limit?
Because in the absence of actual evidence (and the basis of a prosecution) he felt like he had to justify to you (maybe himself) why he pulled you over. In other words - "you're going to get a talking to even though in practical terms I don't have any real evidence other than seeing you and feeling like you were probably speeding".
edit: The above sounds anti-Police, to be honest if you were speeding then you just got a telling off so no harm no foul.
edit: The above sounds anti-Police, to be honest if you were speeding then you just got a telling off so no harm no foul.
HantsRat said:
He told you that to help highlight the fact you were speeding?
But that's just physics isn't it? If the police car was travelling in the opposite direction it would necessarily have to travel faster than the limit to catch up with a vehicle doing the limit - to make up for the time/distance lost by passing, stopping, turning round etc.
If the bike was travelling at the speed limit and the police car turned around and also travelled at the speed limit - the police car would never catch the bike.
It's just a figure of speech really. I wouldn't read into it that much. They're not really going to go into physics, distance and time for just a chat.
It's just a quick way of saying 'The speed they had to travel to speak to you indicated you were driving in excess of the speed limit.'
It's just a quick way of saying 'The speed they had to travel to speak to you indicated you were driving in excess of the speed limit.'
The officer would have had to make up ground and very possibly do 62 to catch up. He may also have referred to that speed because while he was making ground he also paced you at that speed.
If he thought he had insufficient evidence for a prosecution he will use discretion and b
k you. If you really gave him some stick at the time he may have decided he did have enough evidence to convict. He probably did.
If you were speeding just accept it ... You know it's right.
If he thought he had insufficient evidence for a prosecution he will use discretion and b
k you. If you really gave him some stick at the time he may have decided he did have enough evidence to convict. He probably did.If you were speeding just accept it ... You know it's right.
Marc p said:
I had this once, doing 40 in a 40 zone, police pulled me and stated that they had to do 50 to catch up with me, I tried explaing some basic laws of Physics........this didn't go down well.
oops. So keeping quiet and just giving the exact answer seems to be the key to dealing with the police. Marc p said:
I had this once, doing 40 in a 40 zone, police pulled me and stated that they had to do 50 to catch up with me, I tried explaing some basic laws of Physics........this didn't go down well.
I've seen this before on a police camera action type thing. Completely bizarre thing to mention. If a bike cop was going the other way in a NSL and you were both doing 60 for example, he's got to slow down, turn around and could do 150mph to catch you, is the 150 relevant, nope.
andrewrob said:
I've seen this before on a police camera action type thing.
Completely bizarre thing to mention. If a bike cop was going the other way in a NSL and you were both doing 60 for example, he's got to slow down, turn around and could do 150mph to catch you, is the 150 relevant, nope.
of course irrelevant in determining your speed but (although not here mentioned as such) it is entirely relevant to the police officer then having to speed, so causing an increased risk to him and others (how much of a risk is a matter of debate) Completely bizarre thing to mention. If a bike cop was going the other way in a NSL and you were both doing 60 for example, he's got to slow down, turn around and could do 150mph to catch you, is the 150 relevant, nope.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff