Caught doing 158mph on a bike - what next?
Discussion
Clearly not me. Well not clearly, but I'm neither stupid nor brave enough.
So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg49xv3908o
So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg49xv3908o
I reckon it was on the "new" Haughley straight. I know it's long and straight enough with decent visibility that someone suitably inclined could see 150mph+ in a Saab 9-5 Aero at 3am. It's only really free to do that sort of speed when the roads are quiet due to the 15% HGV traffic, so when it's that quiet is it really dangerous?
LunarOne said:
Clearly not me. Well not clearly, but I'm neither stupid nor brave enough.
So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
If the driver can be identified then they may be prosecuted for speeding (which is a non-imprisonable offence) and/or something else. So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
Recent example:
https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yo...
Rusty Old-Banger said:
I reckon it was on the "new" Haughley straight. I know it's long and straight enough with decent visibility that someone suitably inclined could see 150mph+ in a Saab 9-5 Aero at 3am. It's only really free to do that sort of speed when the roads are quiet due to the 15% HGV traffic, so when it's that quiet is it really dangerous?
Not good enough visibility to see Mr Plod in good time though?agtlaw said:
If the driver can be identified then they may be prosecuted for speeding (which is a non-imprisonable offence) and/or something else.
Recent example:
https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yo...
Wonder how many other road users there were in the north of England at 1.45am....Recent example:
https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yo...
OutInTheShed said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
I reckon it was on the "new" Haughley straight. I know it's long and straight enough with decent visibility that someone suitably inclined could see 150mph+ in a Saab 9-5 Aero at 3am. It's only really free to do that sort of speed when the roads are quiet due to the 15% HGV traffic, so when it's that quiet is it really dangerous?
Not good enough visibility to see Mr Plod in good time though?OutInTheShed said:
Rusty Old-Banger said:
I reckon it was on the "new" Haughley straight. I know it's long and straight enough with decent visibility that someone suitably inclined could see 150mph+ in a Saab 9-5 Aero at 3am. It's only really free to do that sort of speed when the roads are quiet due to the 15% HGV traffic, so when it's that quiet is it really dangerous?
Not good enough visibility to see Mr Plod in good time though?Those vans have quite a long range, about a mile or so IIRC.
Moving at 150+ MPH, spot a van, by which time you've been caught.
agtlaw said:
LunarOne said:
Clearly not me. Well not clearly, but I'm neither stupid nor brave enough.
So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
If the driver can be identified then they may be prosecuted for speeding (which is a non-imprisonable offence) and/or something else. So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
Recent example:
https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yo...
LunarOne said:
agtlaw said:
LunarOne said:
Clearly not me. Well not clearly, but I'm neither stupid nor brave enough.
So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
If the driver can be identified then they may be prosecuted for speeding (which is a non-imprisonable offence) and/or something else. So they caught the guy with a mobile speed camera, and they're sending a NIP to registered keeper's address.
Surely a custodial sentence must be a possibility. So why send a NIP rather than a man (or a woman) in a nice black uniform? Since the culprit presumably knows he's been rumbled, the chance of him disappearing is quite high isn't it? Couldn't find an existing thread so...
Recent example:
https://www.northyorkshire.police.uk/news/north-yo...
LunarOne said:
Those fines and bans seem much lower than I would have expected.
I don't know if they're for speeding or an additional charge (eg careless driving, or whatever)158mph in a 70 is definitely Band C, which has a guideline of 6 points, fine 150% of weekly income and up to 56 days disqualification. Its up to the police to identify any other offences and up to the court to determine the sentence based on exacerbating factors (eg night time) or mitigating factors (light traffic).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff