OVER 100mph on M6 Cumbria

[T5AMX]

I got pulled on the M6 by a lovely man in a Marked Volvo T5 who told me that he had to do 146mph from the juction slip road to catch me up back in May.I'm sure they hide and wait!!!
He told me that my average speed was 111mph between the two bridges by a lovely Vascar system.
The worrying thing is I still havent heard anything.
Is this normal??
I keep looking every day to see if postman pat has popped something in the box for me.
Can the prosecution be void after so long if i havent heard anything??
Has anyone got any advise??
Any idea's what my outcome will be in court??
Recommend a good soliciter??

Thanks
T5AMX

[WildCat]

T5AMX said:

I got pulled on the M6 by a lovely man in a Marked Volvo T5 who told me that he had to do 146mph from the juction slip road to catch me up back in May.I'm sure they hide and wait!!!

He would have had to have driven at that speed to stand any chance of catching up & using those horrid toys in-car... :roll:

T5AMX said:

He told me that my average speed was 111mph between the two bridges by a lovely Vascar system.
The worrying thing is I still havent heard anything.
Is this normal??
I keep looking every day to see if postman pat has popped something in the box for me.
Can the prosecution be void after so long if i havent heard anything??
Has anyone got any advise??
Any idea's what my outcome will be in court??
Recommend a good soliciter??

Thanks
T5AMX

How long ago was this? May? They have atleast 6 month in which to lay summons I think from reading comments on here in past. Then court date set.

At least it was one of the policemen - not the van on the bridge at Shap.

Get a good solicitor for advice. He might be able to plead for some mitigation if a ban cause very undue or severe hardship to those dependent on you.

[Dwight VanDriver]

Has this form been submitted?

http://tinyurl.com/2tcdld

dvd

[derestrictor]

You may have received that most rare (but welcome, under the circumstances cultivated by current, arse brained populisim) thing, known as discretionary policing.

I'm not so sure you'll get anything: the guy would surely have made a bigger thing were you going to be buttfirked on national tv.

That stretch of the M6 should be a switchable autobahn anyway so perhaps our man was being sensible.

I'd be inclined not to worry excessively about it.

Best wishes,

Mc DeR.

[nubbin.]

Dwight VanDriver said:

Has this form been submitted?

http://tinyurl.com/2tcdld

dvd

[Sgt Bilko]

Could have been worse. Traffic in Cumbria double-up and Firearms Response.

[Carlos79]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Presuming you received verbal NIP you should expect something in the post. And yes it can take up to 6 months. When you start to believe that you have got away with it, it will arive next day on the doormat! S*ds law. Mine took almost 5 months - police reported it to courts pretty quickly but the courts took an age to process through to me.

Good luck & don't let it worry you too much. It's a nuissance but in the grand scheme of things so minor (don't say that to the court though!!!).

[Jules360]

T5AMX said:

I got pulled on the M6 by a lovely man in a Marked Volvo T5 who told me that he had to do 146mph from the juction slip road to catch me up back in May.I'm sure they hide and wait!!!
He told me that my average speed was 111mph between the two bridges by a lovely Vascar system.
The worrying thing is I still havent heard anything.
Is this normal??
I keep looking every day to see if postman pat has popped something in the box for me.
Can the prosecution be void after so long if i havent heard anything??
Has anyone got any advise??
Any idea's what my outcome will be in court??
Recommend a good soliciter??

Thanks
T5AMX

Wonderful isn't it ?? If 111mph is deemed so dangerous that you get banned from driving, how can the police justify doing 146mph in the same conditions ? They must have been putting both themselves and other road users in considerable danger!!

Edited by Jules360 on Monday 23 July 12:04

[cerebral]

Wonderful isn't it ?? If 111mph is deemed so dangerous that you get banned from driving, how can the police justify doing 146mph in the same conditions ? They must have been putting both themselves and other road users in considerable danger!!

Edited by Jules360 on Monday 23 July 12:04

[/quote]


maybe you may find jules that it is justified as they need to stop said offenders who have not been trained too drive at these speeds. you yourself i'm quite sure would not like to see some 17 yr old having past his test 2 weeks ago fly past one of your family doing 150mph. it is why only traffic officers pull you at these speeds and not your normal plod they have been trained
hope this may just put a little thought in there

[bad company]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I had all of that some time ago (about 3 years now). I was doing 90 in a 60 limit. I waited and waited but nothing happened - no idea why but I got off with it.

[Jules360]

cerebral said:

Wonderful isn't it ?? If 111mph is deemed so dangerous that you get banned from driving, how can the police justify doing 146mph in the same conditions ? They must have been putting both themselves and other road users in considerable danger!!

Edited by Jules360 on Monday 23 July 12:04

maybe you may find jules that it is justified as they need to stop said offenders who have not been trained too drive at these speeds. you yourself i'm quite sure would not like to see some 17 yr old having past his test 2 weeks ago fly past one of your family doing 150mph. it is why only traffic officers pull you at these speeds and not your normal plod they have been trained
hope this may just put a little thought in there

All the training in the world will not stop a tyre blowing out, or someone moving into the outside lane in front of you as they had no idea you doing over twice the legal limit .... or to turn it around, are you suggesting that should they catch the guy and find out he is a professional racing driver, then no offense has been committed ??

[Jules360]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, so if it's not dangerous, why would i be prosecuted by the same people for doing so and why, for that matter, is it illegal ? And i'm not sure that your sentiments would be echoed by the "Speed Kills" lobby

[vonhosen]

Jules360 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, so if it's not dangerous, why would i be prosecuted by the same people for doing so and why, for that matter, is it illegal ? And i'm not sure that your sentiments would be echoed by the "Speed Kills" lobby

Because the law says you aren't allowed to make that distinction for yourself outside of defined parameters. Same for me & anyone else where not for emergency service purposes.

[cerebral]

Jules360 said:

cerebral said:

Wonderful isn't it ?? If 111mph is deemed so dangerous that you get banned from driving, how can the police justify doing 146mph in the same conditions ? They must have been putting both themselves and other road users in considerable danger!!

Edited by Jules360 on Monday 23 July 12:04

maybe you may find jules that it is justified as they need to stop said offenders who have not been trained too drive at these speeds. you yourself i'm quite sure would not like to see some 17 yr old having past his test 2 weeks ago fly past one of your family doing 150mph. it is why only traffic officers pull you at these speeds and not your normal plod they have been trained
hope this may just put a little thought in there

All the training in the world will not stop a tyre blowing out, or someone moving into the outside lane in front of you as they had no idea you doing over twice the legal limit .... or to turn it around, are you suggesting that should they catch the guy and find out he is a professional racing driver, then no offense has been committed ??

1.thats why tyre check before you set out... do you?
2.thats why the training too foresee/avoidence etc
3.you don't really recon that driving on a race track and traveling upon the pulic highways are in any way near the same do you.....if so you rally do need to sit and think.......how many race tracks have racing drivers got to deal with on comming traffic,lane disipline,etc. lol they i'm sure are on the first training session at brandshatch

[Jules360]

vonhosen said:

Jules360 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, so if it's not dangerous, why would i be prosecuted by the same people for doing so and why, for that matter, is it illegal ? And i'm not sure that your sentiments would be echoed by the "Speed Kills" lobby

Because the law says you aren't allowed to make that distinction for yourself outside of defined parameters. Same for me & anyone else where not for emergency service purposes.

Rather than quote verbatim, try to think for yourself .... why is the law there ? Once you have done that, ask yourself whether one car travelling at 111mph, or is more or less dangerous than having that one and another travlleing at 146mph ... then justify the actions of that second car.

[TripleS]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

<clang - sound of penny dropping, somewhat belatedly>

Hello James, still keeping that old car of yours nice and smart?

Anyhow, let's be a bit more optimistic for the OP and hope he doesn't get banned, 'cos in my book he shouldn't.

Speeding should not be a punishable offence.

Just ask fluffnik, he'll tell you.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[vonhosen]

Jules360 said:

vonhosen said:

Jules360 said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Ok, so if it's not dangerous, why would i be prosecuted by the same people for doing so and why, for that matter, is it illegal ? And i'm not sure that your sentiments would be echoed by the "Speed Kills" lobby

Because the law says you aren't allowed to make that distinction for yourself outside of defined parameters. Same for me & anyone else where not for emergency service purposes.

Rather than quote verbatim, try to think for yourself .... why is the law there ? Once you have done that, ask yourself whether one car travelling at 111mph, or is more or less dangerous than having that one and another travlleing at 146mph ... then justify the actions of that second car.

Come on surely you know that speed alone doesn't define if it's dangerous. You can't tell from the terminal speed each driver attained as to which was more dangerous on that fact alone

Speed limits aren't only about the individual. They are about creating an acceptable climate (acceptable in many different aspects not just safety) for us all to integrate safely within. Some may be able to travel safely at higher speeds and be good judges of appropriate speed over much wider ranges than others. There is however no means to allow this on individual basis, we are all lumped together under one licenced ability. This is in the interests of a general overall risk basis, not an individual risk basis.
We give our emergency services an exemption because we are willing to accept higher risks for the purposes of the job they do, we try to mitigate that extra risk by giving them on road training beyond what the public get. But outside of that purpose they fall under the same rules as someone else.
I can do 140mph one minute (where a Police purpose calls for it) & be limited to 70 the next (where it is only for my benefit). But hey ho, that's life.

Despite the fact that I am tested on my ability to choose appropriate speed without limits regularly & I am found to be reliably up to that task, I can't do it where it is for my own benefit. That is in the interests of an overall risk, not that which I alone represent. I don't have a problem with that limitation on me & happen to feel it is entriely right that I have to adhere to limits outside of that Police purpose, even if I can do it safely still outside of it.

If I get caught speeding outside of the legal use of an exemption I expect to be prosecuted whether it was safe or not, you must expect the same.

Edited by vonhosen on Monday 23 July 17:58

[shack55]

Following from Von
Here's something posted on anothe forum:
Consider this:
1. Put 10 teenagers in a boxing ring and ask them to walk around it in a random way at a leisurely pace. They will observe the rest and most probably not collide with each other.

2. Same teenagers, ask them to jog around the ring in the same manner. A few collisions may occur.

3. Same teenagers runing as fast as they can around the ring. Collisions will be frequent and more than likely unavoidable.

4. A few teenager walking leisurely around the ring with one or 2 of them running as fast as they can. Will the likelyhood of collision increase and which of the teenagers will be involved in the accidents? Unfortunately for the ones who are walking leisurely around the faster ones will collide with them.

Now it is not too difficult to imagine the response of a pro-speed or anti-enforcement proponent: "roads have regulations and laws", "roads will direct vehicles in the same direction", "on motorways all traffic is travelling in the same direction", and similar comments.
Well just imagine the same test as in 1 to 4 above with a set of lanes marked in the boxing ring for the kids to follow, most probably the same results but in slightly smaller volume for the number of collisions.

Speed is a factor that must be considered in an accident reduction system on the roads, with speeding being endemic and the attitude to its enforcement by some (usually the caught or the anti-establishment groups/individuals) there is a need for camera enforcement to support police enforcement. All traffic research where speed has been considered in the last 80 years has concluded that an increase in speed results in an increase in the number of accidents and the seriousness of the outcome of those accidents. The simple considerations given to the problem by way of illustration in 1 to 4 above is easy to understand and I would suggest impossible to refute, its application to the speed component of road traffic accidents cannot be clearer.

Rules and regulations applied to the road and traffic are there to ensure that you can reasonably predict the behaviour of other drivers, when you choose to adapt or ignore them you should accept with grace that you are in the wrong and should reasonably have the privelige of sharing the roads with others removed.

Link:

Police are justified in the use of speed to catch those who are not justified in its use; in the case of the original poster its use was not justified no matter what his/her opinion is or was.

Edited by shack55 on Tuesday 24th July 18:28

[mrmr96]

The courts are busy, so it will more than likely take almost the full 6m before you see something through the post... but it will come. Please don't kid yourself that it won't else you'll be even more gutted when it finally arrives. Just start doing some preparation for your mitigation statement which you will be asked to post in or read in court. At 111mph you would be lucky to avoid a ban. So best of luck mate, hope they're not too harsh on you.

[Jules360]

shack55 said:

Following from Von
Here's something posted on anothe forum:
Consider this:
1. Put 10 teenagers in a boxing ring and ask them to walk around it in a random way at a leisurely pace. They will observe the rest and most probably not collide with each other.

2. Same teenagers, ask them to jog around the ring in the same manner. A few collisions may occur.

3. Same teenagers runing as fast as they can around the ring. Collisions will be frequent and more than likely unavoidable.

4. A few teenager walking leisurely around the ring with one or 2 of them running as fast as they can. Will the likelyhood of collision increase and which of the teenagers will be involved in the accidents? Unfortunately for the ones who are walking leisurely around the faster ones will collide with them.

Now it is not too difficult to imagine the response of a pro-speed or anti-enforcement proponent: "roads have regulations and laws", "roads will direct vehicles in the same direction", "on motorways all traffic is travelling in the same direction", and similar comments.
Well just imagine the same test as in 1 to 4 above with a set of lanes marked in the boxing ring for the kids to follow, most probably the same results but in slightly smaller volume for the number of collisions.

Speed is a factor that must be considered in an accident reduction system on the roads, with speeding being endemic and the attitude to its enforcement by some (usually the caught or the anti-establishment groups/individuals) there is a need for camera enforcement to support police enforcement. All traffic research where speed has been considered in the last 80 years has concluded that an increase in speed results in an increase in the number of accidents and the seriousness of the outcome of those accidents. The simple considerations given to the problem by way of illustration in 1 to 4 above is easy to understand and I would suggest impossible to refute, its application to the speed component of road traffic accidents cannot be clearer.

Rules and regulations applied to the road and traffic are there to ensure that you can reasonably predict the behaviour of other drivers, when you choose to adapt or ignore them you should accept with grace that you are in the wrong and should reasonably have the privelige of sharing the roads with others removed.

Link:

Police are justified in the use of speed to catch those who are not justified in its use; in the case of the original poster its use was not justified no matter what his/her opinion is or was.

Edited by shack55 on Tuesday 24th July 18:28

Probably the worst analogy i have ever seen!! Are you seriously proposing that boys running about a boxing ring proves that driving a car above an arbitary and outdated speed limit causes accidents ??

Bearing in mind cars' performance is constantly increasing, it would be reasonable to assume that the average journey on a clear road involves a higher average speed than it did 30 years ago. How do you account for the dramatically reduced death toll? You will probably now cite improved car safely, but perhaps this may be a reason to increase speed limits to keep up with the advances in car technology. Perhaps you can provie some stats on accident rates ?

Speaking of stats, i am keen to see the studies you mention going back over 80 years .. could you provide a link please or are you just making that bit up?