12 points!

Altarf

And presumably the tyre depot checked all the tyres as well and decided that you only needed three. So three people have checked your tyres, and you have managed to go from an utterly legal, no problem whatsoever tyre, to one so bald you are nicked, in 8 weeks.

Is there a reason for that? Because it doesn't make much sense to me.

Lum

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

Fought what?

You were exceeding the speed limit. Did the maniac behind have control for your right foot?

He believed he was in a 60, slowed down for the pub anyway because there might be drunk pedestrians about, then sped up once past the pub and no pedestrians around.

Clearly the actions of an unthinking maniac.


Not going to defend him on the tyre though

evs50

I wouldn't say it was utterly bald, it certainly looked legal to my untrained eye. It was just over 1mm and should be 1.6mm although the police officer said that MOT usually like it to be 2mm so I must have lost 1mm in eight weeks. I am no expert on tyre tread, but I had it changed straight away and the guy just said "yeh its about due" when i asked if it was legal. He didnt puff his cheeks out and say it was awful.

Altarf

Lum wrote: »

He believed he was in a 60, slowed down for the pub anyway because there might be drunk pedestrians about, then sped up once past the pub and no pedestrians around.

Clearly the actions of an unthinking maniac.

But did he look for the other signs of a 30 zone, streetlights, repeaters, etc.

Assuming you know what the speed limit is, and not knowing what the speed limit is. Fancy a game of Russian roulette

evs50

Altarf wrote: »

But did he look for the other signs of a 30 zone, streetlights, repeaters, etc.

Assuming you know what the speed limit is, and not knowing what the speed limit is. Fancy a game of Russian roulette

There were no repeaters. There was no street lighting. It was a country road. When the officer said "It's a built up area" i nearly laughed as there were fields all around us. The only building was the pub.

Gene_Hunt_2

evs50 wrote: »

I can assure you that if it had been a police officer this had happend to, they would have fought it. There was a local case last year of an out of town police officer visiting a relative in hospital and he found a loophole despite clear signage on the dual carriageway he was driving on. He fought and won his case against a speeding penalty. And less of the dumb sunshine! Nobody is getting personal with you despite your obvious lack of intelligence.

If the signage was wrong then he shouldn't have been convicted.

If you weren't a knob and had not disposed of evidence maybe you could have fought it.

evs50

Oh and the 60mph road from which i turned onto this 30 road, there was no sign at the give-way junction indicating a speed change. That is why i probably should have fought it. But i didnt so hey ho.

Gene_Hunt_2

evs50 wrote: »

There were no repeaters. There was no street lighting. It was a country road. When the officer said "It's a built up area" i nearly laughed as there were fields all around us. The only building was the pub.

What was the pub then a tent?

evs50

Gene_Hunt wrote: »

What was the pub then a tent?

No it was a pub.

Gene_Hunt_2

evs50 wrote: »

No it was a pub.

Ah a pub as in made of bricks and built up.

If it's got a bus stop outside you can go back when your banned.