Pulled over by police for speeding

loskie

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

He meant to your solicitor not as a plea, do keep up.

I meant both solicitor and/or court (but thanks for telling everyone what I meant! Not) if you tell your solicitor you are guilty he/she cannot lie and say that you plead not guilty.
Still waiting for an example from you as I think you are incorrect.

loskie

why would someone lose (not "loose") control because of a fox?

wgl2014

loskie wrote: »

I meant both solicitor and/or court (but thanks for telling everyone what I meant! Not) if you tell your solicitor you are guilty he/she cannot lie and say that you plead not guilty.
Still waiting for an example from you as I think you are incorrect.

If there are procedural or technical issues that compromise the evidence they can legitimately advise you to plead NG and challange the evidence based on this.

The interweb is full of dubious claims about avoiding prosecution however bear in mind that hundreds of these offences are heard each day and it is few and far between that they are thrown out on technicalities.

Also when the cost of employing a specialist lawyer to scrutinise the case with a view to uncovering any loophole is in the thousands with no guarantee of being in a better position than saying "sorry" and pleading guilty there is often only one winner when this option is taken.

Silver-Surfer_2

loskie wrote: »

I meant both solicitor and/or court (but thanks for telling everyone what I meant! Not) if you tell your solicitor you are guilty he/she cannot lie and say that you plead not guilty.
Still waiting for an example from you as I think you are incorrect.

Of course you did.

loskie wrote: »

Never admit guilt to your brief, but don't lie. He may struggle to defend you if you tell him "you done it".

Silver-Surfer_2

anotheruser wrote: »

And I'd say the most appropriate speed for that road, is the limit...
Even if it's an empty 4-lane motorway, it doesn't mean you won't loose control - even if you're doing the limit.


If you're being that pedantic, then you may as well say the root of the problem was loosing control of the vehicle. But then I suppose if you lost control because of a fox, then the fox would be the problem.
I guess the adverts should say "foxes kill".

The problem is, a lot of people wouldn't understand "stopping suddenly kills" - doesn't quite have the same ring.

So with black ice on the road and freezing fog reducing your visibility to the end of your bonnet you think it appropriate to travel at the national speed limit?

Thanks for proving my point about inappropriate speed, it can often be less than the speed limit given the circumstances. However you jumped in with both feet.

Herzlos

mchale wrote: »

which were introduced when cars had drum brakes all round, technology has moved on so should speed limits on certain roads.

Human reaction times haven't improved any though.

[Deleted User]

I think you might be FINE.....:rotfl:

I was pulled over for doing just over 90 in a 70 and got 3 points and fine of about £200.
The police officer explained to me if it goes to court and you explain how you drive to work etc they are quite easy going. (He seemed quite angry about this).

good luck in finding out!

shaun_from_Africa

loskie wrote: »

I meant both solicitor and/or court (but thanks for telling everyone what I meant! Not) if you tell your solicitor you are guilty he/she cannot lie and say that you plead not guilty.

Even if you tell your solicitor that you are guilty of the offence, there is no reason why he/she can't then tell the court that you plead not guilty.
At no time will they be lying, all they will be doing is informing the court of how you are pleading.

anotheruser

Silver-Surfer wrote: »

So with black ice on the road and freezing fog reducing your visibility to the end of your bonnet you think it appropriate to travel at the national speed limit?

Thanks for proving my point about inappropriate speed, it can often be less than the speed limit given the circumstances. However you jumped in with both feet.

Yes, I would suggest speed limits are considered with certain criteria, which includes the average road conditions on an average day.

Are you suggesting we should have speed limits based on weather conditions or seasons?
No. I didn't think so.

Suggesting everyone should drive at the speed limit in all conditions is clearly just stupid, and a stupid comment to make. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment of your post but it's not just about an inappropriate speed.
I based my post on an average road, on an average day, which driving at the speed limit would more than likely be fine.

The driver does need to learn, but low penalities doesn't seem to be the way to teach people - see the OP's post for an example.

Silver-Surfer_2

anotheruser wrote: »

Yes, I would suggest speed limits are considered with certain criteria, which includes the average road conditions on an average day.

Are you suggesting we should have speed limits based on weather conditions or seasons?
No. I didn't think so.

Suggesting everyone should drive at the speed limit in all conditions is clearly just stupid, and a stupid comment to make. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment of your post but it's not just about an inappropriate speed.
I based my post on an average road, on an average day, which driving at the speed limit would more than likely be fine.

The driver does need to learn, but low penalities doesn't seem to be the way to teach people - see the OP's post for an example.

So why suggest the speed limit was the appropriate speed? It may not be.