Speeding Prosecution...?

Dalkirst

N9eav wrote: »

Hmmm. It's difficult to argue with that. They can allow you 10% plus 3.

Do they all allow that then as i got a speeding ticket(never saw them still don't know if it was a mobile or not as it was in Bognor while visiting the folks) saying i was doing 36 which is the limit they allow you say?
I had to pay up:o

N9eav

Dalkirst wrote: »

Do they all allow that then as i got a speeding ticket(never saw them still don't know if it was a mobile or not as it was in Bognor while visiting the folks) saying i was doing 36 which is the limit they allow you say?
I had to pay up:o

It's not law I am afraid. Usually Police allow a little leeway to allow for uncalibrated speedometers in cars. But you can't bank on it.

A friend of mine only gave out tickets on the A30 dual carriageway near here for speeders over 85mph. He said there can be no arguement that the speeding ticket was unfair. It's all down to officer discretion... you might even get off. Cameras are set to low limits.

BUT Take note of this.

Most Policing authorities are now policing their areas according to the priorities set by the people living there who pay the taxes. In Cornwall the people wanted the Police to deal with.
1. Speeding
2. Anti social behaviour
3. Dog poo and litter.

So there will be a concentrated effort to please the people. So watch out. There will be more speeding tickets because that's what the public (you) asked for

Wig

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Thats only for hand held/police operated/scamera van units tho isn't it? This could be a fixed installation, the OP doesn't say?

These words indicated it was not a fixed Gatso type or similar.

"Also the gun used to "trap me""

Wig

Happychappy wrote: »

and "as a charity I take drunks home to clear the town centre and never ever charge them money or make a living from it."

I Just want to highlight a couple of points you seem to have missed. He is a private hire driver, if the police ask him to take someone home they are complicit in a criminal offence, that a private hire cannot legally take a passenger without a booking through the company office. Also he is under no obligation (even if he was a hackney driver or there was a booking) to take a drunk home. His point was that in doing this, he helps the police to do their job. even though on another occasion he would have refused the same fare and by helping them he is committing an offence.

as you were a taxi driver flying back, oops crawling back in to town to pick up another

Again you missed that he was on his way home after his shift had finished.

Although I don't think he has any chance of having his opinion listened to, he has got a point, he exceeded the speed limit on an overtaking manouvre at a time when if there was any other traffic in the area their headlights would have alerted him to their presence. The cop was IMHO heavy handed, the fact he was a privatehire/taxi driver is largely irrelevant what is wrong is to prosecute a driver who was only briefly speeding whilst overtaking. Had the road been clear and the car was speeding in general then "it's a fair cop". The point I agree with him for making is that this sort of policing turns people against the police, so they will no longer report things they see, will no longer accept illegal or drunk fares from the police.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Happychappy wrote: »

The guy who killed 7 and himself also was only pinching a little bit of speed, and it was also very quiet on the road, except for the car he hit ?

Of course, being on the wrong side of the road had nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

Wig

Happychappy wrote: »

My reply was to the taxi driver post and basically why should the police give taxi drivers exemption from speed limits ? what makes them expert or skilled driver? nothing whatsoever, they undergo no test or training etc..

My understanding is that most police also do not recieve special driver training and yet they are often exceeding the speed limits and quite often are the cause of accidents and deaths as a result.

Badger_Lady

I personally agree that it's unfair for a vehicle to be accused of "speeding" whilst overtaking, as it's arguably safter to accelerate past a vehicle and therefore spend less time on the wrong side of the road.

However, it is still illegal (however unfair) - I've even seen fixed speed cameras trained on the overtaking lane of an A-road in the last few metres before it merges! This can only be to trap people who are accelerating that little bit more to get safely ahead of that lorry before they return to 60mph.

You still can't legally travel (for however short a time) over the speed limit, so if you get caught you get punished.

N9eav

Wig wrote: »

My understanding is that most police also do not recieve special driver training and yet they are often exceeding the speed limits and quite often are the cause of accidents and deaths as a result.

I am afraid your understanding is wrong. All officers have to take and pass a 3 week intense driving course to use lights and sirens and respond to incidents. Traffic officers have to spend a further 4 weeks on driver training including pursuit tactics.

That's not to say some officers get it wrong and crash the car or cause accidents. But they are then investigated for their manner of driving in a harsher way than you or I would

Wig

And if I was to take the same training, that would mean it was ok for me to exceed the speed limits?

silverfoxdude

Wig wrote: »

I Just want to highlight a couple of points you seem to have missed. He is a private hire driver, if the police ask him to take someone home they are complicit in a criminal offence, that a private hire cannot legally take a passenger without a booking through the company office. Also he is under no obligation (even if he was a hackney driver or there was a booking) to take a drunk home. His point was that in doing this, he helps the police to do their job. even though on another occasion he would have refused the same fare and by helping them he is committing an offence.


Again you missed that he was on his way home after his shift had finished.

Although I don't think he has any chance of having his opinion listened to, he has got a point, he exceeded the speed limit on an overtaking manouvre at a time when if there was any other traffic in the area their headlights would have alerted him to their presence. The cop was IMHO heavy handed, the fact he was a privatehire/taxi driver is largely irrelevant what is wrong is to prosecute a driver who was only briefly speeding whilst overtaking. Had the road been clear and the car was speeding in general then "it's a fair cop". The point I agree with him for making is that this sort of policing turns people against the police, so they will no longer report things they see, will no longer accept illegal or drunk fares from the police.

thanks for that, every time i try to say something on this site people seem to know all about how bad taxi drivers are, they may well have had a bad experience with a taxi driver.but it gives them no right to spit hate about us all .people go out on a night get drunk and get home safe for about 5 pounds a couple of miles door to door. cheaper than a couple of beers .all i was trying to say is we drive about all night im not saying we have right to drive like idiots but all i ask for is a bit of common sense from the traffic cops .and to be honest i dont care if i get off or not i just feel like i want to have my say in court pleading not guilty is the only way i will get a chance.

thanks for your input happy chappy lol