View Full Version : Speeding
Rex-Kramer
14-01-2003, 17:46
Anyone know anything about Fixed Penalties, Speeding Fines, Points Etc.
I am 100% positive i have been caught by one of Greater Manchester's new Laser Devices. :eek:
I was doing 90mph on the motorway, no way he didnt clock me.
So whats the worst i am facing.
Its a fair kop Guvnor
:{
£60 fine and 3 points!
:P
Just for future reference, which bit of the motorway and which one? :)
They move about bitty, but basically anywhere on the motorway whcih has a raised little inlay by the side of the road they use as speedtraps.
ParaSitius
14-01-2003, 17:56
I thought the fine was £40. Deffo 3 points though.
10mph more and that was an instant ban ;)
Well 90 in a 70 is 3 points normally, not sure about a fine but it's variable depending on income etc and the points could be 4 if the traffic was bad, poor driving conditions etc.
But if the copper was on the side of the motorway and clocked you he would normally have pulled you over I think... that's what happened to me when I got clocked at just over 100 and I got 5 points for it.
I also think I got hit by a speed camera a couple weeks ago in the city centre and I'm awaiting the letter and 3 points now :/
And errr I would think worst you're facing is 4 points and £100 or more if you're on a high income.
Rex-Kramer
14-01-2003, 18:18
M56 inbetween Junction 10 and Junction 6, on the bridges clocking both Eastbound and Westbound Carriageways.
I have seen them on every bridge inbetween those junctions, which is the bloody annoying thing because i usually always spot, them, God Damn Tiredness !!
Remember kids Tiredness, Kills Take A Break :P
Rex-Kramer
14-01-2003, 18:19
He was on the bridge Nero, in a Van, they have mobile Laser Units now. :mad:
SilentBear
14-01-2003, 18:19
Did you know its possible to get 12 points and not be banned? if you have a good reason why you was speeding and you use your car fr your job, you can be let off, but insurance is fooked
i hope the camera didnt hurt you nero !
is it lasers mounted on vans ala terminator 2? That's a bit harsh just for speeding methinks :o.
nevermind rex , when you get home you may find your house empty of all your stuff. They will say unlucky son, we cant do fcuk all about it ,but here is ya speeding ticket.
Seeeee meh in irc, I'll tell ya a good scam ;)
SpaceMonkey
14-01-2003, 18:37
couldnt you have owned them with some anti-speed camera hacks or something? :dork:
Lt. Sex Machine
14-01-2003, 18:40
If you know Prince Charles then you get off with a £50 pound fine and a Knighthood.
Predator
14-01-2003, 18:43
Hmm, I usually do 90 mph on the motorway all the time, suppose I had best stop if this kind of ****e is gonna start happening :(
Rex-Kramer
14-01-2003, 18:49
Funny you should say that Spacemonkey. :rolleyes:
I have been working on a new Hax Anti Police Laser device based on LEDS, but the problem i have is:
At a 250 meter range, LEDs broadcast into .005 steradians (.5 radian horizontal times .01 radian vertical) this means it would have to be 500 times brighter than the 25 milliWatts the police hit you with to beat the retroreflective paint which broadcasts into only 10^(-5) = ( 4 milliradian times 4 milliradian) return.
This is 12 Watts, well beyond the power of an LED. At shorter range, the problem of jamming is worse. The police laser power grows as 1/(Range^4) power as the range decreases, and my jammer power grows only as 1/(Range^2).
Therefore the reason jamming is not feasible is that i have to broadcast it into all directions, reducing the power aimed at the laser gun.
Any suggestions ?
I thought they only used the lasers as spotters for a patrol car waiting down the road, since they don't record your licence plate and the pols need this for a prosecution. Might be wrong though.
90 in a 70? on a motorway I take it? I've quite happily overtaken coppers doing 90, if you're vehicles clean, roadworthy and you're driving smoothly (ie not swerving lanes etc) it's very unlikely to get done for it, just not worth the paperwork most of the time, they like to egg you on to do a ton then do you good and proper. (or 140 like a certain popular forum user)
By the time the patrol car pulls out to stop you for 90, god knows how many ppl have torn by doing the same speed.
If you were doing 90 the general flow of traffic must have been doing a similar speed.
haven't had a speeding ticket for 13 years now and I drive no slower than I did then.
As for cameras you basically have the equivalent of a "statute of limitations" regarding the fine on these, they have to send you within 3 weeks of the offence or it just aint valid, I think this came about with the old "oh I can't remember who was driving the car" lark where the court of human rights backed up a lawyer who insisted he wasn't legally obliged to incriminate himself by revealing himself as the driver of the car. 3 weeks is prolly looked at as a reasonable amount of time for anyone to be able to remember who was driving their vehicle at the time.
So if you were flashed 2 weeks ago and aint had a ticket yet, once Friday comes I'd stop worrying.
Rex-Kramer
14-01-2003, 19:31
Wedge
I hope you're right mate, i really do, ill keep my fingers crossed.
It was one of the new fangled detectors that uses 2 laser pulses to time you over 2 tenths of a mile.
They fire the first pulse at your number plate, this takes a piccy, then they fire it again 2 tenths further on. :(
If this timing proves that you have travelled a distance greater than the tolerance that the speed limit would allow, this picture is stored and the ticket duly arrives next week.
This is part of the Polices new initiative codenamed "Project Laser." The Laser captures the licence plates of every vehicle travelling greater than 70 miles per hour in a continuous stream of traffic on dual carriageways even after dark.
FFS why the **** dont they go and catch some real ****ing criminals. :mad:
Its just another ****ing stealth Tax, yet again shafted by Tony "Smiling Assassin" Blair.
Speeding isn't a real crime? It kills plenty of people, but I guess if it isn't related to robbery, assault, murder etc it must be ok.
Speed kills, face it. You shouldn't speed. Simple!
RinseAid
14-01-2003, 19:54
umfg rexy, i swear that laser thingy was using wall hax! If i was you and in a certain tfc clan, i would be going to the police refs and crying HAX HAX, FS THOSE POLICE WERE HAXING ME! Then the coppers would be sure to give you a permenent ban based on 'limited' evidence.
Seriously tho, at a guess 3 points and £60-£100 fine.
10 miles and hour faster, and as some1 said, that could be an instant disqualification, if they were being really harsh.
Good luck tho mate
Rex-Kramer
14-01-2003, 20:15
I'm sorry Gwil, but we will have to agree to differ on this one.
When 18 year old Girls are being shot in Birmingham, A serial Rapist walks the Streets of Manchester at night and my best mate gets beaten to within an inch of his life in Liverpool and gets hospitalised over Xmas, and the police do the square root of f u c k all,
How can you possibly say Speeding is a real crime, why should i face a fine for doing 20 mph over the speed limit when these scum walk round unchallenged and defy any attempt by the rule of law ?
How you can justify 2 Police sitting in a van on the motorway when all this is going on is beyond me. Its a cynical effort to obtain more revenue, the only way this revenue should be used is more bobbies on the beat and more presence.
Its liberal hippy bull**** like this thats got the country in the state its in. Takle the real problems, not the ones that generate revenue. Ill gladly obey the speed limit when i feel safe walking round Manchester at night.
Speeding a crime ? Well in that case lock me up and throw away the key, I, Your Honour am Guilty as charged.
SpaceMonkey
14-01-2003, 20:50
isnt there a speical film you can put on ya licence plates to make them reflective so when the cameras photo you it cant read ya licence plate?
RinseAid
14-01-2003, 20:50
^^ i kinda agree with that, especialy if you are speeding on a motorway. As long as the conditions are good, then its very unlikly that you will have an acciedent.
However, speeding when people are about (ie not on a motorway) is bad, as even going a few mph faster causes an increased stopping distance. Tis a hard one to call, but on a motorway, I think its hardly the most henious(sp) of cripes
RinseAid
14-01-2003, 20:51
re: my last post, im supposed to be agreeing with Rex, but bloody space monkey spammed faster than me ;)
Well breaking the speed limit is breaking the law, the trick is not to get caught :P
And how can breaking the law be a stealth tax? :O
SilentBear
14-01-2003, 21:03
Age old arguement really.
I think, with quite a few others, that residentail roads should be lower speed limits, motorways higher. The one that speeds on a motorway drives to the conditions, unless they are a complete idiot and a **** driver.
A decent driver will be able to drive according to the conditions, and if this is on a wide open mtorway with little traffic and good conditions, why shouldnt they do >70mph?
Yeah that's true, but you know it's breaking the law, and that the police fine you, so don't cry when you get caught.
And yeah I got caught, if I get caught again in under the next year I get my licence revoked cos that's my 6 points in my first two years :-/
At best nothing will happen, at worst a £60 fine and 3 points like ref said, probably be 50/50 though :{
If you've already got a few points on your license, best stick to around 80-85 when they deffo won't do you.
MadMaxMatt
14-01-2003, 22:53
How can you possibly say Speeding is a real crime, why should i face a fine for doing 20 mph over the speed limit when these scum walk round unchallenged and defy any attempt by the rule of law ?
erm ? havent u seen the tv Ad, 5 mph more and it takes like 20m more to stop
plus imo why should u speed?, wow u get there a wee bit faster but u could kill a few ppl O_o,
anyway afaik over 90 is a ban for 2 years or something
Black Death
14-01-2003, 22:58
if they aint got u on camera they cant charge you.
to expand...
Unless they have used a device which takes the image of your car then you cannot be charged. Those hand held things just give the speed your going at. Unless they chase you and stop you they cant charge you as there is no way of saying it was really you. You can deny it if anything comes thru as there is no evidence to say it was actually your car.
u gotta know these things.
also if it is some new hh that takes photos make sure you ask to see the calibration records.
Black Death
14-01-2003, 23:07
on aontoher note there are some convex covers you can get for your number plate. Ive ben looking to get some. Your plate is visible only when looking at it straight on. If a gatso camera flashes you it will not be able to read the plate :D
prolly not legal, but you would only know it was there by actaully being up close to the plate.
Dreadnought
14-01-2003, 23:24
The moment u hit 100, your usually in for an auto ban.
Unfortunately once, in February 2002, i crept over the limit without realising and somehow managed to hit the 100 mark on an open motorway as i was driving to work in one of my dreamy worlds featuring lustful naked women and erect nipples. Anyway, got pulled over by an unmarked car and i said i was sorry etc, didnt realise i was going as fast as i was (didnt even know it was a copper till i got into the middle lane and the car behind followed right up my arse - had blue flashing lights on front, thought some mornin racer :/ then i noticed my speed )
Anyway, Got told i 'might' recieve something in the post from the courts in about 6-8 weeks.. I didnt, thought perhaps i had got lucky and that was a lesson which had to be learnt from.. Then i ended up in court in sept :o
Had to say my bit, say why i needed my car, the conditions of the motorway and driving that day and where i was heading. Luckily they gave me a 30 day ban, no points, community service which then i got told i didnt need to do due to the nature of my 'crime' as it were, and 35 quid court fee's.
The unwritten rule on the motorway is that 80/85mph you can get away with without worrying. Most if not all police cars do this speed from what i've seen. If your going over that, which in all honesty you shouldn't be (beside, it's not really cost effective petrol wise :P ) then be careful. If you've been done, you usually hear something back from then within a week to ten days.
And your looking at 3-6 points if you do get done.
if you've passed your test within the last few yrs, then you only get a 6 point license, not a 12 point. After 2 yrs that reverts to a full license (i got given a full one when i went to court aswell)
Rex-Kramer
15-01-2003, 00:52
Originally posted by MadMaxMatt
erm ? havent u seen the tv Ad, 5 mph more and it takes like 20m more to stop
anyway afaik over 90 is a ban for 2 years or something
No cant say i have, i dont base my opinions on something i might have seen on TV, possibly, once, maybe. It takes like 20m to stop does it ? Is that what your factual TV add told you, or, is that what you think you might remember it possibly said ?
Over 90 is a ban for 2 years or something ? Is this another one of your TV based facts that you might remember ?
All in all, this tv Ad thing doesnt seem to have made a lasting impression on you does it ?
It seems to me you cant seem to remember any of the facts it allegedly told you were maybe true.
If you haven't had a nip through the post in about 15 days or so you should be ok. ;0
A radar/laser detector protect you from any kind of time/distance speed trap, such as VASCAR or the new Speed Police Enforcement Camera Systems (SPECS), which times cars over a known distance using digitised images of their registration plates. So the detector will not save your licence and can never be a substitute for good observation and appropriate control of your speed.
Fixed penalty fines are now £60 and 3 points on your driving license
Plus it also depends on the area you where caught, as to how fast you recieve your fine.
Some are 2 weeks but i have heared of longer, just like Dreadnought case.
sos :(
Got rid of this because it was marleeeene grammar and basically said nothing :P ok i've had a bit to drink, but it was inexcusable :D
I drive 40,000 miles a year .
Until November 2002 , i had ... and no this is not a lie , made up blah blah .
16 points on my liscence . ... all from speeding
HOW u may ask...
well obviously from speeding ..doh
:rolleyes:
Basically due to job , I went to court ,became the original sychophant ... begged , pleaded and cried ...
This meant i got no ban ...however for 3 years ... 3 \WHOLE F**king years i had to drive withought gettting as much as a fly on my windscreen ... any drivving offences would have meant instant ban for a year . :mad:
Anyway i managed it ... :E
rex - they normally pull u when caught speeding , however depends on what sort cameras they using on motorway ...I dont know that stretch , but I shouldn't worry uless u get the ticket ...more often than not they arent turned on , and when they are ( the cameras that get u over a distance ) then there flashing red etc .
If was an actually copper u passewd they 90% tieme pull u over .
GL anyway m8
As for number points u get , magistrate courst are all different depending on whom u get on the day , and areas . Points though ...90 is prob 3 points , however the points sstem emans that if you are doint 17 miles over the limit u should get 5 points ,.... they rarely enforce this .
AS for speeding makes us a criminal like burglars muggers and the rest blah ... B O L O X . sorry but u cant just assume that .. take my speeding points , all gotten from dual carriageways , I would and never do speed in 30's 40's ... not more than 5 mph over anyway . Speeding motorway and duals is fine by me
I tested that sliding threory out , and its just cr4p . All depends on road conditions weather , and most importantly car you are driving ... my car stops in half distance the one in ad on tele shows ... + they assume that your 70 years old and have the reactions of david seamen on a lob
ps i dont agree with speeding around housing estates etc .... and would happily have all these areas 20mph .... just leave motorways dual carriagways alone ...
at the end of the day the government hikes all the scare tactics up cos they make ****e load revenue from speeding . FULLSTOP
SilentBear
15-01-2003, 11:55
Only thing is rag, do you find you cant rent cars? like if yours was in workshop, you dont get a courtesy car? when i was doing some work at my dads garage over xmas someone with 14points came in and they refused to give him a car :o
Ive noticed that police always go for younger drivers, ive been pulled over twice, and the one time it was for speeding i got off by saying my car was due for mot and speedo must have been going out due to cars age :E
other time was because they thought id stolen the car I was driving...
Rex-Kramer
15-01-2003, 11:56
Here, Here Rag ! :)
aye u right , i was nable to rent a car which was a pain in ass ...however i got work to osrt it as mines a work car
btw , should mention that i aint boasting ...far from it ...total cost of all speeding fines + barrister was £2k :bigcry:
my english grammer and sprelling stuns me :dork:
Hmm, a few points -
I've never heard of a laser system that is mobile and times the distance taken to travel between two points, it would seem to defeat the purpose of using a laser device in the first place!
Secondly, I used to know the exact penatlies and codes for beign caught at certain speeds in a particular zone but memory fails me, but unless you get taken to court (ie classed as dangerous/reckless driving) the fine isn't means tested - thats why its called a fixed penalty :P
Also - stop trying to justify speeding, it just makes you sound like a bell!
Turbo_Nutter
15-01-2003, 14:30
It shouldn't matter where you get caught in, the law states the police only have 14 days to get a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) to you (They can do it verbal, when they stop you, but still have to back it up with the offical writen one). But if you recive one through in the post which is over the 14 day period then there is nothing they can do, and you can walk away without a fine or points
Dreadnought sounds from what you've posted as if you got your summons/NIP past the 14 day deadline and should not have been prosecuted, and any solictor could have got the case thown out of court for you.
www.speed-trap.co.uk is a very good source of info.
Speaking of speeding, Docca, did you get away with it or what? :)
numero 1 - fair enuff ... fines are fixed ..unless taken to court ...
no sh!t3 r0g
:rolling:
secondly r0g , i dont claim to be an expert on how they enforce ...equipment they use etc , however they do have speeding cameras that cover u over dstances ...examples of this are the M25 between junct. 10 and somat like 15 , and Nottingham ringroad .
As for justifying speeding , grow up . This is a forum , its about putting over points of views . I sure as hell aint justifying speeding , as i say id make the laws harsher for built up areas , however Im also a believer that the motorways and certain dual carriageways could have higher speed limits .
and hey , play nice no need for calling ppl bells :p
Well, thing is you have tried to justify speeding. Speeding fines have just been hiked, the main reason being that an increasingly disproportionate number of people are being killed on the roads each year as more and more people speed.
If you think that speedlimits on motorways and dual carridgeways etc should be increased, then thats fine - state that as being your opinion and I would agree with you. To suggest that you shouldn't be fined/penalised because you think 1) the law should be changed or 2) there are worse crimes, is plainly ridiculous.
Just to show that I agree that speedlimits are a bit mental, I can drive along the A4 in the SW in a well lit area, the road being bordered either side by nothing but fields for 2 miles, and I'm restricted to 30 MPH, but I can then drive along the narrow, house bordered road to my home, cars lining either side of the road at the same speed, where I wouldn't see a pedestrian until I was asked to identify the body!
Thing is - if you are speeding, you know you are breaking the law. Don't when when you get caught and fined!
speeding on dual carriageways isnt fine tbh, 8 people have died on one down the road, and my sister spent 4 weeks in intensive care with 7 broken ribs, heavy internal bleeding and punctured lung because of somebody speeding on a dual carriageway.
and that was on a normal summers day with fine driving conditions! just goes to show tbh...
Speeding doesn't kill, bad driving does. Speed is a factor decreasing your likelihood of stopping in time and that's all. Tailgating is a bigger factor, but do we have tailgating cameras?
On an empty road, wtf does it matter how long it's gonna take you to stop? you'll only need to stop if a hazard you failed to anicipate/notice causes you to need to.
Pay attention, don't speed when it's inappropriate (town centres, bad weather conditions etc), don't use your ****ing mobile you cunna, or fiddle with your radio or kids, and what's the problem.
A car doing 5mph driven carefully over you will probably kill you.
oh, and btw hadn't realised the new lasers read your plate in which case.....wait and see :)
And we're all waiting with bated breath to see how docca fares, no letter as yet. gl m8
Gerizzen
15-01-2003, 23:28
Firstly just a note - I'm sure Rag did clearly state he's only for raising limits on dual carriageways and motorways. But none of my business :)
Have to say I agree. In built up areas, 30 is the very highest speed I would drive at. 20 in a lot of places is perfectly justified.
However, when driving on an open road 70 is just frustrating. Perhaps the problem is that if they increased the limits people would go 10 over like they do now and 90 would become the norm - if it isnt already - but imo as long as the driver is competent and isn't doing anything stupid, anything under 100 is fair.
Oh and I passed 17 in Nov, am waiting on taking my test, and am therefore admittedly much less experienced than the majority. I did have an incident a couple of months back where, doing 40 on a road bordered by forest, a deer ran out not 10m in front of me. I hadn't reached the brakes before hitting it - believe me, the shock of something like that is amplified when you've been driving not a month - so I do understand the problem. I also know that I can judge for myself whether I'm safe (to a degree). Of course, the slower you drive the less chance there is of something like that being a serious problem - but 10mph less than the limit is that much safer too, you have to stop somewhere.
For me the more dangerous act is driving too close to the car in front. If he's 200m from you, then your speed shouldn't be a problem. If he's 50m away, it can make all the difference.
-- By the way, I never realised i could argue a case that badly. I'm very tired. --
Rog - not sure what u reading , but your mis-understanding me again .
let me clear , this is a topic which is highly charges , as the chances are there are ppl who read these forums that have had or know ppl that have been involved in road accidents maybe even from speeding .
ALL im stating is a personal view about dual carriageways and motorways which are currently national speed limit ie 70mph . And all im saying is that i believe that in some cases , certainly not all , the speed limit could be raised , or leniency given by enforcers ( as i agree with the point made that ppl would only speed higher if limit was higher ) .
As for the speeding fines etc ...
"To suggest that you shouldn't be fined/penalised because you think 1) the law should be changed or 2) there are worse crimes, is plainly ridiculous. "
where u get that from ??!!
Another point - ie today i travelled along a35 to salisbury ( think a35 ) for 30 mins ...passed 3 mobile units ... 3 !!!
were they in built up areas where kids cross roads , were they near houses , were they near potential danger ares ... the answer is no . They were all where they can generate loads cash ...
Thats what i object 2 . As I stated Id be happy for all built up housing and areas where kids are to be 20mph , and have as many cameras as they like .
but they dont do that .
[WiZ]Prodigy
16-01-2003, 01:36
Wedgey that's a bit of a daft argument.
I'm not saying I stick to the speed limits, I don't think many people do (but that doesn't make it right).
I would say though that on an open road if you're travelling along at say 70mph you stand a MUCH better chance IF some unseen hazard, perhaps in the grass or in a shadow or somewhere like that, completely unseen by your observant self, pops out you've got a much better chance of stopping than if you're driving at 90mph.
Speed is an important factor in a lot of accidents. So is tailgating. Speed is something that can be controlled a lot more easily than tailgating so why not take some measures to try and control it?
I bet if the number of speed cameras increased 10 fold and instant bans for any speeding offense were put into place then practically no-one would speed. Government wouldn't see the next election through because everyone would hate them and they'd be wasting a hell of a lot of time but I bet there'd be a huge cut in the number of deaths on the roads.
Turbo_Nutter
16-01-2003, 01:42
Depending on what report you read speeding is the cause of between 4% to a 1/3 of all road deaths per year. Now (If you take worst case) that leaves 2/3, which are caused by dangerous and careless driving. Do we see a big crack down on these by the police and government?
How many time do you find a car travelling in the outside lane of the motor way or duel carriage travelling at 55-65 with nothing on the inside, causing a tail back or people to undertake (Which is also illegal), cars jumping red lights, car travelling 15-20 mph under the speed limit on single carriage way road, causing tail backs (You get the idea).
These situations are and can be just as dangerous as breaking the speed limit, but how many time to you see some-one getting pulled over for it? You don’t the simple truth is speeding is seen as an easy target, and a way for the government and police forces to increase there income (As others ppls have mentioned). Speeding fines is a very lucrative income for police forces (Cash for cameras scheme), and there will only be more of them, if they put some of these funds into the other 2/3 of road deaths, how much lower would the death toll be?
How many speed cameras do you see located outside schools or “rat runs” where they could really do some good and help both the police and the local community? Or are they continently positioned in areas that will maximise income (against government guidelines). A1306 near Rainham in East London, had no accidents reported at all between 1997 – 1999 and only 2 in 2001, yet they stuck up 4 cameras (this is the 7th safest road in the uk), yet on the fourth most-hazardous road (A4137 near Ross-on-Wye) there are none.
I have seen first hand the consequences of dangerous driving, having lost Emma to one such driver (Who is now severing 5 years in jail) several years ago, and believe that this as the figures prove the area where the police should be focusing there efforts. Speeding yes is dangerous, but it is not the biggest killer, as with anything in life you should start with the biggest risk and work your way down, not the other way around.
Sorry big rant, but stong views on this.
[TGC]Snow
16-01-2003, 02:00
afaik, u're allowed roughly 10% + 3 over the speed limit... so that's 80 on dual carriageways + motorways, 69 national speed limit, 47 in a 40, and 36 in a 30. Depends how good your speedo is (altho most speedos overstate rather than understate). I think this 10% + 3 is the accepted margin of error for speedos where they give u a bit of leeway.
I don't really have a problem with speeding in itself, but the problem is that speeding in residential areas can often be part of an overall aggressive driving style which is dangerous. Speeding on dual carriageways and motorways isn't that bad, but there is a certain point where it gets silly... over 90 is unnecessary, and u're not gonna be able to keep a steady 90+ without driving too close to other cars or pushing your way through
also, re: stopping distances... it doesn't matter how good your brakes are, technology is never going to improve your reaction time, and chances are your reactions won't be as sh*t hot as you think.
I know that ppl who speed obviously aren't as bad as many other people who break the law, but tbh the law does reflect this in terms of punishments. Perhaps the police have prioritised wrongly, but I guess if a patrol aren't busy what's wrong with spending that time catching speeders? It's better than them going back to the station for tea and biscuits and a quick w*nk... yeh, u might get caught, tough - people need that threat of being caught to stop them from doing REALLY stupid things on the road (rude boys aren't affected unfortunately).
And I don't buy your argument that when the police start catching other criminals u will stop speeding. Also where all this liberal lefty bashing has come from, I don't know. Britain hasn't had a left-wing government for a very long time. It's nothign to do with politics, it's all about money and to a certain extent upholding the law. I hope you get away with it, but I hope it at least makes u a bit more cautious about how much u speed
[WiZ]Prodigy
16-01-2003, 02:16
There is no leeway.
It's up to the police. If you're doing 31 in a 30 you can be fined and receive 3 points for it. Some guy in middlesbrough got caught doing 33 and was busted.
[TGC]Snow
16-01-2003, 02:30
if u're caught doing within the 10% + 3 over the limit then just tell them that your speedo was reading whatever the limit is... it was my economics teacher who told me about the 10% + 3 thing, never struck me as a bullsh*tter (very humourless and too-well-read person), said he always followed that guideline. My uncle is a road traffic policeman tho, so i'll ask him next time i see him. Mind you i have to be subtle about questions like this or he tells me that the best thing is not to speed ;)
I think it's +2... would be nice to know for sure though!
Dr.Octogon
16-01-2003, 04:54
Originally posted by Black Death
if they aint got u on camera they cant charge you.
to expand...
Unless they have used a device which takes the image of your car then you cannot be charged. Those hand held things just give the speed your going at. Unless they chase you and stop you they cant charge you as there is no way of saying it was really you. You can deny it if anything comes thru as there is no evidence to say it was actually your car.
u gotta know these things.
also if it is some new hh that takes photos make sure you ask to see the calibration records.
absolute nonsence. sorry. There are certain folks (especially coppers) who can now nab you for speeding by simply relying on their professional judgement (these chosen ones have to be recognised by the courts,meaning do goody gwil-a-likes can't accuse you willy-nilly)
For example, aslong as the observer has two visible static points at to which he/she can time you through, and then approximate your speed-that is acceptable. This can include telegraph poles , fridge freezers...etc (a biker was nicked last year after being timed through two shadows)
If you do more than 30mph over the speed limit, then you CAN be banned for anywhere up to 12 months. 2 year ban for 90mph? More nonsence i'm afraid.
If you get "flashed" by a gatso, then the fuzz have 14 days to send you a letter-otherwise they can't do jack. But you will usually get a letter, and then a nice fine+points.
Originally posted by Razz
Speaking of speeding, Docca, did you get away with it or what? :)
Originally posted by wedgey
they like to egg you on to do a ton then do you good and proper. (or 140 like a certain popular forum user)
Originally posted by wedgey
And we're all waiting with bated breath to see how docca fares, no letter as yet. gl m8
I was caught doing 144mph, racing an unmarked police Volvo down the M1 just outside Peterborough. The road was clear, and so was the sky :)
If you get nabbed in the open road by a copper (like i was) then they have 6 months to get a letter out to you.
I was nabbed in September, so fingers crossed i guess. If i go to court, then from reading the hundreds of other biker's reports of going to court, it is far better to accept you were speeding and just say that the roads were clear/safe conditions etc.
I am hoping that my present occupation will provide me with the mitigating circumstances i need to get a reduced conviction/no conviction :)
SpaceMonkey
16-01-2003, 07:48
http://www.expressandstar.com/artman/publish/article_21880.shtml
thats a good example of the new systems in use :)
I was caught doing 144mph, racing an unmarked police Volvo down the M1 just outside Peterborough. The road was clear, and so was the sky :)
If you do get taken to court, for doing that speed, i can not see them reducing any convictions.
Your job has nothing to do with it, and you may also get told, that being in the job you are, that you should have known better.
The judge may not be looking at it the way you do, with a clear rd and clear skys.
You will just hope luck is on your side, and your not called.
I get my bit:
"To suggest that you shouldn't be fined/penalised because you think 1) the law should be changed or 2) there are worse crimes, is plainly ridiculous."
as a response to your bit:
"AS for speeding makes us a criminal like burglars muggers and the rest blah ... B O L O X . sorry but u cant just assume that .. take my speeding points , all gotten........"
Anyhow. I'd be quite interested to know if the government/police make more from fines collected than the cost of actually collecting them!
Docca: did they actually let you drive away after catching you doing 144mph?!?
Flomotion
16-01-2003, 15:24
Tbh, I bet the only way someone who repeatedly does 140 will learn to slow down is when they get spread over the road, regardless of bans or fines.
Rex-Kramer
16-01-2003, 15:53
If you are spread over the road in little bits, will you remember it ?
:P
Rog - hehehe i still dont understand , but lets leave it there :)
Turbo - sorry to hear about your sad loss m8.
.. And I totally agree with your points about dangerous driving , and the placements of cameras . Personally I feel bitter about the way the government has handled the situation , as I have also seen statistics proving that deaths through speeding are about 4% of the total deaths on the road ... 4% too many agreed .
To me its the dangerous driving , and driving with neglect that gets me down .I once saw 2 cars tail-gating each other because , a car was in the outside lane when 2 lanes were free inside . The driver admittedly after about 2 milles of flashing tailgating etc , eventually cut inside , accellerated away , then braked harshly infront.... of the offending car blocking the road ... unfortunately ( turned out to be an elderly driver ) they didnt brake quick enough ... and he crashed into the car .
No idea of the result as I passed like every1 else , but both cars went off ...
Point is I see this sort of thing all the time . I have never seen any action from enforcers to stop it . - Id welcome this
Its like ppl never watch their mirrors for cars coming from behind , they just stay in the outside lane blocking it . to me what the 999 services should do ( all of them ) is record ... so when some1 infront blocking the emergency vehicle doesnt move they get a serious fine and points .
i could go on :talk:
Dr.Octogon
16-01-2003, 23:38
Originally posted by Tatarna
I was caught doing 144mph, racing an unmarked police Volvo down the M1 just outside Peterborough. The road was clear, and so was the sky :)
If you do get taken to court, for doing that speed, i can not see them reducing any convictions.
Your job has nothing to do with it, and you may also get told, that being in the job you are, that you should have known better.
The judge may not be looking at it the way you do, with a clear rd and clear skys.
You will just hope luck is on your side, and your not called.
As i said to you this am, my job does exactly that. I rely on my transportation for my job, i work all over the place. I am a (valuable) public sector worker with no previous convictions/points/ whatever. These are called mitigating circumstances.
The judge will be look at whether i was driving recklessly/aware of the road. If the road was clear, and the whether was good-then that goes in my favour :)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr.Octogon
[B]
The road was clear, and so was the sky :)
I hope the officer wrote all that down :)
lesson number 3435353 - only post when sober
:laugh: @ the road being clear being in your favour if doing 144mph....twice the speed limit - ya thats gonna be in ya favour
:laugh:
Smallfoot
18-01-2003, 02:26
Originally posted by Refugee
£60 fine and 3 points!
:P
You have been taught that lesson of not speeding now ref? :P
Rex why are you whining that you may have to pay a fine and get points on your license. The fact is whether you speed is up to you so you bring it upon yourself when you get caught and have to pay up or get banned. We all know the law so dont whin when you break it and face the results of your own accord. The speed limits are there for reasons eg 30 in a built up area or say 20 near a school.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
18-01-2003, 19:52
I thought that the red circle bit meant "advisory":E
Rex-Kramer
18-01-2003, 20:18
Miffed thanks for your thoughts, but i wasnt doing 30 in a 20 i was on a clear Motorway in good conditions
I'm perfectly aware of the law, so i might come round and break into your house later and steal all your worldly possessions. You can then go and report it to the police, infact i will come with and turn myself in. Given that they are doing the square root of **** all about burglary now i think you will have a different view on breaking the law when you find it doing **** all to protect you.
You say i whinge ? Maybe i am, but my point is why arent they out stopping crime like burglary ? Well probably because they dont make any money from those sorts of crime.
But maybe i am just being cynical and the money they get from my fine will go to genuine crime fighting, or maybe not :rolleyes:
Anyway sleep tight, ill be round for your pc later, so better get a reply in quick :eek:
Originally posted by Smallfoot
You have been taught that lesson of not speeding now ref? :P
Was gripped by a camera the last week of december, and I still havn't been notified, word is that the camera's empty :D
Originally posted by Rex-Kramer
why arent they out stopping crime like burglary ?because the courts let em go free anyways :(
[WiZ]Prodigy
18-01-2003, 20:36
Not the best way to make a point IMO.
Speeding has nothing to do with burglarly. Just because one area of crime is being monitored too tightly for your liking doesn't mean they should slacken off and concentrate on another.
Rex-Kramer
18-01-2003, 20:41
Prodigy
So are you saying that its ok for people to break those laws that they dont enforce rigourously ?
I'm cynical because they make money from this enforcement therefore they persue it more vigourously. They dont bother with burglary, assaults etc most of the offenders walk free with a caution or they dont even bother.
Anyway we can argue about this until the cows come home. They are the Cravendale ones they've gone out looking for their milk, because its so good they want it back by all accounts.
[TGC]Snow
18-01-2003, 20:54
rex, i think u would do better to say "I was caught speeding and I [understandably] would prefer not to pay a fine/get points on my license, can anyone give any suggestions". I don't think anyone is buying your whole "I only speed because they don't catch burglars" routine
and no, that isn't what Prodigy was sayign at all
Rex-Kramer
19-01-2003, 12:32
Snow
Thats not what i am saying. I admit i was speeding, and am prepared to face the consequences of it. What i am saying is why should they enforce this legality over others, my point being this one involves no effort on their behalf and they make money from it.
~Dear Old Granny~
19-01-2003, 12:59
point being this one involves no effort on their behalf and they make money from it.
Another 'Golden Goose' spots the new Police initiative.
Why spend time investigating a burglary when you're not going to catch who did it when you can lurk in side streets with a Gatso 'winning' left, right and centre.
Inland Revenue, Customs & Excise, Local Authority and now coming to a tax haven near you for an extended run - The Police with Stinger (Shurely Gordon Sumner shome mishtake etc etc)...
Anyway, thank central government for this state of affairs, if the Police didn't have to plead with more money every year this wouldn't be happening.
Not that I agree with speeding in a built up area (but what driver hasn't gone over 30?) - But re-regulating the motorways to 80-90 wouldn't cause the carnage that's suggested.
Remember the bulk of speed limits were set for the motorways when you had crapheaps like Austin 1100s (I had one) and Allegros desperately 'trying' to get to 70.....Drum brakes Sir? No thanks.
Aye most modern cars have the brakes and handling to cope at higher speeds than those that were around when the motorways were first constructed*.
I drive a mini, and once it hits fifty it's a effort to get it to anything over that :o
*Incidentally, anyone seen the government information ads saying things like 'The central reservation is not a good place to stop off and have a nice lunch'
Fluffy Bunny Feet
19-01-2003, 13:51
I agree dog, police expend far to much effort pounding the motorist, if its not already bad enough with the ludicrous taxes on fuel, road tax and next will certainly be toll routes and toll gates at major cities.
Speeding in built up areas is a no no, I usually obey the speed limits in town and always drive/ride at sensible speeds where pedestrians and traffic is around. But on quiet open roads the Zx9r gets fully unleashed.
Fact is, Germany does not have too much problem with accidents caused by their no limit autobahns, despite many being two lane only, and anyone who has driven on them knows the the vast majority do not drive excessively fast, they do however have less heavy goods vehicles on their roads due probably to their better rail freight system.
As you point out, 70 was the limit imposed and was quite okay for its day, but for todays cars and transport needs it is not, 85-90 would be perfectly acceptable, also think of this, cars moving faster would mean journey times would be shorter=less traffic on the roads at any one time (assuming it can actually move at that speed)
In my opinion, speeding in built up areas should be heavily fined and actively enforced, after all its where pedestrains and cyclist are most vunerable, the less traveled roads and dual carnage ways (sic) and motorways should be left mostly to their own devices.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
19-01-2003, 13:59
Originally posted by Refugee
*Incidentally, anyone seen the government information ads saying things like 'The central reservation is not a good place to stop off and have a nice lunch'
lol, reminds of the time I got caught in a massive tailback on the M1. Eventually got to the end just in time to see a Datsun being towed off with its nearside front wheel missing, when I got to work about half an hour late a colleague who also got caught up earlier said " yeah, reason was this asian geezser was changing his wheel in the outside lane of the motorway!".
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 15:41
Originally posted by Gokou
:laugh: @ the road being clear being in your favour if doing 144mph....twice the speed limit - ya thats gonna be in ya favour
:laugh:
lol. that's so funny. wow. roflmao etc
glad you thought your answer through before replying. "driving without due care and attention" is the bit i was refering to.
Poor weather and 144mph= reckless riding, not taking the conditions into consideration.
DOing 144mph while the motorway was full of traffic= reckless riding, potentionally causing distress to other road users by me wanting to hammer it. If i argue that the road was empty (which it was apart from me and plod) then it is no where near as bad as if i get nabbed filtering on the mway ton-up.
Thanks for playing
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 15:48
No offence intended Docca, but you could be riding down a 50 mile stretch of road and not see a single other car, it would still be reckless in my eyes at that speed.
Just because you didn't see anyone for the first 50 miles doesn't stop there being some sort of hazard in the 51st mile does it? If there was, there would be sod all you could do to try and stop in time. That makes it reckless.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
19-01-2003, 16:04
Docca, have you recieved a Notice of Intended Prosecution yet?
doing 144 mph proves that you left your brain behind.
thanks for playing - when you fall off your bike ... :laugh: thanks for speeding.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
19-01-2003, 16:39
Originally posted by Flomotion
No offence intended Docca, but you could be riding down a 50 mile stretch of road and not see a single other car, it would still be reckless in my eyes at that speed.
Just because you didn't see anyone for the first 50 miles doesn't stop there being some sort of hazard in the 51st mile does it? If there was, there would be sod all you could do to try and stop in time. That makes it reckless.
Don't agree that 144mph on a clear, wide, and junction free road is reckless, risky but not reckless. If what you are saying is true, then the officers in pursuit, at a greater speed were also guilty of the same reckless driving and should be prosecuted for putting the public and indeed Docca in unecessary danger.
They were in Pursuit with a tricked up Volvo, a vehicle not designed or suitable for high speed pursuit, It cannot match the bike for speed, acceleration or braking distance, yet the Police deemed it safe to do so.
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 16:48
Well blatantly it did match the bike up to 144, and it probably had a bit left in it.
The police have a perfectly valid case - they drove up behind Docca, and before they had chance to put the lights on and pull him over he took off, leaving them no choice but to pursue him.
Sure it may not be exactly what happened, but it's just as plausible as claiming those speeds are safe on a clear day.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 16:50
No offence taken Flo. :x
Gokou, look up "Hedonist". Play life by your Gary Neville rule book, and you will grow up (eventually) to be a dullard. :claps:
As for doing 144 on a clear road, the only person i was endangering was myself. If i come off at that speed, i am toast. But then , i chose to go quickly, and i was in total control of my vehicle.
Next time you are sat in your cage, tail-riding the car infront whilst speaking on your mobile phone ask yourself if you are in total control of yours.
like i say, thanks for playing.
whats the police going to do - let him go on his merry way....you cant make someone look like a saint for doing 144 - its stupid, plain and simple.
if people can have accidents on the motoways doing 70mph, then imagine what would happen if they were doing 144mph.....wouldnt mind betting on 100% fatality rates for all crashes.
honest - its not even close to risky, just stupid. All it takes is for you to hit a piece of glass or something on a nice clear and empty road and there is no way ur going to be able to control it - 70 would be bad enough.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 16:54
Whilst you are looking up Hedonsim Gokou, look up the German safety record on their Autobahns. Compare the figures to our restricted motorways.
no, cos if you crash and (obviously) die, then the motorway will be held up while they collect your remains from all over the fecking place.
Dont get me wrong, if someone speeds (stupidly...) and dies i dont give a f*ck - but i will if im in the tailback while they are cleaning the road it might just be a tad annoying.
yes but do the germans have speed limits on their 'Autobahns'?
NO so people who speed on them are not BREAKING THE LAW AND THEN CRYING ABOUT IT.
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 16:55
It's the police's job to protect the public.
In some cases, people need protecting from themselves.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 16:55
...and no FBF m8, i have not received a notice of intended prosecution. If that is what they send to inform your of your court date, then they have until the end of the month..after that, they can stick their letters in their pointy hats :)
Get a Jonny Cab, much safer.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 16:59
Originally posted by Gokou
yes but do the germans have speed limits on their 'Autobahns'?
NO so people who speed on them are not BREAKING THE LAW AND THEN CRYING ABOUT IT.
1. i am certainly not crying about anything.
2. you will see (if you could be arsed to base your argument around anything other than your over-infalted opinion of yourself) that it is quite possible to travel at speed , and be safe.
Now i am busy, so i'll let you get back to your mail on sunday.
so if it was safe to travel at speed why dont they life the speed limit?! cos 70 is probably the most sensible and practical for speed and safety...
or maybe the goverment had numbers 1-150 in a hat and picked one out from random - yus that was it...
Lt. Sex Machine
19-01-2003, 17:02
Not sure I agree there Doc, a bike travelling at that kind of speed is carrying one heck of a lot of energy, if you were to hit anything smaller than a low-loader carrying a Sherman tank then they would feel the effect surely?
Speed is relative, if everybody else were doing 70 on a dual carriageway and you were blasting past at 100-120 then I would say there is a definate element of danger there.
If everybody were doing the same speed, then the risk is reduced, especially in respect of pulling out into another lane then realising too late that the guy that was 200 feet behind you when you looked is actually travelling at twice your speed...
Rex-Kramer
19-01-2003, 17:03
I've Created a Monster !!
:3headed:
Surely if the likes of Damon Hill get nicked for speeding (i.e one of the best drivers in the world), then the safe speeding argument it futile ?
some people think speeding is cool though ron and gets you ALL the birds...
and if you travel and speed and have a good ping then omg the world is urs :eek:
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 17:18
Damon Hill was my hero :D
LSM is right, a bike weighs what, 250-300 kilos plus the weight of the rider? Thats not all that far off a small car.
Hit the back of my Metro (:x) at 150 mph (say 80 taking into account the 70 I would be doing) will probably rip most of the back of the car off, and put you straight through the back window obliterating anyone in the back seats.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 17:18
Originally posted by Gokou
so if it was safe to travel at speed why dont they life the speed limit?! cos 70 is probably the most sensible and practical for speed and safety...
.
what the f*ck is that based on ? Or are you pulling resources from your back catalogue of nonsence?
So we have the best road legislation/speed guidelines in the world? Ok then, as a fellow patriot i will bow to that logic.
..and i am not sure wtf relevance Damon Hill has to do with anything, Ronaldo. He broke the law, and got done for it. I broke the law, and will (probably) get done for it. I accept that. They don't change the law just because of one man (plus they are less likely to whilst doing people for speeding is such a lucrative business)
LSM, i agree with you. I was , however, on the M1. For those not familiar with the strecth just outside Peterborough, it's 3 lanes wide and all the traffic is going in the same direction.
On this day, there was NO traffic (well, obviously some traffic, but not for miles). The moment i see cars in front of me, i slow down. I know how to read the road.
I certainly hope all you do-gooders of such high moral standing clamp down on car drivers who use cell phones whilst flying along at mach 2 with the same stance as you have adopted against me.
...but at least the metro will look decent? :P
wtf are the speed limits set at 70 then docca? ffs there would be research behind it - or maybe the make up the stopping distances to?!?!
i dont see the point of this tbh - your trying to say that doing 144mph is safe - that just tells everyone that u have probably fallen off your bike one to many times (probably trying to 'read the road' - YOU RALLY DRIVER YOU) and dont know wtf is going on.
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 17:21
I'm not saying that speeding's the worst crime - just pointing out that I don't think you can possibly define travelling at those speeds as not reckless.
[edit - the best thing is I've got a spare identical spec metro sitting in a garage at home goks :E]
how much u sell it for? :P
;)
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 17:22
Originally posted by Flomotion
Damon Hill was my hero :D
LSM is right, a bike weighs what, 250-300 kilos plus the weight of the rider? Thats not all that far off a small car.
Hit the back of my Metro (:x) at 150 mph (say 80 taking into account the 70 I would be doing) will probably rip most of the back of the car off, and put you straight through the back window obliterating anyone in the back seats.
1. my bike weighs in at 169kg (dry) Only Fat F*cks on harleys would get anywhere near 300k. (and most Harleys-infact all apart from a couple) have a top speed of about 100mph.
2. Secondly, if you are doing 70 in your metro, the roads are clear and i am steaming along at 150, i will see you from MILES away, so why on earth would i aim for the back of your metro?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Fluffy Bunny Feet
[B]
Don't agree that 144mph on a clear, wide, and junction free road is reckless, risky but not reckless. If what you are saying is true, then the officers in pursuit, at a greater speed were also guilty of the same reckless driving and should be prosecuted for putting the public and indeed Docca in unecessary danger.
And i'm sure that they really wanted to put there own lives in danger, pursing some one speeding, but it is there job to have stopped someone from speeding and breaking the law, and maybe even stop them from killing themselves, and other innocent ppl.
wtf does anyone have a crash?
Oh yes, they want to....SILLY ME...
I am just being honest Docca.
If I didn't know it was you and read about it in the newspaper I would think "What a complete twat, he should have a life ban".
lolz ;)
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 17:26
Travelling at 140 mph on my bike, on a clear road, is (imvho) not reckless.
Goks, there is research. i suggest you go read it. If you have trouble with the bigger words, get mummy or daddy to lend a (webbed)hand .although i doubt that will help you any.
I know speeding is risky, but that is one of the reasons as to why i do it in the first place.
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 17:27
My Metro's silver, it blends into the road, you've got no chance of seeing me!
Well it worked for Man Utd......
Tat if you don't master the skill of using the forum quote function, I will punish you. :P
if you want risky - do us all a favour and jump out of a plane with no parachute?
bet you would get a bit of a rush at doing 200mph heading toward the ground..no? - oh and if you can avoid landing on a motorway - well that would just be grand.
Lt. Sex Machine
19-01-2003, 17:29
Without being on the back of the bike with you it's not exactly, easy to comment on exact situations - however being as it's a motorway at least there will not be side turnings and you are not likely to meet anybody coming the other way (though obviously that does happen from time to time).
So yeah it's about the least dangerous place you could pull of something like that in this country, I don't think the word 'safe' is appropriate I am sure Docca doesn't either as people don't speed to be safe, the do it for the kicks. Although I personally don't get anything from speeding on a dead straight stretch of road, any monkey can stamp on the gas pedal and take their hands off the wheel :O
As an interesting point by the way, if the situation Flo described happened, say a bike plus rider at 300kg and a car including occupants at 1200kg, then the bike would actually be carrying 15% more energy than the car.
Lt. Sex Machine
19-01-2003, 17:30
Originally posted by Dr.Octogon
...why on earth would i aim for the back of your metro?
Too...many...easy....jokes.
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 17:30
Then you'd look behind you and see a copper in a skydiving uniform with a flashing blue light strapped to his helmet, waving his arms madly at you pointing you to pull over :D
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 17:30
That's ok Ronaldo m8, if i didn't know it was you replying to this thread i would think
"there's someone who knows all about perspective. who doesn't just make knee-jerk reactions, and who isn't a blinkered c*nt"
;)
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 17:31
OK I need to learn the quote function too :{
Originally posted by Ronaldo
Tat if you don't master the skill of using the forum quote function, I will punish you. :P
Not again Ron, please ;)
this right :P
If not :eek:
I got my NIP on day 38 (yes, I was counting) and I think they have 40 days to get it to you before they can't prosecute. Just don't count your chickens because you haven't got one yet :/
As for doing 144mph, well I generally think it's stupid and you probably deserve the hefty ban you're probably going to get.
I'm not judging though because it's only dangerous if you're not in control of what's happening and it could well have been a perfectly safe thing to be doing in the situation you were in. Unfortunately for you I doubt the court will think along the same lines and most likely rightly so.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 18:00
They have six months to contact me, Nero. I got caught in September last year, so only have a little while longer to wait. (i said all this earlier in the thread :) )
I am facing a ban of anywhere between 2 weeks, and 12 months. There was a biker put inside for doing for 12months after being caught doing 168mph on a zx9r ( ;) FBF) Whilst drink drivers are more than likely to get a slap on the wrists . Perspective.
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread :P
6 months hmmm, what's 40 days all about then? Read that somewhere! :)
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 18:06
no idea m8. i was just going on information i had read, and what they told me directly at the scene.
14 days for a gatso flash
6 months for any other offence :)
So can you tell us about this hotel thing yet Docca or are we waiting till the end of the month? :P
drink drivers getting a slap on the wrist?
For any offence of driving or attempting to drive while over the prescribed alcohol limit, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of one year's disqualification. This can only be waived in very exceptional circumstances, such as if the offence was committed in response to a medical emergency, or if the offender would be completely unable to earn a living. A first offender will also receive a fine, typically around £300 - £400, although fines can be below £100 for offenders of limited means.
Magistrates have the power to impose longer periods of disqualification and are increasingly making use of this - in some cases 18-month bans have been imposed for BACs below 120 mg. The maximum sentence that can be imposed for driving with excess alcohol is a fine of £5,000, and a 6-month prison sentence, something that is not as widely appreciated as it should be.
If an offender has committed a second offence within a ten-year period, or has a BAC over 2.5 times the legal limit (i.e. 200 mg or above), they will be classed as a "high-risk offender". They will receive a three-year minimum mandatory period of disqualification, and before they can drive again will be required to satisfy a doctor - at their own expense - that they do not have an ongoing alcohol problem.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 18:28
ok gokou, how many times must we read in the national press (papers like your fave, the Daily Mail) that "drink driver kills 5yo girl and gets community service" ??
thanks for getting my point though.
Dr.Octogon
19-01-2003, 18:29
..AND if you are under the influence of alcohol then you are not in total control of your vehicle.
I havent read most of these posts, i got to page 4 and sort of saw what the discussion was about.
My personal view is no one should speed 10 miles over the limit, if you do get a instant year ban. I've come off the dual carriage way into my town before from going 60-70 and then my dad leaning over telling me im doing 40 in a 30 zone. You get so used to the high speeds that when you are really doing 40 it feels like 20, so thats why i think going 90-100 anywhere is wrong.
Rex-Kramer
19-01-2003, 18:49
I'll make sure i have my Dad in the car with me every time i go to work. He wont mind sitting around for 12 hours until im ready to go home.
I'm sure Dr.Octogan will be able to squeeze his Dad onto the back of his bike aswell :rolleyes:
Maybe you could market this as the new Anti-Speeding Must have instead of a Radar/Gatso Detectors;)
[TGC]Snow
19-01-2003, 18:53
i don't really see your point sprite
however, i agree it is difficult to control your speed when you move into a much lower speed limit. I find that the best thing is to follow the speed limit exactly as u move into the lower limit (e.g. driving at 30 when u change from national speed limit to 30 zone) for a while so that that speed feels normal to you. It only takes a minute or so for your brain to "re-calibrate" its perception of acceptable driving speed.
Flomotion
19-01-2003, 18:53
So by default you've just classified yourself as an unsafe driver who should be banned Sprite...
Never said i was unsafe, i just said that if the law on speeding was allot more strict then people would take more care to monitor there speed carefully. I was merly pointing out an example from my experences that just because your chances of crashing on a dual carriage way at high speed if in control without much traffic isn't high, doesn't mean that it won't be the same after coming off that into a 30 zone.
All laws should be more heavily inforced imo, steal something and get your hand cut off. Kill someone and executed. Lets face it if the fine for speeding over 10 mph was a instant year ban less people would speed.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
19-01-2003, 19:29
Hmmm...... Docca doing 144mph on a motorcycle designed and built for the purpose with soft compound tyres, brakes and frame to match the performance weighing in at around 250 kilos with rider and taking up 2 feet of road space=wreckless (maybe)
Two plods in Volvo designed for 140 travelling at 150+ weighing in at around 1800 kilos taking up 6 feet of road width =just doing their job for the safety and benefit of us all
Doesn't add up does it, fact is they could have recorded the incident on video and radioed ahead to another marked squad car to pull him over, instead they chose to pursue at high speed and then pull him over after some distance. If Docca is guilty of being wreckless then the police are even more so.
Docca, I should give up M8, its true 144 is fast and dangerous, you cannot justify it, but I too am guilty of travelling a little fast on the odd occasion;)
You are trying to argue a point with people that have probably never swung their leg over a high performance bike, they just don't understand. The same people probably that think its okay to do 45 in 30, turn without indicating, drive too close, use their mobile while driving, park in stupid places, pull out without warning, drive past road works at 70 when they should be doing 50, drive at 70 on fogbound icy roads when common sense says go much much slower, drive down country roads at 60 because the limit is 60 when really 40 would be much safer.
Bad driving is the main reason for accidents, speed is a contributing factor, drive around my home town and you will soon realise the idiot factor is prevalent, holiday makers compound the problem, also the retirement brigade add their bit, add to that the boyracers, jaywalking brummies and foreign students, it all equates to a motoring jungle, and some people do not maintain their vehicles properly, almost all vehicles presented for Mot tests at my garage have a defect of some sorts, but some are positively lethal and 30mph would be wreckless, let alone 70.
Nope, I have to admire the Germans (reluctantly) their autobahns have a very good track record proving that speed limits are not the reason behind safer roads, good road planning, good road maintanance, less congestion, less heavy goods vehicles, sensible driving, and well maintained modern vehicles all contribute to a better safety record than the UK.
Happy motoring:E
rex, you were after a number off solutions not to get caught by them, each are costly but:
to stop cameras reading yer number plate:
Tailgate car infront closely (obiviously not on motorway) cameras can't read yer number then £80 fine for that though ;p
Smear dirt on yer number plate so it can't read yer license plate, but thats a £1000 fine if caught,
Remove plate before entering the zone... stupid i know, but it does work, again 1 grand fine if yer caught,
False number plate, 5 grand fine + 2 years in prison
Theres also a nice little gadget called a "priva panel" cost around £150, and yo ustick it over yer number plate. When switched on the electric panel goes opaque hiding the number, £1000 pound fine though ;p
Like SM said you can paint yer number plate with a special reflective paint to blind the cameras, £1000 fine
Heres the best one though: Use alternative fuels, cars using LPG dpn't have to pay....... but it will cost ye around £1,800 to convert into a LPG fuel system
Briggerz
19-01-2003, 21:34
Speed kills
speed doesnt kill, its the spack whos driving that kills
But then , i chose to go quickly, and i was in total control of my vehicle.
exactly theres a difference between driving fast and being in control and driving fast and reckless.
the majority of people involved in accidents who are speeding, are not concentrating on what theyre doing, thats why they lose control.
ffs the majority of women dont go over 20mph and still manage to lose control, basically cos they cant do more than one thing at once :E
in theory it is speed that kills, cos if you get hit by a car driven by a spack thats going 1mph - the chance of death is....well you would have to be very unlucky.
Speed is the killer ;)
ffs the majority of women dont go over 20mph and still manage to lose control, basically cos they cant do more than one thing at once
You have just not met a real woman then Briggerz :naughty: :E
Shimsham
19-01-2003, 23:10
This has some good info
http://www.speed-trap.co.uk/Accused_Home/SpeedVSFines/SpeedVSFines.htm
Lets hope you have a good lawyer if you do get taken to court.
[WiZ]Prodigy
20-01-2003, 00:23
I wouldn't claim to have anything to back my argument up with (although I've got a rough idea about physics) but surely travelling at 140mph rather than 70 - you're going to really come a cropper should a rabbit hop out, or something blow across from the side or anything like that. You say you can read the road - fair enough, but you can't read all the hidden dangers that could possibly be lurking. If you're travelling at 70 and you swerve you'll have a much easier time staying out of trouble than if you're doing 140.
The same goes for if you hit the object. There's gonna be 4 times more kinetic energy involved which is gonna result in some serious damage.
Dr.Octogon
20-01-2003, 00:48
nice site shimsham, thanks.
..and yes Prod, i won't (and can't) disagree with you. However, we are talking about the M1 here..it's straight, it's wide etc.
My old m8 Wedge m8 a good point earlier: there is a difference between speeding and going to fast. He refered to coming off a bike when doing 40 in a 70 zone, but he was going to fast for the conditions and so totally at fault.
I won't try and argue this point too much, but here goes: bike riders are more vigillant than car drivers. You have too many distractions in a car- you can use your phone, play with the water spray thing, chat to m8's , play music ..and so on. On a bike, the only distraction you have is the throttle :) A bike is quicker to flick about, so any emergency last minute stuff is far easier to cope with on a bike than in a car.
It's sad, but more often than not, if a biker comes off it's usually down to (another) driver error. You have problem all seen the "now you see me " advert.
Finally, i would like to point out that i never speed in residential areas. Something i can't say about the hoards of suped up novas and civics i see speeding around our roads on a night.
Rex-Kramer
20-01-2003, 01:11
It may sound silly but Prodigy is right. By travelling at 140 mph you possess 4 times the kinetic energy that you do at 70 mph.
The kinetic Energy Equation is:
Kinetic Energy = (½) M V²
Where M = Mass and V = Velocity
As a speed increases kinetic energy also increases because the equation has a velocity squared term in it therefore the increase in kinetic energy is exponential compared to the increase in speed. For example when the velocity or speed doubles, the kinetic energy quadruples.
Not a bad explanation for this time of night. :eek:
/me packs aways Flight Manual
Rex-Kramer
20-01-2003, 01:12
Not quite sure why i just posted that because im on the pro-speeding side of the argument !! :rolling:
[WiZ]Prodigy
20-01-2003, 01:29
True it is LESS dangerous on the M1. There is a danger but I guess there are a lot worse situations to be in.
It all comes down to the risk YOU are willing to take. Sadly people are often too willing to take the risk when other people are around (I know that Dr.O says there were no people around but others are much worse). Fair enough if you want to take the risk but it's not fair when other people are victims.
So when I'm in the fast lane of a fairly nasty stretch of A1 about to overtake a lorry in about 15 seconds and a beamer comes speeding up behind me (I'm doing 85...he must be doing something daft) and flashes his lights I think "tw@". Then he procedes to undertake me narrowly pulling back in.
Seen loads of stupid things like this, not much you can do about it though unless you want to put a policeman every 100 metres.
Dr.Octogon
20-01-2003, 04:08
what you describe is dangerous driving, prod.
what i do/ did is just me being being a moron and endangering myself :)
Dr.Octogon
20-01-2003, 05:49
http://www.orange-today.co.uk/news/story/sm_610431.html?menu=
:(
Flomotion
20-01-2003, 09:52
Yeah but that bloke tried to get away, bound to get into more trouble.
~Dear Old Granny~
20-01-2003, 10:04
I liek doing all sorts of crazy sh*t when i'm driving, like going wit ma eyes closed an' sometimes I shoot ma arms full of naovacaine andd jus' drive madd yeah! I got stopedd by plicemn an' he jus' came over to my car and said "Do you know what you were doing Sir?"
An liek i say,
"No man, whassup [i love that]?"
he says to me
"I just want to congratulate you on your driving Sir, we were going to pursue you but when we watched you late braking the roundabouts, cadence braking and apexing the bends, we gave up chasing you, as there didn't seem to be anything we could say to help your driving improve, you know it all. Nice wheels too Sir, i like the blue indicators..."
Have to say, I can't say I've ever been concerned about bike riders on the road. In my outstandingly long and well informed experience as crusader for all things moral and virtuous [etc etc Koppo Monie blah] most bike riders rarely do anything stupid which endangers anyone but themselves. And to be honest virtually all the big bike riders give a little left handed wave if I move over to let them past.
Looking back, I think everyone should get a basic bike test before they're allowed to drive a car. Help to appreciate the road and oher users, but that's looking back :spin: vroooom! :spin:
Fluffy Bunny Feet
20-01-2003, 10:14
Originally posted by Rex-Kramer
It may sound silly but Prodigy is right. By travelling at 140 mph you possess 4 times the kinetic energy that you do at 70 mph.
10/10 so a bike and rider at 255kilos traveling at 140 mph, has the same kinetic energy as a metro and driver travelling at 70, whereas a police volvo with two passangers travelling at 140 has roughly 6 times more kinetic energy.
Personnaly, I would not want to be hit by any of them, but if you take my zx9r, it has twin front 320 mm discs, each with 6 pot calipers on the front. It can stop very very quickly even at that speed
But since I never ride over the speed limit............
Flomotion
20-01-2003, 10:18
You're ignoring the fact that the police were only doing that speed to try and stop someone else.
Lt. Sex Machine
20-01-2003, 10:22
Originally posted by Dr.Octogon
It's sad, but more often than not, if a biker comes off it's usually down to (another) driver error. You have problem all seen the "now you see me " advert.
If I recall that advert correctly the car driver was not at fault but the biker tried to pass him when he was indicating to turn right into a side road? The most he could have done had he looked in his side mirror was aborted his (perfectly correct) maneuver.
This is the big problem I have with bikers, I find most overestimate their own abilities and are extremely arrogant, thinking they can look down their noses at other road users then blame everybody but themselves when they get injured taking risks.
Fluffy Bunny Feet
20-01-2003, 11:12
That is fair comment LSM, too often motorcyclist take unnecessary risks at the cost of other road users, I drive a double cab pick up and some motorcyclists love to hover about 20 feet off the rear bumper ( which is 4mm chrome plate steel) If I need to stop quickly they have no chance, the pickup is high and wide so there is no way they can see past.
Having ridden (and had accidents) on motorcycles for some time I have a real respect for the pros and cons of mtorcycling. I enjoy the speed and buzz its gives me, but in the main save the silly speeds for long open roads with practicaly zero traffic, which nowadays is hard to find.
Speed kills, but so does bad driving, the combination of both is only too common
Fluffy Bunny Feet
20-01-2003, 11:17
Originally posted by Flomotion
You're ignoring the fact that the police were only doing that speed to try and stop someone else.
As I said earlier Flo, compounding the problem by ensuing a high speed pursuit was not required. The M1 is well policed, stopping Docca using a marked car further down the motorway was quite likely an option. They must have made a judgement call that it was safe to do so, which blows the theory out of the water, that what Docca did was wreckless.
~Dear Old Granny~
20-01-2003, 12:33
But the question is, as Docca's actions were wreckless, was it actually reckless?
Ironically, by not being reckless, you should be wreckless.
"you will see (if you could be arsed to base your argument around anything other than your over-infalted opinion of yourself) that it is quite possible to travel at speed , and be safe."
"I know speeding is risky, but that is one of the reasons as to why i do it in the first place."
But now I'm confused!
Still amazed that they let you ride away after catching you doing 144mph!
Lt. Sex Machine
20-01-2003, 13:19
Docca has a nipple flap in his leathers and was wearing a set of Lodge Antlers under his lid.
It's the only rational explanation!
Flomotion
20-01-2003, 14:44
The fact that they did let docca ride away will help him a great deal in court I imagine, cos it suggests that he wasn't endangering anyone else but himself.
Yeah but that bloke tried to get away, bound to get into more trouble.
The article doesn't say he tried to escape the car...
Fluffy Bunny Feet
20-01-2003, 15:44
Originally posted by ~Dear Old Granny~
But the question is, as Docca's actions were wreckless, was it actually reckless?
Ironically, by not being reckless, you should be wreckless.
Dammit, been watching too much Johnathon Wross
course its reckless:P
Dr.Octogon
20-01-2003, 17:51
Originally posted by Lt. Sex Machine
If I recall that advert correctly the car driver was not at fault but the biker tried to pass him when he was indicating to turn right into a side road? The most he could have done had he looked in his side mirror was aborted his (perfectly correct) maneuver.
This is the big problem I have with bikers, I find most overestimate their own abilities and are extremely arrogant, thinking they can look down their noses at other road users then blame everybody but themselves when they get injured taking risks.
In that advert (well, certainly the one i am refering to) the motorbike is "filtering" the traffic. This is perfectly legal. The whole idea of the ad was that the car driver failed to use their wing mirrors.
As for overestimating their own abilities, i find exactly same problem with arrogant car drivers who use their cell phone whilst driving. And for future reference m8, due to ride height, bikers have little option but to look down their noses at other road users.
Lt. Sex Machine
20-01-2003, 18:57
We must be talking about an uncannily similar yet completely different advert then. My recollection of the one I saw is to ask people to watch out for other, vulnerable road users (in this case motorcyclists) who sometimes make errors of judgement yet get seriously injured for it.
Obviously it must be different since, as you know, it's dangerous and stupid to assume you can filter past anything that is indicating to turn across your path or indeed filter past traffic where there is a turning to your right that they could possibly turn into without warning, although I agree there is nothing wrong with filtering a stationary queue of traffic that cannot change it's course.
Yup people who drive while engaged in another distracting activity are just as bad, and it isn't just phone users either, which should become a criminal offence (I'm guilty of it myself, but only on a clear road with good visibility which, makes it okay).
Flomotion
20-01-2003, 19:00
Think it is a criminal offence now.
Rex-Kramer
20-01-2003, 19:04
Well i might be in luck, and i say might.
My mate got a ticket through the post on Saturday, he had been caught on Thursday without even knowing it. :robo:
Its been a week for me, so fingers crossed :bandit:
Dr.Octogon
20-01-2003, 22:51
Originally posted by Lt. Sex Machine
Obviously it must be different since, as you know, it's dangerous and stupid to assume you can filter past anything that is indicating to turn across your path or indeed filter past traffic where there is a turning to your right that they could possibly turn into without warning, although I agree there is nothing wrong with filtering a stationary queue of traffic that cannot change it's course.
Yup people who drive while engaged in another distracting activity are just as bad, and it isn't just phone users either, which should become a criminal offence (I'm guilty of it myself, but only on a clear road with good visibility which, makes it okay).
1. frustrated car drivers spitting their dummies out because they have to sit in their cages for a few seconds longer whilst a bike filters past them is not a new phenomena. I usually get drivers swerving out into the middle of the road, or even better-pretending to open their car doors.
2. you use your phone whilst in control of your car and you are not giving your driving 100% attention. you are distracted, no?
A properly installed hands-free kit with voice dialing makes talking on a mobile no different to talking to a passenger. Currently the law allows drivers to be prosecuted if they are driving dangerously, for any reason including mobile phone use.
Why don't we go the whole way and ban car stereos (no more loss of concentration due to changing a tape or singing along), ban ventilation (no more fumbling around trying to turn the heat up), and of course windows which take effort to wind. Any passengers carried must remain silent at all times and children must be banned absolutely from cars in case they start to cry about something and distract the driver. or those that smoke and light up a fag It should also be an offence to attempt to drive while needing to use the lavatory as this also impairs concentration.
Dr.Octogon
20-01-2003, 23:50
yes, very clever. Turning the heating up or down is one task, as is 0pening the window, messing about with the stereo should be done when the car is stationary. Not much of a distraction. Now, unless you always say the same things over and over again, you are going to be distracted when talking on the phone. You need to concentrate on the conversation, and you are not 100% nailed to what you should be doing.
As an officer of the law you should know better. (that answer just did not read like one from Tat)
Lt. Sex Machine
20-01-2003, 23:52
I completely agree Docca if you re-read what I said you will see that, not only do I think that drivers holding phones to their heads whilst driving is dangerous I also confess to having done it myself, if the road is anything less than a clear straight section of dual carriageway I either reject the call or pull over mind you.
But what I said about the filtering thing I stand by, if people stuck in traffic have done that to you it's well out of order, but the fact remains bikers do not have the automatic right to filter safely in every situation and shouldn't assume they do.
If two vehicles occupy the same lane of a carriageway then I cannot think of a single situation where the guy behind has priority over the guy in front, don't care if it's a car, bike, bus or rickshaw. I am open to be proven wrong on this one but the road is shared by many different types of traffic, I thought the whole idea was that everbody is supposed to be aware of and abide by the same rules.
lol change your job docca, join the detectives.;)
But its true these things are all done day out day in, and use of mobile phones can be used the right way.
We after all if alone in the car, also do it, we also do not have time, on lots of occassions to pull over to recieve where we have to attend, and reply we have recieve the information right this take presious time for some ppl.
This is perfectly legal. The whole idea of the ad was that the car driver failed to use their wing mirrors.
And our survey says:
Nope, it was because he didn't check his blind spot, and as a motorcyclist I'm worried that you didn't know that :-/
Lt. Sex Machine
21-01-2003, 00:19
Same difference, I wasn't about to say "check mirrors, look over shoulder, check under left armpit".
Fact remains the biker passed him in a situation where he shouldn't have done, the biker would have caused the accident, either party could have prevented it.
This is true, the biker was at fault, while theoretically the driver should've looked in the blindspot, he did check his mirros, and was clearly signalling intentions, the biker there was stupid.
I quoted Docca, not you LSM, hence why I was worried about Docca not knowing it, as a biker he should be more aware than anyone about blind spots, as it's far easier for a car to get lost in one than a car.
Lt. Sex Machine
21-01-2003, 00:29
Not quite ref, you are supposed to give a final check just as you start the maneuver (the driver turning right that is). I am glad you can see the point of the advert anyway, I guess it's not quite as obvious as they could have made it.
Now you say it I never say wing mirrors, but I did say effectively the same thing, anyway you added a good detail there.
On another note, what was this thread about anyway?
Nobody can be a perfect driver 100% of the time. The one time we forget to signal for a right turning it's sod's law that some biker will come up the inside. Hardly any car drivers do such a dodgy move especially in built up areas. Also, if a biker zooms to the front of a queue on the inside, why do they persist in cutting across you.... The amount of times i've done a Stirling Moss start and nearly clipped them because they wanna bomb up the outside. grrrrrr ;)
Rex-Kramer
21-01-2003, 00:56
LSM
The original thread was about me thinking i had got done by a Laser LTI 20-20 device on the M56 and asking what i was facing.
I'm still wai ting for the post, so im hoping i might have got away with it. ;)
Not bad considering i started this post a week ago, got to be some sort of record that a post has gone on this long without being locked for insults or degenerating into a non-descript slanging match, it seems to have kept its original jist which is again another miracle :wiggle:
Colin kept its original theme going throughout.....
Here we are, i know its not a motorbike, but moves are almost the same.
I think its NO2 which docca was talking about.
http://bicyclesafe.com
And i don't know of any other way to put it in so :P
Dr.Octogon
21-01-2003, 01:17
Damnit LSm i always get the wrong end of the stick with you :x
Ref, i was adding to Lsm's spiel which leaned on using mirrors. As a biker, there is little to know point assuming car drivers check their blind spots, because they usually never do (you can see right through the back window and catch them at it :) )
Filtering is perfectly legel, if you have a car and a bike pulls along side and overtakes (in the same lane) that is not breaking the law. It's frustrating for you car drivers to accept that, but this is one of the main benefits of owning a bike.
However, it's not all plain sailing. Moody vs Powell (i think) is a much referenced case where a motorcyclist was filtering past a statioary queue of traffic, and one of the cage drivers decided to turn right without checking his mirrors (or blind spot :P ).
Despite the filtering being legal, the motorcyclist was deemed partly resposible as filtering is classed as "overtaking" and he received a greatly reduced payout due to negligence.
Chicken de Funk
21-01-2003, 02:06
damit my black friend, i am battered lets f*ck off to thailand
Why thailand, don't they not have speeding laws over there. :laugh:
Lt. Sex Machine
21-01-2003, 10:41
Originally posted by Dr.Octogon
However, it's not all plain sailing. Moody vs Powell (i think) is a much referenced case where a motorcyclist was filtering past a statioary queue of traffic, and one of the cage drivers decided to turn right without checking his mirrors (or blind spot :P ).
Despite the filtering being legal, the motorcyclist was deemed partly resposible as filtering is classed as "overtaking" and he received a greatly reduced payout due to negligence.
Aha, never heard of this one but I guess it must be well known in biking circles then. Sounds to me that this was the exact same scenario this government advert thingie was trying to point out.
Something that occured to me, out of interest how many car drivers on here were taught by their examiner to check blind spots before making this kind of manuever, and how many have been marked on their exams for not doing it?
???/Unknownone
21-01-2003, 13:57
Originally posted by Refugee
Colin kept its original theme going throughout.....
Memories.. :cry:
Originally posted by Lt. Sex Machine
Something that occured to me, out of interest how many car drivers on here were taught by their examiner to check blind spots before making this kind of manuever, and how many have been marked on their exams for not doing it?
my instructor taught mt to do that \o/
[TGC]Snow
21-01-2003, 14:09
Originally posted by Lt. Sex Machine
Something that occured to me, out of interest how many car drivers on here were taught by their examiner to check blind spots before making this kind of manuever, and how many have been marked on their exams for not doing it?
well i only passed last april and i was learning with BSM who have a pretty good record and a standard sort of curriculum... only time i was told to check blind spots was when moving away from stationary position and perhaps on dual carriageway (not sure, mighta been my dad who told me that).
The problem i have is that too many bikers spend too much time in your blind spot... there's no real reason for that - if they're passing they should pass and if they're not they shouldn't be that close
Best thign is to try and pick up the bike in your mirrors before they get near the blind spot, then u know to check... but that's not always possible.
Btw, are u legally allowed to overtake next to a junction?
I think that was all i was told to check blind spots was when moving away from stationary position, and also maybe after an emergency break.
The-Bandido
21-01-2003, 15:10
Originally posted by [TGC]Snow
...Btw, are u legally allowed to overtake next to a junction?
No, I got done for doing that, "Contravening mandatory markings". Also the fact that there was a zebra crossing and bollards at the T-junction didn't help ("you haff committed THREE offences...")
Originally posted by Tuff
is it lasers mounted on vans ala terminator 2? That's a bit harsh just for speeding methinks . :laugh:
Flomotion
21-01-2003, 16:02
Yup, was only told to check blind spot when changing lanes suddenly or pulling away from stationary.
Lt. Sex Machine
21-01-2003, 16:09
Or reversing of course, yup I was taught the same thing and my instructor was a motorbike nut, he did point out about watching mirrors for filtering cycles when waiting to turn right at box junctions and stuff but not once was I told to check behind or blind spots when turning right into a junction - people just don't do that.
Checking left upon leaving roundabouts is another good one, in that sitation I do usually look over my shoulder to be certain but I certainly don't crane my necks to check blind spots.
And in any case aren't some blind spots just that - areas that you just cannot see from the drivers seat no matter what you do?
Flomotion
21-01-2003, 16:35
I thought a blind spot was defined as somewhere you can't see as a driver using mirrors or peripheral vision?
Speaking of driving instructors, mine was always obsessed with watching out for bikes. I asked him why once, he told me that when he was younger his 3 best friends were waiting at some traffic lights (on motorbikes), someone came along and ploughed right through them, they all died.
What a fun lesson that was...
Dr.Octogon
21-01-2003, 16:57
LSM:
http://www.corries.co.uk/pdf/bluesheet28.pdf
don't think it is that well known in biking circles, but my other half is a solicitor type to i have (easier) access to the legal minefields :x
Flomotion
21-01-2003, 16:59
The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Open the www.corries.co.uk home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.
HTTP 404 - File not found
Internet Explorer
Dr.Octogon
21-01-2003, 17:07
don't know why
i will try again, but if it does not work, try searching for "Powell vs Moody 1966"
http://www.corries.co.uk/pdf/BlueSheet28.pdf
Dr.Octogon
21-01-2003, 17:10
it's in adobe acrobat. dunno if that makes a difference
I think pdf's are case sensitive :o
Powell v Moody (1966)
Overtaking stationary traffic
The Claimant, riding a motorcycle, came