Board logo

speeding
A1 - 11/5/09 at 08:28 PM

got my first ticket today - doing 88 average between 2 bridges as measured from cop car
quiet stretch of the m8, they said there were two cars going with me, a polo or something...and pulled over the car build for going fast...

f*******c*******

MautoK - 11/5/09 at 08:35 PM

If you break the speed limit what do you expect?

But, as a matter of interest, how do they calibrate such a method of determining your speed?

macspeedy - 11/5/09 at 08:36 PM

sorry to hear that, watch out for those guys, they dont seem to do it for saftey sake.. as i know all to well.

blakep82 - 11/5/09 at 08:37 PM

where on the M8 was it?

A1 - 11/5/09 at 08:46 PM

ive no idea how they calibrate it. they said they did it from one bridge to another and timed me.
yea, i accept that when i speed it may happen, im just annoyed.
it was at the bit between the part where the m9 joins the m8 and the end.
there was a bloody van keeping up with me!!!

snapper - 11/5/09 at 09:01 PM

a nick at 88 is unfair ACPO guidance says 79 to 84 a warning can be given 84 to 89 the officer has discretion.
As a rule i sit at 77 to79 with 84 on the motorway flashing on my stanav.

iank - 11/5/09 at 09:05 PM

They may be using the, suggest he was speeding and wait for him to admit it method.

If you admitted it then it's too late. Otherwise I'd expect them to need some evidence (video) to prosecute successfully.

p.s. I'm not a lawyer and you'd need one if you were going to fight it.

A1 - 11/5/09 at 09:13 PM

yea, well i had no idea cause my speedos off. i wasnt haring it past other cars though. i did admit but theres no video or picture evidence.

Neil P - 11/5/09 at 09:18 PM

They have measured your time and distance between two fixed points.

The evidence is that of the police officer backed up by the measured reading.

The prosecution threshold on motorways is 79mph ie 10% + 2mph for calibration error.

Neil

oldtimer - 12/5/09 at 06:59 AM

Sorry but getting nicked at 88 mph is hardly worthy of sympathy.

mangogrooveworkshop - 12/5/09 at 07:06 AM

Youve been done using VASCAR .

They will have video evidence.

The vascar marks are on the road in measured miles ...... ever wonder what the little strip in the centre of your lane?vascar link

[Edited on 12-5-09 by mangogrooveworkshop]

A1 - 12/5/09 at 08:58 AM

would that work from way back? they definately werent up my arse, so wouldnt it be pretty inaccurate guessing when i passed a point?

loggyboy - 12/5/09 at 09:30 AM

Yes it works from any distance as long as they can see you car passing the 1st and 2nd point, that why they often use bridges, and the marks you see are often on the way up a hill so they can been seen from the opposite side of the hill.

VASCAR is pretty infalable im affraid.
If they measured your speed over 0.5 of a mile they only need to be accurate to within a half a second or so as each second means about 4mph.
The longer the distance they time you over the more accurate they are.
I beleive the minimum they need to prove it is 0.1 miles.

[Edited on 12/5/09 by loggyboy]

Mr Whippy - 12/5/09 at 09:45 AM

Never admit anything worked for me driving through a red light (yeah it just changed as I passed through it…), not wearing my seatbelt (I did have it on officer…) I think they are hoping you will incriminate yourself so they don’t have to prove you did something wrong when they don’t actually have any evidence. 88 though might be a bit fast to expect a warning tbh and as your cars speedo overreads you probably saw more like 92mph….

loggyboy - 12/5/09 at 09:48 AM

as someone mentioned above the ACPO 'guidelines' for prosectition is 10%+2, so anything over 79 and your likely to get a fixed penalty (3 points £60 fine), but its only a giudeline, so if they could prove it in a court of law (unlikely admitadly) they could do you for 71!
Another 12mph and you would have been looking at a possible ban!

[Edited on 12/5/09 by loggyboy]

MikeRJ - 12/5/09 at 10:39 AM

quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
VASCAR is pretty infalable im affraid.


Without video evidence it's very fallible, a copper could make it read whatever he wants since he controls the start and stop times.

The trafpol I have spoken to say they don't generally pull anyone for up to 85 mph unless their standard of driving is poor. Over that and you do risk a pull.

Had a buttock clenching moment a few weeks back, was following a silver car for a couple of miles at 85 ish and then he gradualy slowed down to 80, so I overtook. As I went past my brain kicked in and noticed it was a Silver Octavia, of which there are a couple of unmarked traffic cars around here. I didn't look across but just carried on with the overtake, making sure I stuck to 85. After I overtook the Octavia moved out to the next lane and followed just behind me, which seems to be a classic trafpol manoeuvre (why?). Anyway he followed me to the next junction, still in the next lane, then pulled off. They aren't all out to get you

sucksqueezebangblow - 12/5/09 at 10:40 AM

Just another road tax. I'ts certainly not for safety. I drove for years in Germany usually averaging 125MPH and regularly overtaken by 150MPH Mercs. The Autobahns are perfectly safe. Police regurlarly do more that 70 to chase miscreants. Are they unsafe? I'm sure they'll tell you they are not unsafe!. If anything the UK speed limit is unsafe because it makes pedantic w**kers feel they have the right to pull out on you with no space if they are doing 70 ("nobody should be going faster than me" mentality). Or to cruise in the outside lane and stack up frustrated drivers behind them for mile upon mile. No surprise the most common mortorway crash is a multiple car front/rear shunt! And such shunts are surprisingly safe as well as drivers almost invariably walk away uninjured (apart from a little whip-lash for the insurance claiming, ambulance chasing lawyers). Mortorways are the safest roads in UK, what are plod doing ticketing for 88MPH, revenue raising, that's what

A1 - 12/5/09 at 11:25 AM

he never showed me any video, and the stretch was on a downhill bit, if they were on they overpass they were hiding, cause i never saw a thing, and when i asked where they were one said 'we were hiding' and the other cut in and said 'oh, we werent hiding'
they measured me over 1.443 miles...

motorcycle_mayhem - 12/5/09 at 11:32 AM

Nothing but sympathy from me.

Problem I have is that it's becoming increasingly difficult to watch the road traffic, instead, I'm scanning for potholes, cops on bridges, greed cameras and the plethora of revenue-raising initiatives introduced on the roads.
I ride a bike, I drive a car, the authorities don't seem to like me doing the former, period, without revenue raising.
There was some discussion from one of Grabbing Gordon's quangoes that licence points for speeding need a review soon. There's apparently an unhealthy number of people off the road on speeding points accumulation, therefore not contributing to the State salaries, one solution being to make it all far more a financial penalty than a licence one...... safety?

loggyboy - 12/5/09 at 03:16 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
quote:
Originally posted by loggyboy
VASCAR is pretty infalable im affraid.


Without video evidence it's very fallible, a copper could make it read whatever he wants since he controls the start and stop times.


With one copper yes, and if he was alone without video you would have more than likely got a warning (as they know that if you did argue it wouldnt even get to court) thats happened to me many-a-time.
But with two coppers in the car then you try and dispute their statements, with them backing each other up in front a magistrate.. you would not have a chance!

MautoK - 12/5/09 at 04:09 PM

If the NSL is 70mph, then it doesn't matter how 'safe' or otherwise it is, the limit is 70mph. Exceed it at the peril of your wallet. Simple!

WanchaiWarrior - 13/5/09 at 05:54 AM

quote:
Originally posted by sucksqueezebangblow
Just another road tax. I'ts certainly not for safety. I drove for years in Germany usually averaging 125MPH and regularly overtaken by 150MPH Mercs. The Autobahns are perfectly safe. Police regurlarly do more that 70 to chase miscreants. Are they unsafe? I'm sure they'll tell you they are not unsafe!. If anything the UK speed limit is unsafe because it makes pedantic w**kers feel they have the right to pull out on you with no space if they are doing 70 ("nobody should be going faster than me" mentality). Or to cruise in the outside lane and stack up frustrated drivers behind them for mile upon mile. No surprise the most common mortorway crash is a multiple car front/rear shunt! And such shunts are surprisingly safe as well as drivers almost invariably walk away uninjured (apart from a little whip-lash for the insurance claiming, ambulance chasing lawyers). Mortorways are the safest roads in UK, what are plod doing ticketing for 88MPH, revenue raising, that's what


Think its even worse here in Oz, Ive just been done doing 124km/h in a 110 zone, my speedo was showing 120.
0 - 13 over is 1 point, 13 - 20 3 points. Bearing in mind I was sitting on 9 out of 12 points as well. AUD200 I can live with, 1 point I could have.

Oh well learnt my lesson to sit at 110 on motorways then

[Edited on 13-5-2009 by WanchaiWarrior]

sucksqueezebangblow - 13/5/09 at 12:34 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MautoK
If the NSL is 70mph, then it doesn't matter how 'safe' or otherwise it is, the limit is 70mph. Exceed it at the peril of your wallet. Simple!


Yes, but to whose benefit? The Motorist or the Tax Man? And the w*nk*rs are planning to bring the national speed limit down to 50 on all other roads in order to tax even more motorists! More people are killed doing DIY than on our roads. What are the w*nk*rs doing about that? Taxing motorists is simply the easy option.

[Edited on 13/5/09 by sucksqueezebangblow]

MautoK - 13/5/09 at 01:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by sucksqueezebangblow
quote:
Originally posted by MautoK
If the NSL is 70mph, then it doesn't matter how 'safe' or otherwise it is, the limit is 70mph. Exceed it at the peril of your wallet. Simple!


Yes, but to whose benefit? The Motorist or the Tax Man? And the w*nk*rs are planning to bring the national speed limit down to 50 on all other roads in order to tax even more motorists! More people are killed doing DIY than on our roads. What are the w*nk*rs doing about that? Taxing motorists is simply the easy option.

[Edited on 13/5/09 by sucksqueezebangblow]


Why complicate the matter?
There is a limit. If you exceed it and get caught you get fined. What could be simpler?
It is entirely your option as to whether you are subject to that 'tax bracket'

I agree that many limits seem wrong, inconsistent, ill-thought or whatever but that's how it is. Unless you can get into the appropriate politico-administrative position to change matters I suspect you have to live with it (or pay the 'tax'


[Edited on 13/5/09 by MautoK]

MikeRJ - 13/5/09 at 03:46 PM

quote:
Originally posted by MautoK
It is entirely your option as to whether you are subject to that 'tax bracket'


Well that's not actually true is it? There have been quite a number cases successfully fought where either the evidence has been proven to be incorrect, or where enough doubt has been introduced to throw the case out. The LTI2020 "dodgyscope" is one that springs to mind, with a slight wobble of the hand it can be persuaded to read wildly inaccurate speeds. Gatsos get affected by radar reflections from trucks etc, and people have been sent FPN's even though the pictures clearly showed they were not speeding using the white lines.

Then you have the vast number of roads that are incorrectly signed, so the posted limit doesn't actually apply, the pratnerships have had to refund many fines due to this kind of incompetence.

I'm willing to bet a substantial number of people have been wrongly accused of speeding and have simply paid the fine and taken the points.

This is probably my number one motoring hate, the focus on speed above everything else in the alleged name of safety. The fact that they have failed to make any significant impact on road deaths and injuries, and that several safety pratnerships have been caught lying about the stats to keep themselves on the gravy train doesn't seem to matter.

If there was any real interest in road safety and saving lives rather than simply expanding surveillance and controlling people, then cameras would be the last resort, not the first.

The scum have just errected numerous average speed camera towers on the A38 in the last few days. Having seen the number of torched Gatsos in the locality I have no doubt that 'maintenance' on these will be very high and can only hope they will eventually be removed if they cost more to continuously repair/replace than they make .

[Edited on 13/5/09 by MikeRJ]

MautoK - 13/5/09 at 05:16 PM

Fair points re. the exceptions, Mike.
I quite agree that speed is not the problem, per se.
However, my point above is that, to a first approximation, if one exceeds the posted limit one's wallet is liable to be lightened.

chrisg - 13/5/09 at 05:36 PM

What I don't understand is why speed is the only motoring offence that maters, or is even detected anymore.

Police traffic patrols have reduced by almost 70% since the government switched to "policing by camera"

I'll give you an example.

Man A pays his road tax and insurance, had a driving licence for twenty odd years. Drives a well maintained car, sober and doesn't take drugs..

but

He sometimes drives 5mph over the limit.

Man B is drunk, high on several types of narcotic, never taken a driving test, no tax test, or insurance, driving a deathtrap with no brakes and slick tyres

but

By luck or judgement he passes every camera at 29.9mph.

Who would you rather share the road with?

Cheers

Chris

Ninehigh - 13/5/09 at 09:56 PM

Too true!

My last excuse (46 in a 30) was "I was looking at the road, not the speedo"

Then came a polite argument about the dangers of speed cameras due to people watching their speed more than the idiots who walk across the road without checking that x tons of metal is heading their way.

I think some kind of special dispensation could be applied for here, whereby your standard of driving is tested and then you're immune to speed cameras but you get immediately banned for causing an accident while over the speed limit.
Having never been in an accident that was my fault (well one, I was the only one there!) I'd apply

A1 - 15/5/09 at 01:26 AM

have i mentioned that the times and speeds and distances dont seem to add up?
i would fight it, seeing as they were complete arses to me, my names not the same as on the ticket (they missed one middle name) but the problem is im leaving the country on monday, so theres no time to.
i dont want to become any more victimized by the scum that are supposed to protect us, so im paying the fine and accepting the points.

cd.thomson - 15/5/09 at 07:10 PM

you were doing 120 elementary particles AND speeding?

A1 - 16/5/09 at 02:09 AM

em...i dont have a screen...the bridges are about .3 of a mile closer than they said they were...

Ninehigh - 16/5/09 at 05:45 PM

quote:
Originally posted by A1
em...i dont have a screen...the bridges are about .3 of a mile closer than they said they were...

That means you were going faster than they said...

JoelP - 16/5/09 at 06:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by A1
em...i dont have a screen...the bridges are about .3 of a mile closer than they said they were...

That means you were going faster than they said...


no it doesnt! If it were less distance than they thought, it would explain why it took him less time to cover than they thought it should take.

But, id be very suprised if they had the distance wrong. How did you measure it A1?

Ninehigh - 16/5/09 at 06:49 PM

quote:
Originally posted by JoelP
quote:
Originally posted by Ninehigh
quote:
Originally posted by A1
em...i dont have a screen...the bridges are about .3 of a mile closer than they said they were...

That means you were going faster than they said...


no it doesnt! If it were less distance than they thought, it would explain why it took him less time to cover than they thought it should take.

But, id be very suprised if they had the distance wrong. How did you measure it A1?


No no, speed = distance/time. Less distance in the same time means, hang on no you're right... Doh...

DaveFJ - 16/5/09 at 07:26 PM

well i just got pulled whilst out on a shake down run after repacking my exhaust....

they let me off

A1 - 16/5/09 at 07:40 PM

me and a chum went out in his car and checked the distance, ive also checked them on maps...
the thing that pisses me off most is the way they treated me, mostly cause of my age. they were kinda snide bastards, but i suppose thats just traffic cops...