Honda XRV Forum banner

1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,922 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)

·
SHW'MAE BUTT
Joined
·
3,270 Posts
Wonder how many people who could not afford a barristers fees would just loose their licence. It just stinks of the old boys club rules. Its just life:confused::confused:
 

·
Generalissimo Tea Boy
Joined
·
6,031 Posts
Actually, lots of speeding tickets have been refunded (and points removed) because of the same thing at the infamous M11 speed camera.

The terminal 50mph signs before the camera were not lit as required and one brave man with a speeding ticket took the authorities through the court system and won. The signs are now lit.
 

·
SHW'MAE BUTT
Joined
·
3,270 Posts
not worried about lighting, but since when was it ok to 98mph on British roads??? He was an advanced police driver and taught the system of road control. When I did my Police driving course I was warned that if I broke the Speed limit and caught I could expect a harsher sentence because of the advanced training.:rolleyes:
 

·
yet another Dave
Joined
·
2,854 Posts
i agree, even if you dont know what the speed limit is its never going to be over 70 is it? so he should be done for doing 28 over the limit because even the worst driver in the country would have no excuse not to know that, let alone a copper.

signs are only lit when they change the limit, smaller continuation signs arent lit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
according to that news item link,the officer was transporting a prisoner who was owed a duty of care so as well as endangering his own and other road users lives he was also putting his passenger in peril as well

if he wasn't a policeman he would surely have got the book thrown at him but the title of this thread says it all:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,768 Posts
This is Britain, so what is the gripe, it has always beens so and will always remain so.
 

·
Grumpy auld man!
Joined
·
1,646 Posts
This is Britain, so what is the gripe, it has always beens so and will always remain so.
All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing!

More people should argue with the law, even if it is a technicality. :thumbright:



Andy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
Same rules for all its just that he knew them.

many others have used the same loophole many times from all walks of life.

His job made it headlines thats the difference

If you want to know more Join up there are many forces taking new recruits :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,768 Posts
What excuse would he use for jumping a red light?


If the junction has a think bike sign then you could argue that thinking about a bike you thought it was OK to go through a red light.
While explaining to the officer point out the bikes going through a red light and those without lights and say, "At least I had my lights on".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
according to that news item link,the officer was transporting a prisoner who was owed a duty of care so as well as endangering his own and other road users lives he was also putting his passenger in peril as well

if he wasn't a policeman he would surely have got the book thrown at him but the title of this thread says it all:rolleyes:
How was he endangering life by simply breaking the speed limit?

Don't forget 60 mph limit brought in to save fuel in 1973 and stayed.

ACPO wanting the 70 limit raised to 85 until the revenue stream was thought about and it went quiet.

This this why people are cynical about speed limits.
 
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
i agree, even if you dont know what the speed limit is its never going to be over 70 is it?
Yes and no, although he was breaking the national speed limit the charge would have been travelling in excess of the posted limit, if he couldn't read the posted limit then they can't charge him for it..
 

·
yet another Dave
Joined
·
2,854 Posts
Yes and no, although he was breaking the national speed limit the charge would have been travelling in excess of the posted limit, if he couldn't read the posted limit then they can't charge him for it..
why not?
just because the speed limit sign is unreadable it will never be more than either 60 for a single carriageway or 70 for a dual carriageway with a central reservation. its not 98 is it? every driver should know that and a cop who uses that rule to screw money out of us will certainly know it. you can bet thats exactly what a magistrate would say to you or me.

if he went from a national speed limit through the invisible 50 sign and was still doing 60 then fair enough, but 98?
so to be fair, ignore the 50 and prosecute him for 98 in a 60 or 70.
 

·
Stone Crazy
Joined
·
5,310 Posts
Yes and no, although he was breaking the national speed limit the charge would have been travelling in excess of the posted limit, if he couldn't read the posted limit then they can't charge him for it..
Try arguing that one if theyt nick you , not a chance i reckon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
I don't blame the copper for this. And if a loop-hole exists, then the courts must honour it, so I don't really blame them either.

OK, so he was speeding, but if anyone else was caught, and they knew of that loophole, they'd use it, so I can't degrudge him doing that.

For example, it does not appear to specify if he was photographed by a speed camera.

Cameras, as we all know, have no room for mitigating circumstances such as "it was the only car for a mile in either direction"... which it might have been.

At the risk of offending people, if there was good visibility and light traffic, I'd have no issues about travelling at a similar speed.... If I was caught, then so be it, but from the point of view of risk, I'd say it was not great.

And if the law says that he can't be prosecuted on this technicality as seems to be the case based on another example of this "lit signs" issue that was posted a bit earlier, then, they won't book him. End of.

This may have happened to civilian road users but we won't know about it as it does not make for an interesting headline....
 
L

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
why not?
just because the speed limit sign is unreadable it will never be more than either 60 for a single carriageway or 70 for a dual carriageway with a central reservation. its not 98 is it? every driver should know that and a cop who uses that rule to screw money out of us will certainly know it. you can bet thats exactly what a magistrate would say to you or me.

if he went from a national speed limit through the invisible 50 sign and was still doing 60 then fair enough, but 98?
so to be fair, ignore the 50 and prosecute him for 98 in a 60 or 70.
You're missing the point, under current laws the NIP would have specified the posted speed, hence if he can't read the speed the NIP can't be re-issued more than 14 days past the offence. They won;t bring in a blanket "you are doing over 70" as the offence would mean different things depending on which road you were on.

Try arguing that one if theyt nick you , not a chance i reckon
Anyone who does try to argue with the copper is just plain stupid, they're more likely to give an argumentative person the ticket than give them a warning. Also you couldn't use a legal defence towards a copper as that should be reserved for court.

My viewpoint is that if you do speed then accept that there are possible consequences. But as we have rules that we have to abide by so have the courts, sometimes they work in our favor sometimes against.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
How was he endangering life by simply breaking the speed limit?

Don't forget 60 mph limit brought in to save fuel in 1973 and stayed.

ACPO wanting the 70 limit raised to 85 until the revenue stream was thought about and it went quiet.

This this why people are cynical about speed limits.
whether it was life-endangering or not is not the real issue here but it would have been an issue if it were a civilian commiting the offence what makes this an item at all is that WE are not allowed to get away with such things and news items like this one highlight the double standard..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,625 Posts
whether it was life-endangering or not is not the real issue here but it would have been an issue if it were a civilian commiting the offence what makes this an item at all is that WE are not allowed to get away with such things and news items like this one highlight the double standard..
As convincing as it may seem, this perspective that we wouldn't get away with it is pure conjecture.

One can't make that statement, unless one can cite two cases: similar situation/conditions/ offences. One a police officer and one a member of the public, and finally that the formr gets off, whilst the latter doesn't...
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top