Spoon

Leslie- I read it as DBY was calling the policeman that, and not you.

Otherwise he'd have used the word "old" somewhere surely.

greasemonkey

No, cos the powers that be won't let it be a precedent.

Nope, because both Government and ACPO are fully committed to pushing the "speed kills" line, because it's the only way they can justify a policy that is patently more to do with generating convictions and income than it is about road safety in the real sense.

Lol, didn't post chap because I agreed with what you said. The way driving standards are policed in this country is all to ****. It is totally fallacious to suggest that "speed kills", and it is correct to say that this copper probably was driving within safe limits when he was pulled. It is ridiculous to suggest that driving at 69mph is inherently safe, and driving at 71mph inherently unsafe, especially for a modern car on a brand new, relatively little used road in perfect weather conditions.

Problem is, as mentioned, that the powers that be aren't interested in that argument. This is partly due to robots like Richard Brunstrom, and other factions of the police that see speeding convictious as a growing revenue stream, partly due to the general nanny state/user pays/stealth tax attitudes of the current Government, and partly due to said Government containing large numbers of (current and former) members of loony left pressure groups, many of whom see cars as some sort of fundamental evil and would be happy with their complete abolition.

Thus, while these issues remain constants, the only thing likely to cause real changes in enforcement policy are pronounced voter unpopularity (and surprise surprise, look what's happened over the past few months).

Spoon

We both know that is the case but the law will look more of a joke everyday whilst cops are falling prey. That was my point.

Again we both know the law itself isn't likely to change but the individual cop might return to common sense judgement more often.

Oh, you asked a question which I answered, I wasn't aware you were in court with me.
Agree, that's in my script too.

Leslie

I think the basic point is that the police are employed to stop people who break the speed limit laws which are set politically. They have to carry out thses actions since it is part of their job. As such they can't be blamed for doing that.

They should however set the example to the rest of us by obeying those laws themselves. No one is perfect and if they get caught out then they should at least admit it and not go wittering on about upholding the battle against accidents etc.

I hope i misunderstood your post DBY, maybe you could clear that one up.

I am not that old Spoon, but fairly experienced!

Les

lmsbman

This is an interesting debate. I like most coppers know that speed in itself is not necessarily dangerous, inappropriate speed is dangerous. The problem is, how do you quantify this?
If it was left down to the officer's to make that decision, there would be a huge outcry that people were being treated unfairly. The only way the laws can be upheld, is to have a cut-off point. It would be nice if each case could be judged on it's merits, but in reality that would just clogg the courts up and the whole system would grind to a halt.
At the end of the day, speed limits are there for a reason, whether we agree with them or not. When we choose to ignore them, then we know we risk getting caught and prosecuted.
I'm afraid that unless policy is changed(which is very unlikely to happen) then speed limits will continue to be enforced. We may not like it, but would the carnage that would result from a free for all, be worth paying for.

tiggers

The problem is the cut off point is only a point at which prosecution can be brought - the resulting punishmnet varys dramatically for the same offence so the current system is still unfair.

I know of two people who were both done for 98mph on a motorway in Greater Manchester within the last year or so - one was caught in reasonably heavy weekday traffic when it was raining, the other was caught on a Sunday afternoon with little trafiic in dry sunny conditions.

One receievd 6 points, a £450 fine and court appearance, the other 3 points and a £60 fine fixed penalty. Now which do you think receievd the larger points and fine? Yep the guy driving on the Sunday in clear, dry sunny conditions.

Now tell me the police, the courts and the system are fair!!!!!

tiggers.

Jerome

I don't think any right thinking person would like to see a free for all, but more realistically set limits - and that includes actually reducing some limits as well as increasing others.

Leslie

You can't blame the police for that one Tiggers. They have to stop and report people for speeding as part of their job. Not really the fault of the system either-how do you legislate by numbers for differing road conditions? In this case it is down to the magistrates what they pass as a sentence. If they differ by so much in their sentencing it is an individual assessment, and which of the two cases was sentenced correctly anyway?

Les

jasey

Most "incidents" I have seen have involved one of three things

1. Arseholes overtaking innapropriately
2. Road awareness - knowing what is going on about you
3. "Older" people not being able to judge how fast other vehicles are travelling

If the Police continue to preach that Speed is the only thing that Kills then we are going to continue to see the Death toll rise - Fix these three things and we should see deaths reduce by approx 80%.

However - fixing these three things wont bring in anything like the revenue that speeding does

MJW

.. unless they introduce a fine for older drivers : 'wearing flat caps without due care and attention'

jasey

MJW - let's not be sexist - there would also have to be "caught in posession of inappropriate facial hair" for the old grannies

tiggers

So who chooses whether to send out a fixed penalty or a court summons then?

Anyway my point was to illustrate that all this b0llocks about having to have a cut off point speed limit so it's fair for everyone is just that - b0llocks - the system is still a joke as illustrated by the example in my previous post.

Leslie

The processing office Tiggers, and they go purely by information given by the reporting policeman. If the law was broken then they have to issue a summons-once again all part of the job. The bottom line is that if you are caught speeding then you must expect a summons. That is the law and it is the responsibility of the politicians!

If there was not a cut off speed limit as you put it, then what do you think would happen? You would be subject to being summonsed for an estimated offence of driving too fast for the conditions and that could be any speed you like to mention. The authorities would have a field day and then you would really have something to moan about.

The case you mentioned illustrates the widely different views of the magistrates concerned and that is where you should address your complaint. The system is nothing to do with it.

You did not answer my question in my earlier post.

Les

tiggers

Let's take this slowly shall we as you keep missing the point. Nowhere am I suggesting that you shouldn't expect a penalty if caught - all I want is that penalty to be consistent.

The two examples in my previous post are both 28mph over the limit on the same type of road with one being in arguably much better conditions than the other. One got a fixed penalty when the other didn't - if the processing office issued both the fixed penalty and the summons based on evidence from the police why are they so different especially if it is not the fault of the police of course If the summons had been issued for the driver speeding in the rain on a crowded motorway I could understand.

You say it's the fault of the magistrates - how can it be when one of the above offences didn't ever reach the magistrates

Again you miss the point. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a cut off limit just that the justification in this thread was that means it's fair for everyone. Unfortunately even with the cut off limit the system is far from fair for everyone as illustrated by my example. Incidentally a system similar to that you mention above exists for the derestricted sections of the German autobahns, but of course as you said it would never work.

As mentioned above as one of the two cases never went near the magistrate I fail to see how it's their fault in this instance.

Let's see - you're earlier post contains two questions:

By common sense and training rather than stupidity and inexperience. Other wise you may as well introduce a blanket system of fines calculated by road type and speed over the posted limit - IMHO that would be a lot fairer than being left to the mercy of a vindictive power crazed police officer.

As to which of the two cases was sentenced correctly IMHO neither. Under current legislation the 98mph on a clear empty motorway should have been given a fixed penalty and the 98mph on a wet crowded motorway should have been given the hefty points/fine - seems logical to me. Of course under any blanket system they would both have receievd the same penalty, but surely even that is faier than what actually happened?

There you are - everything answered for you I think.

tiggers

Leslie

We could argue the toss all day I suppose Tiggers. If it was the same process office in both cases then the guy who got the fixed penalty was lucky with whoever made the decision in his case. Certainly not so good to go to the magistrates court of course. Would have been interesting to see the result if they both went to court. Little difference probably, although there are many instances of widely differing penalties from different magistrates.

I dont think you can castigate the copper who stopped the guy who exceeded the limit on the dry day though. He was well within his rights to report the guy for doing 98 mph even in the dry etc. I doubt that he had any influence in whether it went to court or the seriousness of the penalty.

You may well be right in saying some kind of blanket system according to road type and weather and traffic conditions as well as actual speed would be fairer. That is down to the law makers of course and you would have to persuade them to use parliamentary time to do it. Can't see it happening unless they could be made to think that votes depended on it.

Les