159 mph
- Thread starter empip
- Start date
I stand corrected - it must apply to every camera then.ellal said:One of our local cameras regularly 'does people' for 33mph...!Softus said:BTW, how many times has there been a prosecution when the speed limit was exceeded by "a couple of mph"?
You may think so, but the court ruled differently.
You may think so, but the court ruled differently.He did it of his own volition (not under training/supervision), and is no better than anyone else who goes for a spin thinking...'let's see what she can really do'..
You utterly blinkered fool. You only read what you want to read.ellal said:
The accident rate is clearly for the whole population, not just the police force, and takes into account the factors mentioned in that police comment.
Will you be writing to your MP to complain about the court ruling? Or will you just be whining pointlessly on an Internet forum ?
The "rate" could be accidents per 1000 car miles or accidents per hour. Just quoting "it doubles" is meaningless.
Speed is not dangerous. Speed in the wrong place is dangerous.
And I would rather the police and other services practise the handling of their vehicles in relatively safe conditions ( light to zero traffic etc etc ) than first learning how the vehicle handles at high speed when engaged in a pursuit or 999 response in traffic.
And you don't...Softus said:You utterly blinkered fool. You only read what you want to read.
But just for you dear 'soft in the head'...
Nope...but since you did ask 'BTW, how many times has there been a prosecution when the speed limit was exceeded by "a couple of mph"? ' in your usual condescending way (note the smilie
), then I put forward an instance...because the 10% on top of the speed limit is actually discretionary and there have been many cases where cameras have been set at or near to the limit..! So your attempt at 'questioning' the fact that it happens is pointless...Is it?...show me where!
What's that got to do with anything?...
Will you be writing to the police praising them, or pointlessly being a sad excuse for an apologist on an internet forum?..
But the police are saying that (whatever measurement they are using) to dispel the myth that speeding at night is more acceptable...so for the court to then state the oposite is an anomaly. The cop may well be a better driver than average, but at night there are hazards that don't exist in the daytime and therefore it is not safer to speed at night than during the day, again referring to whatever figures they are using..bernardgreen said:
Also, why then is an insurance company reducing premiums for those who don't drive late at night (and no, not just for young males!) if the statistics don't show the risks?...
Me too..that's why there are places called 'test tracks'..
There's on at longcross where...
Because the risk of being hit by another car is higher and the risk of the average car user maing a mistake is higher. The 2 am to 3 am low point in alertness is also a factor.
Test track
Not the thing to practise on a busy road because other drivers would not know how to react..
Speeding by the average driver and certainly not by the car user is not acceptable at anytime . (( There are times when "urgent driving" or "making fast progress" by emergency trained drivers is necessary. ))
bernardgreen said:
Bingo!...Although as I said the PC may have been a better driver than average, he would have no control over the actions of other road users and at speeds of up to 159mph virtually no time to react!
So what exactly was he 'testing' then?...if as you say not a thing to test on a busy road, then surely a high speed drive with little traffic around could just as easily been accomplished on a test track and as effective as on supposedly 'deserted' roads at night!!
And therein lies the rub...'trained' drivers!
If this had been a high speed pursuit by a trained officer, then there would have been justification..however, this was by definition an untrained driver (first time in the car) using public roads under his own 'initiative' to gain that 'training'...How can it be justified to drive at 159mph in a car that you have never driven before without first checking out the handling in a 'controlled enviroment'?.....
T
toasty
159mph on UK roads is madness, especially as that is probably top speed for a Gsi Vectra - so the brakes, transmission and suspension are all near their limits.
I've driven faster than that (not on any road I might add) and the speed that things happen is alarming, good driver or not, you have a tyre blow out or a serious mechanical failure and it would be messy.
For me it's certainly one of those been there, done that type things, can't imagine I'd ever want to repeat it, not least because at that speed you are doing ~5mpg!!!
-Dan
I've driven faster than that (not on any road I might add) and the speed that things happen is alarming, good driver or not, you have a tyre blow out or a serious mechanical failure and it would be messy.
For me it's certainly one of those been there, done that type things, can't imagine I'd ever want to repeat it, not least because at that speed you are doing ~5mpg!!!
-Dan
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2004
- Messages
- 45,906
- Reaction score
- 3,523
- Country
ellal said:
Then the accused should go to court. The cameras should allow at least 10%, which, at a limit of 30mph is 33mph. Above that, maybe...
Most forces allow 10% + 2mph, above which they issue NIP's.
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2005
- Messages
- 6,345
- Reaction score
- 269
- Country
From : -
Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland -- ACPO
SPEED ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES
I know that the Gatso(meter) 'type approval' requires the radar to be within 2mph of actual speed up to 60mph then becomes 2%.
The visual evidence, being vehicle movement relative to road markings over a time period of 0.5 secs(could be up to 0.7 s.. adjustable on site by operatives ) to be within 10% of radar. Hence 10% + 2 MPH.
The approval covers the measurement of vehicle speeds up to 155 mph ah,ha... so at 159 mph ...
http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/gatso.htm
Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland -- ACPO
SPEED ENFORCEMENT GUIDELINES
...Driving at any speed over the limit is an offence. The differing speed limits are generally related, and proportionate, to the risks to all road users using that road. Where police officers consider that an offence has been committed i.e. that a motorist has driven at any speed over the relevant speed limit, they should consider whether it is appropriate to take enforcement action against the offender.
The Police Service now uses technology that enables it to prove that an offence has been committed as soon as a driver exceeds the relevant speed limit by a very small margin. Motorists will therefore be at risk of prosecution immediately they exceed any legal speed limit.
The guidance to police officers is that it is anticipated that, other than in the most exceptional circumstances, the issue of fixed penalty notices and summonses is likely to be the minimum appropriate enforcement action as soon as the following speeds have been reached:
This guidance does not and cannot replace the police officer's discretion and they may decide to issue a summons or a fixed penalty notice in respect of offences committed at speeds lower than those set out in the table. Moreover, in particular circumstances, driving at speeds lower than the legal limit may result in prosecution for other offences, for example dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention when the speed is inappropriate and inherently unsafe...
I know that the Gatso(meter) 'type approval' requires the radar to be within 2mph of actual speed up to 60mph then becomes 2%.
The visual evidence, being vehicle movement relative to road markings over a time period of 0.5 secs(could be up to 0.7 s.. adjustable on site by operatives
) to be within 10% of radar. Hence 10% + 2 MPH.The approval covers the measurement of vehicle speeds up to 155 mph ah,ha... so at 159 mph ...
http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/dcsc/enfotech/gatso.htm
