Caught at 97mph

Discussions on better road driving, advanced courses and the like

Moderator: Gazza

User avatar
cowboybebop
Joined: Sat 12 May, 2007 22:54
Posts: 366

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Derby

Post by cowboybebop » Tue 26 Jun, 2007 22:28

Yes ....

but i was lost at the time and it was on a main road coming out of oxford itself...

thats why i thought it may of been 40 there...

but of course i was wrong

my fault though :head:

User avatar
RobBruce
Joined: Tue 09 Mar, 2004 20:57
Posts: 1077

  Z3 roadster 2.8
Location: Behind you in West Essex

Post by RobBruce » Wed 27 Jun, 2007 18:38

PVR wrote:Slightly concerning though that if the law enforcers are not exactly aware of what is and what is not the law - what chance do you have if you get stopped and fined for something which is not illegal ...
daverave wrote: Written by lawyers so that only lawyers can understand
Can any lawyer present please translate to ENGLISH!

Right - let's get this cleared up in a language most people can understand.

Legal definitions are extremely complicated. "Illegal" is a catch-all phrase used by most non-judicial people.

Are laser detectors/jammers/door openers illegal?

Currently, if you get caught using one to avoid having a reading of your speed taken, you are liable to be prosecuted for "Obstructing a police constable in the lawful execution of his duty". (CPS Lawyer recommends this charge.)
If you do this repeatedly, you may be prosecuted for Attempting to pervert the course of justice. So can the retail outlet that supplies you with the item.

These "Obstruct" offences are non-Road Traffic specific, and as such do not have a list of 'points to prove' for the CPS to make an easy Charging Decision. The charges have been used previously in several other examples, such as giving false details or interfering with a search.

New legislation is brought in to combat specific problems, and Statutes are amended to include new offences and powers to deal with them. This is the case with the new Road Safety Act 2006, some of which amends the original Road Traffic Act 1988, in this instance Sec 41(2).

RSA 06 designates 'speed detection equipment detection device' as an addition to Sec 41 RTA88. The Dept of Transport are currently populating a list of such devices and will publish the guidelines when that part of the statute is ratified. Current thinking is that GPS warning devices will be allowed.

So........ using a 'door opener' or jammer etc to avoid detection means you commit an offence. Currently you may be charged with Obstructing Police, soon it will be more specific. I think that pretty much covers "Illegal".

If any other anti-authority superiority-complex sufferers still wish to argue, do it somewhere else so the rest of us can go back to talking about cars.


Jog on
Rob
In God We Trust - everyone else gets PNC'd.

Phil
Joined: Sun 09 Mar, 2008 10:43
Posts: 2694

  M roadster S54
Location: Solihull

Post by Phil » Wed 27 Jun, 2007 19:13

Well said Rob
Sapphire black/Imola red and black interior/ red roof/ S54 - the only RHD one made.

"The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire."

daverave
Joined: Thu 15 Jun, 2006 21:42
Posts: 203

  Z3 roadster 3.0i
Location: San Isidro, Cartagena

Post by daverave » Wed 27 Jun, 2007 20:43

RobBruce wrote: If any other anti-authority superiority-complex sufferers still wish to argue, do it somewhere else so the rest of us can go back to talking about cars.
Rob
Rob
You are missing the point of my comment. I neither use or for that matter was even aware that such equipment was available until I read about it in this thread. I have driven for some 35 years now without a single point on my licence ( I will admit more by luck than judgement on some occations ) My point, and I believe that of PVR was that the jargon used makes it nigh on impossible for the average law abiding person to know what the legilation is actually saying. This applies to all legilation not just that pertaining to motoring offences. Having got that off my chest I will as you say get back to talking about cars, and more particularly Zeds :)

Just noticed you are down as a possible for Dunsfold. Come along I promise I will only talk about Zeds :D
ImageImage

User avatar
Robin
Joined: Sun 14 Dec, 2003 18:35
Posts: 2685

  M roadster S50
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Post by Robin » Wed 27 Jun, 2007 22:16

This surely means laser parking distance sensors will have to banned period ?
Or will the law say they must be switched off other than when being used for parking ?
Image
'High G' motoring enthusiast

The Colonel
Joined: Sat 16 Jun, 2007 18:53
Posts: 166

  Z4 M roadster
Location: London

Post by The Colonel » Wed 27 Jun, 2007 22:41

Robin wrote:Or will the law say they must be switched off other than when being used for parking ?
Do they not only work when the car is in reverse or first (for front) gears?

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Thu 28 Jun, 2007 08:31

I was going to let it go, but thought - why should I. This is a public forum, and I do not see why I should be bullied into stopping a lively discussion.

If a member publically reveals his daily job as a traffic officer, and if you subsequently discuss a point of law where he participates in that discussion - what position is that person in to close the discussion as if he "owned" it? It yet again proves that the general perceived work attitude of that profession is also being practised on a forum.

The facts were, that a proposal for a new law (which has not been ratified by parliament yet) was being presented and quoted as being law when someone asked about remote garage openers / parking sensors legality. I pointed out that it was not law yet - and the response was a lot of twisting / arguing and denying.

I am not an argumentative person - but injustice makes me fume. It is bad enough having to deal with traffic officers "owning the road" on the road, but when the same tactics are being used on a forum - it is a step to far.

User avatar
BimBeema
Joined: Sun 16 Oct, 2005 23:55
Posts: 1753

  Z3 roadster 2.2i
Location: London

Post by BimBeema » Thu 28 Jun, 2007 10:27

PVR wrote: If a member publically reveals his daily job as a traffic officer, and if you subsequently discuss a point of law where he participates in that discussion - what position is that person in to close the discussion as if he "owned" it? It yet again proves that the general perceived work attitude of that profession is also being practised on a forum.
I agree, however Rob is now a forum moderator too, so technically he can end the conversation if he wants to! :roll:
RobBruce wrote: If any other anti-authority superiority-complex sufferers still wish to argue, do it somewhere else so the rest of us can go back to talking about cars.
Surely a thread discussing speeding or not and general driving habits, the finer legal details around speeding, etc is in the right area of the forum under 'Better Driving' - its not as if its in the Z3 knowledge base area - if we can't discuss it here then where? and none of us are anti-authority or have any superiority complex (or at least I know I'm not), just don't like the fact that motorists are victimised as part of a get-rich-quick scheme!

User avatar
Giles
Joined: Fri 10 Oct, 2003 18:51
Posts: 2287

  Not specified

Post by Giles » Thu 28 Jun, 2007 13:45

BimBeema wrote: I agree, however Rob is now a forum moderator too, so technically he can end the conversation if he wants to! :roll:
He would lose his modship if he did that just because someone disagreed with him! :shock:

321bhp
Joined: Mon 01 Dec, 2003 19:34
Posts: 2516

  Not specified
Location: essex

Post by 321bhp » Thu 28 Jun, 2007 14:00

i have the upmost respect for rob,and all the police,where this thread is going god knows,but back to the point of the speeding,if you speed and get caught,tough titty to you,take it like a man,or shut the f@@k up

on a lighter note my road angel has served me well,ive done around 150,000 miles,yes 150,000 since ive had it and my licence is 0 points,

the police do a great job,one of my family members is a traffic officer up near luton way,and i think its great when all them basterds without tax,insurance and mot get stopped,,if only the police had the powers to take a sledgehammer to there car there and then ,now that would be worth watching

User avatar
Robin
Joined: Sun 14 Dec, 2003 18:35
Posts: 2685

  M roadster S50
Location: Southampton
Contact:

Post by Robin » Thu 28 Jun, 2007 14:09

PVR wrote:I was going to let it go, but thought - why should I. This is a public forum, and I do not see why I should be bullied into stopping a lively discussion.

If a member publically reveals his daily job as a traffic officer, and if you subsequently discuss a point of law where he participates in that discussion - what position is that person in to close the discussion as if he "owned" it? It yet again proves that the general perceived work attitude of that profession is also being practised on a forum.

The facts were, that a proposal for a new law (which has not been ratified by parliament yet) was being presented and quoted as being law when someone asked about remote garage openers / parking sensors legality. I pointed out that it was not law yet - and the response was a lot of twisting / arguing and denying.

I am not an argumentative person - but injustice makes me fume. It is bad enough having to deal with traffic officers "owning the road" on the road, but when the same tactics are being used on a forum - it is a step to far.
Very valid points there Paul
Image
'High G' motoring enthusiast

User avatar
calbens
Joined: Mon 12 Dec, 2005 23:21
Posts: 1205

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: Appley Bridge
Contact:

Post by calbens » Fri 29 Jun, 2007 02:13

I for one think this has gone far enough.
PVR you say you are not an argumentative person, well I am sorry but from what I can see from your postings that has to be one of the biggest understatements of the year. You have been goading Rob into an argument all along with your malevolent annotations.
PVR wrote:Robin - you are asking for common sense and intelligence there ... How many of those officers standing with a laser gun do you think have a degree or anything more then on the job training? As well as that, you give them power and a monthly target of 60 tickets that they have to issue and those three together do not make a productive combination
Such an obtuse remark with the sole purpose of disparaging Rob. :nono
Since when has a degree been needed to Police the streets?
PVR wrote:I was going to let it go, but thought - why should I. This is a public forum, and I do not see why I should be bullied into stopping a lively discussion”.
Bullied??? Lmao......Your either a big girls blouse or a fully signed up member of the PC Brigade and as for “Lively discussion”............. For who? It’s just the same old crap being regurgitated yet again.... If you don’t like the law do something about it and either 1, Use your Vote. 2, Go back to school, gain a degree in law and then fight it out with the politicians or 3, you could take the easy option and not break the law in the first place, simple. :roll:
PVR wrote:If a member publically reveals his daily job as a traffic officer and if you subsequently discuss a point of law where he participates in that discussion - what position is that person in to close the discussion as if he "owned" it? It yet again proves that the general perceived work attitude of that profession is also being practised on a forum.
You really don’t know when to stop with the mud throwing do you? I think what you actually meant is that this is your own perceived view of that profession because it certainly isn’t mine nor a lot of others on this forum.
As for him closing the thread, where did that come from? If you meant his comment regarding “any other anti-authority superiority-complex sufferers still wish to argue, do it somewhere else so the rest of us can go back to talking about cars.” I think that was Rob’s subtle way of saying shut the F##k Up, but I have to admit he hit the nail on the head with his summary.
PVR wrote:I am not an argumentative person - but injustice makes me fume. It is bad enough having to deal with traffic officers "owning the road" on the road, but when the same tactics are being used on a forum - it is a step to far.
Smacks off truncheon envy to me :lol:

User avatar
calbens
Joined: Mon 12 Dec, 2005 23:21
Posts: 1205

  Z3 roadster 2.0
Location: Appley Bridge
Contact:

Post by calbens » Fri 29 Jun, 2007 02:18

Robin wrote:
PVR wrote:I was going to let it go, but thought - why should I. This is a public forum, and I do not see why I should be bullied into stopping a lively discussion.

If a member publically reveals his daily job as a traffic officer, and if you subsequently discuss a point of law where he participates in that discussion - what position is that person in to close the discussion as if he "owned" it? It yet again proves that the general perceived work attitude of that profession is also being practised on a forum.

The facts were, that a proposal for a new law (which has not been ratified by parliament yet) was being presented and quoted as being law when someone asked about remote garage openers / parking sensors legality. I pointed out that it was not law yet - and the response was a lot of twisting / arguing and denying.

I am not an argumentative person - but injustice makes me fume. It is bad enough having to deal with traffic officers "owning the road" on the road, but when the same tactics are being used on a forum - it is a step to far.
Very valid points there Paul
I'm curious Robin, which points do you regard as being valid? :roll:

PVR
Z Register member
Joined: Wed 12 Nov, 2003 19:09
Posts: 814

  Z4 M roadster
Location: Worth

Post by PVR » Fri 29 Jun, 2007 09:47

calbens wrote:I for one think this has gone far enough.
Why? We are discussing a legal point here which I proved to be true (i.e. the proposal has not been passed in parliament).
Calbens wrote: PVR you say you are not an argumentative person, well I am sorry but from what I can see from your postings that has to be one of the biggest understatements of the year. You have been goading Rob into an argument all along with your malevolent annotations.
PVR wrote:Robin - you are asking for common sense and intelligence there ... How many of those officers standing with a laser gun do you think have a degree or anything more then on the job training? As well as that, you give them power and a monthly target of 60 tickets that they have to issue and those three together do not make a productive combination
Calbens wrote: Such an obtuse remark with the sole purpose of disparaging Rob. :nono
Again - read the thread properly. We were talking about laser gun operators. As far as I am aware, that is not what Rob does for a living.
Calbens wrote: Since when has a degree been needed to Police the streets?
You do when you are of a higher grade.
PVR wrote:I was going to let it go, but thought - why should I. This is a public forum, and I do not see why I should be bullied into stopping a lively discussion”.
"Calbens"]
Bullied??? Lmao......Your either a big girls blouse or a fully signed up member of the PC Brigade and as for “Lively discussion”............. For who? It’s just the same old crap being regurgitated yet again.... If you don’t like the law do something about it and either 1, Use your Vote. 2, Go back to school, gain a degree in law and then fight it out with the politicians or 3, you could take the easy option and not break the law in the first place, simple. :roll:
Yes - it was a lively discussion as I proved that I was right that that law had not been passed yet, but Rob was still struggling to agree to that. The discussion was about wether a law had been passed regarding the use of parking sensors / garage openers or not. Please let me know where else this has been discussed. You seem to jump to conclusions too quickly. We were not discussing speeding here.


I am glad you are happy to take things lying down then. So in your ideal world, there is no point in arguing injustices in this world then. So for example, protesting against closure of hospitals is no point as it is done by "the law". I guess you also did not sign the road-pricing petition either?

Also - something you obviously don't know - but I am not a UK citizen, so can't vote here anyway. The fact that something does not effect me personally (the penalty system that is), should that exclude me from discussing it?
PVR wrote:If a member publically reveals his daily job as a traffic officer and if you subsequently discuss a point of law where he participates in that discussion - what position is that person in to close the discussion as if he "owned" it? It yet again proves that the general perceived work attitude of that profession is also being practised on a forum.
Calbens wrote: You really don’t know when to stop with the mud throwing do you? I think what you actually meant is that this is your own perceived view of that profession because it certainly isn’t mine nor a lot of others on this forum.
As for him closing the thread, where did that come from? If you meant his comment regarding “any other anti-authority superiority-complex sufferers still wish to argue, do it somewhere else so the rest of us can go back to talking about cars.” I think that was Rob’s subtle way of saying shut the F##k Up, but I have to admit he hit the nail on the head with his summary.
Read properly again .. never mentioned closing the thread, I said "ending the discussion". And since when is name calling an acceptable practice, certainly by a new mod? He was not prepared to admit that he was wrong earlier in the discussion and hence my comment. In Rob's words - any lawyer would be classed as "anti authority superiority-complex sufferers" then as they also argue the law points which is all what we were doing here in this thread. So if you don't agree with him, you are wrong.
PVR wrote:I am not an argumentative person - but injustice makes me fume. It is bad enough having to deal with traffic officers "owning the road" on the road, but when the same tactics are being used on a forum - it is a step to far.
Calbens wrote: Smacks off truncheon envy to me :lol:
Uh ... why? Envy is something that you would want and believe me - that is the last thing on my list.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest