Conference terri::cars_uk

It should also be borne in mind that the vast majority of unmarked police
vehicles are used by detectives.

jb

    Re .3
    
    However, there is a body of feeling that the loss of bobbies on the
    beat is to blame for the increase in attacks and burglaries, so where
    does that leave us?
    
    Mark

    The primary resposibility of the Police is crime prevention.  By
    putting a marked car out it has the desired effect.  The unmarked car
    is there for crime detection which would imply that the former has
    failed.
    
    The speed limits which they are being asked to enforce is acknowledged
    by the Police chiefs to be too low and they have been campaigning for
    an 80mph motorway limit as a more realistic one.  The theory is that
    most people would continue to drive at the same speed as they do now
    not up their speed by 10mph.  I support this view.
    
    The unmarked car does have its place to catch the habitual bad driver:
    the lane changer, the inside overtaker and the tailgater.  These anti
    social driving practices will cause more accidents (a misnomer) than
    traffic spaced at two second gaps at any speed.
    
    That should liven up the debate!
    
    Alan

    
    Re .5
    
    But how many people ONLY drive at 80 mph on motorways now?
    
    Mark
    
    PS I don't believe that upping the speed limit would not affect the
    speed at which people will drive.

>> how may people only drive at 80mph

Well I don't travel long distances on motorways regularly, but in my experience
the majority of traffic drives at between 75 and 85 mph.

Lorries and some drivers do 60; "salesman" types do 100+, but these are in the
minority.

If I'm doing 85, very little passes me...

A speed limit of 80 would be far more sensible, with increased penalties for
gross speeding (eg automatic and compulsory ban for 100+) to avoid a blanket
"jump" of +10mph in the average speed

Also, if the limit were 80, then the number of people who sit in the outside
lane at 70mph, feeling justifed in holding everyone up 'cos they're travelling
at the legal maximum speed, would be reduced...

Just one observer's humble opinion...

    
    Re .7
    
    Try the lower quarter of the M25 on a Saturday afternoon. The outside
    lane is doing 100+ mph (although obviously in places it drops).
    
    Mark

    As a lot of the 'high speed' drivers on the m'ways are people on
    business (ie reps), they will drive as fast as they can get away with
    regardless of wether they drive a Rover 214 or Porsche 911 carrera 2.
    
    I think that if the speed limit is increased to 80mph, a lot of these
    people will increase their speeds accordingly from 85 (which seems to
    be the border-line speed) to 95mph.
    
    - Roy

re .8

Like I said, my experience is limited.  I try and avoid the M25 anyway, as
the majority of drivers who use it are, IMVHO, dangerous...

re .9

>> a lot of these people will speed up

Which is why I suggested steeper penalties for speeding.  I'd go so far as to
suggest a mandatory lifetime ban for exceeding, say, 110mph...

    Re: .10
    
>Which is why I suggested steeper penalties for speeding.  I'd go so far as to
>suggest a mandatory lifetime ban for exceeding, say, 110mph...
    
    Why stop there? Why not impose the death penalty? In fact, why not make
    even saying "one ton" an offence?
    
    GROW UP!
    
    99% of ALL drivers have exceeded 100mph at some point in their lives.
    
    Statistics about road deaths are meaningless when taken out of context.
    The recent one about "performance cars having twice as many accidents
    as normal cars" may sound like a simple fact, but i bet that if you
    divide the number of miles driven by the number of accidents you will
    find that performance cars are safer.
    
    A large proportion of road casualties are within build-up areas, so why
    not start work here, and not on the safest roads in Britain!
    
    mb

    
    Ah, another rational, reasonable discussion in the making!
    
    Mark

Re .11.

I can state in all honesty that I have never driven on or above 100 MPH.

Simon

    
    Nor would i in a landrover.....

>> 99% of all drivers have exceeded 100mph

This is an interesting premiss, considering that siginificantly fewer than 99%
of cars on our roads can go that fast.

>> GROW UP

I am, ta... I didn't intend to provoke such an emotional repsonse.  I purposely
said 110mph, this being a speed significantly above what anyone has ever
suggested in this conference (to my memory) as being a sensible speed limit.

I agree that more needs to be done on urban roads, where there are more
accidents... better road layout and better drivers are needed.  I can't do much
about the first, but I'm doing one of the advanced driving courses to help
with the second.

The problem with motorway accidents is that when they occur
1) They are more likely to be fatal
2) They are more likely to involve more people, and more fatalities
3) Although probably caused by driver error, they end up involving a lot of
people who weren't directly at fault.

Absolute speed can be a factor in this (although not on its own), but there are
other factors, mostly attributable to driver neglignece.  So, to add yet
more controversy to this discussion, to try and improve driving standards on
motorways, in addition to speeding laws I would make specific offences of:
- driving too close to the car in front
- failing to use the left most available lane

And, to keep on topic, I favour a far greater *visible* police presence on
motorways... I was behind a very prominent jam sandwich doing 65 along the M4
this morning, and it was amazing how it improved everyone's memory of how they
were supposed to drive...  The outside lane was empty for a change!

(I overtook it at 75, with no ill consequences, in case anyone wonders...)

Scott

PS Re: man waving a red flag - I thought red noses on radiator grilles were the
accepted equivalent these days? ;-)

Addendum

I am also in the supposed 1%.

Re .15
>       The problem with motorway accidents is that when they occur
> 1) They are more likely to be fatal
> 2) They are more likely to involve more people, and more fatalities

I think the opposite is the case. Really nasty accidents (e.g. head-on  
collisions, hitting immovable objects such as trees) are very rare on 
motorways. 

    A policeman friend tells me that most motorway accidents happen on the
    hard-shoulder. Anyone else heard this?
    
    Barry. (in the 99%)
    
    PS. On the autoroutes over here in France you get a much wider spectrum
        of drivers.ie. more people going really fast and more people going
        very slow, but in general less cars.

Yes, I've heard this too.  doesnt surprise me... it's where the greatest
speed difference is found (ie one car's stationary!) so the driver has less
time to react.

I often see cars/lorries in the inside lane "drift" a few inches onto the hard
shoulder without appearing to realise where they are...

    Re: .18
    
>    A policeman friend tells me that most motorway accidents happen on the
>    hard-shoulder. Anyone else heard this?
    
     Problem solved, remove the hard shoulder :-)
    
    Re: .15
    
    Scott,
    
    i wasn't really getting emotional, the solution lies somewhere
    in-between sensible limits and sensible driver education. I agree
    totally that driving too close should be treat far more seriously than
    doing a safe 85mph.
    
    Martin (who avoids Motorways wherever possible) Bell

	Biggest cause of accidents on the Motorways - bad lane discipline
	and travelling too close to the vehicle in front.  [Source = police
	officer].

	We've had this argument before.  Speed doesn't kill, bad driving does.
	However, we all think that we are good drivers and that nothing will
	happen to us (how could you cross the road otherwise?).  However, a
	law that says you must drive safely is harder to enforce than one
	that says you must drive below this speed.  A law that isn't enforced
	is worse than useless.  

	Up-ing the speed limit to 80 would please me, but I don't think that
	I would increment my speed by 10 mph to compensate.  Although, once
	I'd got used to thinks, maybe I would.  Nothing would induce me to
	travel closer than 2s behind the car in front (double for rain, double
	again for snow).

	Dave

    Well back to the original topic (or at least I think what was the
    original topic....)
    
    Here in Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA......
    
    A few years ago the police started using White Mustang-II's as a *sort* 
    of unmarked vehicle.  
    There's no red beacon on top, just on the front bumper and in
    the rear window.  They also have the police logo sticker on the doors. 
    These guys sit under the overpasses and wait for speeders to zip by. 
    First thing they know, that little white car on the side of the road is
    pulling them over....nasty...
    
    

    re: a few back, Urban accidents and speeding.
    
    IMHO the best way to reduce the incidence of urban road casualities is
    to use lamposts as gallows for those convicted of speeding above, say
    20 over the limit and leave them there.  This might have a detrimental
    affect on Taxi companies as they would run out of drivers rather
    quickly.
    
    I agree that in most cases motorway speeding does not result in serious
    injury, if results in multiple shunts (when traffic is heavy) which causes
    congestion which wastes everyones time.  Again, the bodies of those
    responsible hanging from the bridges might serve as a deterant.
    
    I wonder if the local bench has any vacancies..........
    
    Rob, approaching the chequered flag.

ref:-various

	Lets be honest the driver(s) who don't like the idea of un-marked
police cars are the ones who are/going to break the law. If they choose to
break the law and get caught they MUST expect to get punished. I don't dispute
the fact that some laws are in need of updating etc but until they are changed
the police are there to enforce them by whatever means they seem fit to employ
and that includes un-marked police cars. To obey the law only when a police car
is around is hypocrisy. 

	Remember "While the cats away the mice will play!!"

Cheers....Norm Pettet

BTW: My Mini is incapable of doing more than 70 MPH :-)
    

    
    I think both marked and unmarked cars have their roles to play. The
    marked cars make people think about their driving, and pick up the
    odd motorist who isn't observant or flouts the law. The officers in
    unmarked cars have a chance to observe people driving naturally, and
    a valuable opportunity to pick up those motorists who drive
    offensively, aggressively, or a large margin above the speed limit
    (they aren't, by and large, interested in the 80-90 mph brigade).
    
    William.

    
    I thought the Police had "given up" on high speed car chases and 
    were planning to use hidden camera's instead ?
    

.26>    (they aren't, by and large, interested in the 80-90 mph brigade).
    
    O.K. - Here's a scenario:
    
    80-90 mph driver catches up with a 70mph 'outside lane hogger'.
    Waits to see if hogger will pull over.
    Overtakes on the inside.
    Is seen by the unmarked Police Car behind him.
    
    Question:	Does the policeman pull over the 80-90 for an obvious
    		misdemeanour, or the 'lane hogger' for bad lane discipline
    		(which is not a crime), or both or neither ?
    
    O.K. team - discuss
    
    Tony O.

    
    Obviously they nab the speeder.
    
    
    
    How else can they have fun with their big, powerful cars?
    
    Mark :^)
    
    

    RE: .28
    
    They must have been following the 80-90 driver for a while, and
    probably got p*ssed off because they want to catch him going much
    faster for a better "kill". Then their luck changes when he performs an
    illegal manouver. Great, they now get him for doing 90mph and also
    dangerous driving (tailgating the 70-OLH) and undertaking - loads of
    points and money in the coffers.
    
    Meanwhile, the OLH carries on, oblivious to the events happening around
    him - dissappearing off into the sunset.
    
    
    Now would the story be any different if Mr.80-90 was not there?
    
    mb

    Re: .30
    
>                            Unmarked cars could have an effect whether
>    they're there or not, because it's the POSSIBILITY that there's one
>    around which matters.
    
    An unmarked car may deter the "aware" speeder, but it will have no
    deterent effect on the "wally" driver who doesn't keep left, doesn't
    signal, doesn't leave a safe gap etc.
    
    Then again, even marked cars probably won't have any effect on these
    brain-dead individuals.
    
    mb

    Re. 28
    
    Been there, done that on the M4 slip road coming off at J7.
    
    The cop nabbed the guy who had been sitting on the outside lane at a
    steady 60 m.p.h. Wasn't interested in me at all.
    
    Rich
    

    You should have carried on.  The police should then do the second car 
    for his/her dangerous driving.
    
    Jeff.

>    You should have carried on.  The police should then do the second car 
>    for his/her dangerous driving.

Apparantly, they will 'do' the lead car. As a completelely irrelevant aside,
three years ago a 68 year old lady was prosecuted for Driving without due car
and attention. The offence committed was driving at 70mph in the fast lane of a
motorway when a) the middle lane was clear and b) a copper wanted to overtake
her.

M.

    Re .3 & .30  the 'possibility' of there being an unmarked car...
    
    I roughly agree with Rik Watson's reply in that when driving over
    the speed limit I spend effort in trying to work out if cars ahead
    are unmarked police cars.  It doesn't make me go slower 'in case'
    they are there - but if I have doubts, I will slow down.
    
    Usually I will find a need to slow down due to other traffic, far
    more often than due to any 'hidden' police car being spotted.
    
    J.R.

    Re: .37
    
>    	0. Two rear view mirrors.
>    	1. Two people in car.
>    	2. Traveling at 70 (or less). [Or trailing faster car]
>    	3. Sitting on hard shoulder.
>    	4. No dealer sticker, GB sticker, fury dice.
>    	5. Spotlessly clean.
    
    plus
    
    	6. Usually less than 2 years old (but not always)
    	7. Multiple aerials/centre-loaded aerials
    	8. High standard of driving
    
    It is more difficult spotting them at night though!
    
    mb

    
    Couldn't agree more with .37.
    
    I'd also add to the list of cars, Carlton/Senator/Sierra GLS/4x4
    and after a 'near miss' in Norfolk last weekend, Volvo 2**

    Also, colours always seem to be solid (non-metallic), eg White,
    Red, Blue.
    
    
    Do those Radar detector thingies pick up unmarked cars?

    
    As a ps to this note and a response to .0, I passed three roadside
    speed traps going to/from Norwich last weekend, two 'hidden' patrol
    vehicles (marked) and several 'obviously' placed marked vehicles.
    Needless to say I slowed down for all these obstacles....
        
    There were probably a load of unmarked cars as well - but I was
    going too fast to notice :-)
        
    Richard.
    

>>    	0. Two rear view mirrors.
>>    	1. Two people in car.
>>    	2. Traveling at 70 (or less). [Or trailing faster car]
>>    	3. Sitting on hard shoulder.
>>    	4. No dealer sticker, GB sticker, fury dice.
>>    	5. Spotlessly clean.
>    
>    plus
>    
>    	6. Usually less than 2 years old (but not always)
>    	7. Multiple aerials/centre-loaded aerials
>    	8. High standard of driving
>    


plus plus

        9. Tradename on rear number-plate. (never fails)

>>    Do those Radar detector thingies pick up unmarked cars?

if you mean radar detectors then the radar detector will detect a radar
rather than working out whether a car has POLICE and colourfull stipes
along its flanks - for that you need an 'un-marked police car detector'...


...art		:-)

    
    Re .42
    
    Yes. Spotting the unmarked ones at night is a nightmare. Anyone
    got any tips for this? It's a real bind crusing along at 100+
    and then having to slow down everytime one prepares to overtake
    a 'possible'.
    
    
    

    Anther thing to watch for on unmarked cars concerning their colour, as
    well as the fact they are often non-met., is that they are often a
    really yucky colour that very few members of the car-buying public
    would ever consider having that car in!
    
    Examples:
    
    Dark maroon BMW 5-series on the A33/M27
    Dark non-met. blue BMW 5-series on same
    
    Ochre green Rover 800 fastback on same
    
    
    %SD

>> 9. Tradename on rear number plate

Umm, what does this mean please?  Do they have "police" in little letters
at the bottom of the number plate?

>Umm, what does this mean please?  Do they have "police" in little letters
>at the bottom of the number plate?

Virtually all (non-police) cars have a tradename on their number plate. It is
either the name of the company that made the number plate, or the name of the
garage that supplied the car. Police vehicles never have this. It won't prevent
you having to slow down, but once you have you can make sure of what you're
following.

I see!

Although it will soon be illegal for any (new) number plate to have a trade name
on it...

Really ? Dammit ! There goes the only infallible way of spotting one.

M.

Re: discussion on 2 cars speeding...


Yes, they do both cars...it's the way I got caught.

The Nova SR that was trying to catch me was "Vascar"ed and because I was 
going as fast etc...he did me as well...

I had no chance of spotting the jam sandwich as he was approx 3 miles behind
me on a road crossing gently rolling hills...

He did a *great* sheep dog act with the two of us :-)




And with reference to the comment about if you are done you were in the 
wrong...

My second speeding thingy....I was booked for speeding 50 in 30...and I had
been travelling at less than 30....he lied his head off...hadn't used his
Vascar...hadn't followed me for 1/10th mile (he came round the roundabout onto
me) etc... 

It was either a case of mistaken identity or he didn't like GTE hatchbacks 
(more likely..from his comments)

...since there is no way I can pay to take this sort of thing through the 
courts...I just paid up and ground my teeth...

...and before anyone comments on the speed...I *KNOW* I was only doing that 
speed because I had been stuck behind an opel thingy for the last 6 miles who 
was travelling incredibly slowly...and the driver of that car was irritating me 
by going much less than the speed limit for the whole of that distance in the 
right hand lane of the dual carriageway !

    Why not limit the top speed of all cars to 80 MPH - that 'ud solve
    the problem...and think of the acceleration!!!
    
    Re a few back about spotting plain clothed cars in the dark,I agree its
    a pain. Most plain clothed cars have some form of blue light on the 
    front and the back,often hidden behind grilles but you can often see
    them. As for cars following, If I'm doing more than 90ish any car with
    two people in (you can often see this in the lights of other cars)
    and keeping pace has to be suspect.
    
    I followed a car on the A303 the other day with a blue light cluster on
    the top and two chaps in it. As it was only doing sixty and had ten to
    fifteen cars queued up behind it I crept passed. It was then I noticed
    it was an old Mk3 Cortina done out in black and white withe "LAPD" on
    the doors !!!
    
    On final think, anyone who says they never exceed the speed limit is
    almost certainly deluding themselves and is probably more of a danger
    to others because of this.
    
    Simon.
    

Several studies in the UK and other countries have shown that two simple
measures would have the greatest effect on reducing the numbers of people
killed or seriously injured on roads:

	Strict enforcement of drink-driving laws

	Strict enforcement of speed limits


As for my own comment.  I would like anyone who is hauled before a court
for a motoring offence and, when convicted and facing a driving ban,
squeals that they need their licence to do or keep their job to be told
in no uncertain terms that they should have remembered that before they
committed the offence and then receive a ban for double the normal time.

jb

    Re: .55
    
>Several studies in the UK and other countries have shown that two simple
>measures would have the greatest effect on reducing the numbers of people
>killed or seriously injured on roads:
>
>	Strict enforcement of drink-driving laws
>
>	Strict enforcement of speed limits
    
    Two simple measures that would REALLY have greatest effect on reducing
    the numbers of people killed or seriously injured on roads:
    
    o Ban all pedestrains from roads
    
    o Compulsary fitting of square wheels to all vehicles
    
    
    	God, i hate surveys and statistics!
    
    mb

	Lord North's report, published a couple of years ago and slowly making
	its way onto the statute books suggests that whilst most people see
	stealing as a criminal offence they don't see speeding as such.  He
	also found that the majority of people who exceed speed limits do not
	exceed them by much.  Basically, we're mostly law abiding (including
	drink driving).  However, there are a minority (significant) who 
	regularly exceed speed limits.  Fines do not deter them (most on the
	M-ways into London regard it as an extra motoring tax).  Nor would
	anything other than the knowledge that they will get caught deter them.
	Stationing marked police cars every half mile would deter them, but the
	police do like to nick other sorts of criminal than speeders.  So,
	unmarked cars, cameras, videos etc (all sneaky devices) have their
	effect.  Another is to ban and re-train rather than to fine.  Imagine 
	the ignomy of having to attend compulsary training and re-take your 
	driving test?

	Dave

    
    
    
    Hanging is too good for all those who go around speeding. It's a national
    disgrace. All those who speed should be lined up against the wall and 
    shot. And if that doesn't stop them, shoot them again. And if that
    doesn't stop them, give them a years subscription to the European.
    
    

	Re .60

	I quite agree. People who speed are inconsiderate cretins and
	deserve to have their driving licences removed along with their
	gonads. The only reason most of these people drive fast is because
	they think it's "manly" to do so. I find it interesting that 98%
	of speeding convictions are for male drivers, drivers who clearly
	see their cars as extension of their (doubtless inadequate) male
	reproductive organs. I believe the police should use every
	possible method to catch these lawbreakers.

	JJ.

    IMO the main reason for high speed on motorways is that with modern
    high performance cars its more difficult to keep the speed down to 70
    than to speed deliberately to make up for any inadequacies in the
    trouser department.
    
    Surely you've been bombing along the m'way and checked your speedo to
    find you're going a lot faster than you thought.
    
    - Roy

    
    No, Mr Quick (a name which suggests a highly inadequate set of
    reproductive organs I'd say! :^), drives a Range Rover, but only
    on quiet country roads which of course should be reserved only for
    horses.
    
    Mark

>         <<< Note 1431.61 by ROCKY::QUICK "Peasant-whipping retard" >>>

Hah ! Last time I was driving down the M27 at 69.9mph (as usual) I was overtaken
by some lunatic in a red jacket and a landrover muttering something about foxes.

.61
>>						    drivers who clearly
>>	see their cars as extension of their (doubtless inadequate) male
>>	reproductive organs.

	No!, you're mixing them up with horse-riders.

	-John

Re .61....

What twaddle!! I'm sure you've NEVER exceeded any speed limit, have you? [OK,
speed limits SHOULD BE enforced in built-up areas, without doubt.]

On more than one occasion, I've by chance been driving behind very law-abiding
people I know (they were unaware of me being there), and when I told them later
that they had exceeded the 40mph limit by ~10mph, they were astonished and quite
disbelieving. A subsequent check on their speedo revealed it was reading the
same as mine, so the error wasn't THERE! Come on! I simply don't believe ANYONE
who says they've never broken the speed limit.

Cars of today (with a few notable exceptions...) are capable of stopping in far
shorter distances from significantly higher speeds than the equivalent car of
even 10 years ago, let alone the 26 years ago that (I believe) the national 
speed limit was set at 70mph.

If I were driving a 1963 Ford Consul on the M-ways (or probably even a Mk III 
Cortina or Hillman Avenger or some such), I can assure you I would not be doing
70mph, even though I would be quite legally entitled to do so (and a fool, too).

Brake and tyre technologies have advanced so far in 25 years, that a speed limit
of 70mph on a clear motorway is a nonsense.... Even at 30 mph, the stopping
distance of a modern car is upwards of 10% better (~30 -v- 35 feet) than a car
of ~15 years ago.... Brake fade is practically a thing of the past, particularly
on all-disk systems.

On motorways, let's use the technology of today, with decent investment, and
have warning lights every mile (or other arbitrary and practicable distance)
linked to sensors monitoring traffic volume, weather conditions and whatever
else, and displaying a variable speed limit -- rigorously enforced -- according
to the conditions. On clear motorways in mid-summer, no speed limit would apply.
On the M25/M6/M5 etc. in the rush-hour, it would be 50-60mph, with strict
enforcement.

THIS would be where unmarked cars (and more of them than there are now) could
really be of benefit.


%SD

	I'm astonished that no-one has picked up on my *completely*
	fictitious figure of 98% of speeding convictions being for
	male drivers... does that mean that it's true, or that we all
	expect it to be true?

	.61 was, as I'm sure you're all aware, not entirely serious.

	I don't object to the police using unmarked cars however; I
	find I can usually spot them quite easily. The presence of a
	policeman at the wheel tends to give them away ;-)

	JJ.

    
    I really surprises me that so many people really believe that they
    never break speed limits, and get so emotional when other people admit
    to driving fast, even very fast.
    
    The plain fact is, no surveys, no statistics, that those people who do
    not break speed limits are also the kind of people who come to a full
    stop at empty roundabouts (even putting the handbrake on to make sure).
    They wait until traffic lights have been green for a couple of seconds
    before engaging first gear, they brake hard and indicate when passing 
    cyclists on wide roads, and so on.
    
    Make a point this evening, on the way home, to observe these folks.
    Although not actually breaking the law (usually), they cause more
    conjestion, aggravation than the occasional high speed driver, who has
    come and gone before you even notice.
    
    Now if the unmarked police cars (rapidly returning to topic) spent a
    little time stopping and educating these naive drivers, perhaps the
    roads would be all the more pleasant to drive on. In fact a marked
    police car would be better, because these folks don't really take too
    much notice of what is going on around them, but the more observant
    drivers would be able to adjust their driving to comply with the
    totally out of date traffic laws.
    
    
    mb

	Re .69

	I just *love* it when someone refers to their opinions as
	"facts". Brightens up my whole day, it does ;-)

	The plain "fact" is, that to categorise all non-speeders as
	the type described in .69 is just about as ridiculous as my
	portrayal of those who do speed, in .61. The difference,
	of course, is that *I* was joking.

	JJ.

From what I've seen, lots of women speed on the motorways in their little GTi
thingies, but not nearly as many get stopped as do men!

I know of two instances of women doing 95+ on motorways, getting stopped, and
then getting completely let off when they said, "Good heavens officer, was I
really doing THAT speed?".

There's equality for you!

Your 98% is probably not that far wrong, even if in jest!


%SD

    I don't think .69 is far from the truth.
    
    Although it can cause congestion, hesitation is not against the law.
    
    - Roy 

    	My girlfriend got away with speeding by acting dumb towards the
    policeman....she said "I'm sorry officer I was nearly out of petrol
    & was trying to get to the petrol station before I ran out".
    	The policeman apparently smiled & let her carry on....I could
    just see a bloke getting away with that can't you??
    

    
    My wife once raced a police car home while well over the limit (a long
    time ago), and she got away with it, but times have changed a lot since
    then, thankfully.
    
    Mark

	Re .73

	Try it with a policewoman, see what happens...

	I'm increasingly amazed at the willingness of people in here
	to categorise drivers... if I say that -seriously- all Volvo
	estate drivers hog the outside lane at 68mph and use at least
	3 spaces when parking would you all agree? If I say that the
	joke about BMWs and hedgehogs is not a joke but the truth do
	you all agree? No? So why are people so ready to say that
	just because someone doesn't break the speed laws they are
	some kind of dithering barely-mobile accident-causing traffic
	obstacle? If that's the case then .61 is true as well...

	JJ.

    Another question for ther panel.
    
    My wife has often said (after hearing about rapists posing at
    policemen) that if any car flashed its lights, blue or otherwise, it
    would have to follow her home before she would stop.
    
    I wonder what the police reaction would be to this.
    
    Roy
    
    (I once heard of a woman who was stopped by a 'mock' patrol car, but
    drove off when she noticed the police sign on top of the car came
    unstuck and fell off!)

>> joke about BMWs and hedgehogs

What joke?  Please explain...

>    My wife has often said (after hearing about rapists posing at
>    policemen) that if any car flashed its lights, blue or otherwise, it
>    would have to follow her home before she would stop.

They said that you should stop wind down your window a little, let them come to
the car and then explain that you would follow them to the nearest police
staion, but that you would not get out of your car until then.

They didn't explain what the police would do if they thought the car was nicked
or you were drunk.


M.

    re .77

    re .80
    
    I thought it concerned XR3 drivers. Obviously there are different
    flavours.
    
    - Roy

    I'm sure the following has already been said in this topic, but reading
    all these replies has numbed my memory...
    
    IF everyone were to drive at safe distances, indicate properly, be
    considerate, use mirrors, etc. then a speed limit would be unnecessary. 
    Most cars that are capable of going fast are safe at those high speeds.
    
    Unfortunately, a very large proportion (50%? 80%? 95%) of people drive
    too close for their speed, don't indicate (until too late), are
    inconsiderate, and don't use their mirrors properly if at all.
    
    So, imposing a blanket speed limit gives an easy way of cutting down on
    a lot of accidents.  It's nowhere near perfect.  It's not particularly
    fair.  But it works enough to be worth keeping.
    
    If the police were to stop every dangerous driver they spotted, instead of
    every speeder, we would need very many more policemen.  Some kind of
    tradeoff has to be made.
    
    Now, if someone (the government, RoSPA, the insurance companies) were
    to put on a half-hour driving skills program every week, how many lives
    and cars would be saved?
    
    Mat.
    *:o)
    
    PS  Hmmm.  Seem to have deviated just a little from the original topic!
    

It doesn't matter how good a driver you are. A blowout at very high speed will 
at some point cause a major accident.

Simon

	Re .83
	
	You can reduce the risk of an accident (and blowouts) by becoming
	a better, more skillful, driver. A reduction in speed does not make
	anyone a safer driver!

	Graham

>>	You can reduce the risk of an accident (and blowouts) by becoming


how do you reduce risk of blowouts by your motorway driving style?


...art

    
    This is turning into a major rathole, but here goes anyway...!
    
    I don't think anybodys put this point in yet - it's OK saying that all
    these cars are safe and the drivers know what they're doing and all
    that stuff at higher speeds than are currently permissible in this
    country, but what about the drivers who don't have big fast cars (or
    small fast cars for that matter!) and don't drive over 60/70 on the 
    motorway?  How many times do you have to slow down from a much higher 
    speed (e.g. 90+) just in case the car in the middle lane (passing a 
    lorry on the inside for example) doing 70 might not see you and pull 
    out to pass a car just in front of it?
    
    Even if people do use their mirrors properly, they might not see you if
    you're driving a fair bit faster than them...
    
    I'm not saying higher speed limits or removal of the speed limits are
    out, it's just that there will always be someone who isn't careful or
    just isn't reacting quick enough to the things around them.
    
    Chris.

	A skillful driver has a good working knowledge of his/her vehicle
	and understands the problem that cause blowouts. ie incorrect
	tyre pressure (normally too low, but also too high). Also, a
	skillful driver would not corner at high speed or use the brakes
	excessively.

	Now I accept, if you've got a faulty tyre or hit a very small object
	then the risk of a blowout is increased. Remember, everything you do
	has an element of risk attached.

	When I look back at the blowout I had on the motorway (at 70 mph)
	it was because I was an inexperienced driver and did not know the
	limitations of the crap remoulds that were on the car. Therefore,
	my driving/skill was at fault not that I was speeding.

	Graham

    RE: .83
    
    Some years ago I had a blowout at 90mph in the third lane of a
    Motorway. I did not have an accident, nor were there any accidents
    around me.
    
    Your statement is, therefore, obviously incorrect.
    
    JK

    Re: .88
    
    Maybe 90mph isn't quite *very* fast, maybe you have to be going 91mph
    or 92mph to become a homicidal accident inducing maniac ;-)
    
    Blowouts are becoming a rare occurrance these days (ask any Policeman)
    with better tyre technologies and the majority of cars being company
    cars with regular servicing.
    
    Whatever happened to "Denovo"?
    
    m (who has never had a blowout, even at 145mph) b

	I've never had a blowout either, in 16 years of driving. Mind
	you, I've never bought remoulded or retreaded tyres, perhaps
	there's a link?

	A "safe" blowout at 90mph as referred to in .88 might be ok in
	a straight line, but what would the result be if you were cornering
	at the time?

	JJ.

    
    I  believe it was me who wrote the piece quoted in .1 that started this
    discussion. What prevoked me to speak out was my recent involvement in
    a fatal road accident in which a 19 year old youth lost his life. The
    "crash" was caused by the driver of the "other" car thinking that the
    speed limit (of 30 mhp) did not apply to him. "Speed doesn't kill" is a
    meaningless statement. SPEED is an abstract quantity and can't DO
    anything except measure. However, if what is ment by this statement is 
    that a motor car traveling at a speed that is too high for the road
    conditions (road type and surface, weather and traffic) then speed
    definitely does kill. I've seen it!
    
    There have been some very good points made and some not so good. The
    thing that must change is the idea that we are all good drivers. None
    of us are as good as we think we are. Most have passed the simplest
    driving test in Europe and some don't even bother, or think it
    necessary, to drive by the rules of the highway code. I fear that the
    "accident" rate is about to go rapidly upwards (1990 was higher than
    1989) so anything that has the potential to reduce this rate is OK, and
    indeed welcome, by me. There is no simple solution to this increasing
    problem and the government is not interested. It is only interested in
    train, 'plane, sporting event and channel tunnel deaths. Far more
    carnage is occuring on the roads 5000 deaths and 40,000 serious injuies
    EVERY year. Most of them are caused by people breaking the law and not
    by simple human error.
    
    The faster you go, and remember 60mph is 88 feet per second, the
    less time you have to react if something goes wrong. Speed limits
    exist, not to get in the way of the performance of your car but to
    REDUCE THE DIFFERENCE IN SPEED between vehicles to give drivers TIME to
    react.
    
    Safe driving and don't forget rule 50 of the Highway Code!
    
    Ian.
    
     
     

    re.-1
    
    When typing reply .91 I had'nt realised that I had written the base
    note! It was moved by mod. Never mind!
    
    Ian.
    
    

	Re .91

	Ah you must remember, Ian, that they're all *expert* drivers
	in here... I seem to recall a topic a while back were someone
	claimed he was safer at 100mph than at 50 because he was more
	alert. The only way that people who think like that will wake
	up to reality is to have a bad accident at speed, probably
	killing themselves or someone else. You basically *can't*
	convince someone that speed kills until they see it or are
	involved themselves, and even then they'll probably justify
	the speeding aspect away, blaming "road conditions", or "that
	idiot doing 35 who made me overtake"...

	I used to think it was clever to drive fast, I had a Porsche
	Turbo that could do it, and it wasn't until I had a high speed
	accident that I woke up to the fact that the faster a car is
	moving, the more difficult it is to stop or steer. Luckily my
	experience only involved myself and a crash barrier. No doubt
	all the gung-ho macho ton-up kiddies in here will say that's
	because I'm a bad driver, and they wouldn't crash where I did,
	but I for one no longer think it clever to tear around at
	3-figure velocities and boast about "seeing 145mph" or suchlike.

	JJ.

    Re: .91
    
>    that a motor car traveling at a speed that is too high for the road
>    conditions (road type and surface, weather and traffic) then speed
>    definitely does kill.
    
    I agree totally, it is speed in these conditions that causes the
    problem, and something should be done about it.
    
>    Most of them are caused by people breaking the law and not
>    by simple human error.
    
    Breaking the law has got NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with it. Don't spoil
    a valid argument by confusing artificial restrictions with real life
    situations.
    
    
    If unmarked police cars stopped the dangerous drivers (at _whatever_
    speed they are doing) then the world would be a better place for it.
    Unfortunately, as commented on several times in this topic, they don't
    have the time/resources/inclination to do so, so the easy meat is
    picked on instead.
    
    
    Hey, lets all be extra careful on the way home tonight!
    
    Martin

    
    
    RE .91
    
    Ian,
      IMHO, Everything that you have stated is correct, except that 'speed
    kills'. Ian, speed alone doesn't kill, speed in the wrong place/time
    will/can kill. My stand point on this is that poor observation is the
    real menace. If you look far enough ahead and behind (as far as
    physically possible) then you will see the hazards and the Unmarked
    ecilop car (just to keep to the subject.) then you can adjust your
    speed accordingly. If you don't adjust the speed then you accept the
    consequences. Unfortunately the consequences are bourne by the innocent
    party. Remember, at what ever speed, good observation will allow you to
    see a hazard early....and give you time to react, and it's time to
    react that will save your life/bodywork....
    
       sorry to go on a bit. I won't admit to exceeding the speed limits
    but I will admit to maintaining ultimate progress.
    
      
    Alan.
    
    p.s. I do have a broken arm, 
     CAUSE: poor observation (blinded by reflected sunlight (no excuse))
            whilst enacting page 75 of the MOTORCYCLE ROAD CRAFT MANUAL.
     
        

	How does being an advanced driver affect your chances of surviving
	a blowout on the motorway?  Simple, never drive 3 abreast on the 
	motorway, be aware of the cars around you, keep your distance, drive
	in the correct lane, hold the wheel correctly.

	Dave

Re: .78
    
>    And also, speeding is a CIVIL offence and not a CRIMINAL offence, and
>    shouldn't be classed along side such activities such as theft etc.
    
Sorry, but you are *WRONG*.  Speeding is a crime.  A fairly low grade of
crime - more like threatening behaviour than murder, but a crime none the
less.

If you are nicked for speeding you *WILL* gain an entry in your criminal
record unless you were issued a fixed penalty ticket and paid it (although
even then you will get penalty points on your licence).  If you are 
summonsed to appear in court and fail to appear it is very likely that a 
warrant will be issued for your arrest.

Yesterday I was pleased to see that the TV news segment talking about the 
new rules for speed limiters on HGVs also featured an automatic camera that 
takes a photograph of speeding vehicles - then the registered owner is sent 
either a fixed panalty notice or a summons. 

jb

>.97  Sorry, but you are *WRONG*.  Speeding is a crime.  A fairly low grade of
>.97  crime - more like threatening behaviour than murder, but a crime none the
>.97  less.
    
     IMO, I disagree with this statement. Regardless of how skilled you 
    *THINK* you are (I meant to emphasise that point, as I believe that 
    the only skilled drivers are those who understand just how deadly a 
    weapon they are in control of), it is possible that if you involved 
    in an accident at high speed, and other vehicles are involved, then 
    there is a high chance of there being a fatality.
    
    That being the case, is that not the same as shooting a rifle towards
    an area frequented by a varying number of people ? Sooner or later, you
    are likely to kill/injure someone, even if you don't mean to.
    
    Is this then, a fairly low grade of crime, like threatening behaviour ?
    Would you still count it as a low grade of crime if you go home tonight
    and discover that a close relative has been killed in a high speed
    motorway pileup ?
    
    Whatever you think of it, the law is the law, and should be obeyed
    by *everyone* ! Not ignored by those who *THINK* they are skilled
    drivers. Personally, I want to drive on safe roads, and despise those
    who try to make it dangerous for me.
    
    Wayne.

    P.S my first 100 !  ;)

    
    I agree with whoever it was that mentioned taht speeding is an easy
    road crimes to Police - you are either breking the speed limit or not. 
    What in my opinion is more dangerous is travelling too close to another 
    vehicle - and until photographic evidence is accepted in court - this
    is not easy to enforce. Most road crimes have a large element of
    judgement - what is 'insufficient observation' - 'too short a signal
    before making a manoever' - 'causing other traffic to brake' etc etc. 
    These are the type of things which distinguish a good driver from a bad
    one. 
    
    With ref to the HGV 60mph enforcement - that's fine, but how do you
    stop them travelling nose to tail 10ft apart, or 'harassing' slow
    motorists.... difficult to convict except by photo/video.

    
    Re .94 
    1>something should be done about it
    
    2>Breaking the law has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with it
    
    
    The thing that motoring law has to do with is to save us from those who
    will not, can not or do not drive to the real conditions of road, traffic,
    weather and their ability. The thing that must be done is to enforce
    it. A better thing would be to change peoples attitudes so, as I think
    you are saying Martin, the law would be redundant. This is easier said
    than done.
    
    Who knows what there own ability is? 
    
    Ian.
     

    
    Re. 102 oops!! for "there ability read "their ability" - is there a spelling
    notes file?
    
    re. Alan Bells reply - I believe what I said, or at least implied, was
    that speed in the wrong place, time etc, IS the problem (20 mph in a 30
    mph area can be too fast). However, it still remains a fact of science
    that the faster you go the less time you have to react if something
    goes wrong. Judging what is too fast is not a simple or easily aquired
    skill. Rule 50 of the highway code is the one about driving at a speed
    at which you can stop within your clear vision. All of the fast drivers
    that I have been with ignore this rule. Their thinking appears to be
    centred on whether their car will hold the road and not whether the
    approaching blind bend has a hidden broken down car or it is full of
    sheep! Observation is the key, I agree, but the average driver is a
    very poor observer and the law is there to protect him/her and me.
    
    Getting back to the subject -
    
    The main reason I support unmarked police cars is that they can catch 
    people who are "an accident waiting to happen" BEFORE they do any damage
    (with any luck).
    
    Ian.

    re.101
    
    You catch them with an unmarked Police car (with vidio camera) like the
    one in the unmarked car that came to take my statement.
    
    I must get rid of this twitch in my right eye.....
    
    Ian.

>           Rule 50 of the highway code is the one about driving at a speed
>    at which you can stop within your clear vision.
    
    In fact it is even tighter than that. I try to drive so that i can stop
    in half the distance of clear vision, just i case some other driver is
    coming the other way at the same speed that you are!
    
    This only really applies to narrow country lanes, where you may end up
    in a head-to-head, but always bear it in mind!
    
    
    Maybe we are all panicing too much on these un-marked cars. Perhaps we
    regularly pass them at above 70mph, but are deemed ok for the
    conditions, thus left alone. You never know?
    
    mb

    
    >just in case some other driver is coming the other way at the same
    speed as you are!
    
    A good point Martin. What happened to me was that someone was coming
    (overtaking) the other way at twice my speed!!! My speed was the legal
    limit of 30 mph. Actually I wasn't driving - an experienced leaner was,
    but I still have a twitch in my right eye when driving and am sinsitive
    to speeding cars. I also know of someone else that had a similar thing
    happen to them in the same week as me. With more cars capable of ever
    higher speeds and no improvement in the general abilily of drivers - in
    fact I have detected a worsening one - more of this sort of thing is
    likely I am afraid.
    
    Ian.
    

Re. 1431.105

>    Maybe we are all panicing too much on these un-marked cars. Perhaps we
>    regularly pass them at above 70mph, but are deemed ok for the
>    conditions, thus left alone. You never know?

How fast do YOU overtake people ??? I would always notice a policeman in a car
when I had overtaken him.

Another tip on noticing the boys in blue is 2 men in a car, both quite large
(probably those dreadful padded jackets), and the hint of a peaked hat on the
parcel shelf ! 8^)

Alex

Re 1431.43

>    Also, colours always seem to be solid (non-metallic), eg White,
>    Red, Blue.
    
No quite so, as I was hurtling (the only way a Sierra Estate is going to hurtle
is off Beachy head), to Brighton last week, I noticed the flashing blue light in
the distance in front. As I slowed to pass them nabbing someone, I noticed the
car. A 4X4 Sierra with magnetic roof light, but the colour - 
METALLIC light blue. They ARE getting wise to us being able to recognise them.

Drastic counter-measures should now be implemented. Your thoughts please !!

Alex

Maybe they have unmarked Notes readers too

Peter

    Drat - spotted!  Must get a new user name!
    
    
    Jc
    

re
Drastic counter-measures should now be implemented. Your thoughts please !!

Answer:  Don't brake the speed limit
						:-)


Simon

Re: .111


>Answer:  Don't brake the speed limit


was that a pun or a spelling mistake ?

    re. .101
    
    The Danish police has started to install video equipment, not only in
    their cars but also on the motor bikes - and the tapes are accepted as
    evidence in court. The tapes show the speed of the police vehicle as
    well as that of the vehicle being monitored. 
    
    They don't intend to use it much to catch people speeding, but to
    document the other types of offenses mentioned in .101.
    
    Outlaw

    
    Anyone know what the penalty is for displaying an incorrect number
    plate? 

    re .107
    Another tip on noticing the boys in blue is 2 men in a car, both quite large
(probably those dreadful padded jackets), and the hint of a peaked hat on the
parcel shelf ! 8^)
    
    My wife was caught speeding this week on the A1 by an unmarked car red
    sierra with video etc. Occupants were a very pleasant man and woman -
    not burly at all. This was in the 50mph stretch near Sandy. The police
    are definitely getting more subtle. They thanked Gill for her time as
    they sent her on her way with the words "Drive steadily".
    I have said before that I believe the present speed limits should be
    enforced - most people exceed tham because they believe they will get
    away with it. An earlier note implied that a photo sent through the
    post is now sufficient to convict - is this really so?
    
    Andrew
    

<sigh> I got nailed today.

It was by an Escort, two large burly men, no trade name on the number plate, no
stickers in the front or back window, extra aerial, extra rear-view mirror,
peaked cap visible on back seat etc etc etc. It was the most obvious unmarked
police car I've ever seen.

Trouble is, the damn thing was parked on someone's drive behind a hedge with a
bloody great radar gun.

32 quid and 3 pts for 45 in a 30. Dammit.

M.

45 in a 30 limit - you were lucky!

      At 50% over the limit (105 on the main roads) I would have expected 
      no license.

	A policeman friend of mine told me that when you are stopped for
	speeding, you are subjected to 'the attitude test'.  This is quite
	an easy test to pass...simple grovel.  Say 'I'm sorry' a lot and 
	that you didn't realise the speed that you were doing etc..etc.
	Do not smile, do not laugh and never, *never* treat it as a joke.
	If you are not too far over the limit, you will get away with it.

	I have, twice: once when caught doing 45 though in a 30 zone and 
	the other when doing 48 in a 30 zone. 

	Alan.

    
    Does this involve one policeman being reasonable and the other trying
    to goad you into calling him a liar?
    
    Mark

Re 1431.119

>	an easy test to pass...simple grovel.  Say 'I'm sorry' a lot and 
>	that you didn't realise the speed that you were doing etc..etc.

>	If you are not too far over the limit, you will get away with it.

	How about if you
	...gimple srovel.  lay 'I'm lorry' a sot and 
	shat tou ridn't dealise she tpeed shat tou dere woing, Hic

	Does it work then. ;^)

	Alex

	I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but the first time I was stopped,
	the policeman was very pleasant to me "I just wanted to have a word
	with you about your driving sir."  The second time it was "Do you
	realise what b****y speed you were doing?".  It would have been very
	easy to loose my cool with the second one.  But I didn't, and I kept
	a clean licence.

	Alan 

    Re -1
    
    I have found this act almost every time I have been stopped.
    One policeman nice as pie, the other a complete *******, the only time
    this hasn't been the case is when both were complete *******s.
    
    ..Craig
    

    The only time I was stopped, the Police were extremely polite and
    friendly throughout, even those at the station when I had to take my
    documents in for inspection.
    
    
    Shaun.

    After being stopped 30+ times for no reason, a 'extremely polite and 
    friendly throughout' Policeman doesn't exsist.
    
    ..Craig 

    
    Just an observation from the time I was stopped.
    
    The first policeman was very civil "Hello Sir, can you tell me how fast
    you were travelling on that stretch of road...", the second was a rabid
    speed freak catcher "You were doing over 55 mph (UNTRUE) and didn't
    slow down at all (UNTRUE)!".
    
    Fortunately, I kept my temper and, after a suitable breath test response
    (I failed to even register a pass!), was told to mind how I drove (by
    the civil officer) as there were a lot of people around who had been 
    drinking. 
    
    My impression of the incident was that the two policeman were
    definitely playing the 'Nice' and 'Nasty' roles to get a reaction from
    me. No doubt drivers who have been drinking argue vehemently about the
    speed they were driving, rather than realising that the best bet is to
    keep quiet and be polite.
    
    Mark

    I was'nt even asked to take a breath test !!
    
    I was asked if I had had a drink, but they were satisfied when I said
    no. ( I had'nt, just for clarification !)
    
    Shaun.

    
    Ah well, I said Yes when they asked me ('coz I had!).
    
    In fact, I said "Yes, a very small glass of wine". After they test
    refused to register anything, the "NICE" officer said "It MUST have
    been a very small glass of wine". :^)
    
    Mark

    
    re whoever said they had been stopped lots of times? - Have you asked 
    yourself _why_ you have been stopped do often? I don't want to seem
    rude - but you must be doing something! I drive a lot of miles, in/on
    different vehicles, late at night, very early (and also do a lot of
    miles with Derek driving) and I've only been stopped once - (and that
    was after a Police car had followed me for about a mile, while we were
    stuck behind a tractor, and they wanted to know if my Mini had an MOT!
    huh - cheek of it :-)  ) And no, I'm not a perfect driver.... :-)

    has anybody seen the latest issue of Rally News (R.S owners club mag)
    The front cover has a picture of a MKII RS2000 with full police decals
    lights, etc. Aparently the traffic boys had a few of these. So if you
    own a white RS2000. Check back on previous owners!
    
    
    ian.

Coming in to Reading on the M4 from the west, there is often a police landrover
on the left, near the A339(?) bridge. Well, he was there today, and we all slowed
down...then I noticed someone flashing (like in "hello", not "get out of my way")

Silly thing to do in front of PLOD, I thought - maybe he knows him (not thinking
too clearly at that hour) - then it dawned on me what I had said.

A bit later I took a close look at the flasher. Maroon Astra estate with a pair
of large, centre-loaded, arials on the rear tailgate and a pile of red cones
in the boot. Only one driver, not in uniform, but waring a blue shirt and dark
tie.   Plod, or maybe the clerk delivering cones?

Jc 

    re .129
    
    The only reason I can think of to why I was stopped so many times is the
    car I drove at the time - a 1979 Escort Mk II 1600 sport.
    
    When asking PLOD why I was stopped, 
    "Well it is a MKII Escort",  "There's been a lot of robberys in the area",
    "Well two young lads in a car (sometimes had 2-3 people in car)", 
    "You were acting suspiciously",
    "Just routine sir" - This one I heard the most.  ETC, ETC...
    
    Then (most of the time) proceeded a compleate search of the car and
    check for defects (eg tyre condition, lights, tax disc etc.), and of
    course question time for about 5mins on where I'm going and why - usually
    using the one policeman nice(ish), other not-so-nice routine.
    
    I now drive a GTi PUG, and have only(!) been stopped 4-5 times. (OK
    one time was for speeding 8-( )
    
    ..Craig

    RE: Being stopped so many times.
    
    When i used to work late/night shift i used to have to drive home
    through Camberwell.
    
    I got stopped at least 3 times a month (i'd say roughly under once a
    week) for no apparant reason {I suspect it was because of my age
    and the car.} on my route from London to Crystal Palace (SE London),
    and is only approx 11/12 miles distance.
    
    This happened for 4/5 months! I changed my route to go through Peckham
    instead and was stopped maybe once a month.
    
    Only 2 times were valid for stopping me :-
    
    1) My rear lights weren't working - 
    2) I had a smashed quarter-light (after the car was broken into) and 
       they stopped me routinely.
    
    I suppose what i'm trying to say that is some areas the police seem to
    patrol more efficiently than others.
    
    From my point of view it was fine, but it does get a little annoying
    after a while.
    
    Regards,
    
    				Lewis.

>    From my point of view it was fine, but it does get a little annoying
>    after a while.
    
Just try riding a motorbike 2 up with L plates...

(learner driving, full licence pillion)

*then* you'll know what "annoying" is...

:-)

    re -1 
    
    I think you'll get very anoyed when you both get nicked...
    
    Rob

	Re .134.

>  Just try riding a motorbike 2 up with L plates...
>
>  (learner driving, full licence pillion)
>
>  *then* you'll know what "annoying" is...


	The law has now been changed. Nobody can ride pillion with a "Learner
motorcyclist. This is the case whether the pillion has passed his motorbike test
or not.
	The Law changed in October 1990 when the compulsary training was brought
in for any learners.

	Yet another law to oppress motorcyclists.

	Chris.. (Who has passed his bike test?!)

Re. - a few...

A friend of mine used to teach police drivers (well, somebody has to!),
and he reckoned to be able to predict to within half-a-mile which cars 
would get "pulled", and where.

Best way of attracting attention, seemingly (aside from the obvious ones
liike driving badly) was to put 3 or four men in a new-ish, fast-ish car and 
drive it sedately up a motorway in the early morning.

Reasons ?   NOBODY drives carefully at that time of night unless they've
got something to hide (!).  Four blokes in the car, obviously villains coming
back from a night's thieving....

{sigh}


Ian

Re: .135

Well we were perfectly legal, even to the extent of retaining the "L" plates,
as it was the Learner that was in "control"...

After the first 3-4 times, we just carried *all* documents on us...spoiled 
their fun, because they couldn't even make us take them to the police 
station...


BTW wouldn't know about situation today as I passed my M/bike test *many* 
years ago...

    
    Re.1431.137
    
    If you have a driving licence which states you can provisionaly ride a
    motorcycle upto a 125cc, you don't have to take the CBT test before you
    can ride on the road. 
    
    
    
    

    CBT??
    
    
    

At a guess compulsory bike test but who knows.

Simon

    First time I'd read this note...how many people do the Police stop
    each year for speeding...theres a few hundred amungst us!!
    
    I got stopped two months ago, a average of 78 in a 60. The road
    was dead straight (5mile+  A303 Ilminster?), was not dual-carriageway
    but was wide enough for it to be, no excuses though.
    
    The policeman was in a layby 3 miles back and spotted me overtaking
    a car on a brow of a hill.  Unknown to him, was that the car was 
    parked, behind the hill where he could'nt see, and had pulled out,
    just as I approached!  I could see pass him, say 50m, and went pass.
    
    The policeman was not visible until I got near the roundabout at
    the base of the hill, and he was parked otherside of the road.
    
    Anyway 3 miles later, I saw him behind me when I looked  back before
    overtaking a lorry. At first he gave no indication to me to stop, but
    eventually the blue light pursuaded me to pull the PUG over.  His
    first comment was 'I knew you werent going to let me down' !! Once
    I had been invited into his car (right smart inside) he started with
    'I saw your dangerous overtaking....'  I felt a bit better once he
    accepted my reason etc.. Then he started 'your very lucky..' (I was
    starting to think that myself) and added 'if you were doing 1.88 miles
    per/hour extra you would have to goto court...'. I still got a 24quid
    fine and 3 points! So much for the grovel...
    
    Having said that though, my Dad got stopped doing 93Mph on the M3 at
    Fleet last year and the Policeman let him off! My dad produced his
    clean driving licence, said he had just noticed his speed (?) and
    was moving in when he saw the Policeman. Just shows, if you drive
    boring, noisey, light blue montego diesels, can grovel and lie
    between your teeth, you can get away with anything!
    
    A mate of mine got stopped doing 103mph on the M25 two years ago,
    under the 'tunnel' near Potters Bar?  A 24year old driving an open
    topped TVR at that speed and the Policeman, let alone the Judge
    is not going to be happy.  I think the fine was 150quid, but he
    escaped (and I mean ESCAPED) with 3 points !!!  HOW,BUT,HOW .. I
    hear you ask...well he told the court that his BT pager had just
    gone off and he was on special weekend support for his company..
    and he was racing to the nearest junction for a telephone...
    (Good job he didnt have a yuppie car phone!!)
    
    Anyway, I think I have made up for lost time on this conference.
    Drive carefully please...
    
    24year old driving an open topped TVR     

Re: .-1

>    escaped (and I mean ESCAPED) with 3 points !!!  HOW,BUT,HOW .. I

That's because you can only ever get 3 points for speeding.  To get more
points you must be found guilty of a mre serious crime such as drink
driving.

jb

    
    Is driving over a ton not dangerous driving?
    
    I have seen on many occasions people receiving 2 month bans for
    exceeding the 100 mark...i.e. the Royals for example... or is 
    this for a second offence?
    
    What is the point where you have to attend court?...I was told
    20mph over the speed limit for the road.   

Re: .148

>    Is driving over a ton not dangerous driving?
    
Unfortunately there is currently no such offence as Dangerous Driving. 
Only Careless Driving and Reckless Driving.

jb

    For completeness, the offence of Dangerous driving was dropped around
    1977/1978. I beleive that the Road Traffic Act was updated around that
    time. Therefore, death by dangerous driving becomes death by Reckless.
    
    	Garry 

>> What is dangerous?

Highly subjective, that's what!  Which is why it was dropped from "law" as
the courts can't interpret it consistently.  FWIW, they still can't judge
reckless, or anything else for that matter, consistently.

>    The current offence of reckless driving requires the prosecution to
>    prove intent on the part of the driver to endanger life. This has

Nope. Negligence where a normal man would have been careful. There has to be
intent to commit the offence, but not intent to endanger life.

Re: .155

>    However it is still this requirement to prove *intent* that reduces the
>    willingness of the police to prosecute for reckless driving.
    
As the police do not do the prosecuting this is an incorrect statement. 
The police simply pass a file of evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service
(CPS) with details of the offence(s) they believe have been committed.  The
CPS then decides which offences (if any) to prosecute and whether the 
reported offence or another one should be prosecuted - for instance, they
may consider that the evidence to prove a case of reckless driving is less
than certain to obtain a conviction, but know that they have almost 100% 
certainty of getting a careless driving conviction, then substitute the 
latter.

jb

    Good grief! and people actually emigrate to that place?
    
    Laurie.

    
    Only ones who watch, and enjoy, Neighbours!
    
    Mark

>    The problem  is  that the people with attitudes like that in .0 believe
>    they have the god given right to impose their values on everybody else,
>    so with a mit of media hype, they get REALLY TOUGH on speeding.  So the
>    fines are outrageous, and the state makes HEAPS from the fines.
    
    No, The problem lies with people with attitudes like that in
    .157 who think that *THEY* are justified in breaking the law and
    moaning about the fact that the policemen who catch them at it should
    be on the lookout for "someone else" who is breaking the law.
    If people obeyed the law on highways, then these same policemen would
    not be needed on the roads, and can turn their attention to other
    lawbreakers.
    
    I have done all I can to protect my home and possessions against
    lawbreakers, but what can I do against clowns on the road who think
    they have a "god given right to impose their values on everbody else"
    and drive above the *LEGAL* limits, because they are "bored".
    
    Thank God for unmarked police cars who catch these menaces, and more
    power to them.
    
    Wayne.

    ...or why not move to a state where there aren't any spped limits on
    the main routes.
    
    Rob (can't remember where - but there are some)

	Real criminals?  You (or I) break the law and you're a criminal.
	Whether the law is reasonable or not is a seperate issue.  Whether one
	crime is worse than another, is also another debate.

	Deterent?  Not knowing if one of the cars on the road with you is
	an unmarked police car sounds like a pretty good deterent to me.  If not
	then what would deter you?  Answers on a postcard please...

	Dave

    I would call rape, murder, robbery ect ect ect crimes

    I would call speeding and not having a rear reversing light a petty
    crime. Its just that us petty criminals are easy to catch and normal
    pay the bill.
    
    

    How petty is the crime wherbye a speeding car crashes headlong into
    another car, killing its occupant, depriving a wife of her husband,
    some children of their father, etc etc. Put yourself into the shoes
    of a member of the victims family. Now tell me, its only petty.
    
    Whether you like it or not, a Law is there to be obeyed. If you don't
    like it, then take up politics, become an MP and change it. THAT you
    have the right to do. You also have the right to lobby your MP to
    change it. You have the right to campaign for change, to stand on a
    soapbox and plead for change. There are many rights you possess to
    change things.
    
    YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO IGNORE A LAW BECAUSE YOU THINK IT IS PETTY !!!
    
    Wayne
    

    What a pathetic argument!

    Its like sentencing someone carrying a brick for attempted murder.

> Speeding cars do not cause crashes, out of control cars, or cars driven with 
> malevolent intent do. 
    
    Therefore your arguments against cars being driven fast are void!

Wayne had a valid point, a while back.
(Stepping back from the emotion for a moment)

We supposedly live in a 'democratic' society.  If you don't think that
a particular law is far, campaign to get it changed.

Merely disagreeing with a law is not an excuse fro breaking it.

Suppose I don't think it's fair that I might go to jail if if I rob a bank.
Does that make it right for me to turn over my local Nat West ?

If you expect to be protected by The Law, as an entity, you have to
subscibe to it and obey it.  You also have to accept that, if you don't
you get punished.


Ian

    When I speed it because me car want;s to.... sorry guv, it wasn't my
    fault.
    
    :-)
    

    One way of getting the law changed PDQ, might be for *everyone* to obey
    it for a day.
    
    The resultant chaos could be a strong message.........or would it?
    
    JK

    Is that what you think ?
    
    I think the current law should be obeyed, therefore I think that any
    other thing *I* think is right *should* be made Law ?
    
    Get Real.
    
    Wayne.

    
    	Re .last
    
>  <<< Note 1431.175 by CURRNT::ROWELLW "I'm gonna be a Dad ! July 13th 8^)" >>>

>    Get Real.
    
    	Talking of getting real, I take it then that you have never driven
    above 70 MPH on a British road...? Can you just confirm this to a wider
    audience for us please ? Otherwise your argument collapses, and you admit
    to being hypocritical.
    
    	The Police in some counties want the speed limit increased to 80
    MPH to ease traffic flow, this would appear to make sense. The roads
    were designed for higher speed (there was no limit when the M1 was
    introduced and the E-type was in its heyday...)
    
    	Mrs Williams is or was a Labour politician...!

Re: .176

The police in some countys *may* want the limit increased to 80, but there
are others where they definitely don't.  They consider the menace of the
criminals that go faster then 70 mph would simply be replaced by another
set of criminals going faster then 80 mph.

jb

    Whether I do or do not drive above the speed limit is not part of my
    argument, and merely seeks to deflect the matter away from what for
    many seems to be a sore point. *IF* I should be caught speeding, then
    I would expect, and indeed, deserve to be prosecuted accordingly. How
    then, would that cause my argument to collapse ? How would that make
    me a hypocrite ?
    
    It is not I who claims that the speed limit is an outdated law and
    should be ignored. It is not me who says that speeding is a petty
    law and police should not be out to catch speeders. I simply point
    out the fact that the law is the law and must be obeyed. If there
    are a lot of people driving the way I have witnessed them, then I wish
    there were far more police in unmarked cars for our protection.
    
    Whether the police in some areas regards these laws as being out of
    date is immaterial. They are employed to enforce and uphold the Law.
    They are not employed to make the laws. When the driving limit is
    increased, then you may all legally drive at the new limit. Of course it
    won't end there, will it ? There will be this new mythical limit of
    +10 mph or whatever, and you will once more be breaking the law and
    calling it petty.
    
    Do you, DCC::MARTIN, think you have a divine right to ignore the law.
    Do any of you out there think you have the divine right to ignore the
    law ? Maybe Rapists think Rape is a petty crime ? Maybe the Kray twins
    thought that what they did was petty ? Maybe Terrorism is petty ?
    
    For the record, I do not drive above any limit (not just on the
    motorway) and annoy many a friend because of it. I have a clean licence 
    which has never been marked, or even looked at by the police. I have never 
    been pulled over by the police, and I have never been breathalised. I have
    never even recieved a parking ticket. 
    
                              
    Regards,
    A Law Abiding Citizen.

    re .-2
    
    It seems god is on your side.

>    satisfying to drive past a police car doing over 160 KMH, and not
>    worry, or take dangerous evasive action, nor watch the idiot in front
>    slam his brakes on for no apparent reason other than he *THOUGHT* it
>    was an unmarked car ! 
    
    This is an example of safe controlled speeding, right ?
    
>		        The police here exist to *HELP* and serve, something
>    that UK traffic police seem oblivious to...!
    
    *HELP* and serve whom ? If the police are doing there job and are
    stopping the speeders, then they *ARE* helping *AND* serving those who
    pay to have the Law upheld, not broken.
    
    Wayne

    re .179,
    
    And hopefully, the Law.

    
    	I would not like this discussion to degenerate into personal
    attacks that would deviate from the issues here, but from the tone of
    .178 it would appear that you are seeking a sainthood or somesuch.
    I simply do not believe that you have never exceeded a speed limit, I
    also do not accept that you would not resent being fined and obtaining
    point on your license as a result of a moments inattention, after all,
    what is the speed limit on an unrestricted dual carriageway ?
    
    	We would appear to agree that being caught is the true test, I
    would also offer a strong defence that driving above 100 MPH in the UK
    is always "dangerous" given suitable driving style, road, weather and
    traffic conditions. I do not assume any "divine" right to do anythying,
    work, drive, live, but I am merely suggesting that the law is indeed
    an ass, that a good number of Chief constables agree, and that the
    same constable would never advocate such leniancy towards the Krays.
    The Krays killed people and by all accounts actually enjoyed it at
    times, it was not a question of 70% dead or 80% being discussed.
    
    	Speed is a "contributory factor" in accidents, so is the weather,
    road surface, the state of your car and your actions. Driving at exactly
    70 MPH in the fastlane can be more dangerous than driving at 100 MPH at
    times, and prosecutions have indeed been brought for "obstructing a public
    highway" for such actions. What would you do if someone sat 2 feet from
    your rear as you travelled down the M4 at a religious 70 MPH, with
    trucks or other obstructions to your left. You tell me that you would
    just sit there because it is the law, or would you for the first time
    consider accelerating to 80 MPH to increase the separation between
    vehicles ? If you choose to do so and the first car you passed sitting
    in front of the trucks was an unmarked police car who subsequently
    stopped you I take it that you would insist on having yourself
    prosecuted...! Balderdash and bunkum ! It would be nice if James
    Anderton were still about, he and his Friend on high would no doubt
    sort things out for you.
    
    	Speeding is not inherently dangerous. Above 70 MPH in the UK
    it is illegal. This is not necessarily a good limit. A lot of people,
    many of them more familar with the subject than you or I agree that
    a higher limit would be more sensible. The law remains at 70 MPH,
    enforcing it in unmarked cars serves no point, prevention would
    surely be better. The law is an ass, enforcing it in unmarked cars
    only enhances that chance of being caught, rather than using visibilty
    to deter people from commiting the "crime" in the first place...!
    
    	Rat has a clean license and good lawyers.

    
    Good for the EEC.
    
    Given the strength of the German lobby, let all of us who drive tens of
    thousands of miles a year on business hope that the German speed limits
    prevail.
    
    I find it very restful to be travelling through Germany en route to 
    Munich at whatever speed is safe, within the law. Funny, I don't seem
    to go dizzy or have near misses just because I'm above 100kph.
    
    BTW, there is one part of these sceptred Isles where you can travel
    unrestricted out of built-up areas. Not a motorway in sight, but the
    riding is superb -- & the police are very friendly. No unmarked
    traffic patrols in the IoM.
    
    Pathetic comparisons with rape are beneath comment.

    Re: .183:
    
    > What would you do if someone sat 2 feet from your rear as you travelled
    > down the M4 at a religious 70 MPH, with trucks or other obstructions to
    > your left. You tell me that you would just sit there because it is the
    > law, or would you for the first time consider accelerating to 80 MPH to
    > increase the separation between vehicles ?
    
    That's what most of us would do (or would have speeded up on moving out
    beforehand to avoid obstructing the faster car).  However, the correct
    thing to do is actually to *slow down* until the separation becomes a
    safe braking distance.  It also has the added benefit of annoying the
    tailgater :-).
    
    Jeff.

    Re: .186
    
    Well said Sir!

    I see, this is interesting. I am asked a question, and answer it. You
    don't like my answer and immediatly start a personal attack on me. I do
    not claim any form of beatification. I merely want to live my life to
    the full, and there are a lot of people out there who wish to prevent
    me from doing so.
    
    I do not claim that any of the crimes I mentioned are petty, especially
    the Kray twins. I merely said that perhaps THEY think what they did was
    petty. Is this not the argument you are putting forward ? You claim
    speeding is petty. I disagree.
    
    You ask me what all this has to do with the presence of unmarked police
    cars ? I point out the fact that for so long as there are people who
    are willing to break the Law, there will be unmarked police cars.
    
    Those that object to them being there seem to me to be the ones that
    they are there to catch in the first place. So in fact, if you speed
    and thus break the Law, you are creating the situation to which you
    so vehemently object to.
    
    A little story for you. 5 years ago, I lived next door to man and his
    21 year old son. The son had a live in girl-friend who was 8 months
    pregnant. The Father was an avid cyclist and took part in many races.
    On a balmy summers evening, at approx 8.00pm, he was struck, from
    behind on the Basingstoke - Reading road by a car travelling at what
    conservative estimates calculate to be 90 mph. He was killed instantly.
    The driver never stopped.
    
    Three weeks later, the sons girlfriend gave birth. This should have
    been a very happy occaision. 
    
    Still I am sure they were consoled by the fact that driving at excesive
    speeds is only a 'petty' crime.
    
    Another one. On Sunday night, whilst a friend of mine and I were at
    Wembley, My wife, who is 8 months pregnant, was being driven home by
    my friend's wife (who also had their 19 month old daughter in the car).
    They narrowly avaoided a car who shot through a set of traffic lights
    (road works on Pack Lane in Basingstoke) despite the green light being
    in my wife and friend's favour, at a very fast speed, in a 30 zone.
    
    If something terrible had of happened, no doubt I could console myself
    with the fact that you all think this is only a petty crime.
    
    GET OFF THE ROADS YOU MORONS !!!!!
    
    Wayne.
    
    P.S. I am totally dismayed by the number of potential criminals in this
    conferance, and I ask the moderators if some of the issues being
    discussed here are not contravening any DEC policies, ie the
    encouragement of Breaking the Law ? This conferance has now been
    deleted from my notebook.

    
    Er, what difference does it make whether you jump red lights slowly or
    quickly?
    
    Still, I think a number of you have been a BIT unfair on Wayne. He has
    a point. The law is the law and the Police are there to uphold ALL of
    it. If you are breaking a law and get caught then you really have
    no-one to blame but yourself (of course in the car on your boot
    scenario the Police should have nicked the retard behind, but the
    driver in front has every right to continue at 70 mph until he passed
    the lorries, however annoying that may be), so to whine that unmarked
    Police cars are 'unfair' is pathetic.
    
    If you really want to stop the Police 'wasting' their time nicking 
    speeders, why not slow down and give them less work?
    
    Still, IMHO, the Police should be concentrating on stopping careless
    or reckless drivers (like the red light jumper) rather than nicking
    people for doing 85 mph on the M4 on a clear sunday morning.
    
    Mark 

    This question of unmarked police cars seems to be based around their
    use on Motorways. Do they use them on other roads? (i.e. A and B
    roads). I can't say I've ever seen one.
    
    I was just wondering if a kind of reverse argument (bad grammar?) could
    be applied to the use of unmarked cars. I'm sure most of you have
    experienced the tailback that forms behind a normal police car
    travelling at 65 MPH. Could the police be using unmarked cars to avoid
    this unwelcome effect and thus keep a consistent traffic flow but still
    be on the roads?
    
    Barry.

    
    Barry, 
    
    How could you tell a car was an unmarked Police car or not?
    
    The speed you travel at, all the other cars are just a smudge of 
    colour! :^)
    
    Mark
    
    PS Sorted the brakes out yet?
    

    
    IMHO.
    
      Unmarked police cars are not on our roads to prevent people from
    speeding is a safe controlled manner.
    
    scenario 1.
      driver A is travelling along the M* at 85 mph with drivers B, C, D &
    E following at the usual lane 3 distance (circa 3 meters). Driver A
    notices a patrol car and applies the brakes in an attempt to loose 15
    mph, drivers B, C & D are forced to do the same. Allowing for the 2
    second reaction time driver D is very likely to collide with the rear
    end of driver C's vehicle. 
     Result: 2 officers are out of commission for 60 minutes dealing with
             the 'accident', sweeping the carriageway and arranging for the
             vehicles to be removed.
    
    Scenario 2:
       Vehicles positioned as before and at the same speed. Driver A does
    not se the 'unmarked car and continues at 85 mph. This allows the
    officers to Video the actions of all drivers and document evidence of
    all vehicles (reg numbers, time date etc) and have the drivers stopped
    or summonds when the circumstances are a little safer.
    
    result: traffic flow is not disrupted, no lanes coned off and no
            addition to the traffic accident statistics.
    
    NB. all unmarked patrol cars are fitted with video cameras/recording
    equipment, and this evidence is sufficient for the courts.
    
     Unmarked cars are in use to catch blatant offenders. Accelerating to
    80 MPH, overtaking a slower vehicle and returning to lane 1 and slowing
    to 70 mph should not result in an extra 3 point on your licence ( as it
    is the overtaking preceedure that the police teach to all traffic
    officers). 
    
    Moral: Blatant disregard for the law is the offence, exceeding the
    speed limit is a summary offence....
    
      regards
      Alan..
    

    I think Mark's note (.190) clarifies a few points (and calms things
    down a bit).
    
    I think we're missing the point a little bit. Very few people keep
    rigidly to the speed limit. 35-40mph in a 30 limit and 75-85 on a
    motorway seems to be the norm (Wayne excepted of course o:-) )
    
    I was talking to a traffic policeman awhile ago and
    I asked what he was looking for on the motorway. Whilst
    not being specific he said what they looked for were people 
    that were "pushing it".
    
    The argument is surely not about exceeding the speed limit by 1 or 2 mph 
    but those who are "pushing it" (perhaps the ton up brigade).
    
    - Roy

    Re .193
    
    I wouldn't have thought *all* unmarked cars had videos etc.
    But they will all have calibrated speedo's.
    
    Re general opinions on speed limits.
    
    In last weeks Auto Express (aaaaggh!), the front cover story
    was to 'Keep On Speeding'.  Inside was an article that said
    the Police don't pull over people doing 'below 90' !
    I think this was a bad article, encouraging people to ignore
    the legal speed limit, with no reference as to which Police Officer(s)
    had made the statement (obvious that no name would be listed really).
    
    I think it is probably quite true that many of the Traffic Cop's will
    'turn a blind eye' to cars travelling in excess of the speed limit,
    but it will always depend on the circumstances (ie the weather,
    distance between cars, traffic density, 'unofficial policy', what
    car you are driving, the clothes you are wearing, what gender you
    are, whether anyone else has been booked that day and if the Policeman
    is in a bad mood that day...)
    
    I won't speak out in favour of speeding, even though I must admit
    to not keeping all speed limits.  I like to think that when I do
    so, it would be in circumstances that the Police may 'agree with',
    but if I am stopped I will expect to be 'nicked', much as I would
    obviously prefer not to.
    
    J.R.

    
    re: .191
    
    I suppose there are a number of unmarked cars patrolling (or being used
    for other purposes) roads other than motorways, although what they're
    used for I don't know and wouldn't hazzard a guess.  I've been stopped
    by an unmarked Maestro in Wolverhampton.  There was only one bloke in
    it, who told me to 'take it easy etc...'.  The only pointer to it being
    a police car was the single aerial on the roof, and the fact that it
    was gleaming white =;*)
    
    Chris.

    
    After 8 years of driving with a clean license I have been caught
    speeding. According to this notesfile this means that I am a mindless moron 
    with no regard for other peoples safety! I actually got caught at 23:45
    on the M4 in perfectly dry conditions and where other traffic was
    negligible. The officer said that he had no complaints about my driving, 
    in fact he actually commended me on it. He also said that at that time
    of night in those conditions they don't mind if drivers put their foot 
    down " a bit". I'm not sure what "a bit" is but my 98.17 mph is outside
    it. I will pay the fine and get the points, after all I broke the law.
    
    What I would like to see is what someone else has already suggested and
    that is variable speed limits taking in account conditions/traffic/time.
    
    
    Tony (who now only drives at 69.9 mph and has removed RS from the back
          of the car) 

    
    How does anyone know what the drivers of the cars which we see stopped
    by Police cars are actually being charged with? We tend to assume that
    they have been speeding, but they could be members of the CLOC, or any
    of several offences....... 
    
    Most of the people here who say they have been 'done' for speeding
    admit that they were, but since none of us ever sit in the centre lane,
    we would never have been stopped for that offence would we? I do know
    people have have been stopped on motorways and convicted of these
    type of offences, so may be the Police do spend more time looking for
    the tailgaters and CLOC members, than looking for the 71mph
    drivers......

	Re .198.

	Serves you right, you criminal.

	Seriously though, another 1.83 mph and you'd have been banned...

	The law should definitely be changed in this respect, 100mph on
	a near empty motorway late at night is a damn sight safer than
	65mph on the same motorway in the rush hour, the problem is
	clearly defining the instances where the higher speed should be
	allowed... perhaps interactive traffic density and flow
	monitoring with real-time speed limit adjustment via elctronic
	display? Silly idea?

	JQ.

    
    
    	Yes there are unmarked cars on other roads ( apart from Mways), I
    know as I have been stopped by them twice, once for speeding and once 
    for an unspecified offence, being booked on neither occasion I hasten
    to add, Also certainly in London, and proberbly in other towns as well
    there should be a lot of unmarked cars ie, CID etc, Reading should be  
    virtually crawling with unmarked cars as I thought that it was the
    centre of some special force, wasn't there a tv series about them, (
    Could it have been the flying squad HQ ?).
    
    Also I agree with Wayne, If you break the law you cannot complain its
    a 'silly' law, thats no defence at all. As it stands the law states x
    is the limit, do more and be unlucky enough to get caught and you
    deserve everything you get. As an analagy (sp) I, during my formative
    years spent a lot of time in court, one case was of a little old man
    who had the iq of a 10 year old, he got caught for shop lifting, the
    prosacution didn't particulary want to, but it had to proceed because
    the supermarket chain insisted, everyone agreed he'd broken the law, 
    prosacution, defence and judges, also nobody really gave a toss and
    thought the Supermarket people were being real pratts so he got let off 
    with a warning and the supermarket had to pick up all the costs, the
    moral, well if you break the law, you cannot argue that the "law is an
    ass", your guilty, however if those imposing the law think it is then
    the sentance will reflect thier thoughts, ie they will not impose a strict
    punishment as thier verdict.
    
    All you speeders out there should just carry on speeding your believe
    that the law is an ass will be reflected in the lack of points on your
    license, or not as the case may be. ;-)
    
    

    
    
    
    	I havn't either been booked or stopped for speeding in
    	10 years.

	re: variable speed limits.

	During M4 work the Wilts police, for safety reasons, introduced
	 a mandatory speed limit of 50mph.
	They were subsequentaly catching over 100 people a day speeding
	 through the section.

	The problem will always remain about speeding, it has to be enforced,
	 one way or another.

	Bad driving habits is the worst offence IMHO and should be stamped
	 on using Video etc.

        
    ...bit of a non-sequitur Garry...
    I can say "the law is an ass" wether I break it or not.

    And lest anyone should think otherwise, I'm not encouraging 
    anyone to break the speed limit - I know how dangerous you all 
    are :-)  And anyway you seem to be doing  alright without any
    help from me :-)

    

    Re the use of videos
    
    What has to be recorded on video - the registration, the driver's face,
    the white's of his eyes ?
    
    Several people (girlfriend, family etc) drive my DECmobile. Does this
    mean that I'll get fined if they get filmed speeding ?
    
    Pete

    
    
    
    RE -1....YES.....unless, like parking fines, you can prove that were
    not driving at the time that the offence was commited....
    
    
      Alan..
    

    Re: .206
    
    I think that legally you must tell the police WHO was driving the
    vehicle at the time of the offence, otherwise YOU can be done for
    withholding evidence.
    
    This could get interesting if YOU said FRED was driving but FRED said
    that he wasn't. How could the courts determine the truth?
    
    Probably the default is that YOU are guilty!
    
    mb

I thought I'd heard of a case where two similar looking blokes in a
car were stopped, and they both got out of the car in time, so that
the policeman did not know who drove the car!

I think he was unable to prove who commited the offence.

Mark.

    
    
    Seen on the way into Belfast this morning...
    
    A white Granada 2.8i something or other with a red dayglow stripe down
    both sides.  There were some blue lights fitted to the roof and front
    bumper and large signs declaring "POLICE".  The two guys inside were
    wearing police uniform and had some sort of large speedo fitted to the
    top of the dash.  There was also a video camera fitted in the middle of
    the dash.
    
    You guys don't know how lucky you are!!  This is the first proper
    police car I have seen for several years.  Over here they are all
    unmarked.  You get to be pretty good at spotting them after a while.
    
    Gerry.
    
    
     
    
    

	Friday 2.30pm A27/M27 just outside Pompy a green BMW being booked
	by a black/dark blue Mercedes. Nasty piece of disguise !
	Maybe this should be in SIP ?

	Alex

    Sure it wasn't the Dark Green BMW doing the booking ?
    
    They definitely use them on A3/M27.
    
    J.R.

>    Sure it wasn't the Dark Green BMW doing the booking ?

    Nope, the BMW was definitely getting done, the Merc was the police jobby.
    
	Alex

    
    
    Fancy, our hard earned taxes paying for them to jolly around in
    a Merc. 
    
    Would anyone from the 'I think unmarked cars are a good thing' 
    care to elaborate on why plod need Mercs?
    
    Richard.
    

   Re last

   No, but things must be wrong in Essex if all the plain cars are
   Sierras.

   Jane.

    
    RE 214..
    
        Pure practicalities....once the refinements are taken out, the
    radios, video/vascar, first aid kit fire extinguisher etc are fitted in 
    the car; the traffic cones, illuminous triangles broom etc are in the
    boot the car is really only evaluated on how it performs (engine and
    handling wise). Thats why the Thames Valley constabulary rejected the
    RS Cosworth ( loads of power but with a lot of weight in the boot the
    front end became light and handling appalling at high speed..
    
     re 215
       are the Sierra's CID plain cars or TRAFFIC plain cars ??
    
    
     AL....
    

    
    Surely you can't argue that the Police don't need cars capable of
    sustained high speed. Mercs, BMWs, etc are probably better use of our
    tax funds than cheaper cars in the long run as even with high mileage
    these cars will show a higher return.
    
    Mark

re< Note 1431.216 by ODDONE::BELL_A1 >
>    
>     re 215
>       are the Sierra's CID plain cars or TRAFFIC plain cars ??
    

   Surely you can expect me to be that explicit??!!

   J.

    
    
    But Mark, Mercs aren't fast.... look how many you overtake :-)
    The 300E is the first one that could overtake a 2 litre Cavalier
    and if they were doing any serious pursuit, they'd need one of
    those multi-million pound 500E.
    

>>    But Mark, Mercs aren't fast.... look how many you overtake :-)


just saw the front cover of the Sun - about someone 'done' at 170mph in a Merc


...art

    
    True, but their Bahnstormin gearing make them good for sustained high
    speed (just like a Vauxhall really!).
    
    Still, I can't argue that a 190 is not a fast car by any standards
    (with the honourable exception of the Evo 2!).
    
    Mark

The Merc (788 BYE) in the papers had been "tweaked" a bit...

Owned/driven/caught by British Drag racing champion, Jim Whelan

    Couldn't decide if this was a "Seen in passing" or not...
    
    Today, at J14 (Wantage) on the M4 London-bound a sight I can claim
    never to have seen in 13 years... a speed trap on a motorway.
    
    A maroon Astra estate parked high up on the hard shoulder with the
    radar equipment placed just in front and over the brow of the hill...
    a handful of Police motorcyclists waiting to do battle.
    
    I've seen the Astra Estate in use around Reading before and now can't
    pass a strangely parked maroon Astra without checking for the tell-tale
    box.
    
    One thing that worried me is the reaction this high-visibility speed
    trap is going to cause with rush-hour drivers... 
    
    One last "Seen in passing"... A gentleman driving a maroon Carlton
    proudly displaying an IAM badge, must have been his wife's :-) Didn't
    deter him though, passed me 5 minutes later like a bat-out-of-hell.
    
    My speed? ~75MPH.
    
    	Ian.