Conference terri::cars_uk

Apparently it's an offence to drive without keeping both hands on the
steering wheel (within reason, of course!)  I haven't been able to
check this as I don't have a copy of the highway code with me, but
I've heard of a couple of cases where people have been stopped for
reasons relating to this.

Chris.

    These are the same laws that relate to using a mobile phone without
    "hands off".  Though I must say the drinking from a can is likely to be
    lees of a problem than using a phone (which requires concentration on
    the conversation).
    
    Are people being done for smoking now too?

    
    It's not that strange. That covers loads of things that you see in
    London quite frequently. Ok sipping a can of tab is probably taking 
    it a step too far. In London its not uncommon to see some donk sitting
    at the lights Shaving, reading the paper, on the phone, you name it I
    probably seen it, within reason. All of which can and should be covered
    by without due care and attention. Personally out on an open road
    taking a quick sip from a can is not so bad, but how many accidents
    happen in town where the driver was otherwise occupied , reading the
    paper, drinking ,shaving ,trying to deafen themselves and the rest of
    the universe, or I have even seen someone using a dictaphone!!!!
    
    It is most definatly an offence to use a mobile phone on the move,
    hands free exempt. It is also an offence to use a radio mic whilst
    driving. How often do you see someone nabbed for it????? I guess it
    depends it plod is having a bad day or not. Real traffic cops can be
    reasonable, more intrested in the complete idiot. It's Flat foot who
    got out the wrong side of bed that goes out pissed the rest of the
    world off.
    
    
    Garry

    My wife (solicitor) had a case last year of someone being done for
    eating chips while driving (presumably without due care & attention), &
    he was being fed them by his girlfriend!
    
    Andy

So,  if we can't take our hands off the wheel,  does this
mean that anyone who doesn't drive an automatic is breaking the law ;*)

    I think the idea of the law is that in case of emergency, the person
    drinking the can of Tab etc is unlikely to drop it, and are therefore
    restricted in their evasive actions.  I also beleived that actualy
    using a portable phone while on the move is not an offence (it's not
    specifically mentioned in any law that is), but falls in the same
    category as drinking, eating, shaving etc.
    
    Shaun.

    What amazed me (re base note) was that there was no less than 3
    uniformed cops in the car. When you think of all the crime going on
    in a city the size of Southampton I think its a disgraceful waste of 
    police resources for a (comparatively) minor offence.
    
    Royston

	Well, they are hardly likely to get hurt stopping a female motorist
	for drinking from a can.
	Easy nick, one notch on the "crimes solved" board.
	

	Heather	

	The Police must be short of something to do!  I agree with the previous
Noter who commented about the waste of Police time - Why can't they be done for
that?

	Part of the problem with this sort of pettyness by the Police is that

a) it all helps to drive a wedge between them and the general public,

and

b) When they do "do" someone for such petty and probably not dangerous things,
They are helping to boost their "Crimes committed" to "crimes solved" statistics!


				Malcolm.

PS.  Hand Signals are not illegal now, are they?

What colour was the car....The policemen in question were probably playing 
traffic snooker. }

 Sean

    Roy,
    
    Was she stopped by traffic police (in the Big BMWs) or ordinary plods
    (in boring fiestas etc.) ????
    
    Traffic police have their place, since nearly 5000 people were killed
    last year.  BUT, 3 is a bit excessive, and if they weren't traffic,
    then they should be catching burglars.
    
    Huw. 

    Not accepting any crap from any copper is probably a sure way of
    getting booked for something.
    
    Richard
    

If the can was sipped on a straight road, in light traffic, the car was being
driven at a reasonable speed, the can was not continually held, then I don't 
see a problem.

If however, the can was held for sometime, on a complex road, or with medium to
heavy traffic, or at high speed, or the driver failed to use their mirror, or
failed to signal, or road positioning was bad, then congratulations to the
police involved.

Dave.

    
    If there were three plod in the car, it was possibly a training
    exercise. 
    
    Today's lesson was presumably demonstrating "How even petty offences
    can be used to pull-up motorists".
    
    Richard.

    
    Sipping TAB Clear is an offence, period !.
    
    M.Kane
    Coca Cola Ltd Ireland

	Not too many weeks back I had to overtake a car
	hogging lane 2 of the M4. Not very unusual ...

	 ... the driver did not make any attempt to move back to
	lane 1 because he was too busy drinking from his can
	of Carlsburg Special Brew!

	Graham

    
    Perhaps they thought it looked like a can of <insert name of beer>.
    
    Trevor

    
    Ahh, now here's a question. 
    
    Is it illegal to drink beer while driving? (hypothetical question)
    Provided you only dring, say the one can, is there a law that
    differentiates between tab and XXXX?
    
    Just curious
    
    Terry
    

    Terry, I don't quite understand you're question. As stated in .0 it would 
    appear to be an offence to drink anything.
    
    I guess if it was beer they would test you to see if you're over the
    limit.
    
    Royston

    
    re .-1
    
    Oh just wondering if it was an "additional" offence. I beleive that in 
    some places consuming alcohol in a vehicle is an offence, just
    wondering if that applied in the UK also.
    
    Mind you, it would appear that almost anything you can concieve of
    doing on the road will get you in trouble these days.
    
    Perhaps this move could have a good effect, if it causes some of those
    people out there who feel "safe" and "law abiding" that they too are
    liable to have their collars felt. Perhaps then they wouldn't assume
    that every idiotic law passed in their name was needed, and we could
    have a legal system that didn't try to protect us from ourselves.
    
    Terry
    

    You may change your mind if your shiny new car had just been rammed in
    the back by a driver drinking from a can.
    
    If you want to drink, great, just get off the road. Plod gets my vote.
    
    TJ

    No, drinking alcohol while driving isn't an offence per se in the U.K.
    (unlike most American states - even having an open container of
    alcoholic drink in the passenger part of the car is illegal in many
    states). But obviously they could Brethalyse you, and also apply the
    same principle as was done in .0 if they wanted to.
    
    Dave.
    
    "The Bureau of Highway Safety wishes me to remind you - don not drink
    while driving.
    
    You're liable to hit a bump and spill the whole thing" (Tom Lehrer, I
    think, years ago).

    
    Sad......
    
    I suppose I foolishly included some reference to alcohol in my note
    and that always brings a response when motoring is discussed. I did
    not intend to question the wisdom of the drink driving laws. That part
    of the note was just idle curiocity re. the law. 
    
    The second part was my gut response to the base note. Oh I can see the 
    arguements that can be made about protecting other motorists from an
    inattentive individual, but how many aspects of our behaviour are
    governed by such petty interference now? 
    
    Doesn't anybody out there care about the erosion of individual
    responsibility? We live in a society that expects the law to protect
    them from all risk and hazard.
    
    I suppose I am just a liberatarian at heart......
    
    Terry

    

    
    
    	How many times have we seen coppers talking into their radio mikes
    	while driving ????? Is Driving without due care and attention
    	punishable by over 5 year in jail ( maximum ) ??? If it is
    	then a member of the public could carry out a Citizens arrest !!!!
    
    	What would the courts make of that?
    
    
    	regards,
    
    	Graham " got nicked for Drving w/out due C and A while using my car 
    	phone, argued my point in court, ie that I was in control of the
    	car, and was found Not Guilty !" Drew.
    

    
    
    Total times stopped = In the region of 10-12.
    
    Reasons:Routine checks,breathelised (I had drunk a shandy,not while
    driving I might add),to inspect my tyres.
    
    I've now been driving for about 18 months,which means on average i've
    been stopped once every 1.5 months.
    
    What can you do!
    		Some cars are known as female magnets(slight mod)but my
    cars have all been *the old bill* magnets!
    
    	Andy!
    

    I used to drive one of those...
    
    Battered grey MkII Cortina with Northern Ireland registration.  8*)
    
    Richard
    

    Surely, drinking from a can must be more dangerous than using a phone.
    Once the level of liquid in the can gets low, it is necessary to tip
    one's head well back. I fail to see how it is possible to safely look
    at the road like this.
    
    Laurie.

    re: -1
    
   > Surely, drinking from a can must be more dangerous than using a phone.
   > Once the level of liquid in the can gets low, it is necessary to tip
   > one's head well back. I fail to see how it is possible to safely look
   > at the road like this.
    
    Simple solution.
    
    Buy one of those hats/caps which enable you to have two cans of liquid
    inserted in them. Place one end of the long winding plastic straws into 
    the can, and the other end, invitingly in front of your mouth. 
    This then cuts out any need for using hands, or tilting back your head. 
    
    mac   :-)

    
    re: -1
    
    New optional extra for the 93 model....
    
    	"F1 style drinks bottle.... as used by Damon Hill!!"
    
    

    I generally have problems with tipping the crisp bag back to get the
    last few crumbs....
    
    Richard
    

    On the way back to work at lunchtime I saw a policeman driving along
    with his elbow out the window chewing his finger nails - now that is
    really setting a good example isn't it.
    
    Perhaps I should have taken his registration no and reported him!!!
    
    Sharon 

    .34  ...but did he swallow them ?
    
    Sharon, if you'd made the citizens arrest & it got to court, I suspect
    he would plead that he spat them out & get 'Case dismissed' over a
    technicality.
    
    Life is unfair :^(

    Over here it's not uncommon to see the police speeding or going through
    red lights! 
    
    It is also popular for folks to drive with only 1 hand on the steering
    wheel with the left arm hanging out of the window down the side of the
    door. In a number of cases the arm remains in the same position even
    when changing gear (look mum no hands)! 
    
    Dave 

I was quite underwhelmed the time I witnessed a traffic police car
being driven in a style more suitable for a boy racer, ie right on
people's bumpers, ridiculously dangerous overtaking (and no lights
or siren)... then I spotted the "driver under instruction" sign in
the back window.  But he DID seem to have both his hands on the
wheel, so I realised that it was perfectly safe!!

Chris.

    I bought a boring car to replace my Dolomite Sprint for daily use 
    because I was fed up of being stopped. Even though the Sprint is
    factory standard, it looks like it has been hotted up by a boy racer
    (Factory alloys, twin exhaust, tinted windows, etc..) 
    The irony is several Police forces used 'em as traffic cars in the '70s!. 
    
    What makes the Police pull you is if your driving is not 'normal'. 
    Remember they spend all day looking at people driving. 
    It's probable that our 'victim' in the base note was weaving ever so 
    slightly whilst drinking, I know I do unless I concentrate hard.
    
    I have had no special training, and I can sense by observing the car 
    ahead, what their next maneouvre is likely to be before they signal
    (if they signal at all), or that they are about to do something 
    dangerous/discourteous and should be watched carefully. 
    
    /Mark  

    I can see what the swines are going to do next as well.  Probably down
    to ten-odd years of commuting into London....
    
    One of my faves is the pop-out specialist.  Take three cars in a line,
    inside or middle lane:
    
                    [  3  ] [  2  ]       [  1  ]  ->>
    
    ...with number 3 right up the bum of number 2.  Is this guy going to
    dive out without signalling or what - right in front of you as you're
    about to pass him!
    
    IMHO, if you're driving smoothly, giving all the right signals in a
    timely fashion, changing lanes smoothly, not screaming up the back of
    the car in front and braking heavily and so on, then you don't look
    like you're speeding, even when you are....
    If you're driving in a more vivid and exhilarating style, then you're
    more likely to attract attention, even if you're legal.
    
    Richard
    

>    Lets face it what motoring offence did she commit ? She was at a stand
>    still for G*ds sake. 
    
    .0 didn't say she was at a stand still.  Most of us assumed she was
    moving, I suspect.
    
>    This lead to lecture from the policeman and Helen was let off with a 
>    caution.
    
    .O sounded as though your wife was "done" for the offence.  Was she
    just given "a talking to"?  What really bugs a policeman is someone not
    recogising they are there and continuing to do what they think is
    wrong.   

Sounds like another good reason for fitting Lamborghini Miura (or was it
Muira?) style slats to your back window

Did you know that being drunk in the front seat of a parked car with
the keys in the ignition is regarded as being an offence.

Well, at least I was cautioned for this by one policeman in Manchester.
Told me to get in the back and sleep it off, or he would take me down
the station.

Nice chap really. Even after I threw-up on his boots he didn't take me in ..

>Did you know that being drunk in the front seat of a parked car with
>the keys in the ignition is regarded as being an offence.
    
    The same goes for using your keys to unlock the door.  You are at this
    point legally in charge of the car.  Could be a problem if you've
    decided to leave the car and simply want to get a coat out of it.

    >Did you know that being drunk in the front seat of a parked car with
    >the keys in the ignition is regarded as being an offence.
    
    As long as the keys are in your possesion whilst you are in the car
    (ie, could be in your pocket), you can be done.  I know someone who
    was cautioned for being over the limit while sleeping in the back
    seat of his car, with no intention of moving his car.  And this was
    outside his house.
    
    Trev

    re .47
    
>>>> I know someone who
>>>>    was cautioned for being over the limit while sleeping in the back
>>>>    seat of his car, with no intention of moving his car.  And this was
>>>>    outside his house.
    
    I suppose he drove home and then found he was too drunk to walk to the
    front door ?
    
    Andrew

>>>    I suppose he drove home and then found he was too drunk to walk to the
>>>    door.
    
    	Nope, he'd been to the pub, got home realised he was locked out, but
    	had his car keys on him !!!
    
    Trev

    
    About 6 months ago in Newbury, the police "did" a guy they found asleep
    in his car at 6 AM in the carpark by the canal. He lost his license for
    a year and got a serious fine. Those who got away with a caution should
    consider themselves lucky.......
    
    Apart from a pedantic interpretation of the law, what common sense
    reason could there be for the police doing this? Can anyone throw some
    fresh light on the subject?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Terry
    

Re. Police "tooting" their horn.

Surely this is an offence (being at a standstill)? I can't imagine why how you
could justify letting someone know you're there, when you're at a standstill!

As always, it seems that a portion of the police force think they're above the
law.

    Got stopped by an unmarked white senator on the back roads
    to Newbury.
    
    	They tried to use "did you know you where averaging 70mph"
    I wasnt and they knew it. I would have had to  topped a 100mph to do
    that and I never strayed above 70mph. It turned out that they
    had "difficulty keeping up" on the slow bits and overtaking
    Another nail in Roadcraft.
    	All I got was a present your docs.

    
    
    	There is a (true) story about a bus driver receiving a conviction
    	for drink driving...and he was no where near his bus at the time.
    	He had finished his shift and left his bus at a bus stop in order
    for the next driver to take over. Our bus driver went down the pub
    and had a few beers, unknown to him, the relief driver failed to show
    for work. As luck would have it the Police needed to get the bus moved
    urgently ( nearby accident or something ) and went to find the first
    driver (now very drunk). He was deemed to be officially in charge of
    the bus until he had handed over to the relief driver, so was
    technically "drunk in charge"!!
    
    Graham.

    God, how pathetic our Police can be sometimes...
    
    Laurie.

    I have got a scanner now installed in my car. The reason being is, the
    police used to always stop me for doing 75mph. I no this is
    slightly above the speed limit, but occasional on the m4 you feel in
    the way doing 70mph, and over drivers are up your bum, and you have no
    where to go.
    
    I got the scanner to correct my driving before I am visible to them,
    and ohh yes. These scanners do work !!

Stefan,

How much was the scanner thing ?
What are the wavelengths it "reads"  - I dont anyhting about these.

Is it different wavelengths depending on the device that is used to check the 
vehicle speed  ?

It is maybe not quite so necessary for the motorways, but more so in the built
up areas where speeds are 30 or 40.  Yes, we all know how hard it is to sit at
 30 sometimes :-)


Warren

Speedos always show you are going faster than you are, so I usually do 75mph
on the clock knowing I'm really doing 70mph.

Dave.

    Stefan,
    
    	by SCANNER, do you mean a radar detector which picks up X, K and Ka
    band signals (or even wide-band), or do you mean a scanner-receiver, to
    pick up the police radio transmissions?
    
    The number of radar traps on motorways is negligible, although there
    are an increasing number (frighteningly increasing number in fact) of
    VASCAR or Police Pilot traps, which don't use radar. Most of the time
    you will find your radar detector triggering on the cellular radio
    transmitters, so don't think that it is saving your licence. Besides,
    75mph on a motorway is less than typical, so you must be doing
    something else wrong!
    
    If you mean a scanner-receiver, which allows you to monitor police
    transmissions like you _could_ do on a VHF radio a few years ago, then
    i am surprised that you can use it to good effect, unless you hear them
    saying "follow that car index XYZZY, he looks a nutter", and the
    registration is yours!!!
    
    mb

    Stefan,
    
    Good wind up!

    Yawn.

	may_a, I agree with you (I have a good friend now an ex-class
	1 police driver and instructor)...


	Dave (real crime isn't just breaking into houses...)

re.62:

As a responsible person I object to the tone of your reply. It appears as if
you are saying that because the police have a tough time of it, then we should
accept bad treatment from the police. Totally unacceptable in my view.

Dave.

>if you think getting stopped for driving whilst not in control of your
>vehicle is bad treatment,

No I don't, whatever made you make such an assumption? I think you should stick
to facts and arguing specific points rather than making judgements based on
assumptions. I think you should also withdraw your unwarranted attack made
against your Digital collegues in .62.

As for people being stopped because they drive a performance car, well, I hope 
there is a better reason than the type of car alone, like the car has been
reported stolen or inconstistencies between the vehicle and it's registration
plate. 

Dave.

    
    RE- "bad treatment"
    
    	On all the occasions in which I was stopped (10+) I was treated with
    respect and given a chance to have my say.I can certainly understand
    MAY_A's point,the traffic division do receive a great deal of hassle
    and I'm sure it's no fun for him when his wife comes home after getting
    a load of gob and abuse from genuinely foolish and carelessindividuals who 
    choose to share our highways.
    
    	IMHO the traffic cops do a good job!
    
    Andy

    
    
    Since I have differing opinions, I have deleted my contributions.
    
    

re.68:

Of course, the (traffic) police do a good job. If they didn't there would be
a public debate and much stronger words in here! The quality of policing is not
the issue here. We are being attacked for giving negative opinions about the
quality of policing. A subtle difference. As a taxpayer who contributes to the
cost of the police service I demand the right to be critical when I feel it's
necessary.

Dave.

    RE: .70
    
    I fail to see why you deleted your notes simply because we all didn't
    immediately agree, applaud and revere them. Now that you have deleted
    them, it seems that your views and beliefs were worthless, even in
    your own view. In fact, you made a valid point, but in view of the poor
    level of literacy, the totally blinkered view, and most of all your
    missing the point entirely, you elicited a response which perhaps you
    hadn't anticipated.
    
    Rather than hit the symptom by deleting your note, perhaps you should
    review what you're saying, and the way in which you say it.
    
    FWIW, I too believe that traffic police are vital, and in the main,
    fair and reasonable people. However, only an idiot or an innocent would
    refuse to accept that there are those out there who are neither fair
    nor reasonable. Since this appears to be the view you espouse, to some
    people you must therefore appear to be an idiot, in which case the
    reaction you got was entirely predictable.
    
    Laurie.

    Seen outside a local nick last night - a white Rover 800 fastback "unmarked
    -speeder-catcher", not in itself unusual at all.  However a couple of
    things about it that I'd never noticed before - (1) It was quite old-
    "H" registered and (2) the model number badge that's usually on the
    offside-rear had completely vanished, I assume that it was actually an
    827.  Do you reckon that this was an attempt at disguise ?
    
    So if you are in the habit of speeding through the M6 Thelwall viaduct
    roadworks you have been warned, although personally I believe that this
    particular particular 50mph stretch is v.necessary even if it just
    causes traffic to slow down to about 60 (which seems to be the
    average speed) as there are lots of slip roads and cones etc. where
    every single bridge over is being widened so that the M6 itself can be
    widened in readiness for the second viaduct over the Mersey & Manchester 
    Ship Canal.
    
    Stevie.

What do you mean by "It was quite old-"H" registered" That's only 3 years!
I've seen a number of debadged Rover 800s. Maybe it's another attempt
for Rover to enter BMW's market. I've also seen debadged Vauxhalls.


	Ian

Electric milk float that has supercharged turbo electric batteries...


unbadged though, with hidden JVC camera, so you dont know if it is a police
car  or not.  Only giveaway might be a heavy duty alternator. 

Be warned..

    Re: Note 2077.76 by WIZZER::FISCHER
    I just thought that "H" was a bit old for a traffic car, it must be
    between 21 and 33 months old (or something), perhaps it's not that
    unusual (I don't want to start a rathole).
    
    Stevie.

	Re .76

	I thought that the only de-badged BMWs were those driven by people
who couldn't afford the bigger engined variants, ie to disguise the fact
that it was only a 316/318 or 518/520 etc.

	Dunno about other makes though.

				Malcolm. 8^)

    Read about a cracker......                    
    
    Guy on a bike doing 160MPH+ on a motorway. Rider spotted a 
    police m/cycle cop on the patrol area. Rider decided that he was going
    far too fast to even think about slowing down, so he decided to keep
    going at 160MPH, knowing that the cops bike would take time to get
    behind him with the VASCAR. 
    
    Sure enough the blue light appeared in the distance and the rider
    pulled in in front of a lorry to ensure that the VASCAR could not get
    him. The cop eventually pulled the rider (now going at legal speed)
    over and stated in a very stern manner that the BMW bike the cop had 
    could not get close enough to switch on the VASCAR.
    
    The rider asked the cop if there was anything else he could help the 
    officer with before riding off scot free!!
    
    As the rider had the good sense to say/admit nothing the cop could not 
    do a thing!
    
    A win for the public....albeit at a naughty 160MPH!
    
    Quick thinking or what?
    
    

    Sorry but IMHO 160mph on the public highway deserves every imaginable
    fine/ban going... it is simply far to dangerous to try on the british
    road network.
    
    If they improved the roads/abolished the speed limit etc.. then maybe,
    the question is where do you keep your brain if you intend to
    drive/ride at these lunatic speeds.... under the bed in a hat box.
    
    The only place for these sort of speeds remains the race track
    
    $ SET MODE/NO_SOAPBOX
    
    Now that is off my chest, I can go home at a sedate legal limit and
    chill out for the weekend...
    
    Bob

    Doesn't sound like a very experienced rider to me.
    
    -Tony

    
    There was a similar story a couple of years ago about a biker on the M9
    who noticed police at the side of the road while doing approx
    155-160mph of course the police had no idea of his Reg and only a bare
    description. This one decided to stop, go back and apologise...
    He was fined and banned.     

	Peter has the right idea, laws are far too generalised, they cannot take
into account circumstances.

	There are MANY circumstances where even 30 MPH is far too fast, yet it
is perfectly legal per se, you would get done for Dangerous Driving then, but
not for breaking the Speed Limit.

	There are far too many people who have never explored their own 
capabilities, much less that of their car, who have have a negative impression
of themselves and have little self worth, with the result that their attitude
is "I wouldn't (dare) so you mustn't."  They are usually totally self-righteous
too.

	I was driving for many years before the 70 MPH limit was introduced
(by Barbara Castle if I remember now), because it was discovered that the factory
was testing the AC Cobra at up to 170 MPH on the upper reaches of the M6 in the
very early hours of the morning (when there was literally NO traffic) and these 
self-righteous people in high places threw up there hands in absolute horror
when they heard about this.  At that time (of Anno Domini as well as of day),
what they (AC) were doing was not at all unsafe then, but I agree that it 
probably would be now, even in the early hours.

	I am not in any way seeking to condone those speeds, especially on todays
traffic laden roads, but I am against those who continually seek to limit 
everyone else to there own (inadequate) ideas of their own capabilities.  

	It is NOT automatically unsafe to exceed the speed limit, any more 
than it is automatically safe to drive at the Speed Limit.

	The problem today is simply that the law is (by definition) totally 
inflexible.

	My opinion.

				Malcolm.

PS.  I wouldn't like to drive at those sort of speeds in an appropriate car,
simply because I know that I couldn't re-act fast enough to cope with them,
but I'm not going to tell anyone else that they mustn't.

PPS. I don't ever remember hearing of an accident involving any other
vehicle when a car was being driven at those sort of speeds, but I am open to
correction (AND no doubt will be!).

    Re .86
    
    Maybe you missed my point. People seemed to be shocked at the 160mph
    on British roads. What I was trying to relay was that this is not
    uncommon as there are racing bikes that can reach these speeds and
    there are guys out there doing these speeds.
    
    I didn't understand your "well I heard about.. stop this please!"
    I'm quite interested in what people hear about. That is the point
    of a notesfile. You can share information.
    
    Royston

    
    ....then, of course, we have the Thames Valley Plod reckoning that they
    wouldn't bother you under 85 mph if you weren't driving dangerously.
    
    Richard
     

re: last - 110 in the wet and cant see a thing!

But that was at Pembrey - Yes?

Dave 

    Any clown who travels at speeds of 160mph obviously does not realise that
    an innocent driver, pulling out of a side road or a lane on a motorway,
    probably would not see the bike rider until it was to late to avoid an
    accident. 
    
    The only good thing to come out of this would be that the bike driver
    would probably be wiped out with the bike.
    
    C.P.
    
    Bring back hanging.

re.92: 

>an innocent driver,

Hah! No such thing.

Dave.

    
    Hi CP,
       now, IF your saying (from your perspective) that you would fail to
    see a 85/120W headlight for the duration of your sight line then surely
    all I can suggest, for the safety of yourself and any passenger that
    you may carry is:
    
    
         
    
    
    
           P L E S E   V I S I T   Y O U R   
                  O P T I T I O N 
                   AND  HAVE YOUR
                     s i g h t 
                      checked
    
    
    
      regards
    
        Alan.

    And anyway the bike rider would pull out into the middle (or outside)
    lane when passing a junction.
    
    	Rik-who-has-no-problem-with-skilled-bike-drivers-driving-quickly

    But of course,  if the bike was already in lane 3, and the car pulled
    out into lane 3,  should it really be expecting such a speed?
    
    I dunno...
    
    Jc
    

    re .97
    
    I'm a wee bit puzzled...
    
    Surely "pulling out into lane 3" is a manoeuvre and as such the driver
    should follow the procedure MSM (mirror, signal, manoeuvre)? The whole
    point of these safety checks is that even if you are blasting down the
    motorway in your box at 100mph there could still be someone going
    faster behind you.
    
    Brian

    
    Anybody driving at the speeds you talk of on english roads with 70MPH
    limits should be nicked for wreckless driving (IMHO)
    
    Richard (who wouldn't trust a bike rider further than he would bounce
    off my bonnet......)
    
    P.S.If I see a bike coming in my rear view mirror when I check before
    a manoevre, now matter how far back it is I cancel the
    manoevre until the bike has passed , this is because bikes are totally
    unpredictable, a large percentage of the riders seem to have a
    death-wish, thats fine by me but I don't want the brains splattered on
    my bonnet!
    I know this is a generalisation and that some bikers have seen the
    highway code but the problem is if you see one in the rear view mirror
    how do you know if he's seen the highway code??
    

    
    
    Reward you for what, doing well in excess of 100mph or wreckless
    driving?
    
    Richard

	You'll be done for reckless driving (being reckless as to the results
	of your actions.  However, you'll be rewarded for wreck-less driving.

	Dave (and I used to get 3/20 in spelling tests at school)

    Dave! There was miles in that one yet!
    
    Quite correct.
    
    Laurie.

    
    
    re .101
    
        Please explain what you find reckless in the way most motorcyclists
    ride. Then we/I will be able to understand your point of view over
    those that say:
    
     Statement: they drive/ride to fast.
     meaning: I've got a top of the range company car and I STILL can't
              keep up.
    statement: They go between the line of stationry cars in traffic jams.
    meaning: I'm on the road hours before them, and they STILL get to work
             before me.
    statement: Their bikes are always to noisy.
    meaning: why do people look at them, but ignore my big flash company
             car.
    
    etc.....
    
    Alan

    
    What bores me with motorcycles is that a series of sweeping bends that my
    company jam-jar will easily traverse at 3 figures while the radio plays
    & the aircon cools my brow is a strain for me on the Laverda at 
    80........... I suspect I'm getting old.
    
    
    Colin :-)

    
    Colin,
         I understand your point. I don't think it's you that is getting
    old, its the technology. Replace the Laverda(tory) :-) with a more
    modern set of wheels and you'll be able to get to your destination
    (wherever it may be) before the sony diskman runs out of music..
    
    Alan
    

    Straining on the Lav at 80 is a recognized sign of getting old.
    
    Richard
    

    re .100  I hope its a wind up? otherwise I know some really
    friendly motorcylists who like to discuss your views at length.
    BTW do you drive a Volvo?
    	I suppose you want everyone to be boring boring boring
    And as for trust well I dont trust Car drivers, they've got this
    attitude that anyone faster than them must be bad or insane, or 
    DANGEROUS.  And of course bikes are not PC, Despite being more
    environmently friendly than cars. Bikers are psychopathic criminals,
    despite being more friendly, helpful and more saftey aware than Volvo
    drivers.
      I  really pity the car drivers who feel their tiny little egos being
    crushed when a bike hits the hyperspace button at the lights. Those
    car driver think the biker is try to race them, WRONG, he/she is trying
    to get away from the DANGEROUS cars!!!
    
    		Derek 
    

While we're on the subject, what is the best vehicle for driving over a
motorbike that is blocking your path? I thought perhaps a Range Rover, anyone
know if it gives enough clearance?

Dave.

    This is all BS!
    
    Bikers a *generally* more safety conscience than the *majority* of car
    users....
    
    There are exceptions to the rule however.  riding a bike at what I
    concider lunatic speeds (150+mph), means to me that the biker suffers
    the same affliction as cave divers (brain surgically removed).
    
    The worst road users yet are still cyclists. (and Volvo drivers)
    
    Bob

    Bikes? Why stop at bikes?  I get real aggressive when Concorde flies
    over... 8*)
    
    Bikes are a different class of vehicle.  They accelerate faster as
    standard.  If you want to beat bikes away from the lights, get a bike. 
    Unless you want to go to silly lengths, eg XR3i v 125cc/12bhp learner
    bike.  Otherwise, let 'em get on with it and enjoy the show.  What
    would you have proved, anyway?
    
    Richard (so laid back he's horizontal....8*) )

    ....and IMO racing a learner away from the lights in an XR3i would be a
    pretty bizarre reason for getting stopped by the police.
    
    Richard
    

	How about if you find a bike behind you coming around the 
	traffic moving over to the left a little and letting it
	by (avoiding my pet hate of driving in the cycling lane)?

	How about if you find a bike creeping into the front of you,
	or at the side at a traffic light letting it go first?

	How about a little consideration?

	Dave

    
    Well I agree with the traffic light race being a little silly, but
    above 100 mph, I've yet to see a bike that can get away, usually
    they're blocking me! SO GET OUT OF THE WAY YOU SELFISH Bs!!!!

    
    And by the way, start using your mirrors will you, the amount of times
    I have to resort to the horn is shameful!

    
>    Bikes are a different class of vehicle.  They accelerate faster as
>    standard.  If you want to beat bikes away from the lights, get a bike. 
 

	I have this NG TC 3.5L V8 which can do a pretty good job .......
			7,500  ono

	Heather

    And there was me staying away from this conference because I didn't
    have a car...
    
    Missed all the fun.
    
    Mr Kennedy, I seem to recall that the only use for your horn was to
    wake us up when we had been dozing in a lay-by for 10 mins waiting for
    you to arrive.
    
    Rob_who_says_you_should_try_riding_a_bike_at_150_before_you_knock_it

>  Rob_who_says_you_should_try_riding_a_bike_at_150_before_you_knock_it

Good argument. Let's not criticise murderers until we've killed at least
one motorcyclist.

Dave ;-)

    Bad argument,
    
    Your argument equates more with
    
    Let's ban parachuting - I've never tried it, but it *must* be
    dangerous.
    Let's ban cave-diving - I've never tried it, but it *must* be
    dangerous.
    
    Are you following me ?
    
    'Cos you'll never get in front :-)
    
    PS I noticed that the new Bimota has been upped to 164bhp, can't wait
    to try one!
    

    
    And I agree with Rob (Hi Rob), because I've been on his bike when he
    did it !
    
    Julie.
    

Driving at 150 mph (car or bike) does not seem to be a bizarre reason for being
stopped by Police - or am I missing something?

Tony

    Julie (High), would you care to re-phrase that, folks might get the
    wrong idea :-)
    
    Tony, no, you haven't missed anything. It's a rat-hole.
    
    

>    Let's ban cave-diving - I've never tried it, but it *must* be
>    dangerous.
 
	Cave diving is very dangerous - but only to those who participate, and
	to the rescue services that have to go fish them out of the mud-soup.
	(or the arsenic soup, as one nutty cave diver did - went cave diving
	in an arsenic mine ....................)
	
	Driving at 100mph+ is not only dangerous to the person who does this,
	but to others, who's driving skills and observance are fine for
	the legal limit of 70 - but not for the illegal 100+.
    

	Heather - just come back from Portugal - do you know, they can come here
		  and drive????????  you could be on the same road as them!!!

re.120:

But parachuting, cave-diving, and speeding on motorbikes are dangerous, people
*have* been killed. Thus we need regulations to minimise the risk to the general
public.

Dave.

    :-)
    
    Sounds like a Euro-forum argument, that.
    
    How many members of the general public have been killed by a
    parachutist landing on them ?
    
    I think that more people die from straining too much on the Lav each
    year, so perhaps we should ban that ?
    
    :-)
    

re.126:

Straining on the lav does not endanger others.

Dave.

    That's allright, riding a motorcycle at 150mph doesn't endanger others.
    
    Rob

    re .127
    
    But I thought Colin had already admitted straining on the Lav trying to
    do 80 through a set of winding turns?
    
    Brian

    That's right, Brian,
    
    I'll set 'em up, and you swat 'em.  :-)
    
    R

    
    re: last 25
    
     This may be getting just a little silly, but what the heck..
    
    We all enjoy our own forms of transport, I enjoy a 170+ motorcycle
    because I can buy it for under 7000 pounds, and you may like owning a
    car that will exceed 160 mph because everyone will know that you paid
    atleat 5times that amount for it. Therefore you will be of a more
    higher intellect (IMHO anyone that enjoys spending 35000+ pounds on a
    status symbol has to be very intelligent). 
      Alot of people (a majority IMO) exceed the speed limit but only a
    Minority are killed/injured on our motorways (is this the minority that
    persist in driving in lane 2 for 10's of miles at 69 mph ?). BTW I've
    had motorcycyle accidents, but they've always been at slow speed (less
    than 40mph), statistical proof that if I travelled everywhere at
    120+mph I'd never have another accident.....
    
    Alan.
    
     
    

    Well said Alan,
    	I think I followed that..
    
    Um, actually, I expect it can be proven statistically that no-one has
    ever had more than one accident at 150mph on public roads, therefore it
    must be a safe speed.
    
    R

    Re.118
    
    You wait for me? 10 minutes? On ya bike!
    
    We had to wait while you tanked up, we provided the butties, and I
    don't suppose you'd like to tell eveyone what happened when you were
    2-up would you?
    
    BTW, the current buggy is a lot faster .... so up ya kilt!

    Re.131
    
    Get real! Who do you know who drives a new car?

>    Therefore you will be of a more
>    higher intellect (IMHO anyone that enjoys spending 35000+ pounds on a
>    status symbol has to be very intelligent). 
 
	Or just rich?

	Heather.....who has been cave-diving - and knows it's very, very 
		    dangerous.

    
    Whose memory? The hood wasn't down, until we returned. The only problem
    we had was the bugs on the screen. The Lady with me is still available
    to comment if required.
    
    Remember Rob, as you get older .....
    
    Doesn't alter the fact that above 100 mph you guys slow down.

    I just lav personal coversations eh... don't you mate ?

    Certainly do mate eh... they're kinda personal, in a close, personal kind
    of way mate.

    Mike Smash

    
    So we did go off line, gotta problem?

    
    THANK YOU GARRY VIPOND FOR THE 944 MANUAL, CHEERS

    
    Its ok Colin think nothing of it, however, 
    
    1) Please don't SHOUT
    
    2) Shouldn't we take this offline 
    
    3) Anyone who drives over 150 in/on anything is an accident waiting to
       happen, Specially on a bike, Fart at the wrong time @ 150 and your
       gonads are gonners. Been close to it, doing 70 and it wasn't
       pleasent.
 
    
    Garry. ;-)
    
    

    
    Dunno what to say, seems Rob's going to be here 28th June , Garry
    didn't like me saying thanks, and the thunder has started!
    
    God bless you all, speak tommorrow.....

    
    Not with me you wont, its a Baverian Urlaub tomorrow.
    Orf down the Beer garden now.
    

    
    Don't no-one go home nowadays?

	 Back to Bizzare reasons ( whilst on the subject of bikes)

	Upset local Police officer due to the fact that he could not catch
	me untill I reached my destination and he pulled up the drive behind
	me.  He had apparently been chasing me for approx 3 to 4 miles with his 
	lights flashing but I didn't see him, No mirrors on the bike ya see.
	After a full scale R*&())%&^g he told me not to do it again.




	I tink the reason for this was !!!!!!




	If he can't catch a 125cc Learner , Well ................


	(this was about 5 years ago and the brain has grown a cell now)

	DANGEROUS BIKES  ::::  LEARNERS on 50cc bikes. (No power to get out 
							of trouble)
			:::::  BRAIN DEAD LEARNERS on 125's

			:::::  MOTORCYCLE COURIERS (Seem to share the same
							cell)

	regards


Roger

    
 >> <<< Note 2077.111 by NEEPS::IRVINE "Pass the hair clippers... its Summer" >>>
 >>
 >> There are exceptions to the rule however.  riding a bike at what I
 >> concider lunatic speeds (150+mph), 
    
    Bonzo,
    
    So you don't consider 148mph through a 30 limit to be somewhat
    looney-ish ?
    
    -Tony

    
    Re some many notes back --
    
    Query re motorcyclists (not bikers...) & mirrors. I own a variety of
    quick motorcars (130 mph+), & some quicker motorcycles. Whilst the cars
    allow me to use the mirrors at any speed, I regret that the
    motorcycles' mirrors are only of any use when stationary with the
    engine turned off. Not my fault -- blame Laverda, Ducati & Moto Guzzi! 
    Not much use except for spotting the odd loon who is about to rear-end
    you as he screeches to a halt.
    
    It's a real problem on the road -- either I get a badly vibrating 
    view of my elbow, or a badly vibrating view of nothing recognisable. If
    it wasn't for the fact that the first 20 years of my motorcycling life
    were in the days when no motorcycle had mirrors I'd be worried.....
    
    In all seriousness, poor rearward visibility is just one reason why 
    IAM & police instructors urge motorcyclists to overtake quickly, then 
    get back into lane. On 2 wheels, you learn how to minimise risk
    exposure very quickly. 
    
    (An incidental by-product is that I have no chance of identifying the
    boys in blue, so ride very tamely. Have only ever exceeded 150mph on a
    motorcycle on the race circuit)
    
    Colin

Ok ok, lets face it, there's times when over 100mph is perfectly safe and times
when it isn't...

I been fast 140mph on both a bike and in a car, and i'd prefer to be in a car,
but if pushed and on a bike, most largish bikes could extend a little further.

Being followed at 100mph (on a bike) by a car is no big deal. I've been pillion
on a bike doing 150+ being chased by a 911... the 911 stood no chance, open up
that throttle and up to 170 we go... was i scared... you're damn right!!!

.148>	Ok ok, lets face it, there's times when over 100mph is perfectly safe 
.148>   and times when it isn't...
    
    That's as maybe, in your opinion, but it sure ain't legal !
    

.149

It depends which country you're in, but you're right, in the UK these speeds are
not legal, and anyone caught doing them must accept the punishment.



					Lewis.

    Tony -
    
    I don't concider anything you do to be safe.....  8*)
    
    There again atleast you will be less likely to prosecusion for
    excessive speeds in the MR2.... you'll be more likely to get done for
    obstructing the public highway when you stop to re-arrange your hair
    every 2 miles....  ;^)
    
    Bob

    Ya love me really......
    
    The best "Excuse" I have heard of for being stopped so far has been on
    new years eve... around 10:30 in the evening... "Good Evening Sir...
    this is our annual Anti Drink Drive Campaign... have you been
    drinking?"
    
    "No"
    
    "Very well sir, oh by the way.... your number plate light appears to be
    flickering... please see to it in the VERY near future."
    
    "Okay"
    
    "Happy New Year Sir"
    
    "Yeah you too..."
    
    I appreciate the fact that they do need reasonable cause to stop drink
    driving at all times, and has already been said in the conf. I also
    believe that the police use traffic "offences" to bolster the `Crimes
    comitted/ Crimes solved'
    
    Bob (Bl**dy annoying coz it add 40 mins to my journey)

>    I appreciate the fact that they do need reasonable cause to stop drink
>    driving at all times, and has already been said in the conf. I also
>    believe that the police use traffic "offences" to bolster the `Crimes
>    comitted/ Crimes solved'


nope.

A copper at a bike training program told us the police have always had the
power to stop cars/bikes without reason. It's not just a Christmas special that
allows them to random breath test.

cheers,
	Paul~

    	In theory, they're not got that power but in practice, all they
    need to do is say they noticed a problem...
    
    	Back at university, I was driving one of the Union minibusses back
    from town when I was stopped with a "One of your brake lights don't
    seem to be working, sir" by a policeman in a police metro.
    	
    	We checked them. "Well, they seem to be working now, sir... May I
    see your driving licence, insurance registartion document, please...
    Not got them... I'll have to ask you to accompany me to the station,
    sir".  
    	
    	So off to the station where I sat around for half-an-hour or so
    while he contacted a traffic policeman to deal with me.  From what I
    could gather, the traffic policeman told him to stop messing about
    before giving me a lift back to where we'd left the mini-bus and
    sending me on my way...

    Beg to differ but in theory, depending on what County/State/Province/or
    Country you live in they do have the right to randomly stop drivers to
    check for drinking and driving violators.  In Ontario the issue has
    been taken to the courts and the police have won, and I think rightly
    so.
    regards,
    JP

    
    In the UK, the police do NOT have the right to stop you for random
    tests for suspected drinking etc. Explicit condition within the law. 
    
    However, they do have the right to stop you & ask approprate questions
    if they believe you are driving inconsiderately or have queries about
    the safety/legality of your vehicle. In practice, I have not the 
    slightest doubt that the first paragraph is overtaken by their 
    interpretation of this para. The fact that having stopped you because 
    they suspected that the earth lead on your front headlight may well be 
    frayed will, quite naturally, cause them to ask you to blow into the
    bag in case your bodily state enhances the decay of said earth lead. 
    
    Colin

    .157 is quite correct. "I didn't think you were wearing a seat-belt" is
    their favourite.
    
    Laurie.

    
    I was stopped on my Yammy DT50 ( some years ago ) for going to slow !.
    
    
    
    Gary

    Once upon a time I spotted a blue flashing light in my mirror, checked
    my speed, yes, 70mph, dual-carriageway, can't be me then.
    I turned off the dual carriageway at the next exit, and noticed that
    the blue flashing light was on top of a police Ford Escort, which was
    taking the corner in rather a spirited fashion. At this point, my
    natural guilt took over, so I stopped.
    
    He stopped.
    
    He says, "do you know how fast I had to go to catch you just then ?"
    
    Me "No idea"
    
    Him "I was doing nearly 80"
    
    Me "Oh"
    
    Him "That's a bit fast in a 60 limit"
    
    Me "Yes, I suppose it would be"
    
    Him "Let's see your licence"
    
    Me "Why?"
    
    Him "You were speeding"
    
    Me "No I wasn't, you were"
    
    Him "You trying to tell me you were doing 60 ?"
    
    Me "No, 70"
    
    Him "So you admit it !"
    
    Me "No, its a dual carriageway"
    
    Him "So what ?"
    
    Me "Have you read the highway code ?"
    
    Result - About a half an hour while he tried to find something wrong
    with my bike, and a trip to the cop-shop with my documents.
    I never quite worked out who rattled his cage though.
    

    Last weekend I was on my way home just coming upto my village, and all
    the traffic was being stopped by the police for a procession that was
    on its way to the village fete.
    
    That really was a Bazzar reason for being stopped by the police ;-)
                      ~~~~~~
    
    Andy
    

    .160 Sounds rather like the occassion I was pulled for doing 40 in a
    60, limit. The traffic copper took some convincing that it wasn't a 30
    as there was no street lights or speed signs in sight.
    
    Brian

As a real bizarre reason....

As you come onto the M3 going north past the Hockley Lights the A33 is 50Mph
however there are no 70mph limit signs as you go from A road to Motorway.
Therefore by 'default' the M3,M25,M1,M40,M4,M5 etc etc are all 50mph limited.

How do I know this ?

Well at 05:30 hrs on a sunny Morning recently I got stopped by the boys in blue
for doing 70Mph up the hill past Spitfire Bridge on my Bonnieville. I was told
in no uncertain terms that the speed limit was 50Mph. The officer even suggested
that I took a ride in his vehicle back to the lights so that I could see that
he was indeed correct. I refused as I said would he take responsibility for the 
bike being nicked during the ride in his car ?

The result was that I got dragged down to Winchester nick and had to ring up
the missus to come out with the relevant bits of paper to show that I did indeed
own the bike etc. I asked to see the Duty Officer to ask why I dod not get the
slip of paper asking me to produce the document at my local nick within 5 days ?
 
Lots of Don't do it again sonny (i'm 40 this year !), I got kicked out at 
07:15.  It had obviously been a quiet night.

Stephen Davies

>As you come onto the M3 going north past the Hockley Lights the A33 is 50Mph
>however there are no 70mph limit signs as you go from A road to Motorway.
>Therefore by 'default' the M3,M25,M1,M40,M4,M5 etc etc are all 50mph limited.


There certainly used to be a derestricted sign just before the bridge after the 
A33 turnoff.

Maybe they removed it as a trap...

    > own the bike etc. I asked to see the Duty Officer to ask why I dod not
    > get theslip of paper asking me to produce the document at my local nick
    > within 5 days?
    
    And what did he say?
    
    Phil Gill.

    re .163
    
    Stephen could you clarify this a bit more as I travel this route every
    day.
    
    London bound past the hockley lights it is clearly 50mph and is 2 lane
    dual carriageway. It then changes to 3 lanes and there is a motorway
    sign (I think).
    
    You shouldn't need a derestricted sign when entering a motorway as its
    70 mph by default.
    
    I cannot believe you were done for doing over 50mph on the motorway
    section. You should definately follow this up.
    
    Royston

I was not booked but given a severe 'Don't do it again sonny' type of lecture.
I will look had for a sign this evening on my way home from SBP. I don't recall
ever seeing one at the transition from 50 mph to Motorway.

I checked Various Road Traffic acts in the Library on saturday. There is 
an indication that unless you get an explicit sign indicating a speed zone
change then the last limit is still in force.

There also seems to be a precident that if deemed so the police can stop you
driving away in/on your vehicle until all the relevant documents have been
produced. The 5 days grace is as the discretion of the police. How many car
owners take their registration papers with them when going on Holiday in the UK?

The whole experience ruined a great early morning ride down to the New Forrest.

/Stephen D

    
    Well Snoopy, the radar detector, was confiscated by the Swiss police
    yesterday.
    
    Wonder what they're going to use it for?

>I checked Various Road Traffic acts in the Library on saturday. There is 
>an indication that unless you get an explicit sign indicating a speed zone
>change then the last limit is still in force.

	How often do you see a speed limit when you go down a slip road
	onto a motorway????????????

	I can't remember verer seeing one,

	I know there aren't any onto the M4 at junctions 11 and 12, so does
	that mean its 30MPH between that strech?

	Heather

The other speed indicator is the blue motorway signs.   If the signs are blue, 
then it's a motorway.

    re .167
    
    Stephen are you sure it was speeding they were lecturing you about.
    
    How on earth could they put you through that for doing between 50 and
    70 mph on the motorway under clear conditions.
    
    They're argument doesn't stand up. You don't need a speed limit sign
    when entering a m'way.
    
    Royston

Re: .167

>I checked Various Road Traffic acts in the Library on saturday. There is 
>an indication that unless you get an explicit sign indicating a speed zone
>change then the last limit is still in force.

 There are, (or were), a number of exceptions to this.
 For example:

 If street lights are under a certain distance apart,
 (100m?), the speed limit, unless otherwise stated is
 30mph. This is why in certain areas where a 40mph limit
 applies you will see smaller 40 signs at 200m intervals.

    Surely you don't have to accompany PC Plod to the station unless he
    arrests you - did this happen ?
    
    Pete

    re: <<< Note 2077.168 by NSDC::KENNEDY_C "Going places ...." >>>
    
    Did you get a fine aswell or did they just confiscate it?  We got ours
    confiscated in France a few weeks ago and they also fined us 2,500 FF
    (a little over 300.00 pounds).
    
    

    just out of interest,  how did they know you had one - is it that
    obvious?
    
    Jc

    RE: .175
    
    One rather famous chef in these parts got done because the police
    noticed that he hit the brakes, for no apparent reason, just a shade
    before the speed trap and thought ummm strange I wonder why and also
    how he knew the speed trap was just after this point!
    
    This was discussed about 2-3 years back in the Valbonne conference,
    I'll try and dig it out.
    
    Aren't they able to detect a radar detector?

    
    I don't believe the Police have the power to detain you until you have
    supplied all vehicle documents, however the Police have the power to
    hold anybody who may have committed an offence if they are not entirely
    satisfied with their identity and/or address provided.
    
    The identity bit is obvious, if you say you are Joe Bloggs and they
    disbelieve you for any reason, they can hold you until you prove you
    are who you say you are, and I believe the address bit comes from the
    vagrancy act....Basically the powers are there so that if an offence
    has been committed (for example you had not produced your documents)
    then they know for certain how to get in touch with you, to issue a
    summons.
    
    These powers may initially sound very powerful and o.t.t. but it is all
    they have to stop anybody who commits an offence of any description
    from giving false names and addresses, and therefore never getting
    caught up with.
    
    Richard (young@wlo)

    Hi Alan B.
    
    C.P here, I drive a RENAULT 19 16v. RACE TUNED no its out of warranty??
    
    You called me "captain VOLVO" in a recent reply.  Where are you coming
    from?? Or did my Renault 19 16v look like a volvo because it was just a
    blur when I passed you.????
    
    Silly boys on bikes doing 160MPH on our roads should put their bottle
    to the test. Go and book yourselves a day at a race track and race
    agianst the big boys if you dare.  
    
    P.S. Most of the bikers who also race on the tracks, that I know, are
    sensible riders on the public highway.
    
    C.P.

    
    Hi Colin,
            without being pedantic (one of my favourite past times) I would
    like to invite you to re-read notes 2077.90 to 2077.95, taking notes of
    the comments and respective system::name format. This will hopefully
    firmly place the blame on another party. Regarding note 2077.94 (by me)
    I've infered that maybe your eyesight is imperfect, but then we both
    worked on Lazer printers so thats all the excuse we need.....no??
    
              :-)
    
      off the hook ??
    
    
    Alan

    re .180 - .181
    
    Reaction time > 1 month ?
    
    Must be Captain Volvo !
    
    BTW Why does anyone who hates seeing folks drive fast have a race-tuned
    car ??
    
    :-)
    R

    
    re 183...
       should your statement "driving fast" actually be "driving fastER)
    
    
        :-)
    
    Alan.

	Hi,

	The Police in the UK have the power to stop *any* vehicle on
	a public highway at *any* time to inspect the driving license
	of the driver.  It is an offence to fail to provide that
	license for inspection by a Police Constable when requested.

	The "7 day wonder" or HORT/1 as it is officially known provides
	the person with 7 days grace to provide the license at a Police
	Station of their choice.  If they fail to provide the license
	at *that* Police Station within 7 days they will be prosecuted
	for the offence that they committed on the day of the stop. if
	the license is presented within the 7 days no offence is
	committed.

	All talk of random stops is therefore irrelevant...the only
	"random" issue that comes out of this is the ability to request
	a specimen of breath for a breath test after a stop for a
	license check or some other reason.  The law states that the PC must 		
	have reasonable grounds to suspect that the driver has more 
	than the legal limit of alcohol in his body *before* he can
	request a specimen of breath.

	Just to clear-up a few misconceptions about the law.

	Kevin.

    The one get-out for failing to produce your driving licence is if you
    don't have one.  I was given a producer following a crash in December
    last year.  When I went to look for my licence, I couldn't find it.  I
    informed the local Plod that this was the case, and they said that if I
    didn't have it, I couldn't produce it, and that this was an allowable
    defence (or whatever).
    
    The bottom line is that they check up with Swansea.  If I'm legit,
    fine.  If not, huge fine....
    
    Richard
    

    RE: HORT/1 I thought it was 5 days, or have I just been out of the
    country too long?
    
    RE: Random stopping. Whatever the legalese, in practice, the police
    have the ability to randomly stop any driver and breath-test him/her at
    any time. Full stop.
    
    Laurie.

I was in an accident in Feb. '91.  At that time no apparent injories were 
involved. Shortly after the woman that I (officially) hit went to Casualty
complaining of neck ache. As an injory had now become evident she reported the
accident to the police and told me a couple of days later. To cover my side I
also reported the accident to Reading Central Police.  I had my documents with
me but they didn't want to see them.


Five months later I had a visit from the police asking to see the documents. As
I had only just lost the folder with all the documents in I couldn't produce
them within the 3 days. When I finally did produce (late) I was cautioned for
late production.  A couple of days later (a Saturday) I got six summonses in the
post;

Failing to produce: Driving licence, Test Certificate, Insurance Certificate

Driving without:    Driving licence, Test Certificate, Insurance Certificate

Needless to say I was somewhat worried...

On the Monday I phoned up and spoke to the Chief Inspector and explained the
situation. He investigated the situation and phoned me back. He appologised and
said that I should never have recieved the summonses. I recieved a letter a
couple of weeks later withdrawing all all summonses.

Simon

    ref .185
    
    You seem well informed, so perhaps you can answer this one. If you get
    stopped for an offence and offered the option of taking a fixed penalty
    notice, you can either surrender your licence to the Plod at the scene
    or, if not with you at the time, with a time limit at a Police Station.
    
    What happens if you've sent your licence off for an address change and
    do not get it back in time?
    
    Rupert

Officially, you may not drive without a driving licence in your posession. 
This means that, your fault or not, you are committing an offence.

The police do noe *HAVE* to prosecute and under those circumstances would 
probably chose not to.

    
    re -1.
    
      I'm not too sure that you are rightly correct on this point...
    
    After failing to correctly defend a case of "exceeding the stated speed
    limit"  the court took my license and told me, and assured themselves
    that I understood, that whilst my license was in their hands or the
    hands of the DVLC I could legally drive any vehicle on the public
    highways of this land without causing an offence. If however an officer
    of the law requested to see the license,before I recieved it back I was to 
    inform him that he should contact ****... court as they were in the
    process of appending 3 points on to it. Also it does state on the
    license application form that if you have a current license then it is
    not an offence to drive without it, although it is an offence to drive
    if you applied for a license but not recieved it.
    
    re -2
         Attend the agreed police station with any/all other documents that
    the officer requested and explain to the desk/duty Sergeant about the
    change of adress and that you were legally obliged to send the license
    to the DVLC and he/she will/should issue another HORT\1, repeat this
    process until the license is recieved and you take it in.
    
    Alan
    

	Hi,

	Re: 2077.189

	If you are unable to produce your license due to it being 
	in the hands of the DVLC the best advice is to go to the
	Police Station at which you indicated you would present
	your license at the time of the offence and inform the
	officer on the front desk.  He will advise you. The DVLC
	may even add your penalty points whilst they have the license...
	but I don't know that for sure.

	If you had surrendered your license at the time of the offence
	you would have received a receipt (actually the bottom part 
	of the Fixed Penalty Notice) which serves as a temporary
	license.

	
	Kevin.

    What I was told by the desk officer was that actually not having a
    licence to produce was sufficient excuse for not producing it.  He said
    that if I didn't have it, I could not be prosecuted for failing to
    produce it.
    
    He was clear that this was "could not", rather than "would not".
    
    Richard
    

Just for accuracy...


The form is HO/RT 1

I have a photocopy of one in front of me.


Simon

    I find it difficult to believe that not having the license is enough
    excuse not to produce it.
    
    I was nearly "done" for driving without insurance in the
    company-mobile.  I hadn't yet received the current insurance
    certificate, it wasn't enough to show last years with policy number
    etc, and the first one insurance sent got "lost in the post". 
    Eventually I persuaded them to accept a faxed copy on the understanding 
    would produce a real one asap.
         
    
    
    Xtine

    Driving licences are different from insurance certificates.  The
    insurance certificate is your copy af an agreement with an insurance
    company that they will pay up if you harm someone.  This is something
    that has got to be right - a fax or a photocopy should not be accepted,
    although the police are aware of the problems getting the original
    certs for company car drivers.  The driving licence is a printout from
    Swansea to the effect that they have received proof that you have
    passed a test of competence to drive.  Not having the printout doesn't
    reduce that competence, and the police can phone up with your details
    and check that your are entitled to the licence you're supposed to
    have.  Not having an insurance certificate or cover note is a clear
    indication that you aren't covered by insurance, and nor is any other
    member of the public that you choose to drive into.  It's also a lot
    less easy to check out reliably.
    
    Richard
    

  >>  Not having an insurance certificate or cover note is a clear
  >>  indication that you aren't covered by insurance.
    
    What if you've lost it? Doesn't mean your insurance is invalid does it?
    
    Phil Gill.

    No, but you don't have proof that you are insured.  And you can get a cover
    note from your insurers within the five days.  So if you don't produce
    proof of insurance by that time, you'd better have a good story....
    
    And "proof" means proof that you were insured at the time you were
    stopped.
    
    Richard

    And if you don't have a driving license then you haven't got proof that
    you've passed your test, and you haven't got proof that you could drive...
    
    
    
    A phone call to DVLC presumably clears this up, surely with the name
    and policy number of an insurance policy then a call the the company
    would equally prove the insurance side...
    
    
    Xtine
                          

    The police KNOW the DVLC.  It's all on line, they just log on through
    the PNC.  With the insurance company, they get "Yeah, I'm with the
    Hokey Cokey Insurance Company, policy number YOHO 1234, call this number
    and ask for Jimmy...."  Which would you put more trust in?
    
    Richard
    

Indeed you can get a cover note from your insurers in 5 days. It won't do you 
any good though since it can't be back-dated. 

You need a duplicate certificate and that can take 5 days.

Also, in order to avoid the failing to produce offence; Not having on 
(licence etc) doesn't mean - "I've lost it so I can't produce it so I'll get 
another one eventually and you can't nick me for failing to produce it" 
(because they can !). What it means is "Damn, I haven't got one and am not 
entitiled to one so you'll nick me for that offence and then not bother with 
the failure to produce"

Losing it is tough. This is the same if it is at Swansea fro some reason.

Also the phrase "either holds or has held and is not disqualified from 
holding a valid driving licence" is a quote from an Insurance Policy, it is 
NOTHING to do with the driving licence laws.

    My this note's been quiet for a while...
    
    Our second son, age 19, has been a qualified driver for 15 months.
    For 13 of those he's been in an old Astra and has been stopped
    more than 20 times - average approaching once a fortnight.  He's
    now had a nearly new Astra for 2 months and hasn't been stopped 
    at all, although he's been using the same routes in the same towns.
    
    My brother was a traffic plod and admitted that he periodically 
    stopped unusual cars, or new models -- a cross between 'having a 
    look' and 'tick the box'.  Near the end of the month, if his numbers
    were a bit low he'd look for white Cavaliers -- they were, more
    often than not, exceeding the speed limit.  I was with him in a 
    BMW 'jam sandwich' on one occasion and it took nearly 4 miles, 
    a go with the blue lights, and a go with the two-tones -- before 
    the Talbot doing 95 mph realised the law was following him.
    
    Years ago a friend was driving near Guildford in a '1928 Bentley.
    He was stopped and asked if he was in a hurry by 4 of Surrey's best.
    "No" --  "Oh good, so would you mind if we had a look under the 
    bonnet?"  In due course he offered them a ride, which they gleefully 
    accepted.  After about 20 minutes they'd had enough and waved 
    good-bye.  My friend had been sweating buckets as he had a Guinness
    label, not a tax disk.
    
    On the subject of fixed penalties -- it's my understanding that you
    can only opt for a fixed penalty if:
    	- it's one of a limited range of offences, and
    	- you have your licence with you, and
    	- you're prepared to surrender it.
    
    Once you've surrendered it you will get a receipt and can continue
    driving, but can't opt for any more fixed penalties until you get it
    back from DVLC.

    re: FPN's and licenses.
    
    From experience I can tell you that you can have a fixed penalty
    speeding fine even if you are not carrying a license, however you have
    you produce it within 7 days and it is taken from you and sent away to
    the courts to be endorsed.

    
    I was stopped one summer evening at around 9.30 by a police traffic car
    who's opening line was:
    
    "Excuse me stopping you sir, but I noticed you were driving with your
    window wound down."
    
    To which I replied:
    
    "Sorry officer, I didn't realise you'd made it illegal."
    
    To which he replied:
    
    "Very funny sir, most people who drive with their windows wound down do
    it to remove the smell of alcohol from the car. Would you like to take
    a breath test?"
    
    and so on. BTW I still have a license...

    re. my previous note:
    
    BTW again, I mean the nice policeman aked me the question, not the
    police car as my poor grammar indicated.
    
    
    	Ian (still no points on the license)

    
    Ian, you can have some of mine if you like.... %^)
    
    Graham

    I was stopped on the A120 in Norfolk a couple of years ago. The copper
    who stopped said, "That's an interesting number plate Sir, where's it
    from?" I told him it was an Alderney plate. He then went on to admit
    that he was bored, saw my plate go by, and decided to check to relieve
    the boredom. It came up "no trace", so he wellied after me. A quick
    look at the tax disc and log book satisfied him, and he (presumably)
    went back to sleep.
    
    Laurie.

    I was talking to a policeman recently who was explaining why the odds
    are higher of being stopped when you have a red car.
    
    It's apparantly all to do with a game of speeding car snooker. 
    
    Should I get a white or a black car ?

    I had a 17 yr old Cortina as my first car, cost me 80 quid.
    
    It had more Body Filler than Body.  Big holes in both wings.
    
    Never stopped by police in it though.  (different to the note a few
    ago).
    
    Having got me and my possesions down to Reading with no problems, it
    was stolen after 4 days (good impression for the south).
    
    I was on the phone reporting the theft to the Police and they asked
    me...
    
    How many wing mirrors it had
    
    I replied None
    
    they then informed me this was an offence.
    
    I replied they could prosecute me for it when they found my car !
    
    That was 5 years ago and I haven't heard a thing.
    If you ever see a MK 3 Cortina (it was Blue) with the reg TRE139L,
    please give me a bell.
    
    Dave D.

RE: .208

I think that there is a queue for white cars!

    I got stopped once, admittedly I did zap round an island in Portsmouth
    at a tyre-squeeling pace. The policeman was quite good about it all. He
    gave me a stern telling off, yes, and rightfully so, but then started
    nattering about my car and talking about racing on proper tracks.
    
    Made it away with nothing but a detail check. But taught me a lesson
    anyway.... the island I belted round was directly outside the police
    station! Oops...
    
    Dan.
    

    Also, a quite funny incident when I was in a friends car.
    
    We were coming home from the pub, I'd was a bit tipsy (to say the
    least) but my friend hadn't drank a drop.
    
    His car was one of those RS-turbo lookalike Escorts, but under the
    bonnet there was just a 1.3. Going down a country lane at 60, a car
    zips up behind us and starts following. Gets to the point where we are
    whizzing around corners at slightly silly speeds, and this car is on
    our tail all the time.
    
    There's me, drunk, yelling "Go on race him Chris! We'll have him"
    
    There's Chris, saying "No, no, it could be a police car. I'm not
    speeding...."
    
    "Aaah, rubbish, it aint a police car."
    
    Many miles later we leave the road and join a dual carriageway.
    
    "What's this knob doing?" says Chris as said car slowly edges up our
    side.
    
    I notice the jam filling along the doors, and promptly pi$$ myself.
    
    Chris is pulled over (but just cautioned).
    
    What I liked was the officers question:
    	"Have you been drinking sir?"
    	"No"
    	"Are you sure about that sir?"
    	"Yes"
    	"Okay then."
    
    Dan.
    
    P.S. Another funny tail of one of dads friends who got pulled over one
    night, so I hear.
    
    "Have we been drinking, sir?"
    
    "Yes"
    
    "Would you like to step out of the car then sir, and take a breath
    test?"
    
    One breath test later, the little box bleeps "not one bit of alcohol in
    this guy, mate". Puzzled policeman asks "What exactly have you been
    drinking sir?"
    
    "Coke", comes the reply.
    
    Funny little story I thought... true, honest!