Justice ?

[hir]

The "right" approach would be to petition our MPs to change the law where we think it's inappropriate.

Who put a stop to it? It was ACPO; who told her that if parliament increased the motorway speed limit to 80 mph then they would instruct their officers not to enforce it, because they didn't want to see police traffic cops put at increased risk and possibly killed chasing errant drivers at the higher speeds.

So much for democracy and the will of parliament.

Why are British traffic cops at more risk than their German counterparts where unrestricted speeds are allowed on some of their motorways?

What difference would that make ?

Driver with a 70 limit fails to stop & attempts to escape as does a driver with an 80 limit. What difference does the speed limit make to the fleeing drivers choice of speed or the decision of the officer to pursue ?

Speed limits don't exist on the basis of what those who'll make off do.

That's exactly right. So why did ACPO make a stand on those grounds? It seemed bizarre at the time and even more so now.
I can only think that in relation to the extra 10mph ACPO were not thinking about fleeing criminals, just those criminals travelling at or above a summons threshold speed of 106mph rather than the 96mph at present.The noises that ACPO put out at the time was that there would be an overall increase of about 10mph by those criminal motorists who drove above the speed limit and that would put traffic cops at greater risk when trying to apprehend said, albeit compliant, criminals. I can't believe that traffic cops would be any less capable of, or at more risk when, stopping a compliant driver on the motorway at or above a summons threshold of 106 mph than they would be at the present summons threshold of 96 mph. As soon as the compliant driver sees the blue lights and hears the siren he, or she, is going to stop anyway. As you say the non-compliant driver is going to floor it anyway whatever the speed limit.

[Porker]

I suppose one possibility might be the relative rarity of addordable traffic cars that could top, say, 120mph, combined with the fear that the higher limit might mean that they were operating nearer to their limits more of the time.

P.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Given that a £18k Skoda Octavia VRS - well-liked by many forces, will top 150 under the right conditions, I'm not sure this is the main reason ...

[vonhosen]

What difference would that make ?

Driver with a 70 limit fails to stop & attempts to escape as does a driver with an 80 limit. What difference does the speed limit make to the fleeing drivers choice of speed or the decision of the officer to pursue ?

Speed limits don't exist on the basis of what those who'll make off do.

That's exactly right. So why did ACPO make a stand on those grounds? It seemed bizarre at the time and even more so now.
I can only think that in relation to the extra 10mph ACPO were not thinking about fleeing criminals, just those criminals travelling at or above a summons threshold speed of 106mph rather than the 96mph at present.The noises that ACPO put out at the time was that there would be an overall increase of about 10mph by those criminal motorists who drove above the speed limit and that would put traffic cops at greater risk when trying to apprehend said, albeit compliant, criminals. I can't believe that traffic cops would be any less capable of, or at more risk when, stopping a compliant driver on the motorway at or above a summons threshold of 106 mph than they would be at the present summons threshold of 96 mph. As soon as the compliant driver sees the blue lights and hears the siren he, or she, is going to stop anyway. As you say the non-compliant driver is going to floor it anyway whatever the speed limit.

What's your source ?

[vonhosen]

I suppose one possibility might be the relative rarity of addordable traffic cars that could top, say, 120mph, combined with the fear that the higher limit might mean that they were operating nearer to their limits more of the time.

P.

So what do you think happens now with vehicles that can travel quicker than yours ?

[WhoseGeneration]

Given that I have now been shut out of PistonHeads (for no good reason) for the past few weeks, and therefore am not able to post anything, please would somebody register my disgust at the punishment meted out to the guy who was caught driving at 104 mph on a deserted motorway at 3.00 a.m.

The court result (as reported by the 'culprit') was this:

"Well I got hammered yesterday.

2k fine, 42 days ban, 50 quid costs and 15 quid victim surcharge.

I think it was a bit overboard considering the circumstances, no motoring offences for 20 years and an empty motorway at 3am."

He did indeed get hammered, and I think it was more than a bit overboard. To my mind that sort of punishment was grossly excessive for the trifling matter of exceeding a speed limit in those circumstances. It merely serves to reinforce my view that the law is an ass, which is why I, and probably many other people, are becoming less and less interested in complying with it.

Best wishes all,
Dave - alias TripleS.

Of course it's justice.
Within the terms of our so called justice system.
The one that will constantly try to "understand" the ones who, without licences and insurance steal cars and then proceed to drive dangerously leading to Police pursuits.
The penalties for such behaviour so often being "community" based and further driving "bans".
Then the authorities and their representatives wonder why so many of us now have no respect for their laws.

[hir]

Item a):
That's exactly right. So why did ACPO make a stand on those grounds? It seemed bizarre at the time and even more so now.

Item b):
I can only think that in relation to the extra 10mph ACPO were not thinking about fleeing criminals....,

What's your source ?

Source for a); A vivid memory of reading reports in the press at the time and thinking this argument is untenable. and...

Source for b); "I can only think that"....I can only think that it's probably my mind.

Regards

[vonhosen]

Item a):
That's exactly right. So why did ACPO make a stand on those grounds? It seemed bizarre at the time and even more so now.

Item b):
I can only think that in relation to the extra 10mph ACPO were not thinking about fleeing criminals....,

What's your source ?

Source for a); A vivid memory of reading reports in the press at the time and thinking this argument is untenable. and...

Source for b); "I can only think that"....I can only think that it's probably my mind.

Regards

Well if it was in the press.

[Gareth]

Well if it was in the press.

Still hard to find - this wonderful internet age is still quite young, and in the late 80s almost nobody had internet access and the world wide web didn't exist. I was a very early adopter of home internet, and I signed up with Demon in December 1992.

If it was reported in the press then the chances of it being accessible by someone sitting at a keyboard at home is virtually nil.

[hir]

Item a):
That's exactly right. So why did ACPO make a stand on those grounds? It seemed bizarre at the time and even more so now.

Item b):
I can only think that in relation to the extra 10mph ACPO were not thinking about fleeing criminals....,

What's your source ?

Source for a); A vivid memory of reading reports in the press at the time and thinking this argument is untenable. and...

Source for b); "I can only think that"....I can only think that it's probably my mind.

Regards

Well if it was in the press.

It would be naive to imagine that ACPO would have issued a press statement on their position on this matter. What? ACPO interfering with the democratic process, heaven forbid! No, they were just "advising" the Prime Minister of the day of their position. The stories would have been placed in the press by Downing Street.

[vonhosen]

It would be naive to imagine that ACPO would have issued a press statement on their position on this matter. What? ACPO interfering with the democratic process, heaven forbid! No, they were just "advising" the Prime Minister of the day of their position. The stories would have been placed in the press by Downing Street.

Yet when the Police say they won't be able to enforce a lowered limit that doesn't stop it happening does it ?

I was doing speed prosecutions in the 80's & I wasn't aware of what you are alleging.

[hir]

Yet when the Police say they won't be able to enforce a lowered limit that doesn't stop it happening does it ?

The implied logic doesn't follow with that argument.
There is a significant difference between:

A) the police saying they won't be able to enforce a lowered speed limit; where the authorities have nothing to lose by lowering the said limit, and may indeed obtain some compliance by the general public, and...

B) the police saying they won't be able to enforce a higher motorway speed limit; where it would end up as an unregulated free-for-all by those motorists who chose not to comply.

[hir]

I was doing speed prosecutions in the 80's & I wasn't aware of what you are alleging.

To ever so slightly mis-quote from an earlier posting:

Well if vonhosen wasn't aware...


...and also don't forget - "it was in the press"...it's therefore no contest, you win the argument on both points.

I'll just retire from the keyboard and put my vivid recollection down to vivid imagination.


.

[vonhosen]

Yet when the Police say they won't be able to enforce a lowered limit that doesn't stop it happening does it ?

The implied logic doesn't follow with that argument.
There is a significant difference between:

A) the police saying they won't be able to enforce a lowered speed limit; where the authorities have nothing to lose by lowering the said limit, and may indeed obtain some compliance by the general public, and...

B) the police saying they won't be able to enforce a higher motorway speed limit; where it would end up as an unregulated free-for-all by those motorists who chose not to comply.

But the problem would only be those who go way above the 80mph limit & I don't see that those people would have been obeying the 70mph limit in the first place. Their speed was likely to be what it was whatever the posted limit was because they had no intention of observing it.

[Porker]

Given that a £18k Skoda Octavia VRS - well-liked by many forces, will top 150 under the right conditions, I'm not sure this is the main reason ...

Of course, but these weren't available in the 1980s when the decision was taken

P.