Will he get a ticket?

[podie]

One of the lads booted it past a bin-lorry this morning at got gatso'd... will he get a ticket? or to plod look on this as a legitimate reason for exceeding the limit?

Thoughts?

Madcop?

[madcop]

Was the bin lorry staionary (although that is really irrelevant)? I doubt that if the camera was activated then any excuse will be accepted.

You may try explaining that the dustcart started to accelerate from stationary as he was at a critical position and therefore the resulting passing manouvre became extended and if the limit had been adhered to at that point, because of a change in the circumstances, the safest option was to increse the speed to regain the correct side or remain on the wrong side of the road and come into conflict with an opposing vehicle.

It would very much depend on how much the photo revealed and how much bottle he had to stand up and try to convince a magistrate he had no choice to exceed the limit, as to not have done so would have resulted in an accident due to the changing circumstances created by the dustcart.

[Podie]

Dunno about this, I'll have to ask him EXACTLY what happened.

From what little I gathered (laughed at over lunch) was that he'd been stuck behind the dustcart for a while, saw an opportunity to overtake, and booted it past - so form that I'd deduce that the cart WAS moving.

Reckoned he was doing about 40-45 in a 30...

I'll see what I can get out of him tomorrow and post it up. Cheers Madcop.

[soulpatch]

I was caught 37 in a 30 by a gatso coz I was overtaking a cyclist. By the time i started it was too late to pull in and there was somthing coming the other way so I accelerated.

Once I got the nip, i phoned up. They said they could see the cyclist in the photo and how clear it was that i needed to acellerate to get past, but they said they would only let me off on "life or death" circumstances.

Moral of the story is - next time kill the cyclist. Will save you 3 points and the police will applaud you for staying within the speed limit and being safe.

And dont forget - the cyclists death wont matter because you were travelling at the speed limit.

[bobthebench]

Expect a ticket, and all that goes with it.

Take the argument to its logical conclusion...
Its OK to overtake a bin wagon cos they're slow
Its OK to overtake ... cos it was going slower than me
Its OK to overtake anything doing 29 in a 30 at anytime, even though it means I break the speed limit, travel on the wrong side of the road, and get to sit 12 feet in front of whatever at the next set of lights.

A simple test sometimes applied when this type of argument comes before a court is had the ...(in this case bin wagon).. been a marked traffic car with video recording equipment would you still have done exactly the same ? If the answer is anything other than an immediate "Of course" the assumption is that you wouldn't because you know it's not right. In which case here's your fine and points.

Incidentally if the reply is "Yes" the follow up is what was the emergency ? If this isn't answered equally convinvincly, then here's a bigger fine and some extra points.

[Podie]

Well I've conveyed this to the bloke in the office and it's gone down like the proverbial shit sandwich.

I can see both sides to this arguement. One, there is a speed limit - if you break it, you should expect the fine (assuming you get caught).

However, given that the IAM advise you to get passed the obstruction as quickly and as safely as possible, it does seem a bit harsh.

Ironically this morning as I tootled to work the car in front was a jam sandwich... a rather nice Mondeo ST200. Now, to say this guy booted it past the milk float which was struggling up the hill is an understatement. Again, 30mph road and although it's difficult to gauge another cars speed accurately in this instance, I'd suggest he was approaching 40-plus mph. Oh and the blue lights were not flashing.

So my question here becomes, is it one rule for us and one rule for them?

[hertsbiker]

errrr, I used "safety" as my reason for speeding, and CPS wrote me a nice letter telling me I was no longer being prosecuted...

It took me 9 months to get off, 3 letters, and 4 telephone conversations.

It can be done.

C

[madcop]

Podie said:

So my question here becomes, is it one rule for us and one rule for them?

I would suggest that if he had done that in the vicinity of a camera and activated it, then he would have been subject of the same treatment as anyone else. The camera department are just as judicious on Police vehicles as they are on everyone else.

The excuse would then have to down to the driver.

One rule for us, One rule for them.
Correct!
It is written into statute within the framework of law covering excess speed.
Police vehicles are exempt from speed limits when using the vehicle for Police purposes.

Was it a marked vehicle? YES.
Was the oficer driving it on duty? Probably YES.
Was it being used for Police purposes? Probably YES.

If any of these are found to be not applicable when the NIP is issued, then the driver will more than likely have to suffer the penalty.

There are instances when i a marked vehicle that you have to exceed the limit without blue lights or sirens.

A suspect vehicle ( type and colour, some distance ahead that needs to be stopped)is an example where to put on blues etc would somewhat give the game away if it was the vehilce that radio observations or local knowledge had located. Exceeding the limit in these circumstances would need to be done to either confirm or dismiss the initial sighting without giving the wanted or suspected person an advantage to make an escape.

So there you have it. Like it or not, there is one rule for everyone else and one for the Police.
When a Police vehicle is captured in the circumstances of this thread, there is a getout for the driver, providing that he can offer some evidence that he was using the vehicle for a Police purpose (shopping would not do)

Fortunately for the driver passing the milkfloat, he did not do it in the vicinity of a camera.

Unfortunately for your mate, he did. He should have been more careful. I bet he even knew the camera was there! Just a small lapse in concentration maybe?

[Podie]

madcop said:
Unfortunately for your mate, he did. He should have been more careful. I bet he even knew the camera was there! Just a small lapse in concentration maybe?

True, he's admitted he did know the camera was there! Must admit, this has been a hot topic of conversation in the office, as you can probably imagine.

Thanks to Madcop and BobtheBench for their comments - yet further insight into the job's that you guys do.

Right, now back to persecuting the lad in the office!

[bobthebench]

However, given that the IAM advise you to get passed the obstruction as quickly and as safely as possible, it does seem a bit harsh.

Don't recall IAM saying anything going slower than you is a hazard. Otherwise so is a queue of traffic at a red light. Do the IAM let you overtake the queue, jump the red light, and go on your way - the quickest way to eliminate the hazard.