Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Speeding on dual carriageway and pulled by unmarked car
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
messyhead
Hi

I was pulled for speeding about 11 days ago, late in the evening when the roads were quiet. It was about 11pm and I came across a roundabout onto a dual carriageway that was completely empty and put my foot into it a bit. I looked in my mirror and could see what looked to be a 4x4 a bit back and immediately lifted off. When closer I could see it was a 16 plate X5 which followed me at around 70-75 then flashed its lights.

I was pulled, said nothing and was informed I'd been clocked at an average speed of 93. I kept quiet and never admitted to speeding, however the officer I was dealing with stated there was nothing he could do and that I was looking at an instant ban. I still said nothing and allowed him to grill me and I then sat in the back of the police car. He then changed his tune and told me how he'd been caught and that it had been a large amount of hassle to himself as a police officer (he wasn't a traffic officer, only a copper on the way back from an incident report who I'd unfortunately gone speeding past) and that he was going to give me a speed awareness course, which as far as I know can only be issued by the local authority issuing the ticket dependent on previous offences.

Do you have to be issued a ticket at the time of the offense and is it likely I'll be looking at a court summons in the coming weeks? He was adamant I'd be getting a speed awareness course, but at that speed on the gov website it's a summons from what I can see. He also thought a summons would bring into play any calibrated equipment they had in car and that would show I was going over 100, which is something I never do as my understanding before this was below 100 meant no ban. And I definitely didn't that night as I was watching it flick between 98 & 99...

Cheers
andy_foster
You've told us that you have been accused of doing 93 on a dual carriageway, that the copper that pulled you said a number of things which you do no believe, and you want us to tell you how the matter will be disposed of?

And you haven't even thought to tell us what the speed limit was.
messyhead
Hi yes, I was accused of doing 93 which I've not denied, yet not admitted at the time. The copper accused me of doing more which I am denying and I can't see how they have proof if they only have an average speed. And sorry the speed limit was 70, with it being an unrestricted dual carriageway with a central reservation.

Cheers
andy_foster
What gov website says you'd get a summons for 93 in a 70 limit?

As you were warned at the time of the offence that you would be reported for consideration of prosecution (or similar), there is no requirement for a NIP, or any other 'ticket' to be issued.
Logician
A 70 limit would normally result in a course for speeds up to 86*, fixed penalty to 95 and summons for 96 and above. The usual procedure now is that disposal is decided by a central office after the officer files a Traffic Offence Report

*subject to not being in Scotland and no course in the previous 3 years.
southpaw82
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...
baggins1234
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?
southpaw82
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 16:24) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?

That was my thought. Advanced nonetheless.
StuartBu
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 15:24) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?


Unmarked and on his own ...is that likely?
southpaw82
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 17:24) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 15:24) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?


Unmarked and on his own ...is that likely?

Unmarked is, on his own... supervisor... not that it matters.
StuartBu
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 17:24) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 15:24) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?


Unmarked and on his own ...is that likely?

Unmarked is, on his own... supervisor... not that it matters.


When you posted "A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm..." it seemed to suggest you were suspicious about that .
The Rookie
I must admit that I thought that at first glance and then realised my first thought had been firearms and put the two together!
southpaw82
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 18:51) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 17:24) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 15:24) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?


Unmarked and on his own ...is that likely?

Unmarked is, on his own... supervisor... not that it matters.


When you posted "A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm..." it seemed to suggest you were suspicious about that .

I tend to make things easy for people. If I'm suspicious about something I say "that's suspicious". tongue.gif
StuartBu
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 18:15) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 18:51) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 16:47) *
QUOTE (StuartBu @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 17:24) *
QUOTE (baggins1234 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 15:24) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 13:27) *
A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm...



Firearms?


Unmarked and on his own ...is that likely?

Unmarked is, on his own... supervisor... not that it matters.


When you posted "A non traffic officer driving an X5... hmm..." it seemed to suggest you were suspicious about that .

I tend to make things easy for people. If I'm suspicious about something I say "that's suspicious". tongue.gif


So what DID you mean?.
southpaw82
So what I was thinking of was as follows:

- any driver of a police X5 is going to be an advanced driver, assigned to traffic or not
- ergo, saying "they're not traffic" is probably irrelevant
StuartBu
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sun, 2 Oct 2016 - 19:51) *
So what I was thinking of was as follows:

- any driver of a police X5 is going to be an advanced driver, assigned to traffic or not
- ergo, saying "they're not traffic" is probably irrelevant


Gotcha
Churchmouse
Well, at least we know that the officer's vehicle went over 100mph at some point, and that you went over 93mph at some point. I feel we're making progress.

--Churchmouse
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.