Tempting TOG - last chance to experience the joys of 350 Morini ownership before Chilling out

How about getting pictures through the post showing 105 on an A road and
avoiding going to court if we want to talk about spawny?

 

Motorway cameras are *mostly* forward facing IME of the south.

Are there many 'rear facing' in the midlands and north? What about the
gantry ones on the M42?

Actually... I've spent the last ten or so years doing close to 20k a
year (ok not this year) on the M4/M25. In all of that time I have not
received a single speeding ticket. I think I am invisible.

 

Shit.....

 

Don't take it at face value.

 

It happens. But you're probably right about the Dangerous admission.

 

Can't be arsed. The BBC News site is littered with cases.

Simple question: what's the maximum penalty for speeding? Clue: it's
non-custodial.

 

M42 are rear facing.

New 4 lane M1 section in Nottingham will be too - if they actually get
around to installing cameras.

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Champ

Isn't he? Quite remarkable.

Still, he does fulfil the only point of UKRM. He makes me laugh.

 

Fairy nuff.

 

I'd suggest that it's likely, however, in the current climate, that
speeds like 166mph would attract a successful prosecution for
Dangerous Driving, which may be why, in the cases we've seen, the
defendant has coughed to it. In the sense that they'll likely get +50%
jail time if they plead not guilty, force a jury trial and are sent
down anyway. It'd be a brave barrister who advised his client to fight
such a charge.

 

I made specific reference in an earlier post to a mate who, a year or
so ago, was done got 150-odd.

They pushed for dangerous but knew that unless he coughed to it there
was little chance of securing a conviction at trial. He refused to
play ball. End result: a three month ban for careless and no time
inside.

 

I didn't see the reference.

Interesting. Of course it's all down to individual circumstances, and
an even higher speed would presumably alter the balance somewhat, as
inmdeed might the reputation of a specific court.

Nice. Sadly it doesn't always work out that way. I didn't want to
cough for anything, and as a result they 'forgot' to add careless to
the charge sheet. So when they couldn't agree on the more serious
charge the option, which would have been taken, of careless wasn't
available, so it had to go to court a second time, where they skewed
the evidence enough to make it more certain. Bastards.

 

I wonder where the unwritten rule as to what speed brings the
possibility of a 'dangerous' is. Times have changed. In 1976 I was
relieved, after being pulled for a mere 102, to hear that nice Thames
Valley copper say, "I could report you for speed dangerous to the
public [1] but you are obviously an experienced motorcyclist and were in
control of the machine".

[1] No such offence now, but there was then.

--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

It was in another post, I didn't make it a four page case study.

The reputation of a specific court would, I'd have thought, be relevant
to sentencing but to be sentenced first you have to be fonud guilty. And
the impression I got from the solicitor and barrister I talked to during
my thing a few years ago was that juries typically don't like finding
people guilty of serious driving offences because everyone drives and
there's a big dose of "there but for the grace of god". Fortunately I
never had to test the theory.

A fatality can swing it, of course.

 

Last I heard was 120 or thereabouts.

Not convinced it'd stick though. Not without other aggravating factors
(no licence, no insurance, collision, etc)

 

Juries? What are these juries you talk off? The 166mph hairdresser got
done in the sheriff's court so no jury there.

Would a dangerous driving charge automatically go before a jury in
England?

 

Depends how fast you are going. To do 20k a year you only have to average
about 2.5 mph.

 

Cos he pleaded guilty?

If it's being contested, probably, I think so. ISTR there's a
threshhold on the maximum prison sentence available for an offence
that a magistrate's court would try. I misremember the details and
probably they've changed anyway.

 

Heh, guaranteed immunity on the GFR then.

I think those might very well influence whoever it is that decides on
the charge, but I suspect massive wheelies and filtering like **** might
also have a bearing. They may not be inherently dangerous, but the
average Magistrate or jury member may see it differently, particularly
if forming part of an obvious attempt to evade being apprehended.

It seems simply warp factor speed in even favourable conditions may
still lead to a "careless" as in the example you cited.


--
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Pete Fisher at Home: |
| Voxan Roadster Yamaha WR250Z/Supermoto "Old Gimmer's Hillclimber" |
| Gilera GFR * 2 Moto Morini 2C/375 Morini 350 "Forgotten Error" |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

 

If you use the M42, M4 or M25, then there's no chance of beating Champ's
time, and your SatNav is fucked.