Unprovoked road rage...

[Skie]

On this subject has anyone else experianced other (ICE) drivers trying to goad them into racing? I seem to get it quite frequently around Milton Keynes but only in my X.

I usually stop a few feet back from the line to give them a chance. And then snatch it away without even flooring it.

Also is it me or are those who sit at the lights, creeping forwards or rocking back and forth always the ones with the worst reaction times and away the slowest? Also usually taxi drivers.

 

[Regulo]

As a slight diversion, is it still the case that if a police officer simply observes what they deem to be speeding, a prosecution might follow? Or was it ever the case? An urban myth, maybe?

 

[Dangerous Fish]

As a slight diversion, is it still the case that if a police officer simply observes what they deem to be speeding, a prosecution might follow? Or was it ever the case? An urban myth, maybe?

In most of the UK (Scotland differs I think) you need 2 police officers so that one can corroborate the other's opinion. If there's only 1 officer, they would need some sort of device (speedo, laser etc.) to corroborate. Apart from Motorways, where one opinion is enough.

The chances of this happening for speeds a little over the limit are slim though. Most of the time they wouldn't take it to court just based on opinion unless it was a very serious case.

 

[WllXM]

As a slight diversion, is it still the case that if a police officer simply observes what they deem to be speeding, a prosecution might follow? Or was it ever the case? An urban myth, maybe?

Urban myth. You need radar/laser equipment, calibrated every year, as people often get out on a technicality if the equipment maintenance hasn't been followed properly. So they won't pursue on the speeding offense, but on dangerous driving / due care and attention instead, which has more subjectivity to it.

 

[Dangerous Fish]

Urban myth. You need radar/laser equipment, calibrated every year, as people often get out on a technicality if the equipment maintenance hasn't been followed properly. So they won't pursue on the speeding offense, but on dangerous driving / due care and attention instead, which has more subjectivity to it.

Not a myth, it's the law (S 89(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1983).
But rarely used as the chances of a conviction are much less than with evidence from an approved device like a speed gun, camera, VASCAR etc.

 

[qwickshot]

Urban myth. You need radar/laser equipment, calibrated every year, as people often get out on a technicality if the equipment maintenance hasn't been followed properly. So they won't pursue on the speeding offense, but on dangerous driving / due care and attention instead, which has more subjectivity to it.

They don’t need radar or laser equipment, but it does need to be calibrated if that is what they are using for the basis of the prosecution.

A traffic officers observation is sufficient to get a conviction in a lot of cases. They don’t even need to specify the speed, ‘no less than X mph for Y distance is sufficient usually, they know that because they are usually following you. They also use video evidence from onboard cameras regularly. If they don’t go for speeding, due care is a catch all basically and has the same outcome.

A whiteness statement and video evidence from the general public can be used for due car or dangerous driving without issues usually. The difference in outcome is minimal in reality compared to speeding.

It’s obvious from the earlier video the person was traveling at excessive speeds, add in the wet conditions then charging with dangerous driving isn’t that far fetched. Whether they drop it to die care later is another question.

You can get a ball park from the number of lines both cars pass on the roads for a given number of frames. No they are not calibrated but they are a known quantity and close enough to determine it’s significantly over 70mph. The whiteness statement is to validate the video hasn’t been tampered with, that’s all.

 

[Andywil]

They don’t need radar or laser equipment, but it does need to be calibrated if that is what they are using for the basis of the prosecution.

A traffic officers observation is sufficient to get a conviction in a lot of cases. They don’t even need to specify the speed, ‘no less than X mph for Y distance is sufficient usually, they know that because they are usually following you. They also use video evidence from onboard cameras regularly. If they don’t go for speeding, due care is a catch all basically and has the same outcome.

A whiteness statement and video evidence from the general public can be used for due car or dangerous driving without issues usually. The difference in outcome is minimal in reality compared to speeding.

It’s obvious from the earlier video the person was traveling at excessive speeds, add in the wet conditions then charging with dangerous driving isn’t that far fetched. Whether they drop it to die care later is another question.

You can get a ball park from the number of lines both cars pass on the roads for a given number of frames. No they are not calibrated but they are a known quantity and close enough to determine it’s significantly over 70mph. The whiteness statement is to validate the video hasn’t been tampered with, that’s all.

If I were you I would turn my spell check on!

 

[WllXM]

If I were you I would turn my spell check on!

A whiteness statement is a sure way to get out of jail though...

 

[DeejUK]

A whiteness statement is a sure way to get out of jail though...

I was going to joke that it sounds like the sort of thing one would be obliged to give in diversity and inclusion training!

 

[qwickshot]

A whiteness statement is a sure way to get out of jail though...

Spell check isn’t going to help the stupid iPhone autocorrect! I swear it’s getting worse and not better….