Re: Tough Times : Sun Jul 25, 2021 1:33 am  

old faith full wrote:

91 in a 70 limit ? That's the equivalent of 51 in a 30 zone or 41 in a 20 should have been a year ban at least

your equivalence isn't correct, it's not absolute speed differential to the limit, it's a %+small additional speed amount when looked at from a prosecution POV. 91 is 30% over, 51 in a 30 is 69% over and 41 in a 20 is a smidge over 100% over the limit.

Say for instance you're doing 79 on the A63, you'd be extremely unlikely to get prosecuted for that under the 10%+2mph rule (+3mph for the Met/TfL) If you're doing 39 in a 30 you absolutely would and 29 in a 20 also.

So If it was a singular incident of speeding, 91 in a 70 would be an NIP/3 points/SP30, 51 in a 30 and 41 in a 20 is more likely to get you a court appearance rather than an NIP, they aren't equivalent in % terms nor the potential harm to vulnerable road users.

That he's a habitual speeder and likely got away with speeding thousands of times (ike most motorists) should see repeated and ever increasing bans for next time he gets caught. The BS he came out with was risable.

Re: Tough Times : Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:01 am  

BumpyMcbump wrote:

your equivalence isn't correct, it's not absolute speed differential to the limit, it's a %+small additional speed amount when looked at from a prosecution POV. 91 is 30% over, 51 in a 30 is 69% over and 41 in a 20 is a smidge over 100% over the limit.

Say for instance you're doing 79 on the A63, you'd be extremely unlikely to get prosecuted for that under the 10%+2mph rule (+3mph for the Met/TfL) If you're doing 39 in a 30 you absolutely would and 29 in a 20 also.

So If it was a singular incident of speeding, 91 in a 70 would be an NIP/3 points/SP30, 51 in a 30 and 41 in a 20 is more likely to get you a court appearance rather than an NIP, they aren't equivalent in % terms nor the potential harm to vulnerable road users.

That he's a habitual speeder and likely got away with speeding thousands of times (ike most motorists) should see repeated and ever increasing bans for next time he gets caught. The BS he came out with was risable.

Ffs.

Re: Tough Times : Sun Jul 25, 2021 4:05 pm  

BumpyMcbump wrote:

your equivalence isn't correct, it's not absolute speed differential to the limit, it's a %+small additional speed amount when looked at from a prosecution POV. 91 is 30% over, 51 in a 30 is 69% over and 41 in a 20 is a smidge over 100% over the limit.

Say for instance you're doing 79 on the A63, you'd be extremely unlikely to get prosecuted for that under the 10%+2mph rule (+3mph for the Met/TfL) If you're doing 39 in a 30 you absolutely would and 29 in a 20 also.

So If it was a singular incident of speeding, 91 in a 70 would be an NIP/3 points/SP30, 51 in a 30 and 41 in a 20 is more likely to get you a court appearance rather than an NIP, they aren't equivalent in % terms nor the potential harm to vulnerable road users.

That he's a habitual speeder and likely got away with speeding thousands of times (ike most motorists) should see repeated and ever increasing bans for next time he gets caught. The BS he came out with was risable.

STATO

Re: Tough Times : Mon Jul 26, 2021 2:04 pm  

Remember when threads were getting locked because they had nothing to do with Hull FC? What happened to that?

Re: Tough Times : Mon Jul 26, 2021 4:19 pm  

old faith full wrote:

STATO

thanks, but experience of discussing with police regards community safety and why some drivers are prosecuted in court and others aren't (and get FPN) even though the speed difference to a limit is the same is why I know.
Someone saying 91 in a 70 is the same as 51 in a 30 and 41 in a 20 is not the same at all and there's an important reason why.
As much as I abhor speeding/dangerous driving, someone doing 50 in a 30 or 40 in a 20 is significantly more deadly to vu;nerable road users, particularly children, elderly, mobility challenged as well as pedal cyclists.

It's good that the judge banned him and saw past his BS.

Re: Tough Times : Mon Jul 26, 2021 5:15 pm  

K-Diddy wrote:

Remember when threads were getting locked because they had nothing to do with Hull FC? What happened to that?

Except it is related to FC because he (Allam) is effectively our landlord.
And what has been said about fines/prosecutions etc by Bumpy is correct.

Re: Tough Times : Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:37 pm  

old faith full wrote:

91 in a 70 limit ? That's the equivalent of 51 in a 30 zone or 41 in a 20 should have been a year ban at least

No it isn’t

Re: Tough Times : Mon Jul 26, 2021 6:54 pm  

Keiththered wrote:

No it isn’t

Try reading thru' to the end of threads the next time.

Re: Tough Times : Mon Jul 26, 2021 8:18 pm  

ccs wrote:

Try reading thru' to the end of threads the next time.

I’m sure you feel better and self satisfied now.