Police Interceptors

[crookesey]

Just been watching this, the police were mainly involved in chasing speeding  cars who’s occupants had no licence or insurance and had drug usage proven. Why is it that most received fines of similar or less than mine for driving a road legal vehicle at 43mph in a 30mph area? 

Edited July 9, 2023 by crookesey

[Janus]

The reality is probably that the producers don't have acurate details of the outcome.

[Annie Bynnol]

 The series began in 2008. There have been several occasions when fines have increased in that time. Travelling at nearly 50% more than the legal should in a built up area is/should be a far more serious offence

Edited July 9, 2023 by Annie Bynnol

[crookesey]

1 minute ago, Annie Bynnol said:

 The series began in 2008. There have been several occasions when fines have increased in that time.

I can tell the difference between 2008 and more current vehicles.

[*Wallace*]

The thing that gets me on these programs is we watch them getting chased they crash into some poor sods car get out run away cops chase and catch them as said above no license insurance then 2 minutes later the narrator says no further action was taken as there wasn’t enough evidence ? Eh ? We’ve just watched it ?

[Annie Bynnol]

  Being hit by a sober criminal driving a road legal vehicle at 43 mph in a  30mph area is going to kill more often than a drunk/drugged criminal driver of a road legal vehicle going at 30 mph in a 30 mph area. Driving a road legal vehicle at 43 mph in a 30 mph area whilst drunk/drugged would be two offences.

   That a sober driver travelling at nearly 50% more than the legal maximum in an urban area could/should  only be excused as driving below the required ability and should be required to re test.

[El Cid]

Some modern penalties are based on your income. This is a better way of penalising people, but not always practical.

It does make a mockery of the system when a driving ban is part of the penalty

[crookesey]

44 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  Being hit by a sober criminal driving a road legal vehicle at 43 mph in a  30mph area is going to kill more often than a drunk/drugged criminal driver of a road legal vehicle going at 30 mph in a 30 mph area. Driving a road legal vehicle at 43 mph in a 30 mph area whilst drunk/drugged would be two offences.

   That a sober driver travelling at nearly 50% more than the legal maximum in an urban area could/should  only be excused as driving below the required ability and should be required to re test.

A speeding conviction is that of an offence, making  me an offender and not a criminal as you infer, best get your act together prior to stepping on the boards.

[Annie Bynnol]

15 minutes ago, crookesey said:

A speeding conviction is that of an offence, making  me an offender and not a criminal as you infer, best get your act together prior to stepping on the boards.

  I do not infer anything except that a sober driver hitting somebody at 43 mph in a 30mph area is going to be charged with a criminal offence as would a drunk/drugged drive going at 30 mph and hitting somebody. As the sober driver is more likely to kill their fixed penalty should be far higher. 

 

[crookesey]

7 minutes ago, Annie Bynnol said:

  I do not infer anything except that a sober driver hitting somebody at 43 mph in a 30mph area is going to be charged with a criminal offence as would a drunk/drugged drive going at 30 mph and hitting somebody. As the sober driver is more likely to kill their fixed penalty should be far higher. 

 

Please prove your assumption that any sober person driving at 43 mph in a 30 mph hitting another person would be charged with a criminal offence. I can think of several examples where this would be far from the truth, over to you Annie.