Police man with Speed gun on A3. Do they pull you over?

Ollie's Gadgets · 17 Aug 2006 at 03:04

Annoyed at police man with Speed gun on A3. Do they pull you over?

I was driving from my house to Guildford today along the A3 (Northbound), sunny day, dry roads perfect driving conditions. After the single lane road around the Devil's Punchbowl, the road turns into dual carriageway, and soon you get a long downhill straight road before going flat and then uphill, and you can see literally a mile ahead to the top of the hill.

Driving at around 80mph overtaking a lorry, there are two cars in lane 2 in front of me. The first one suddenly brakes (clear road ahead, no corner) and pulls into lane 1, taking the other one by suprise (he was following a bit too close) who had to brake quite harshly. I then noticed two police men hiding behind a bush to the side of the road one with a speed gun (just after the Thursley slip road).

As I went past the guy with gun turned to his partner and showed him the gun. Clearly he caught one of us. From where he was postioned he could have seen a long way up the road.

What really annoys me is that driving at that speed on that road in those conditions was not dangerous. Yet the way he was behind the bush suprised the cars when they noticed and caused them to suddenly brake, which could have led to an incident. They were also policing a downhill where it is obvious that people will naturally increase their speeds a bit, especially as it is followed by an uphill. If they actually cared about slowing people down at that point in the road they would put a sign further up the road stating that police with speed cameras were ahead.

I would not drive any differently on that road tommorow if I didn't suspect that they would be in that same location again. If I thought my driving was dangerous and I would have been caught, I would accept it without question. This was not the case!

Rant over :mad:

So info needed:

What is the speed tolerance? Is it 75mph, or is it just anything over 70mph?

Do they pull you over when they clock you at over the speed limit or is it letter in the post like the gatso's?

Thanks,
Ollie

Cybermyk · 17 Aug 2006 at 04:24

70mph is the limit and they can just send you a letter. A colleague some years ago was done for 32 in a 30 zone and tried to argue there's a possible 10% difference on a speedo, it wasn't recieved well.

Gixer · 17 Aug 2006 at 06:28

I could be totally wrong but I thought if it was a hand held hairdryer type one they have to pull you on the spot?

I thought the two forms of eveidence (this case the gun and the policemen) have to be present to show you it. Or is two policemen operating one of these enough to not warrant having to show you the speed that is on the gun? I thought this due to there being no photo evidence hence they have to pull you there and then??

I could be totally wrong though, just any time I have had a run in with plod and the hair dryer style one I have been pulled over there and then.

Meridian · 17 Aug 2006 at 07:19

It depends on whether the gun was connected to a camera. If it was, then they do not need to pull you, and an NIP will follow to someone. And usually they are connected to a camera.

Yes, in theory they could do you for 70.00001mph, in practice they usually start at about 78 - but it's up to the particular force.

I suspect the reason that they didn't use "Police Speed Checks in This Area" signs is because they have no effect on speed.

And the fact that you are going downhill is not an excuse for speeding - it's no harder to keep to the limit there than going uphill. Face it, you broke the law and were (maybe) caught.

M

DannyDan · 17 Aug 2006 at 08:45

Personally I've never heard of anyone being done for less than 79 in a 70. I'd say at 80 indicated they wouldnt be interested in taking any further action.

Gixer · 17 Aug 2006 at 09:45

Meridian said:
It depends on whether the gun was connected to a camera. If it was, then they do not need to pull you, and an NIP will follow to someone. And usually they are connected to a camera.

Yeah thats what I meant the ones without cameras attached. The times I got pulled over they didnt have any cameras attached and luckily I was only a smidge over the limit so just got a slap on the wrist both times

Durzel · 17 Aug 2006 at 09:54

I must admit I really don't understand the mindset of people who justify/excuse breaking speed limits which are painfully obvious simply because "it's dry", "not many cars on the road", "late for work", "I dont think its dangerous", etc or whatever.

Not saying I don't speed - I do whatever speed I feel like doing (except in 30s and below which I stick to religiously) but if/when I ever get caught I'll be sticking my hands up and saying "its a fair cop guv", not ranting and whining about how I would've got away with it were it not for those pesky kids and/or cops with speed guns.

If you're gonna speed, do it with the forethought that if you get caught you're prepared to take whatever punishment is appropriate. Otherwise, just don't speed and you'll never have to worry about "harsh braking" when you come across a speed trap.

Also, chances are if its a fast road their gun will be linked to a camera. They tend to only have another cop further up the road if its practical to "do loops".

Mr Nice · 17 Aug 2006 at 10:23

Isn't that part of the A3 a 50?

Ollie's Gadgets · 17 Aug 2006 at 11:29

Mr Nice said:
Isn't that part of the A3 a 50?

The single carriageway probably is but the dual carriageway is all NSL.

Ollie's Gadgets · 17 Aug 2006 at 11:43

Meridian said:
I suspect the reason that they didn't use signs is because they have no effect on speed.

If they would have put up a temporary sign that day saying "Police with speed guns ahead" then I would have noticed it and not gone past 70mph therefore slowing down to the limit which they have obvious deemed essential there and everyone would have been happy (except they would have made no commission).

It is the permanent "Police Speed Checks in This Area" that do nothing, especially as some close to me are just not true.

Meridian said:
And the fact that you are going downhill is not an excuse for speeding - it's no harder to keep to the limit there than going uphill. Face it, you broke the law and were (maybe) caught.

Not saying it is an excuse. But most people prefer to increase their speed downhill so that they can ease off uphill. It is a more relaxing drive then braking when going downhill (dispite the clear road), and then accelerating hard uphill. The police know that which is why it is sneaky to be situated there.

Ollie's Gadgets · 17 Aug 2006 at 22:52

Durzel said:
I must admit I really don't understand the mindset of people who justify/excuse breaking speed limits which are painfully obvious simply because "it's dry", "not many cars on the road", "late for work", "I dont think its dangerous", etc or whatever.

I used the following:

1. "it's dry"
2. "not many cars on the road"
but not
3. "late for work".

1 and 2 are justifications of why it is safe to go at the speed I was doing. Are you seriously trying to tell me that it is no safer to go 80mph in the dry on a empty road then it is in the wet on a busy one. NO, so therefore it is a valid justification. On that stretch of road I will travel at 65-70mph in the rain.

Number 3 is an excuse which has no logic to it. Being late doesn't make the road any safer and so higher speeds are not appropriate.

Please tell me you are capable of understanding this mindset!

Sirrel Squirrel · 17 Aug 2006 at 22:56

Durzel said:
I must admit I really don't understand the mindset of people who justify/excuse breaking speed limits which are painfully obvious simply because "it's dry", "not many cars on the road", "late for work", "I dont think its dangerous", etc or whatever.

To stop people jumping down their throats screaming 'child killer' I would have thought. I see what you mean though, just admit you were speeding, I speed every time I get in my car, don't need to justify it.

Durzel · 18 Aug 2006 at 00:09

Ollie's Gadgets said:
I used the following:

1. "it's dry"
2. "not many cars on the road"
but not
3. "late for work".

1 and 2 are justifications of why it is safe to go at the speed I was doing. Are you seriously trying to tell me that it is no safer to go 80mph in the dry on a empty road then it is in the wet on a busy one. NO, so therefore it is a valid justification. On that stretch of road I will travel at 65-70mph in the rain.

Number 3 is an excuse which has no logic to it. Being late doesn't make the road any safer and so higher speeds are not appropriate.

Please tell me you are capable of understanding this mindset!

You're missing the point.

Just because you can justify it to yourself in your own mind to do those speeds doesn't mean its lawful to do so. If you go over the speed limit you do so knowing that you're breaking the limit, it's a conscious act (unless you have no control over how fast the car goes in which case you shouldn't even be driving!).

My point is - if you're gonna speed, just do it - but if you get caught don't start trying to justify it.

Sirrel Squirrel said:
To stop people jumping down their throats screaming 'child killer' I would have thought. I see what you mean though, just admit you were speeding, I speed every time I get in my car, don't need to justify it.

That's the right attitude if you're gonna speed.

g0th2000 · 18 Aug 2006 at 02:07

Durzel said:
My point is - if you're gonna speed, just do it - but if you get caught don't start trying to justify it.

Spot on

On topic, getting busted by an A3 speedgun usually results in getting pulled rather than something in the post. I doubt an 80 indicated would even have them remotely interested.