Flashed for 42mph in a 40?!

Two stroke smoke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:11:43 AM12/21/04

to

Driving home last night in the car (too bloody cold and slippy for the bike)
Coming up to a gatso that's been there for at least a year and I know all
about it. Car in front jumps on anchors and slows to 35mph. I thought
bugger this, it's a forty limit and move to outside lane (dual carriageway).
I passed said car and then got the old double flash in the mirror.

Now, I checked my speed just before passing the camera and then as it
flashed me. Not once did I see the needle on my speedo pass 42mph. So
what's that all about then? Have I confused the thing? I mean 42 is taking
the piss, surely I would have grounds to fight it. I've passed this camera
at that speed nearly every day since it was put up.

Have cameras been known like the old radar guns to give completely false
readings? What if it said I was doing 50 or 70 or something silly?

What does the FOAK reckon then?

The car's a Nissan 1L Micra so it's hardly going to tear up the tarmac. So,
it was £50 and I needed wheels.What does the FOAK reckon then?

tallbloke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:17:39 AM12/21/04

to

"Two stroke smoke" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in
news:p_-dncZ1aJL...@pipex.net:

> I mean 42 is
> taking the piss, surely I would have grounds to fight it. I've passed
> this camera at that speed nearly every day since it was put up.
>
> Have cameras been known like the old radar guns to give completely false
> readings? What if it said I was doing 50 or 70 or something silly?
>
> What does the FOAK reckon then?

You should have noted the number plate of the car you overtook as a
witness to how slowly you crawled past. 10% speedo error would put you in
the clear anyway. Good luck. Of course they might not summons you anyway.

>
> The car's a Nissan 1L Micra so it's hardly going to tear up the tarmac.
> So, it was £50 and I needed wheels.What does the FOAK reckon then?

Call the taste police.

--
tallbloke
Tasmin350i MatchlessG80
BONY#1 DIAABTCOD#8 OSOS#27 SKA#3

dwb

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:21:20 AM12/21/04

to

Two stroke smoke wrote:

>
> What does the FOAK reckon then?

Welcome to the world of zero tolerance.

Doesnotcompute

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:24:11 AM12/21/04

to

Two Stroke said:

> I mean 42 is taking the piss, surely

Yes, after all the limit was 40 ;)

> I would have grounds to fight it.

Depends, if your speedo is spot on, then no - you were speeding.

Of course, it may be that the gatso has been set low with no film (unless
it's digital) in order to just scare a few people into thinking a little
harder.

Guess you'll be watching the post box for the next 3 weeks [1]

[1] xmas post innit

--
Dnc

tallbloke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:28:21 AM12/21/04

to

"Doesnotcompute" <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> wrote in
news:b59ee40f889f3ec1...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com:

> Two Stroke said:
>
>> I mean 42 is taking the piss, surely
>
> Yes, after all the limit was 40 ;)
>
>> I would have grounds to fight it.
>
> Depends, if your speedo is spot on, then no - you were speeding.

Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then? How would the camera know
whether his speedo was spot on or underreading by 9.9%?

Doesnotcompute

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:35:51 AM12/21/04

to

Tallbloke asked:

>Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then?

I was under the impression it was only a guideline, to make the plod's
life a litte easier.

>How would the camera know whether his speedo was spot on
>or underreading by 9.9%?

<Brunstrom>Why would it care? You were speeding. You're a criminal now
sonny.</brunstrom>

Besides, speedo's aren't supposed to under-read.

--
Dnc

dwb

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:41:21 AM12/21/04

to

tallbloke wrote:
> "Doesnotcompute" <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> wrote in
> news:b59ee40f889f3ec1...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com:
>
>> Two Stroke said:
>>
>>> I mean 42 is taking the piss, surely
>>
>> Yes, after all the limit was 40 ;)
>>
>>> I would have grounds to fight it.
>>
>> Depends, if your speedo is spot on, then no - you were speeding.
>
> Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then? How would the
> camera know whether his speedo was spot on or underreading by 9.9%?

Not under the new prosposals going through - no - speeding will be speeding.

But you'll only get 2 points. Yay.

tallbloke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 4:47:21 AM12/21/04

to

"Doesnotcompute" <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> wrote in
news:9d83d62c953b8bc0...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com:

> Tallbloke asked:
>
>>Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then?
>
> I was under the impression it was only a guideline, to make the plod's
> life a litte easier.

I'm pretty sure it's firmer than that, BIMBW. SWKWBAS.

>
>>How would the camera know whether his speedo was spot on
>>or underreading by 9.9%?
>
> <Brunstrom>Why would it care? You were speeding. You're a criminal now
> sonny.</brunstrom>
>
> Besides, speedo's aren't supposed to under-read.
>

But sometimes they do, and the motorist is given a 10% of leeway under the
law, because he has no way of telling if his speedo is a bit out.

dwb

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:00:35 AM12/21/04

to

tallbloke wrote:
>
> But sometimes they do,

By law they must not under read - we've done this one a few times on here in
the past I believe.

and the motorist is given a 10% of leeway
> under the law, because he has no way of telling if his speedo is a
> bit out.

They were ACPO(is that right?) guidelines - never any kind of law AFAIK.

Champ

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:17:50 AM12/21/04

to

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:11:43 -0000, "Two stroke smoke"
<rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote:

>Driving home last night in the car (too bloody cold and slippy for the bike)
>Coming up to a gatso that's been there for at least a year and I know all
>about it. Car in front jumps on anchors and slows to 35mph. I thought
>bugger this, it's a forty limit and move to outside lane (dual carriageway).
>I passed said car and then got the old double flash in the mirror.
>
>Now, I checked my speed just before passing the camera and then as it
>flashed me. Not once did I see the needle on my speedo pass 42mph. So
>what's that all about then? Have I confused the thing? I mean 42 is taking
>the piss, surely I would have grounds to fight it. I've passed this camera
>at that speed nearly every day since it was put up.

Odds are it was empty.

If it were me, and an NIP arrives, I would contest it, swearing that I
was aware of the camera and my speedo was bang on 40mph, the car is
road legal/mot'd [1] and I want the speedo tested.

[1] none of which has anything to do with a working speedo, but worth
throwing a bit of rhetorical dust about.
--
Champ

tallbloke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:21:17 AM12/21/04

to

"dwb" <parc...@crossdata.co.uk> wrote in
news:32qai3F...@individual.net:

> tallbloke wrote:
>>
>> But sometimes they do,
>
> By law they must not under read - we've done this one a few times on
> here in the past I believe.

Surely that's a matter the police would have to take up with the
manufacturer rather than the motorist, assuming the motorist hasn't
modified the vehicle in such a way as to cause the speedo to under read,
by fgitting bigger wheels and or tyreprofiles than standard.

>
>> and the motorist is given a 10% of leeway
>> under the law, because he has no way of telling if his speedo is a
>> bit out.
>
> They were ACPO(is that right?) guidelines - never any kind of law AFAIK.

Ah ok

Big Tony

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:22:22 AM12/21/04

to

"Two stroke smoke" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
news:p_-dncZ1aJL...@pipex.net...

> Driving home last night in the car (too bloody cold and slippy for the
> bike)
> Coming up to a gatso that's been there for at least a year and I know all
> about it. Car in front jumps on anchors and slows to 35mph. I thought
> bugger this, it's a forty limit and move to outside lane (dual
> carriageway).
> I passed said car and then got the old double flash in the mirror.
>
> Now, I checked my speed just before passing the camera and then as it
> flashed me. Not once did I see the needle on my speedo pass 42mph. So
> what's that all about then? Have I confused the thing? I mean 42 is
> taking
> the piss, surely I would have grounds to fight it. I've passed this
> camera
> at that speed nearly every day since it was put up.
>
> Have cameras been known like the old radar guns to give completely false
> readings? What if it said I was doing 50 or 70 or something silly?
>
> What does the FOAK reckon then?

I wouldn't worry about it. There is nothing you can do anyway until you
receive something through the post, which I doubt you will. If you do
receive something, keep hold of it - including the envelope it came in - and
have a look at www.pepipoo.com before you do anything else.

--
Big Tony
BOTAFOF#21 BOTAFOT#120 BBB#3 PM#8 FTB#7
bigtony at you kay argh em dot net

Two stroke smoke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:45:46 AM12/21/04

to

Big Tony" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:32qbqvF...@individual.net...

>
> "Two stroke smoke" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in
message
> news:p_-dncZ1aJL...@pipex.net...
> > Driving home last night in the car (too bloody cold and slippy for the
> > bike)

<snip>

> I wouldn't worry about it. There is nothing you can do anyway until you
> receive something through the post, which I doubt you will. If you do
> receive something, keep hold of it - including the envelope it came in -
and
> have a look at www.pepipoo.com before you do anything else.
>
>
> --
> Big Tony
> BOTAFOF#21 BOTAFOT#120 BBB#3 PM#8 FTB#7
> bigtony at you kay argh em dot net

Thanks, bookmarked.

Oist

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:56:28 AM12/21/04

to

"tallbloke" <spam...@tallbloke.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C66062B121...@195.149.20.147...

> Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then? How would the camera
> know
> whether his speedo was spot on or underreading by 9.9%?
>

speedometers are allowed to over-read by 10% but are not allowed to
under-read at all. However the radar equipment may be out slightly etc etc
hence the 10% allowance generally.

Steve Parry

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 5:59:38 AM12/21/04

to

In news:Xns95C66062B121...@195.149.20.147,
tallbloke <spam...@tallbloke.net> fumbled, fiddled and fingered:

> "Doesnotcompute" <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> wrote in
>
news:b59ee40f889f3ec1...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com:
>
>> Two Stroke said:
>>
>>> I mean 42 is taking the piss, surely
>>
>> Yes, after all the limit was 40 ;)
>>
>>> I would have grounds to fight it.
>>
>> Depends, if your speedo is spot on, then no - you were speeding.
>
> Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then? How would the
> camera know whether his speedo was spot on or underreading by 9.9%?

I thought the non compulsory "recommendation" from the Government to the
ACPO was 10% plus 2 mph ?

--
Steve Parry

http://www.gwynfryn.co.uk

http://www.arrivedeprived.org.uk/

K100RS SE
F650
(not forgetting the SK90PY)

tallbloke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 6:02:30 AM12/21/04

to

"Oist" <givemem...@CABBAGEyahoo.com> wrote in news:10sg0bs6jd4fc34
@corp.supernews.com:

Ta for the clarification

Sounds like the OP shouldn't be getting a NIP then.

Doesnotcompute

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 6:16:23 AM12/21/04

to

Oist said:

>However the radar equipment may be out slightly etc etc
>hence the 10% allowance generally.

Don't be daft - Gatso's and Mobile devices etc have to be calibrated
regularly and should be 100%. They wouldn't be able to sucessfully nick
you with equipment that was out by 10%.

--
Dnc

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 6:50:46 AM12/21/04

to

"Doesnotcompute" <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f9c0933266caeb2...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com...

but, why does it need to be calibrated? unless it has started to go out of
calibration.
If there is a NIP then definitely fight it...ask for the photgraphs to be
sent...its possible that it crapped itself at the two cars and thought they
were one (have seen it happen before).
I reckon you wont get a NIP...as far as i was aware it had to be sent within
14 days for it to be valid..but i may be wrong.

Champ

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 7:04:59 AM12/21/04

to

Ooh - good explanation. I reckon that could be it.
--
Champ

Doesnotcompute

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 8:06:15 AM12/21/04

to

Oist asked:

>but, why does it need to be calibrated?

To ensure that it's doing it's job correctly.
You wouldn't let the post office use a set of scales that hadn't been
calibrated in order to charge you postage, would you?

>unless it has started to go out of calibration.

And how would they know that unless they calibrated it?

>as far as i was aware it had to be sent within 14 days for
>it to be valid.

Correct. The emphasis being on the word 'sent' and not not 'received by
the registered keeper'.

--
Dnc

Bear

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 8:15:39 AM12/21/04

to

In article <p_-dncZ1aJL...@pipex.net>, Two stroke smoke says...

> Driving home last night in the car (too bloody cold and slippy for the bike)
> Coming up to a gatso that's been there for at least a year and I know all
> about it. Car in front jumps on anchors and slows to 35mph. I thought
> bugger this, it's a forty limit and move to outside lane (dual carriageway).
> I passed said car and then got the old double flash in the mirror.
>
> Now, I checked my speed just before passing the camera and then as it
> flashed me. Not once did I see the needle on my speedo pass 42mph. So
> what's that all about then? Have I confused the thing? I mean 42 is taking
> the piss, surely I would have grounds to fight it. I've passed this camera
> at that speed nearly every day since it was put up.
>
> Have cameras been known like the old radar guns to give completely false
> readings? What if it said I was doing 50 or 70 or something silly?

More likely it had run out of film and had defaulted to "flash
everything doing more than the limit, just to worry them into slowing
down" mode.

Bet it takes 10 mph off your speed everywhere while you wait for the
NIP.
--
Bear
"Don't believe the hype"
Today's music: Marillion "Marbles"

Eiron

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 8:45:27 AM12/21/04

to

Two stroke smoke wrote:

> The car's a Nissan 1L Micra so it's hardly going to tear up the tarmac. So,
> it was £50 and I needed wheels.What does the FOAK reckon then?

How fast was the top of the wheel travelling?
Perhaps the gatso picked up the tasteful reflective Christmas
decorations you fixed on the wheeltrims.

--
Eiron.

Mick Whittingham

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 9:40:44 AM12/21/04

to

In article
<9d83d62c953b8bc0...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com>,
Doesnotcompute <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> writes

>Tallbloke asked:
>
>>Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then?
>
>I was under the impression it was only a guideline, to make the plod's
>life a litte easier.
>
>>How would the camera know whether his speedo was spot on
>>or underreading by 9.9%?
>
><Brunstrom>Why would it care? You were speeding. You're a criminal now
>sonny.</brunstrom>

Does that include his daughter?

>
>Besides, speedo's aren't supposed to under-read.
>

True in theory.
--
Mick Whittingham
'and I will make it a felony to drink small beer.'
William Shakespeare, Henry VI part 2.

Steve Parry

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 10:43:18 AM12/21/04

to

In news:yCVJMmVs...@whittinghamsite.fsnet.co.uk,
Mick Whittingham <Mi...@whittinghamsite.fsnet.co.uk> fumbled, fiddled and
fingered:

> In article
> <9d83d62c953b8bc0...@localhost.talkaboutmotorcycles.com>,
> Doesnotcompute <doesnot...@DELETETHISgmail.com> writes
>> Tallbloke asked:
>>
>>> Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then?
>>
>> I was under the impression it was only a guideline, to make the
>> plod's life a litte easier.
>>
>>> How would the camera know whether his speedo was spot on
>>> or underreading by 9.9%?
>>
>> <Brunstrom>Why would it care? You were speeding. You're a criminal
>> now sonny.</brunstrom>
>
> Does that include his daughter?
>

... and himself too

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1489176.stm

"....Mr Brunstrom said he was "ashamed" of his speeding, which he
described as "dangerous" and "anti-social".... "

Somehow I get a pictire of the pot noodle advert flashing up ;o)

"you know it's dirty and you want it"

Two stroke smoke

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 11:19:42 AM12/21/04

to

"wessie" <putmyn...@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:Xns95C6782...@130.133.1.4...

Nope, nearside kerb. Thought had croosed me mind.

Colonel Tupperware

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 11:36:25 AM12/21/04

to

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 09:11:43 -0000, "Two stroke smoke"
<rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote:

>What does the FOAK reckon then?
>

>The car's a Nissan 1L Micra so it's hardly going to tear up the tarmac. So,

>it was £50 and I needed wheels.What does the FOAK reckon then?
>
If there are 2 vehicles in the photograph they will usually not bother
to procede with a case.
It gets too messy and time consuming because you will claim the other
car undertook you.
It has been said that cases where the accused fights back usually get
dropped.

--
ColonelTupperware,
spouting bollocks on Usenet since 1997
Usenet FAQ at
http://www.its.caltech.edu/its/services/internetapps/news/news2.shtml
UPCE FAQ at http://upce.org.uk/ UKRM FAQ at http://www.ukrm.net/faq/

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 2:11:23 PM12/21/04

to

tallbloke wrote:

> > What does the FOAK reckon then?
>

> You should have noted the number plate of the car you overtook as a
> witness to how slowly you crawled past. 10% speedo error would put
> you in the clear anyway. Good luck. Of course they might not summons
> you anyway.

10% error doesn't mean it's out. He could've been doing 42mph.

--
Christofire DIAABTCOD#1 Daytona 955i
TPPFAUICG#69BONY#10MIRTTH#7IMANASS#2SbS#20BOTAFOT#117
BOMB#15 "But..he looks so *innocent*" HYPO#2
Full throttle for 55 minutes - a hell of a buzz.

Lozzo

unread,

Dec 21, 2004, 2:41:18 PM12/21/04

to

Doesnotcompute says...
> Oist asked:

> >as far as i was aware it had to be sent within 14 days for
> >it to be valid.
>
> Correct. The emphasis being on the word 'sent' and not not 'received by
> the registered keeper'.

How many times does it need to be pointed out that you don't even have
to receive it? As long as the lying cunts at the ticket office say they
sent it, then you're fucked.

You can ask me how I know this, but I'd prefer for you to google for 'my
day in court'

--
Lozzo
ZX-9R
In cunnis confidimus

MikeH

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 4:07:13 AM12/22/04

to

Colonel Tupperware wrote:
> It has been said that cases where the accused fights back usually get
> dropped.
>

On Monday I finally made a trial appearance after an 18 month farce of a
prosecution for speeding (42 in a 30).

"The crown offer no evidence". Case dismissed. After 18 months of
refusal to release video evidence, ignoring court direction to do the
same, witnesses not turning up and the wrong witnesses turning up which
cost me 5 days of my holidays.

The case was dropped to avoid our evidence (the official police video)
being ripped apart by my expert, where he was about to demonstrate that:

1) The speed measurement of my bike could not be accurate unless my BM
could outdrag an F1 car with no visible effect on the front suspension
2) The distance measurement of the laser machine was inaccurate (two
cars demonstrably six feet apart were shown in the video as 0.1 metres
apart).

There were also some other points which my expert would like to keep
quiet about for use in later cases.

I recommend anyone to view their pictures/video and get advice from a
traffic law solicitor. I suspect I got stitched by a duty solicitor and
the CPS on an earlier charge (I was speeding but could have got off
better according to my expert solicitor).

The other good thing about my appearance on Monday was that the revenue
camera unit were all in court for two hours and their van was abandoned
outside, so making the roads of Hampshire a slightly safer place.

--

Mike Hall
R1100S

Big Tony

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 4:41:32 AM12/22/04

to

"MikeH" <mike...@invalid.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:32srj0F...@individual.net...

> Colonel Tupperware wrote:
>> It has been said that cases where the accused fights back usually get
>> dropped.
>>
>
> On Monday I finally made a trial appearance after an 18 month farce of a
> prosecution for speeding (42 in a 30).
>
> "The crown offer no evidence". Case dismissed. After 18 months of refusal
> to release video evidence, ignoring court direction to do the same,
> witnesses not turning up and the wrong witnesses turning up which cost me
> 5 days of my holidays.
>
> The case was dropped to avoid our evidence (the official police video)
> being ripped apart by my expert, where he was about to demonstrate that:
>
> 1) The speed measurement of my bike could not be accurate unless my BM
> could outdrag an F1 car with no visible effect on the front suspension
> 2) The distance measurement of the laser machine was inaccurate (two cars
> demonstrably six feet apart were shown in the video as 0.1 metres apart).
>

I assume you were caught by a LTI 20/20?

--
Big Tony
BOTAFOF#21 BOTAFOT#120 BBB#3 PM#8 FTB#7
bigtony at you kay argh em dot net

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 8:19:17 AM12/22/04

to

bastard...@gmail.com said...

> Oh well, why didn't you say that the first time?! :)
>
> Seriously though, if there are 2 timed photos, and markings to denote
> distance, how could someone not understand which car is going faster?
>

I don't know either, but it does recommend in the ACPO guidelines that
if there are 2 vehicles on the negative, no further action is taken.

http://pepipoo.com/files/ACPO/ACPO_full.htm

see point 29.3.

Suggests a rather interesting plan, for the daring, doesn't it ?

--
Trevor, Botafot#106, BMW R1150RS

Bear

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 9:51:46 AM12/22/04

to

In article <MPG.1c3384b07...@news.individual.net>, says...

Wow. Cheers for that!

So the rule now is, hunt in packs? :)

Big Tony

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 10:00:14 AM12/22/04

to

<m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3384b07...@news.individual.net...

I would say extremely daring. Guidelines are just that. If two "daredevils"
were significantly over the speed limit, I think they would find themselves
having to explain the technicalities to the magistrates.

Bear

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 10:01:49 AM12/22/04

to

In article <32tggaF...@individual.net>, Big Tony says...

> > Suggests a rather interesting plan, for the daring, doesn't it ?
>
> I would say extremely daring. Guidelines are just that. If two "daredevils"
> were significantly over the speed limit, I think they would find themselves
> having to explain the technicalities to the magistrates.

Rats :(

<fx: lightbulb>

What about *10* jokers, all doing 150mph?

flash

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 10:00:36 AM12/22/04

to

"Bear" <bastard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c339cbc8...@News.individual.net...

> In article <32tggaF...@individual.net>, Big Tony says...
>
> > > Suggests a rather interesting plan, for the daring, doesn't it ?
> >
> > I would say extremely daring. Guidelines are just that. If two
"daredevils"
> > were significantly over the speed limit, I think they would find
themselves
> > having to explain the technicalities to the magistrates.
>
> Rats :(
>
> <fx: lightbulb>
>
> What about *10* jokers, all doing 150mph?

http://www.peterjohnson.co.uk/new/Royal%20Signals%20White%20Helmets%201%20s.jpg ?

MikeH

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 10:16:06 AM12/22/04

to

flash wrote:
>>
>><fx: lightbulb>
>>
>>What about *10* jokers, all doing 150mph?
>
>
> http://www.peterjohnson.co.uk/new/Royal%20Signals%20White%20Helmets%201%20s.jpg ?
>
>

Law of averages - we were only doing 15mph each?

--

Mike Hall
R1100S

mups

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 10:15:00 AM12/22/04

to

flash nos...@hotmail.com says...

>
> "Bear" <bastard...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >

> > What about *10* jokers, all doing 150mph?
>
> http://www.peterjohnson.co.uk/new/Royal%20Signals%20White%20Helmets%201%20s.jpg ?

Or the UKRM version...

http://www.thepurplehelmets.com/gallery/stunts/images/ST%20(62).jpg

--
Chris
CBR1000FL The Honda Fatblade
Yam RS200 Transcontinental Tourer

Bear

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 10:15:48 AM12/22/04

to

In article <32tgp6F...@individual.net>, flash says...

heh. Just the ticket, as it were.

steve auvache

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 11:53:45 AM12/22/04

to

Bear wrote

>In article <32tggaF...@individual.net>, Big Tony says...
>
>> > Suggests a rather interesting plan, for the daring, doesn't it ?
>>
>> I would say extremely daring. Guidelines are just that. If two "daredevils"
>> were significantly over the speed limit, I think they would find themselves
>> having to explain the technicalities to the magistrates.
>
>Rats :(
>
><fx: lightbulb>
>
>What about *10* jokers, all doing 150mph?

I'm game. Can I borrow a bike that will go that fast please.

--
steve auvache
MZ TS150: for sale still.
Bandit 600

JP

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 6:19:41 PM12/22/04

to

On 21 Dec 2004 09:28:21 GMT, tallbloke <spam...@tallbloke.net> wrote:

>Does the 10% error allowance no longer apply then? How would the camera know

>whether his speedo was spot on or underreading by 9.9%?

Because speedos arent allowed to under-read - they are tested (at
manufacture) to within 10% at set speeds - but they always have to
either over-read or be exact

HTH

ST1100 Pan European (in even more incredible tacky colourscheme!)
ZX9R E1 - It's big, green and clean!
XTZ750 Super Tenere - the flying banana!
NATC#1 MHP#1 MMJ#1 BotToS#1

JP

unread,

Dec 22, 2004, 6:20:59 PM12/22/04

to

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:18:38 +0000, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:

>>I thought the non compulsory "recommendation" from the Government to the
>>ACPO was 10% plus 2 mph ?
>
>That was my understanding too.

Actually the other way round - its ACPO recommendation to the
government