Aero_383 wrote:

Right here goes...6) Osman v UK is caselaw for the police to take certain action if they believe a life is in danger, most commonly used when they receive intelligence that someone intends to harm a third party.

We are on the same wavelength. From the police perspective if a threat is deemed immediate and real they cannot ignore it. There are numerous tactical options, but ignoring it is definately not one of them.  _________________
Gone - 2010 Rimini XS

Indeed Aero, indeed LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

Aero_383 also if it is an unmarked police car you do not have to stop, you can continue,not continue speeding of course, to a place of safety ie a service station where there are people around, this is especially relevent of women traveling alone at night, forgot to say you should always acknowledge the police when they want you to pull over and you dont feel it safe to, just to help them from misunderstanding your intentions, single or double fingered acknowlegdements would not be acceptable

Ghyllie oo! Shiney!
____________________________________________
55 Nissan Navara SE Black - My Toy.
08 Freelander 2 XS Santorini Black - Her Majesty's Toy.

5) The reason they want you in their car is so you can talk in the relative quiet, checks on you and your vehicle can be done if necessary, you can be shown the error of your ways on DVD and your conversation and the officers behaviour are also recorded.

Very valid point there

And in this day and age who can blame a male police officer for wanting to have everything recorded when dealing with any female ?
As far as I'm concerned there is a rabbit away here! it's not an issue the police stopping her for 98 on the motorway and dealing with it on the hard shoulder it's doing over a ton on the clock with a kiddie on board that is the issue, and If she only got a fixed penalty she is lucky ! Dead simple don't want a seat in a big estate car parked on the hard shoulder don't drive like a ! Consider if you think the police are putting you at risk that what you are doing to attract their attention is,was , could be , putting you , your passengers,( and other road users) at an extended period of risk. Eat the humble pie , take the ticket, and above all don't whine about how you get dealt with. 2009 GS Auto Zermatt Silver - Sold June 21 after 10 years of ownership

2016 Subaru Outback SE 2.0 diesel SE Premium Lineartronic Sold 2024 after 8 years and 80k miles . Best Car I ever owned !

2023 Toyota Hilux invincible X 2.8 Auto .

It will likely be the usual case of one rule for the authorities & another for us.
I wonder what they would have said if you had pulled over on a hard shoulder after breaking down then leaving a child in the car to walk to the emergency phone? (Past) Freelander 2 HSE 2010 MY In Rimini Red.
(Past) RR Evoque Dynamic Lux Si4 In Firenze Red.
(Past) RR Evouque Pure Tech in Barollo Black with bespoke Firenze Red colour coding.
(Present) Freelander Metropolis 2015 MY In Santorini Black with Ivory Premium Leather.

I think there was a complete lack of common sense and sense of danger from both parties.

I'm with Richard on this one from the first page, It seems she is trying to divert the attention away from the real offence committed "speeding". I would be interested to know how fast she was actually going with children in the car!!

In regards to the child in the car I would have removed the child from the car whilst been given a ticket. I would not sit in the police car as I feel its unsafe to do so on a motorway. Can't remember my theory test but I'm pretty sure it states everyone should be outside of the vehicle. When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

Quote:

I would be interested to know how fast she was actually going with children in the car!!

Read the whole thread, the answer is there

Ok ok i;ve read it now it was just so long! 98! with a child in the car she deserves to have her licence revoked When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

I have been watching this thread and the various replies with interest. It does seem like the lady in question is trying to "muddy the water" with regard to her speeding? this happens frequestly in an attempt to get the case dropped.

Was driving at 98mph dangerous? it depends on a few factors, road conditions, road surface, traffic volume, time of day, weather, the condition vehicle she was driving, the drivers skill. She could be charged with dangerous driving as opposed to speeding depending on all the above factors.

Driving at 3am on a motor way which is quiet, dry, good condition road surface, good visibility at 98 mph is way over the speed limit but could be argued not dangerous?

As for stopping on the hard shoulder, police vehicles have roof mounted blue and red flashing high intensity strobe lights which can be seen from a good distance away, the police veh should stop at least 10 - 20 yards behind the stopped vehicle and have its wheeels turned towards the verge. This will shunt the police car into the verge if itis hit from behind and not out into the carriageway into the path of other traffic.
The next slip road could be 10 - 20 miles further down the motorway?

Bringing the driver back to the police car is normal procedure, this could be to view the onboard video and talk in relative peace and quiet, have some form of control over the driver if any checks reveal something more serious!

It's a matter of discretion by the officer, I would most likly speak to the driver from the passenger side of their vehicle if they had a very small child on board and it could bee seen that they may get upset?

It's not easy to give an accurate description of what was right and wrong as we were not there and don't have the full facts. I have found in these situations, the accused fails to give a full and accurate account, (selective memory!) when telling the story to another.