Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Driving speeds

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 76 to 92 of 92
  1. #76
    In the UK, I usually drive at 65-70 in the conditions you describe. Better fuel economy, more relaxing than racing to get somewhere, and my car isn't great at higher speeds.

    I do a lot of city driving which is way worse than the motorway, though with some effort it's possible to drive more efficiently.
  2. #77
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I averaged 44.8 mpg on a 600 mile round trip to London, which included driving through central London (what a pain in the ass). I could have dropped to 70mph on the motorway and prob got my average up to 49mpg but my time is more valuable than the fuel saving.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    :/
    Who's identity is he mistaking? His own, or the guy who he pulled over and asked for ID?

    I don't follow you here, at all.
    The point is, the word of a policeman is not proof on its own. I mean if he pulls over someone who overtakes him at 90, but fails to record it, then it's the word of the copper vs the word of the driver. How can the jury be sure the copper pulled over the right car? The copper might be sure because he was there, but the jury can't be sure because there's no evidence other than the word of the copper.

    Here, for the prosecution to succeed in getting a conviction, they must prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty. When there is only the word of one copper, it's much easier to cast doubt on his version of events, than if he has physical proof.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  4. #79
    I mean if I got pulled over, I could in theory argue that I was driving in front of the policecar, and was overtaken by the same speeding car, which was the same colour and model as my car, but the policeman pulled over the wrong car.

    There's your doubt.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  5. #80
    I have a funny feeling Ong that you're the type of person who would end up in jail for really minor shit.
  6. #81
    I guess another way of looking at this is... what would I do if I were a juror facing a defendant accused of speeding, with only the word of the cop to back up the accusation? No way I'm ruling against the defendant because I don't consider the word of a cop to be proof "beyond reasonable doubt".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by ImSavy View Post
    I have a funny feeling Ong that you're the type of person who would end up in jail for really minor shit.
    haha I haven't spent a night in a cell since I was a teenager.

    I'm the kind of person who would get *arrested* for minor shit, kicked the crap out of by burly cops, and then released without charge.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #83
    You can't end up in jail for "minor shit" anyway. I could maybe end up in jail for perjury when my bullshit defence unravels, but perjury is hardly minor shit.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  9. #84
    rong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,033
    Location
    behind you with an axe
    I don't think you are a typical juror. I also think the preoseciting lawyer can kick out a couple of jurors and I'm certain you'd be gone quicker than a teen's virginity in Sunderland.
    I'm the king of bongo, baby I'm the king of bongo bong.
  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by rong View Post
    I don't think you are a typical juror. I also think the preoseciting lawyer can kick out a couple of jurors and I'm certain you'd be gone quicker than a teen's virginity in Sunderland.
    Fair point, but a typical juror still has to have no reasonable doubt. I can't see how that can be the case, assuming we're talking about the word of one cop and no hard eveidence.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  11. #86
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Fair point, but a typical juror still has to have no reasonable doubt. I can't see how that can be the case, assuming we're talking about the word of one cop and no hard eveidence.
    Your thoughts the whole Making a Murder thing with regards to this belief you've expressed?

    I think your faith in humanity is clouding your perception of how voluntarily dumb and blindly vindictive people are. I mean... if the defendant reminds the juror of someone the juror doesn't like... there's the reasonable doubt. It may never boil into the conscious part of that juror's thought process, but it was there, guiding their judgement all along.
  12. #87
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Many crimes have no hard evidence. The point is this is a battle of motivation. The cop is doing his job, has no reason to lie, and risks his career if he does lie (lying on the stand means we can pretty much never have him testify again. He'd be called a liar in every single case afterwards). Meanwhile, the defendant is obv willing to say anything to get out of what he did. So it's not that the cop has special credibility by virtue of career choice, it's that testimony from him is much more believable than from a likely criminal.

    But again, in a speeding case...there is gonna be radar used.
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Your thoughts the whole Making a Murder
    I don't even know what that thread is about, I haven't looked at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I think your faith in humanity is clouding your perception...
    haha I don't have any fucking faith in humanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    The cop is doing his job, has no reason to lie...
    It's not a question of if the cop is lying, it's a question of how certain the jury can be that his version of events is accurate. An inaccurate account doesn't imply a lie, it implies an error of judgement, and it's reasonable that a cop can make an error of judgement. If he's saying "I was doing 70 and the accused was overtaking me on the outside lane by approximately 20mph", that isn't admissable evidence, it's vague. If he then goes on to say "when I caught up with him he was still doing 95mph", well that's better, because it's very difficult for the cop to be mistaken in this regard. But even still, without hard proof, a skilled lawyer should have no problem rendering this inadmissable.

    Of course, without hard evidence, a cop is very likely to just give the driver a ticking off, knowing that it's going to be very difficult to get a successful prosecution based on his word alone. He might even search the car in the hope of finding drugs or purely to inconvenience the driver. But he's a fool if he takes a driver to court hoping that his word alone will take him down.

    Maybe your law works differently to ours. Or maybe I'm wrong and the word of a policeman is considered fact in a UK court. Or maybe it's you guys talking shit and not me. I doubt that last one though.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #89
    I tell a lie, I did look at the Making a Murder thread, and saw it was about a TV programme I had no interest in, so didn't look at it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  15. #90
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    An inaccurate account doesn't imply a lie, it implies an error of judgement, and it's reasonable that a cop can make an error of judgement...
    You are now better than about half of all defense attorneys. This is a much harder argument to fight against for the State, and much easier to make for the Defense. Nevertheless, many defense attorneys will persist with the "cop is lying" argument instead of the "cop is mistaken" one.


    If he's saying "I was doing 70 and the accused was overtaking me on the outside lane by approximately 20mph", that isn't admissable evidence, it's vague. (well, theres foundation issues. Hows he know it was 20? Is he just guessing? Thats why this would get blocked} If he then goes on to say "when I caught up with him he was still doing 95mph", well that's better, because it's very difficult for the cop to be mistaken in this regard. But even still, without hard proof, a skilled lawyer should have no problem rendering this inadmissable.
    Without doing any legal research, I dont see why it wouldnt come in. The 3 rules of evidence are Relevance, Reliability, and Right. Its certainly relevant, driving at your own speed of 95 and seeing someone else going the same speed is reliable, and it wouldnt be wrong to see it. In America, issues like "well, how do we know he saw it correctly?" are questions of weight that go to the fact-finder. It still comes in tho.

    Of course, without hard evidence, a cop is very likely to just give the driver a ticking off, knowing that it's going to be very difficult to get a successful prosecution based on his word alone. He might even search the car in the hope of finding drugs or purely to inconvenience the driver. But he's a fool if he takes a driver to court hoping that his word alone will take him down.

    Maybe your law works differently to ours. Or maybe I'm wrong and the word of a policeman is considered fact in a UK court. Or maybe it's you guys talking shit and not me. I doubt that last one though.
    I know nothing of UK laws, people, or anything. In US, jurors hate defendants and see them as guilty. They also, imo, dont often take the "reasonable doubt" standard seriously. Is that different in the UK? Maybe. I know you guys have cameras everywhere so maybe its more common to need such proof. Hard evidence isnt a requirement here though, its just a bonus.
  16. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    You are now better than about half of all defense attorneys. This is a much harder argument to fight against for the State, and much easier to make for the Defense. Nevertheless, many defense attorneys will persist with the "cop is lying" argument instead of the "cop is mistaken" one.
    Are you serious? It immediately occured to me, a fucking jobless stoner, that it's way more likely that a cop would make a mistake, than for him to lie in court. Who the fuck is giving these attorneys their jobs? Or is it the arrogant moronity of the people, who attempt to discredit the cop, and thus insist on taking that line? idk, it just seems stupid to accuse a cop of lying in court.

    I know nothing of UK laws, people, or anything. In US, jurors hate defendants and see them as guilty. They also, imo, dont often take the "reasonable doubt" standard seriously. Is that different in the UK? Maybe. I know you guys have cameras everywhere so maybe its more common to need such proof. Hard evidence isnt a requirement here though, its just a bonus.
    I've never stepped foot in a court, but I believe our entire legal system is built on the foundation of a fair trail, of being presumed innocent until proven guilty, and of reasonable doubt. It's really hard to say what the average juror is thinking when they first see the defendant, but I think the vast majority of people will at the very least reserve judgement until they hear the facts, because that's what we expect from the jury if we're ever in the dock. The phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" is itself a cornerstone of the legal system, or at the very least the vast majority of people think so.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #92
    Hard evidence isnt a requirement here though, its just a bonus.
    I really do think that this draws a clear distinction between our legal systems. The prosecution must prove guilt, and the defence will seek to counter the prosecution's evidence by raising doubts about its credibility or legitimacy.

    Then again, we just saw a football player accused of sexual activity with a 15 y/o get convicted of one charge, while being cleared of the other, with both of the charges based on the same evidence... the word of the now 16-year old girl. I expect a successful appeal, but what do I know?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •