Porsche Enthusiasts Club Forum

On my way home last night after a particularly successful day, I got pulled over by a nice man called Ian in a big Volvo with flashy blue lights. He said he'd seen me on the motorway just after the airport and followed me at 90 until I came off and joined the dual carriageway - the speed limit is 50. He said I continued along at 80, but I did slow to 70 for the bend, and then carried on at 80 and went through the traffic lights - I definitely slowed to around 60 for this bit. He then pulled me over. It was 2145. I found a decent safe spot to stop, got out of the car, walked to him and said "Hands up, I've been caught so I deserve it, I'm really sorry about that" and held out my hand, which he shook. He asked if I had any points, to which I said "None". He gave me a load of information about speeding, how he'd just booked a guy doing 100 on the motorway....... and that in this instance he was not going to do me!

I asked "Why not", and he said "Let's just say you passed the attitude test".

We chatted a bit, and when I told him I'm our village Homewatch man, and also one of only two people in the village licensed to operate the Speedwatch radar gun, he laughed and said "Wait till the hear this down the station". He was referring to our local one where he's based. I thanked him, asked his name, thanked him again and shook his hand. Then I sat in my car for a couple of minutes shaking like a leaf with my heart pounding. It was a lesson learned even though I didn't get a ticket or whatever it is you get.

I was driving our A4 Avant Tdi 140 S-Line. I wonder if the result would have been different had I been in the 944S2.... although my response to the situation would have been exactly the same.

I've omitted road numbers and location to be fair to the policeman,

Anyway, I'm a very very lucky man. Surely 80 in a 50 is a ban?

I'd buy a lottery ticket John! Yup most areas looks at a court appearance for 30MPH over the limit & most ask for a ban

Lucky - definitely

Fair play for getting away with it BUT it does concern me. The lack of consistency offered by the police - why should a 'nice guy' get a different result from an 'arseole' for the same offence and it seems largely dependant on whether the copper is in a good mood?

I just hope I come across as a nice guy when (if?) I get stopped for a similar offence.

It sounds like honesty was best policy on this occasion.

But I am surprised even shocked you shot lights at 80, dual carriageway or not. Slowing for lights then accelerating through the hazard if still green would be the procedure in police-style defensive driving technique. For a police patrol driver not to pursue that driving error is pretty staggering.

I take your points - especially about the lights (which were on green). When he quoted the speeds I did say that although I wasn't disputing his figures I genuinely thought I was only in the 65 - 70 region.... therefore admitting to doing it. Apart from the speed I wasn't doing anything wrong, always in the correct lane, indicating when overtaking, etc etc. For interest, the road had a 60 limit until a few years ago.

I'll certainly be slowing down now though.

It's like I stopped drinking the first time I woke up next to a gorgon - a lucky escape.

Edited to add - By the way, I am not 'bragging' about this event, I just thought it a good story to tell. And yes I agree that honesty is the best policy.

Doesn't make sense to me, I got taken to court when I was 18 for driving my boyfriends beetle out of my parents driveway and parking it on the road just outside without insurance - even though I had insurance on 3 other vehicles at the time.

We've all done that, moving somebody's car, but there must have been something else that made a copper pull you in the very short distance you drove it! How far was it from the end of the driveway to the road? They couldn't do you on the driveway, so you were very unlucky to get caught in just a few metres driving.

For interest, what actually happened?

People think that because they have insurance on their own vehicles they can drive another car on 'third party only' cover. That used to be the case, but in an attempt to stop people insuring Minis and driving Ferraris most insurance companies have now restricted that by adding ".... in event of an emergency only".

I have three cars and have three insurance policies, I am also named driver on my neighbour's E-class Merc, and another neighbour's 3-series BMW. It saves any problems when I use them.

haha erm, yes well my boyfriend at the time had one of those stinger exhausts that you could hear from 5 miles away. I think a neighbour complained (rightfully so) and the police were waiting for us, unfortunatley I was the one to park it literally on the road outside...lol, so I didn't tell the whole truth :0) but he had to get the exhaust changed, get it certified by a garage and produce the documents to the police station. However, the police where not friendly at all and charged little me with driving without insurance. We went to the court at age 18/19 and looked pretty scared, the judge dismissed the case without charging thankfully and stated that bringing us to court was a waste of police time and tax payers money. You live and learn!

john....i have a very close friend who is a police driver...i regailed your story to him...he said he would probably have done the same...its not what you do its how you do it....its not just the speed,its the road attitude as well...he must have believed your a good driver....what do you think?

I was told of an anecdote regarding a well-known comedian..........
He was doing 110, and was caught up by another car (which later turned out to be an unmarked police car), this meant, I'll call him "Jim", accelerated for two reasons, one his fame and two the antagonistic driving of the rozzers.
He was pulled at 140mph.
It went to court.....
"Jim" got off, why?
In court, he argued that he should have been pulled at 110, not 140 and the smart-ass lawyer argued, rightly and successfully, that this was entrapment.
It just begs the question though.........whilst this is indeed entrapment (as it was construed that they "encouraged" our Jim to take evasive action), he was still breaking the law.......so what does this tell you?????
It just depends on which side of the fence you are on, that of law and order, or that of reasonable mitigation.