Speed Traps

brandy sour


Joined: 09/04/2008
Posts: 310

Message Posted:
20/11/2008 20:25

Is it fair to be band after your second offence

Quarmby


Joined: 15/09/2008
Posts: 975

Message Posted:
20/11/2008 20:32

Is it intended for the very high speed drivers and not for the2 plus miles over the limit drivers. So yes.

Harold2555



Joined: 19/04/2008
Posts: 1139

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 10:55

The problem is as always the lack of common sense and reason inherent in setting Knee jerk one size fits all penalties.



Driving at 51 mph past a school zone at 8.30 in the morning should be punished more than driving at 95 mph on a deserted M40 at two in the morning.



Don't have an answer but just know that it feels wrong.



H



(no speeding offences on licence but perhaps more due to luck than judgement)

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 11:00

I agree with Harold. You can't generalise. His analogy with regard to speeding past a school zone and speeding at 2.00am is correct.

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 11:21

Harold,

Speeding past a school or on a motorway are treated very differently at the point of sentencing.

Real problem to address is that even if you are due to 'loose' your licence, it's very easy if you know how to avoid loosing it, whatever the reaon, speeding, no insurance, even drink driving.

Using this 'get out' keeps many people on the road who should not be there.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 11:28

Brian, care to enlighten us as to this 'get out' scenario?

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 11:42

google.co.uk:

"special circumstances" drink driving

exactly like it is typed, do UK pages only

Also look at http://www.driving-law.co.uk/offances/totting_up.asp

Not advocating this is a good system, in fact I disagree with it in most cases, but the law makers make the law.

It's designed so that vulnerable people do not ultimately suffer 'exeptional hardship' as a result of someone elses indiscretion, however serious it may be.

Should point out that once you have used a 'special circumstance' you can never use that one again, but you can have more than one 'special circumstance'

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 11:43

Thanks Brian

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 12:01

So the special circumstance that you have to drink & drive fast does not cancel out the special circumstance that someone else will be put out of work if you can't drive....



Seems about right for an ass.. which as everyone knows, is what the law is....



This use of get out of gaol free cards is what makes some people feel victimised when their circumstances are brushed aside by magistrates and judges... It's never happened to me but I've seen plenty of cases where it has happened.



People who drive in the course of their business should consider the effect on their business before they drive incorrectly... not ask for it to be taken into account when they've been caught...



I also don't think it's much of a punishment for the filthy rich to have to employ a chauffeur until they get their licence back... it's job creation! For Joe the Plumber it's a much bigger deal... but Joe the Plumber does not get much sympathy from the social climbers and snobs in the court systems....

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 12:46

It's not about putting people in or out of work, as I said above

"It's designed so that vulnerable people do not ultimately suffer 'exeptional hardship' as a result of someone elses indiscretion, however serious it may be."

However, it is abused, especially if you know how.

But that is not the most [in my opinion] worrying part.

I once had given in evidence a 'letter from an employer' saying the person would loose their job if disqualified, and he was about to go to 15 points, so had escaped disqualification once already!

It was clear to me that the letter was fake, so I suggested it be adjourned for an hour or so and the employer contacted.

"not allowed" I was told, if it is presented in evidence it is assumed to be genuine.

Circumstances are not brushed aside, beleive me, 'the system' is there to protect and help the accused ........ all the way.

As you rightly say about the law Groucho, "Seems about right for an ass"

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 13:23

Assumptions... the mother of all f*ck-ups.... as ever. What I don't understand is in my example I talk about people being put out of work and you say it's not about that... then you go on to give an example that's about somebody claiming it will put them out of work...



I've been in court when somebody argued that as a large employer if he lost his licence he'd have to lay-off staff.... The magistrates told him to hire a chauffeur and stop bleating... they took his licence away... good for them.



But it was presented in a way that suggested that this is quite a normal consideration... I don't agree that it should be... what if he was allowed to keep it and then killed somebody by dangerous driving .... thinking well "I'm immune from prosecution"

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
21/11/2008 13:41

My missunderstanding, the case I am sighting was an elderly home worker taking people to hospital etc, only person to loose job would have been him.

"dangerous driving .... thinking well "I'm immune from prosecution" - depends how - culpability, beleive it or not, depends totally on how you kill them [in a traffic accident].

You can only ever be tried for the crime you commit, therefore if the only offence you have commited is parking on double yellows, but it leads to a death, you can only ever receive the maximum penalty for parking on double yellows, but culpability can be considered in some cases, for example could the person have forseen that thier actions 'could' lead to a death.

Difficult to prove, which is why in many cases CPO go for the easier (but certain) prosecution.

So, banning a speeding pensioner for doing 85 on a motorway 'twice' suddenly looks way over the top.

Incidentally you can already get 6 pts for gross speeding so twice is a ban anyway.

breezyboy


Joined: 14/05/2007
Posts: 1179

Message Posted:
24/11/2008 18:15

Hi Brian,

You cannot use the same reason for non disqualification twice. It is ( or should be) on record and produced at the time by the clerk of the court. Someone tried it on with me once. his boss was in court to testify for him and was very teed off when he had wasted the day and his employee was found out and banned anyway.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
24/11/2008 20:57

my sister in law and hubby were driving through london.

its dark and raining.

a fight outside a club breaks out, all hell breaks loose, police everywhere.

they slow down as people spill into the street.

a policeman jumps out in front of them while chasing someone and over the car bonnet.

they charged my brother in law with dangerous driving and gave him points and a fine.

and he had to fix his car!

where was the justice in that?

how was he driving dangerously at 15-20mph?

Coachie



Joined: 29/07/2008
Posts: 2135

Message Posted:
24/11/2008 21:18

Brandy Sour....banned after your second offence. something sounds odd there.How many points did you have on your licence after your first offence?If it was more than 6,you must have been given at least 6 for your second offence there fore under the totting up system you are banned.I had 2 speeding fines and 6 penalty points when I was caught for a third time butwas offered bythe authorities a course called "speed awareness" cost £90 but was very good and when you pass you do not get the three points on your licence that an automatic speeding offence carries. I currently have a clean licence cos the other 2 have now expired...

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 10:13

Breezy,

Any 'special reason' is noted on a persons record at the court, and as you say (and is in msg 7) can only be used once, but you can use differing 'special reasons'. Had a chap who much to my disgust and total dissagreement had to be let off a second time, and as his wife qualified for incapacity (car etc) wasn't even picking up the extra insurance bill for the disqualifications, that went to the tax payer.

Incidentally, and to fire things up a little, my personal opinion is anyone caught by a fixed camera should also be prosecuted or undue care and attention, as there are enough warning signs for these things.

comodore1


Joined: 12/03/2008
Posts: 19

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 12:21

Hi All

My dear wife was killed on 7th June this year and I was seriously injured by a inconsiderate speeding driver who tried to cut the bend in the road and hit our car head on which I was driving .

All drivers should be aware that a car is like an exorcet missile at 60mph and

and will kill people easily at 10mph.

Punishment for driving carelessly and speeding should result in a five year ban and in causing death a lifetime ban, this would then make drivers get the idea that to speed is risky ,at the moment the law is not being applied.

Sorry to be such a miserable sod but I do know the family and personal repercussions of speeding.

Please accept my apologies for for putting a damper on this site.

I have been driving without being the cause of an accident since 1952.

Roy

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 12:23

Roy, I'm sorry to hear that. If you cause death by dangerous driving, I agree it should be a lifetime ban.

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 12:41

Spot on Roy/No1 sentencing guidlines in the UK are far too lenient (in most cases), my sympathies to you and your family, one thing I always argued was that getting a driving licence is too easy, and keeping it also.

One big problem is though that banning a person often does not stop them driving.

No1Doyen


Joined: 04/07/2008
Posts: 16617

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 12:50

You are right Brian. In that case It should be an imprisonable offence if you drive whilst under a ban.

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 12:53

It often is ................. but I can assure you (not from experience) not until about the 5th time caught and prosecuted!!

Hilltop



Joined: 28/04/2008
Posts: 636

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 13:00

If you drive whilst disqualified, you are automatically uninsured and therefore will have your vehicle seized by the Police.

brian24001


Joined: 23/03/2008
Posts: 606

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 13:11

90%+ of the people in the uninsured/multiple ban/ multi offence category either drive a very old car, no ins anyay, no MOT etc as it's cheaper to pay the fines, or have the car crushed and go to auction and get another, or of course they just use someone elses car.

If you have no job, no money, etc etc, the fines levied must be payable in a 'reasonable' period without causing undue hardship, usually a max of 12 weeks, this is why a habitual offender may only be fined 30 quid, but a businessman, or housewife with savings etc can be fined hundreds.

The law has nothing to do with being fair.

breezyboy


Joined: 14/05/2007
Posts: 1179

Message Posted:
25/11/2008 14:24

Everything Brian says is spot on. One major point is that the people in this catagory also know how to avoid paying fines at all or disapear knowing that the police do not make finding them a high priority. The ability for a magistrate to imprison for non payment of fines at an early stage was curtailed about 16 years ago. It was amazing how money came out of thin air if they were on their way to a big white van! Even saw it come out of the girlfriends knickers once!