Forum menu
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39053658 ]Motorist with 62 penalty points[/url]
What do we reckon?
Genuine case under "hardship" plea?
Funny handshake?
Friend of Chief Constable?
Skilled lawyer + weak magistrate?
Something very dodgy, for somebody who appears completely incapable of learning or changing their ways to be allows into a car on a public road seems madness. It just can't be safe or fair on other road users
Surprised an insurer have agreed to take them on. That's assuming their insurers know, they must be paying a pretty penny.
I think they were saying this morning that there are 10,000 people with driving licences in the UK who have 12 points or more.
If the genuine hardship that allows them to keep their licence is that genuine, then these people should understand the importance of staying within the limits to keep their licence.
I don't know why with driving, people are allowed to get away with so much....
Multiple points could be amassed on the same trip, or within a few days so before NIP is issued. Thus no opportunity to amend their ways maybe?
R4 this morning there was a lawyer on whose line was
- someone's insurance could lapse as a complete accident because they failed to update their debit card/direct debit
- that gets 8 points
Hmmm. Well, the Gov.UK website says that's 6 points not 8. And they need another 6 points on top of that to actually hit 12.
Multiple points could be amassed on the same trip
Isn't there or wasn't there a limit on how many points you can pick up in one trip?
Even if I'm completely wrong about that can't imagine a magistrate would take a more lenient view of you nicking mars bar from every shop on your way to work than they would single theft a week over six weeks.
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware. Personally I think that needs changing.
If their livelihood or the welfare of others depends on them having a driving licence then they should drive accordingly.
62 points is taking the piss.
You could try not breaking the law in the first place.
jambalaya - Member
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware. Personally I think that needs changing.
Yes being unaware you are speeding is Driving without Due care at the very least.
I've been driving since 1995, I'm not going to claim to be some sort of driving god or make out that I stay totally within the law. I think I am just a normal driver, but I take it seriously and don't drive like a dick.
I have no points on my license and never have.*
I don't GAS about peoples hardship. If I can manage to drive for 22 years without getting a single point, speeding ticket or ever being stopped by the police others can, they just don't care!
*Go on tell me I'm orsumz!!
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware
Mobile camera maybe but fixed? They make a hell of a flash which if you didn't notice you really shouldn't be driving.
I'd guess the guy in question picked up most of his points from cameras on the m62 because the variable signs weren't lit so he assumed that meant [s]there was no speed limit[/s] he wouldn't get caught.
You could try not breaking the law in the first place.
What a stupid thing to say. 🙄
Like most court cases, without knowing the actual detail means it's very difficult to know why they've come to (any) answer.
If they introduced shorter bans for fewer points it would be harder to claim your life was in ruins in front of a gullible magistrate. Six points = six weeks without a licence.
Some points awards are indefensible (you have to plead guilty) such as the insurance example. Without knowing the details it's impossible to draw a conclusion
I've been driving since 1995, I'm not going to claim to be some sort of driving god or make out that I stay totally within the law. I think I am just a normal driver, but I take it seriously and don't drive like a dick.
How do you make progress?
What a stupid thing to say.
Why, what's so hard about driving within the law? It may be boring, but it's not hard.
If it's been accumulated over time, I don't think that's acceptable- in fact the whole "exceptional hardship" thing strikes me as mostly bullshit, if you desperately need your car to work or live you should drive carefully. But it seems like if you're a professional driver or you have a special need, it's almost licence to drive badly.
But if it's been over a really short time as it could be, it does feel a bit different. They've just changed the speed limit near me and I'm sure if there was a speed camera there they'd catch some people doing 29 in a 20 twice a day and they could tot up 60 points before the first NIP arrived... Just to give a silly example.
Why, what's so hard about driving within the law? It may be boring, but it's not hard.
Because I've yet to meet a single person who has never broken a single law in their entire life. And we don't get to choose which laws we can or can't break.
Ergo it's a stupid thing to say.
Why, what's so hard about driving within the law? It may be boring, but it's not hard.
some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
I occasionally break traffic laws, same as everybody else. The only times I've had points on my licence it's been thanks to my own stupidity, i.e poor observation and failure to spot revenue cameras.
Tower Bridge was a classic example of that Northwind - they changed it from a 30 to a 20 overnight with no warnings, no signage, etc.
The only place it was noted was on the City of London website which of course you are expected to visit to ensure you knew they'd changed it.
Their excuse for not ammending the signage?
"Listed monument status"
So 29mph at 5:30am the following day got 4 points and a £240 fine with £40 costs and £10 victim surcharge.
For 11 vehicles in a convoy going "somewhere"
Because I've yet to meet a single person who has never broken a single law in their entire life. And we don't get to choose which laws we can or can't break.
Of course not, I speed every time I drive the car or ride one of my motorbikes. But if my job depended on it, I'd modify my driving/riding. Luckily it doesn't. It'd be a pisser if I lost my licence, but not the end of the world for me or my family.
The occasion lapse is understandable, but I cannot see, nor accept that to accumulate 62 points you should be allowed to continue driving.
some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
Whatever they're awarded for the driver's action need to change.
Of course not, I speed every time I drive the car or ride one of my motorbikes.
Please stop doing that
Of course not, I speed every time I drive the car or ride one of my motorbikes.
As far as I can see, so do 99.9% of all motorists.
You very very rarely see a car sticking to the 20mph speed limit which applies to 90% of Cambridge roads.
Basically, 99% of motorists intentionally speed every time they get in a car (myself included).
Basically, 99% of motorists intentionally speed every time they get in a car (myself included).
Please stop doing that too!
Tower Bridge was a classic example of that Northwind - they changed it from a 30 to a 20 overnight with no warnings, no signage, etc.
The only place it was noted was on the City of London website which of course you are expected to visit to ensure you knew they'd changed it.
Is that true? How can it be a speed limit if there are no signs?
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.5070302,-0.0743193,3a,75y,190.69h,77.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snhyB7ED4Dp2Ig2VuBo44jA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]There are signs there now[/url].
You very very rarely see a car sticking to the 20mph speed limit which applies to 90% of Cambridge roads.
As noted yesterday I, briefly, followed an Octavia doing 50mph in the middle lane of the M56 (70mph limit). I imagine it was a speed that was comfortable enough for him to read the emails (or whatever it was that he was reading) on his phone!
He probably hates speeders too.
#SelfAware
Would be interesting to hear the facts rather than speculation
cynic-al - Member
Would be interesting to hear the facts rather than speculation
No it wouldn't, they'll (possibly) be dull and require zero pitchforks.
Please stop doing that
No.
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware.
As someone who's managed to drive for nearly 30 years and never pick up a speeding ticket I'm not convinced that anyone who even vaguely attempts to drive within the speed limit would manage this. If, on the other hand, you're someone who habitually speeds and only obeys speed limits when they think theres a camera present maybe - but those are the sort of drivers we should be taking off the roads.
simons, you can get points on your licence for (among other things)
not having insurance, not responding to summons, failure to inform...
It's not all about speeding.
from having sat in court when such cases have been heard it's gullible and weak magistrates. In practice "Exceptional circumstances" = claiming to need to drive to keep your job. Even if you don't have a full licence anyway because you never took or passed a test, and your job is a cash-in-hand farm labourer because you're actually claiming benefits and are registered as unemployed, and you live half a mile from the farm. Here, have another 6 points on the licence you don't hold.
Magistrates as a rule will believe any old sh1t that's put in front of them when it comes to mitigation, I've lost count of the number of criminals who are 'carers' and I've never seen or heard of a mag asking for any form of corroboration for any such claim.
Yes Bails - I was one of the drivers who had to attend court!
They changed the signage almost 2 months later!
In fact on the day of the court the signage still had not been changed and the Magistrate bought the City to task over it as they were only going to put Gateways and no repeaters up for the average scameras.
We didn't get leeway though as "in our capacity as officers of the court we should be fully aware" - one appointed civilian, 9 police officers and one HCEO all hit the same.
This was back in Oct 2007.
not having insurance, not responding to summons, failure to inform...It's not all about speeding.
yep all good reasons not let somebody back on the road....
Basically, 99% of motorists intentionally speed every time they get in a car (myself included).
Not sure if 99% but it is certainly a very high %.
If I get caught for a burglary can I claim that time in prison will have a negative impact on my life so I should be let off...
jambalaya - Member
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware. Personally I think that needs changing.
You will get seperate NIP and fixed penalties.
You can reject the offer, go to court and then the court has discretion to combine the offences. For example, if you get flashed by several camera on the same road as you drive along it, then they will often accept that as a single offence. It won't be 3 points and £60 but it is probably less points than all the fixed penalties.
Less likely to succeed if they were different trips (e.g. out and back, or different days). Magistrate could still award a penalty that would stop short of a totting up ban. So if hammyuk did the same thing every day for a week, they haven't received the NIP to let them know of any offence and wouldn't have the opportunity to "change their ways". A magistrate could give a different penalty and not a ban.
The magistrate could also treat each speeding camera as a separate offence and screw you over if the offences are grievous, you are a knob or they are hungry.
It's the simplicity of the fixed penalty notice vs the discretion of the bench.
What do we reckon? [i][62 points][/i]
Genuine case under "hardship" plea?
Its difficult to understand how this happens, because you can only use the same hardship argument once. To amass 62 points, you would expect the person to have been before the bench several times. However its just possible that there is some genuinely exceptional reason (the court hearing would have been open to the public so the press could have reported it at the time). If there was the sort of error the headlines would imply on the part of the Bench the crown should have appealed it.
Except that when determining hardship the nature of the offence and any mitigation involved is supposed to be ignored.Multiple points could be amassed on the same trip, or within a few days so before NIP is issued. Thus no opportunity to amend their ways maybe?
You should go to a court and hear some cases. You'll find only a fraction succeed*, and those that do won't be just because they are professional driver. How the media portray it and what happens in court is not necessarily the same.But it seems like if you're a professional driver or you have a special need, it's almost licence to drive badly.
* There may be some disparity between areas on how big that fraction is. Anecdotally it seems to be less likely North of the Border, which is slightly counter intuitive with the impact in rural areas being higher.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head [with the possible technical exception of drunk in charge, and failing to name the driver] - can you explain? all the "keeping..." type offences I can think of don't carry points.some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
R4 this morning there was a lawyer on whose line was
- someone's insurance could lapse as a complete accident because they failed to update their debit card/direct debit
- that gets 8 pointsHmmm. Well, the Gov.UK website says that's 6 points not 8. And they need another 6 points on top of that to actually hit 12.
Well yes and no. Firstly if someone has a genuine belief that they were insured and can convince the court that belief was reasonably held they can be found technically guilty without having points added. The court expect to see evidence that you took reasonable precautions (like having enough money in your account, opening mail etc!). The court can impose 6-8 pts, although the fixed penalty is 6.
I claim B.S. No signage would have made it unenforceable.Tower Bridge was a classic example of that Northwind - they changed it from a 30 to a 20 overnight with no warnings, no signage, etc.
Wasn't there a recent case of a van driver who killed a cyclist whilst using mobile phone at the wheel & had been let of numerous times for same offence 👿
you can try... and as with road offences sometimes you might have a genuine case - e.g. a single mother with young children might be less likely to face a custodial sentence because of the exceptional hardship it would cause others. But its not an automatic thing that because you argue it you will win.If I get caught for a burglary can I claim that time in prison will have a negative impact on my life so I should be let off...
I'm just a grumpy old git with a small lifetime points score.
I think that if someone claims exceptional need, for instance to transport a less-able relative, their licence should be restricted to that, and only that, or to working hours, or commuting, or whatever. And their insurance should reflect this condition.
It shouldn't mean carry on as before.