[Closed] 62 points and still on the road

[i]* 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]

Yes, but the 'powers that be' seem to live in the same bubble as the Westminster ones.

Not sure if was a cyclist but that's irrelevant anyhow.

Yes there was a case fairly recently in which someone was killed by a van driver who was using his mobile and who had several previous appearances for using his mobile whilst diving.

[i]van driver who killed a cyclist whilst using mobile phone at the wheel & had been let of numerous times for same offence[/i]

Do what? He was a serial killer and they let him off?

He'd not been let off for killing people in the past, but had been done more than once, (3 times possibly?) for using a mobile while driving.

Which is some going considering how weakly this is enforced, he must have pretty much had it clamped to the side of his head.

poly - Member

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.

That's a fair point, what we see is basically outliers isn't it.

I claim B.S. No signage would have made it unenforceable.

I think what was meant was, no additional signage ie "LOOK OUT SPEED LIMIT CHANGE" and the like- just normal limits.

(a mate of mine got caught out by that change, he'd been dispatching for 20 years in London with a completely clean licence which makes him an incredible freak frankly, he wasn't a happy bunny... But it was classic "Driving within what you think the limit is" which is still speeding, just, speeding that people feel peeved when they get busted for.)

Lol @ dezB

From 2009 to 2015 he'd received 5 fixed penalty notices and two driver awareness courses all for using mobile phone whilst driving, 6 weeks before killing the cyclist he had argued that loosing his licence would be bring undue hardship on his family as he drove for a living

not having insurance, not responding to summons, failure to inform...

I think idiot applies to anyone that does any of these.

some points can be awarded without the car being driven.

I can't think of anything off the top of my head

Three points for a bald tyre, isn't it? Do you need to be actually travelling for that to apply? You could potentially get a disqualification without going anywhere near your car if so.

No poly - not BS.
If you'd bothered reading my second post you'd have seen I was one of the drivers in court.
The gateway signs at either end were 30mph - there were NO repeaters at all on the bridge and it is lit at regular intervals. Basically they changed the limits without bothering to change the gateway signage AND install repeaters as is necessary by law at a time when revenue from speeding went straight back to the force in question.
They were STILL 30mph on the day of the court hearing and we produced pictures to prove it.
Magistrate didn't care because they stated the "City of London had done its duty to inform those visiting the City that the changes were taking place.

Referring to another recent thread - I then had a "falling out" shall we say with Admiral not quite 5yrs later over points, declaring them, statutory timescales, etc.
Hence why I called out the poster to state what he thought I was advising wrongly on. (I didn't actually give any advice on that thread btw)

I can't think of anything off the top of my head

Failure to give information (MS90)

No poly - not BS.
If you'd bothered reading my second post ...

I started writing my reply before your second post was written.

Magistrate didn't care because they stated the "City of London had done its duty to inform those visiting the City that the changes were taking place.

sounds like you should have appealed.

I have a client which has a driver who amassed 27 points in 10 days thanks to a local authority change. He had been doing the same delivery round for 12 years and Westminster changed a "Controlled Zone" sign (like the one below) by simply removing the bottom section making it applicable 24/7. [img] [/img]

His delivery slot was between 3.30 & 4.00am 6 days a week & it was on the 9th working day after the change the first penalty notice arrived - the street concerned is now monitored by camera so it's all automated.

The court, as I understand it, reduced his points total to 12 & the fine to £280 to acknowledge the lack of notification signage/information.

I'm not sure I'd have spotted it either.

someone's insurance could lapse as a complete accident because they failed to update their debit card/direct debit

I'd say it's almost impossible this could happen as a "complete accident". If your policy is auto renew, and your card or direct debit payment fails at renewal, the insurer will renew you anyway and retry the payment collection or start a debt chase to recover the failed payment.

You would have to go through the debt process, ignore the subsequent warnings and fail to pay up before they cancel your policy. Insurers want your money, so they won't cancel a policy until they are absolutely sure you are not going to pay!

I think this a lawyer pulling wool over the eyes of a court that doesn't understand the process.

IMO, 12 points = life time ban.

You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.

You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.

Giving points for being stupid is never going to work. 😛 Where will I get a taxi from?

You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.

I'd agree with that if I didn't want to tempt fate and my clean licence. 8)

poly - Member
sounds like you should have appealed.

we did - was thrown out due to our status 😐

Three points for a bald tyre, isn't it? Do you need to be actually travelling for that to apply? You could potentially get a disqualification without going anywhere near your car if so.

s27 of the C&U regs refers to "...used on a road..." rather than kept on a road. There might be an argument about whether keeping a vehicle on the road is using it, but the burden would fall to the crown to show who left it there (i.e. the driver not the registered keeper).

I can't think of anything off the top of my head
Failure to give information (MS90)

yes I explicitly mentioned that. You don't get a s172 conviction (MS90) entirely by accident!

That's a fair point, what we see is basically outliers isn't it.

I believe it is, other than very local press a story about magistrates hearing a single genuine case of exceptional hardship and deciding that it was not fair to disqualify isn't news worthy. Similarly the majority of exceptional hardship cases where the magistrates refuse it, isn't very interesting. Of course magistrates are ordinary people (that being the essential requirement) and as such there are outliers their too. There is also a role for the crown to play in cross examining the offender on the validity of their claims; if they don't challenge the offender on the availability of public transport, the ability to cycle, the evidence to support their claims etc - then it means the magistrates will generally only hear one side of the argument. And there are outliers in terms of prosecutors too.

A few road users on here really need to have a careful look at themselves, especially with regard to the danger that their speeding causes others.
Speeding is just one aspect of inattention, or is simply arrogance- 'my journey is more important than...'
"I can speed safely and avoid (speed traps, children, pets, deer, other inattentive drivers, pedestrians, potholes..)"
There is no excuse for speeding nor any need. Plan your journeys better or don't travel.
If you selfish idiots had ever been present to participate in the aftermath of a speed related road accident, I think you would take the wake up call.

A few road users on here really need to have a careful look at themselves, especially with regard to the danger that their speeding causes others.

You make it sound acceptable to have an accident as long as you're within the speed limit.
Inattentive, poor drivers need to take a good look at themselves, especially those that think driving is a right, and the effect their poor driving has on others.

You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.

Hardly news though is it. There are so few cameras and traffic police that only 0.001% of roads are covered at an moment in time, which basically leaves the other 99.999% unpoliced.

I think highlandman's username makes it obvious what is to be considered speeding.
Was that sheep breaking the law as it cut you up yesterday?
Hooligan!

Speeding is not the factor and you need to sort your thinking out.
Any traffic officer or investigator will tell you - inappropriate speed[i] is the issue and only a contributory factor is a small percentage of accidents.

The overall poor and deteriorating standard of driving and the fact it is considered a [b]right[/b] is the issue in this country.

Speeding is not the factor and you need to sort your thinking out.
Any traffic officer or investigator will tell you - inappropriate speed[i] is the issue and only a contributory factor is a small percentage of accidents.

We don't need to ask a traffic officer because one of the West Midlands Police traffic officers has volunteered this:

Speed kills, there is no doubting this. Whether as a singular factor or as an aggravating factor in combination with other judicious driving actions it is present in the majority of fatal and serious collisions we attend and subsequently investigate. It is actually present in the majority of all collisions.

https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/cash-cows-stealth-taxes-and-revenue-raisers/

I'd say it's almost impossible this could happen as a "complete accident". If your policy is auto renew, and your card or direct debit payment fails at renewal, the insurer will renew you anyway and retry the payment collection or start a debt chase to recover the failed payment.

I once received a £90 fine and six points for driving without insurance due to a 20 minute gap between two consecutive policies. I'd absolutely no idea until I produced my documents at the cop shop.

Fancy driving to the police station with no insurance, almost as silly as drink driving to an interview at one.

There's a lot of hot air being generated on here - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39063797 ]maybe this lot[/url] have something to do with it?

There's a lot of hot air being generated on here - maybe this lot have something to do with it?

What is the law on impersonating police officers?

I once received a £90 fine and six points for driving without insurance due to a 20 minute gap between two consecutive policies. I'd absolutely no idea until I produced my documents at the cop shop.

Was that renewal of an existing policy from one insurer, or consecutive policies provided by two different insurers?

What is the law on impersonating police officers?

I don't think they [b]are[/b] impersonating police officers - their hi-viz jackets don't have "Police" plastered over them. Technically they are just standing by the side of the road pointing hair dryers at motorists 😉

I once received a £90 fine and six points for driving without insurance due to a 20 minute gap between two consecutive policies. I'd absolutely no idea until I produced my documents at the cop shop.

and you were unlucky enough to get pulled over during those 20 minutes? what are the chances of that?

You make it sound acceptable to have an accident as long as you're within the speed limit.

There should be automatic points involvement in an 'at fault' collision as a matter of course IMO.

points for a bald tyre even if not being driven

which makes a certain amount of sense. Hard to see how the vehicle wasn't driven with a bald tyre - few people are likely to have removed good tyres, replace with bad, and leave on the road.

As of 2011, 43% of drivers with 12 points or more were still driving.

http://road.cc/content/news/44102-courts-let-nearly-half-motorists-who-accrue-12-or-more-penalty-points-continue

If almost half of drivers can plead "exceptional hardship" or some other special circumstance to avoid a ban, it's not really that exceptional...

(HT to Bez of this parish)

[quote=poly ]

some points can be awarded without the car being driven.

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.

You then go on to discuss what is presumably the most common one 😕

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.

My mum got done for no insurance (the main reason for it happening is that she kept trying to pay by cheque and the insurance company no longer took cheques - she then buried her head in the sand). From all the documentation I saw I'm sure that she wasn't actually caught driving, but it was issued by the DVLA under the current continuous insurance rules.

FWIW I wrote to the court pleading guilty and explaining the circumstances (by the time I found out about it she'd already also ignored a fixed penalty notice). Wasn't particularly interested in avoiding points, as she hasn't driven since anyway so didn't mention that at all, simply hoping to avoid too big a fine. The magistrates gave what I presume is the minimum possible fine (still a bit more than the fixed penalty) but no points which somewhat surprised me - it must have been a good letter! I certainly didn't try to claim that she'd followed all reasonable precautions, though it was clear that it wasn't deliberate and the magistrates presumably had sympathy on an old lady.

Speeding is not the factor and you need to sort your thinking out.

Speeding is most definitely a factor. Reaction times, stopping distances and severity of an accident are all affected by speed.

My older brother would more than likely still be alive if the man that ran him over had been traveling within the speed limit. That's according to one of the investigators. Five mph over resulted in the loss of life and why? So he could get to his destination a few seconds earlier and because he knew that stretch of road.

You need to sort your thinking out.

If I cannot drive I cannot work. I therefore do not speed even on the tedious 30mph country lanes that I would really like to blast down.
Just like not using your phone when driving or paying attention to the road it really isn't something that is hard to do.

62 points = lifetime ban and that's it.

It'll be some cardiac surgeon or something, at the top of their field and is on call to keep the lizards in control of the country working at peak performance.

stuff that, name and shame. If he/she can't be without a licence, give them a speed limited to 30mph Nissan Micra or a G-Whizz and let them get on with it

Aracer, your mum was prosecuted for s144 (keeping a vehicle without insurance) not s143 (driving without insurance). No points for the former. for your information, there is no lower limit on fines although for obvious reasons they rarely go below the fixed penalty.

sockpuppet - Member

Please stop doing that too

Bet you're one of those who I regularly follow, think doing 25 in a 20 is abiding by the law. Oh Mr holier than thou.

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

Only if you speed you idiot.

Is this another one of those threads where bad drivers bang on endlessly about how hard done by they are and speeding/being a **** is ok if youre them?

If so I'm out.

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

Not really, I've driven well over 150000 miles in my 24 years on the road and never had any points.

Whilst spped is undoubtable a factor in accidents, so is poor attention to your environment. I'm more concerned not that the chap speeds constantly, but that he is so unaware of his surroundings he hasn't noticed hes constantly getting caught

If I cannot drive I cannot work. I therefore do not speed even on the tedious 30mph country lanes that I would really like to blast down.
Just like not using your phone when driving or paying attention to the road it really isn't something that is hard to do

+1

It's not rocket science. First time you get 12 points = 1 month ban. No exceptions. Your employer has to keep your job for you. With no car you may find it hard to get to work. You may have to take leave. Maybe unpaid leave. Your employer will be inconvenienced as well. They will probably try and impress on you the importance of not losing your license again. Your family may well be inconvenienced. Tarquin may miss rugby training and Jemima may miss riding lessons. Granny may have to find someone else to get her shopping and take her to the hospital. Your family may try and impress on you the importance of not losing your license again.

2nd time to 12 points. Another month ban. Without the employment guarantee. You cockwomble.

[quote=poly ]Aracer, your mum was prosecuted for s144 (keeping a vehicle without insurance) not s143 (driving without insurance). No points for the former.

Fairy nuff - I must have got confused then, because I could have sworn the FPN mentioned points. Maybe she was caught driving then, but it came indirectly? I'll have to find the letter I sent and see if there are any more details in it...

edit: ah found a bit of correspondence I had with a chap who's occasionally on here who's a barrister - he suggested it was probably a DVLA camera which clocked her driving, so I was probably wrong in my previous post and it she was caught driving

It'll be some cardiac surgeon or something

If I lost my license, I'd have to get to and from work on public transport (which is one of my colleagues who chooses not to drive any more does) and stay resident on call, instead of doing it from home. Can't see why the [s]knife monkeys[/s] surgeons would be different.

Didn't the sainted Guy Martin have some silly number of points?

Didn't the sainted Guy Martin have some silly number of points?

How, how dare you, how dare, how, how dare you, how the actual dare you bring St Guy into this debate? [b]HOW DARE YOU[/b]? 👿

"There are so many cameras that if you have to drive 50,000+ miles a year you are almost bound to get more than 12 points in three years."

Yet another in disagreement of that statement (though I can't seem to find who wrote the original). I used to do about 75,000 to 100,000 miles a year for 13 years and in that time I managed to get 3 points for an anger induced heavy-footed blast over in EC2.

Don't drive angry, kids...!

[img] [/img]