[Closed] Can this be right?

[i]Right to answer a few points, he does approx 60,000 miles per annum, he offers rapid support services to a quite widespread customer base, so is on call 24/7 and is expected to respond on demand. That sort of mileage is some 5 to 6 times the national average, so what you are looking at is the equivalent of one speeding offence per 6 years of average driving. I don't think cycling is an answer in these circumstances do you?[/i]

What difference does that make if some drives a 100,000 miles a year and doesn't speed they can't get caught.

While you right about the unfairness of sentencing when others have committed more serious offences and got off with smaller penalties what he did was break the law repeatedly and paid the price for it.

Yeah I admit I've been caught speeding and carried 6 points on my licence for about 6 months but it made me very cautious not to get more. I still speed now but if caught and fined then I'll take the penalty not cry on about it.

In the meantime, try to get your collective heads around the fact that the reason I was writing to my MP was in respect of the disparity between sentencing for injury, death and damage done to cyclists, in proportion to sentences handed out for relatively minor traffic infringments where no injury/damage/harm is sustained.

As others have said, the driver involved in the Rhyl case wasn't convicted for causing the accident that killed the cyclists, so he wasn't sentenced for that. He was fined and got points on his license for having bald tyres but this was not found to have been a contributing factor in the accident. They just found out about it when his car was examined after the accident.

(Edit: Reading G's post that was posted while I was typing this, maybe the guy should have been charged with more than he was. Still, the judge couldn't set his sentence for the bald tyres based on what other offences he reckons he *should* have been convicted of. Plus I don't think that the punishment of speeding offences should be scaled back because motoring offences that result to injury in cyclists aren't persued properly - rather we should work out why these other offences aren't being prosecuted and fix it!)

I didn't think that the courts were able to give someone a ban for speeding if it will affect their ability to earn a living.

I can see the thinking behind that but it also seems rather silly that professional drivers, often the people who spend the most time on the roads, will be penalised less harshly for driving badly. You'd think that if your livelihood required you to have a driving license you'd drive with some regard for the traffic laws. Sadly every taxi ride I take seems to suggest otherwise.

I've been driving now for almost 6 years and I have yet to acquire any points. Have I made mistakes whilst driving? Yes. However if you consider that there's any proportionality between points accrued and mistakes made, how many stupid things will someone with 9+ points on their license have done which didn't earn them points? A person would have to be stunningly unlucky to get a ban because they've been caught the only 4 times they've ever exceed the speed limit.

"IS THIS RIGHT?" Yes it is right as in correct but IMO not just. I found myself in a similar position 4 years ago. Doing silly annual mileage (still do) and I got away with a hefty fine but no ban, the only defence that can be used is one of the loss of your licence would cause unreasonable hardship to parties unconnected with you or your family. I ran a small company which, it was argued, would fold causing unemployment to 4 people if I was unable to drive to get orders and see customers. Found myself a very good solicitor as I was too emotional to argue this in court. Bit late for your mate but as for the hand wringers saying it's all his fault, they should try doing the sort of mileage I do and meeting deadlines with traffic jams, roadworks etc. It's a complete lottery.

Yes its harsh but rules is rules. I got done doing 35 in a 30 a month ago, hands up it was me its a fair cop.

G - as regards the Rhyl case it is clear that the court did not consider the bald tyres to be a contributing factor. I think the driver should have gone to jail but the court did not. What you and many others forget is that the punishment for breaking the law is based upon what the driver did - not on what the consequences were

As regards driving offences - I have not driven much in the last few years. In 30 yrs since I got my license I have had 3 speeding fines - never more than one on my license at a time.

However if and when I am caught I simply accept the punishment. I am a firm believer in "if you cant do the time don't do the crime"

MS - Member

G - I actually agree with you! You could go and commit armed robbery amd get a lesser sentence (ie a fine, and a slap on the wrists)

Wrong - armed robbery will always attract a significant jail sentence. Find me an occasion where it has not.

I don't drive at all. As a cyclist and a pedestrian, I have quite a lot of interest in the enforcement of speed limits. They reduce the amount of risk that motorists subject me to for their convenience. I do not understand why I am asked to feel differently about someone subjecting me to those risks who is late for a meeting, to how I feel when someone who is going to the shops subjects me to them.

As mentioned on yesterday's thread, I'd lose me job if I got caught doing drugs. So I don't do drugs. If I got caught with half an ounce of weed I'm not sure I'd deserve to be let off on the grounds that if I got done for it I'd lose my job, although clearly that would be the best outcome for me. 🙂

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/tottingup/drivingbantottingup.htm

"Should a driver reach 12 points in a 3 year period, the Court guidelines are an automatic disqualification of 6 months should be imposed."

Of course you can argue extenuating circumstanses and there is plenty of info on the site regarding that however it sounds like he has had his day in court and the judge played it by the numbers.

TheLittlestHobo - Member

I got 9 points in a very unfortunate 9mth period. Luckily my wife took 3 of them so i never got above 6 on my licence.

OOOOOOH! Perjury! A far more 'serious' crime......

And for all the sanctimonious plebs on here today - speeding is only so high profile because it is relatively easy to catch the perpetrator. Speeding per se isn't even the main cause of accidents (although I do concede it may exacerbate some). Careless driving (be it not paying full and proper attention, driving above the speed for the conditions [cf. Rhyl], impatience, or generally being a ****wit) is the main cause of accidents. However, as there is no such thing as a 'careless driving' camera, the police target speed instead - hence the disproportionate amount of focus it receives. If there were more actual police officers patrolling the roads, who can see careless drivers and take action to prevent accidents (as opposed to waiting for an accident, then turning up and charging the driver), that would make the roads safer.

As one of the offences in question was 37 in a 30, at the end of a 70, at 2am, I fail to see how than can have led to an accident. Dealing with a screaming kid in the back whilst doing 25 through the same area at 3.15pm would be a lot more dangerous, yet strangely a lot more legal (and certainly less likely to result in 3 points).

So yes, Graham, I'd be tempted to contact my MP about it from the injustice perspective. Whether that would do any more good than stirring up the singletrackminders on here is another matter....

Well said Zokes I couldn't agree more.

OT: theres an interesting thread on the beeb website about average speed cameras on the M4.
lots and lots of irritated welsh people coming out with "the germans are allowed to drive at unlimited speed, why cant we?"

short answer, in my personal opinion of course: "because you cant be trusted you moron! the germans have a sense of lane discipline and dont laze around in any old lane they like because its too much like hard work to move to the nearside.

"also comments along the lines of "i know the limits of my car and my speed and my mad driving skillz, so i should be allowed to go as fast as i like."

another moronic comment (IMPO again). people are far to reliant on modern cars keeping them out of trouble artificially with ABS and traction control.
there is no doubt at all in my mind that we become numbed to the sensation of speed quite quickly.

remember on your first driving lesson, 40mph felt quick?
ever clocked 40mph on a bike?

yet 70mph feels pedestrian in a car on the motor way with all that open space around you and other cars not moving more than +/-5mph in comparison to you.

i found out the hard way how much a difference speed makes when i went to a car without ABS and tried to pull up quickly in the wet.

bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzthunk......."sorry madam"

Good points, well make Zokes.

Unfortunatly this is only going to get worse in our observation nation 🙄

As one of the offences in question was 37 in a 30, at the end of a 70, at 2am, I fail to see how than can have led to an accident.

Right, so in the middle of the night, he couldn't spot a massive yellow box on the side of the road. Maybe because he was tired and not paying attention?

Yeah, it is really hard to see how someone driving when they are too tired to pay attention to the road is unsafe, I mean no-one has ever been in an accident because they've fallen asleep at the wheel, or been driving for too long. If that was a problem, we'd have things like laws about how long professional drivers can drive without rests, and other things like that.

Joe

[i]Driving is a gamble, you are either lucky or you are not.[/i]

I think you'll find that you make your own luck.

Do you think there's any correlation between individuals who speed and individuals who take other risks on the road, to quote the eloquent zokes people who are "generally being ****wits"?

If people who speed tend to be more careless or dangerous than those who don't speed, then nicking them for speeding will have a similar effect as trying to nail them for careless/ dangerous driving?

That bloke who killed those cyclists..... I bet he'll think about his actions more after the third time he does it!

I'm going to get a tee-shirt with RTFT! on it specially for you TJ. If you don't follow that, which I'm suspecting you won't thats short for Read The ****ing Thread!!!

G - as regards the Rhyl case it is clear that the court did not consider the bald tyres to be a contributing factor. I think the driver should have gone to jail but the court did not. What you and many others forget is that the punishment for breaking the law is based upon what the driver did - not on what the consequences were

You will find if you read up on the case and the subsequent inquest that you are talking uttert boll-ocks. In fact if you take the time and bother to read my preceding post you wouldn't have been so stupid as to post this.

As regards driving offences - I have not driven much in the last few years. In 30 yrs since I got my license I have had 3 speeding fines - never more than one on my license at a time.

Like I said let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You drive very little, no doubt therefore under little or no pressure, and you've been done. My mate and I for that matter drive a huge amount under great pressure and mile for mile I suspect have made less mistakes than you. Which really makes it amazing that you have the barefaced cheek to rant on about this on a thread which has not at any point sought to justify my mates actions.

However if and when I am caught I simply accept the punishment. I am a firm believer in "if you cant do the time don't do the crime"

Which is immensely noble of you, but as before, how about reading the thread, and not misconstruing it as being about the punishment meted out to my mate, but about the lack of punishment handed out to people who run down and kill cyclists, and before you launch off about the Rhyll situation again, may I suggest that you go and read up on the case before you do. Even the limited information I have posted on this thread should give you an indication as to how stupid you have been in what you have posted already.

and if you are trolling, then you have in fact succeeded in winding me up. 👿

G - is a fair summary of your original question "Am I wrong to be outraged that my mate, a habitual speeder, has been banned from driving for getting caught speeding 4 times in 3 years though he hasn't actually killed anyone yet?"

Or alternatively "Should someone who habitually flouts the law be allowed to keep on driving until they kill someone before they deserve a ban?"

[i] but as before, how about reading the thread, and not misconstruing it as being about the punishment meted out to my mate, but about the lack of punishment handed out to people who run down and kill cyclists[/i]

Fair play. I misread your OP. If you're writing the letter in the context highlighted above...I salute you sir!

speeding is only so high profile because it is relatively easy to catch the perpetrator.

Or alternatively "Should someone who habitually flouts the law be allowed to keep on driving until they kill someone before they deserve a ban?"

Or, "he was my mate and shouldn't have been banned even if he had killed someone, just so long as said someone wasn't a cyclist?"

[i]Very interested to know what the feeling is about my mate. [/i]

Think that covers people answering the thread saying he's a dick.

This guy was given three warnings to improve his behaviour (9 points), yet chose not to. Now he's paid the price. Excuse me if I don't feel too sorry for him.

I got a speeding ticket many years ago, and so I slowed down. Clean licence ever since.

Interestingly overlooking these bits Drac :-

Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong, but is this punishment, that looks like making him unemployed, as the sole breadwinner in a family of 5 proportionate, (given that for example the driver who recklessly killed the Rhyll cycling club 4 only got £180 fine and 6 penalty points), reasonable and proportionate.

No sermonising please, but I am thinking about writing to my MP about what seems to me to be an injustice, and the huge discrepancy in sentencing. Am I wrong to be outraged?

G - is a fair summary of your original question "Am I wrong to be outraged that my mate, a habitual speeder, has been banned from driving for getting caught speeding 4 times in 3 years though he hasn't actually killed anyone yet?"

Or alternatively "Should someone who habitually flouts the law be allowed to keep on driving until they kill someone before they deserve a ban?"

No, the question is how is a 6 month ban in these circumstances proportionate when taken in relation to sentences handed down to people who negligently run over cyclists? The reference to the Rhyll 4 was deliberate and considered. The Police [u]chose[/u] to only charge the guy with the offence of driving a vehicle with bald tyres. At the inquest they were deeply criticised for making NO ATTEMPT WHSTSOEVER to charge the guy with any of the numerous other offences that were justifiable and that he actually admitted in court. Their statement that bald tyres had no bearing on the accident was also shown to be inaccurate. The sentence handed down was proper and correct in accordance with what he was charged with, and the sentencing guidelines for that offence.

Frankly the above makes me puke. It is a given that cyclists are disproportinately vulnerable and harmed on British roads and there is little or nothing done about it. Read through the above and ask yourself why. All I'm doing is expressing my annoynace at what seems to me to be a ludicrous situation with massive disparity over sentencing, and saying that I intend to actually do something about it.

Do you ever wonder why cycling generally doesn't get anywhere in advancing its issues????

Would be interesting to note if the driver was under any pressure from his employers to reach clients within a certain timescale - I know it does happen and those could be mitigating circumstances. Bit of a Catch 22 really - speed and risk being caught, don't speed and risk disciplinary action from employers.

Not saying that those are facts in this case, but it wouldn't be unheard of.

G - I'd have more sympathy for your feelings of injustice, if it wasn't for the fact that your mate had already ignored three previous warnings and was fully aware of the consequences of doing so again.

mastiles_fanylion Thanks,

The fact is he is self employed, scrapes a living and was fully represented in court by a solicitor. Apparently pretty much every traffic offence came out with a 6 month ban on that day. PMT behind the bench perhaps? Who knows.

Anyway, not defending him, just saying it doesn't seem in proportion to other things I know of.

druidh - Member
G - I'd have more sympathy for your feelings of injustice, if it wasn't for the fact that your mate had already ignored three previous warnings and was fully aware of the consequences of doing so again.

So precisely which bit of "Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong" or "No sermonising please" is too difficult for you to understand???? The injustice I'm talking about is to cyclists, not to my mate

G - Member

The injustice I'm talking about is to cyclists, not to my mate

Ah. You're suggesting that the Rhyll driver would have been treated more seriously if he had killed some pedestrians?

Sticking to your original question; and this will sound like "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" but your guy should have got himself decent representation in court. Unfortunately for him, he's been given the punishment that fitted his crime. On the other hand, I've had a mate who on 9 points, got caught at a few miles over the ton on a welsh dual carriageway and got away with a 3 week ban and a fine (can't remember how much but not much more than a mortgage payment IIRC). Wifey's dad was a solicitor you see and went with him to argue extenuating circumstances, company car, job dependent on driving etc etc.

EDIT: I told him at the time that he deserved more than he got. He was driving like a nutter at the time and should have been hung out to dry a bit more; we're still mates but I've never retracted that to him.

Now I'm not saying any of this is right or just, but he played the system and your mate/colleague hasn't and he's paying the price. We hear all the time about high profile cases of good (and expensive) representation minimising the punishment. Sometimes, it disgusts me but that's the system, so hey ho, you do what you gotta do to minimise the consequences.

Having said all that, if I was on 9 points, I'd be driving like a pensioner.

For the record:

2000: 3 points for speeding on a motorway, 91 in a 70; I was young and stupid, now I'm just old and stupid...but I don't do 91 on the motorway anymore.

2006: 3 points for 36 in a 30; took the Speedchoice Course in Bristol, paid my 60 quid and didn't get any points. Actually, the Speedchoice Course certainly bucked up my ideas, especially about the consequences of even doing 33 in a 30, let alone 37, 38 or 39.

I feel for your mate; but he should be doing whatever he can to appeal or anything. This will not only affect his next year's earnings but will make a right mess of his insurance premiums for the next four or five.

Right, so in the middle of the night, he couldn't spot a massive yellow box on the side of the road. Maybe because he was tired and not paying attention?

So he really should have been done for careless driving then?!? You seem to have spectacularly missed the point that a harassed parent having picked up their lovely brat from school who is raising unholy hell on the back seat with their sibling may cause the driver to be distracted a whole lot more, turn round and yell at them, all whilst doing that 25 mph into a school crossing patrol. Yet until the accident happens, there's very little chance of a police officer stopping drivers who are trying to sort out their offsprings' feuds. It is still careless driving, still an offence, and stands far more chance of causing an accident than G's mate driving through the same area at 2am slightly over the speed limit when there's not a soul about.

Yeah, it is really hard to see how someone driving when they are too tired to pay attention to the road is unsafe, I mean no-one has ever been in an accident because they've fallen asleep at the wheel, or been driving for too long. If that was a problem, we'd have things like laws about how long professional drivers can drive without rests, and other things like that.

I assume this is a troll. Either that or I guess you've never heard of a tachograph and the legislation behind it for hgv / coach drivers? Perhaps we should have them for cars too? That would still only tackle tiredness though and demonise that (just like speed and DD currently are). Many more accidents occur due to other careless or reckless actions that would actually require a police officer to see the person doing it.

Another good example would be a person recklessly overtaking: they generally tend to get caught after the head-on collision, not the past 5 or 10 times they 'just about got away with it'. I'd put reckless overtaking much higher on my list of worries as a road user than speeding. This should demonstrate my point that [u]some[/u] speeding offences are punished to a disproportionate level. In this case, at least one of G's mate's was (the 37 in a 30 at 2am ). By my reckoning, that would leave him with 6 spent(ish) points, and the three he just accrued. Therefore no ban and no lost job.

G - so your mate (who most people on this thread think is a dick) shouldn't have been banned because the driver in a different case didn't get banned because he wasn't charged with a bannable offence?

Don't you think it's pathetic and disrespectful to the memory of the 4 guys from Rhyl to make a comparison?

G - your post above - we are at cross purposes. I was talking about what [b]had[/b] happened in court - not what the court of STW thinks should have happened. Its not the police who decide what charges are brought - its the DPP.

RTFT equally applies to you. Its one of the limitations of arguing by text

Are you taking the piss?

Nope - but its clear to me you have misunderstood my point.

G - I agree with you.

The sentences are disproportionate - those drivers doing worse things and killing people should get far longer sentences so they're in line with giving somebody who's ignored 3 warnings and been caught a 4th time for speeding a 6 month ban. The Rhyl incident was a travesty - that was all down to the failure of the police to investigate properly, and the failure of the CPS to bring the charges he deserved (not their fault directly - fairly sure it was down to the police not providing the evidence they needed).

the court of STW

Judge RudeBoy presiding...

I do like how so many people feel they have a right respond to a post, yet so many of them are unable to read, understand and digest a post...

Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong

No sermonising please

As a certain advert would have us say 'simples'

What you and many others forget is that the punishment for breaking the law is based upon what the driver did - not on what the consequences were

Eh?

As a certain advert would have us say 'simples'

How about a website: comparethepunishment.com

🙂

I have that site bookmarked and it has nothing to do with driving offences 😉

I have that site bookmarked and it has nothing to do with driving offences

They promised to pixelate my face...I haven't looked in a while 😯

Spot on Mastiles.

TJ : Read up on the inquest and the general aftermath to the Rhyll disaster. You will find that the Police who ARE the people who press charges, didn't investigate properly and failed to offer any evidence of all of the other things that the driver could have been charged with. They not the CPS were roundly criticised for their failures. Basically I do hear what you are saying, but frankly its not relevant or correct.

So in these circumstances where in my mates case no discretion (all speed camera jobbies) has been exercised there is one particularly severe sentence, and then in the Rhyll case where discretion (or perhaps more accurately lack of it!) has been exercised and a ludicrous outcome has occurred. To me that rather suggests that cyclists lives aren't actually taken as having much importance.

I've just literally got home from picking my daughter up from school and had to pull her out of the way of a guy who accelerated through a red light on a pedestrian crossing. I'm very angry..

Your mate got the correct punishment for his offence, the Rhyl driver didn't, it's a very poor comparison. The only link being that they both are both careless drivers.

The fact he stands to lose his livelihood is circumstantial to anyone not directly involved.

Most of us drive G, most of us are fairly mature, most of us speed. Most of us don't get banned. What do you expect us to do, be outraged that another speeding driver is taken off the road?

Ah, so your point is that the police should have made a mess of gathering the evidence for your mate's speeding offences, so that he could get off in the same way as the Rhyl driver?