[Closed] Can this be right?

Feel sorry for him.

Should have argued his case given him one more chance and a hefty fine and community service.

But also he has driven 4 times like this? he's a danger to anyone at any time.

I feel for his family.

But I also feel for the person he will knock down.

I got caught 70 in a 60 dual carridgeway. Drove like Miss Daisy ever since and cyle fast instead.

He can get other transport/access surely.

Like TJ said-don't do crime-4 times after getting caught! 2 times-hello wake up?! 3 times big slap. 4times ok we have to take action.

30 is 30mph and I have tons of ppl driving on my bumper but it doesn't work to make me break the limit.

Hope the guy learns and doesn't lose his work though.

I had 9 points at one point about 4 years ago, all for speeding on the motorway or dual carriageway. I have a clean license now and for 2 years I basically drove 30K a year at the speed limit. I never speed in a 30/40 now, but other areas are fair game..

How can you be 1 and 2 when you've broken traffic laws and been caught. Surely that makes you a 3?

Anyway, on the basis of the categories as you wrote them I'm a 3 - I speed regularly and have been caught once. Slightly disturbed at your admission that you've broken lots of other traffic laws - can somebody suggest other laws I might have broken, as off the top of my head I can't think of any I have. It strikes me that a lot of other laws you might have broken would make you a bad driver and/or dangerous.

I'll point out that when I admitted to regularly speeding above, that's speeding in 70 and 60 limits - like djg I don't speed in 30/40 limits as I consider it is a road safety issue to speed in those. Got caught doing 85 in a 70. Unlike your mate (and you), just getting one conviction was enough to make me change my ways - not that I necessarily slowed down in general, but I certainly do in S Wales where I consider myself likely to get caught on that sort of road. If I'd got 9 points I'm pretty sure I'd not speed at all for as long as it took to get rid of some.

zaskar, do you know mine apart, (obviously), that is the most sensible post on this whole thread. Totally agree with your point of view.

Slightly disturbed at your admission that you've broken lots of other traffic laws

Yep, I'm a complete nutter me, I've parked on double yellows, stopped and dropped my Mrs off at the shops in a no stopping zone, crossed the white lines on a cross hatched area, and worst of all, I've answered my phone whilst not moving in a queue of traffic!! Not to mention obviously the numerous times I've transgressed the speeding rules.

So call me Josef Mengele and whip me with a rolled up copy of Walk! I'm sure I deserve it.

PS : For the record I've held a full UK licence since 1979, on average I've done 60,000 pa for all of that time, I've never had a major accident, (been nudged in a car park a few times, sort of thing) and I've had 4 endorsements for speeding over those 30 years and 1.8 million miles.

TJ: "double white line crossing."

Outstanding - reckless driving as opposed to just speeding...

Smee: "I got [u]caught[/u] speeding once. "

So you have broken the law more than once? Perhaps you should report yourself for the other times then?

I was a field service engineer for an electrical retailer for 11 years, doing around 40-45k a year, covering most of the northwest, from Wigan/Leigh to Nelson, up to Carlisle.
No points.
My job depended on my ability to be able to drive a car.
No license, well you probably get the picture.
The throttle is there for a reason.
That said, a fellow engineer escaped a ban (over a ton) by getting a hefty fine and obtaining the services of a barrister.He was lucky.

Zokes - on the road from Ballachulish to Fort william - all double white lined but plenty of places to overtake safely on a bike just not in a car.

Illegal - yes, unsafe - no

Illegal - yes, unsafe - no

In [u]your[/u] opinion.

In the aforementioned case, I would have thought that in his opinion, 37 mph on a deserted road at 2 am was safe, yet he was happily chastised for it on here. Just trying to regain a sense of perspective....

Fair enough. My opinion my safety.

There is a difference between breaking the law and being unsafe. the 37 mph was perhaps not unsafe ( I certainly didn't chastise him for that speed)But was illegal and he got caught for it.

I have never said I don't break speed limits and stuff nor have I chastised people for doing so [i]when its safe[/i] My point merely is don't bleat when you get caught.

If you know the road in question and ride a bike you would know that it is very frustrating. The straights are not long enough to overtake in a car on but easily long enough to overtake safely on a bike due to the faster acceleration. If I had been caught for this and other indescretions I wouldn't have bleated about it.

I would have thought that in his opinion, 37 mph on a deserted road at 2 am was safe, yet he was happily chastised for it on here.

Meanwhile I'm with TJ on double-whites. There's an awful lot of over-use of them - personally I'm very happy that lots of cars break the law by crossing them to overtake me when I'm cycling (in situations where it's perfectly safe to do so).

There you go then - I have broken another traffic law by crossing double-whites where they've been used inappropriately (IMHO that means them being marked where it's safe to cross them to overtake somebody doing 11mph).

Oh right, so its selective law breaking thats OK then. Incidentally, wheres the bleating thing come from?

(No No officer, I made a value judgement based on my knowledge of my vehicle, the road conditions and the excessive use of legislation by you lot, and it was IMHO perfectly OK for me to ignore the law 8) )

Oh right, so its selective law breaking thats OK then.

Incidentally, wheres the bleating thing come from?

G - Member
what seems to me to be an injustice... Am I wrong to be outraged?

Zokes - on the road from Ballachulish to Fort william - all double white lined but plenty of places to overtake safely on a bike just not in a car.

I drive that road every day. I agree with you that there are more places where a bike can overtake than a car, but I see just as many appalling overtakes by bikes as I do by cars. More often than not it's riders in groups that take the greatest risks. Last weekend there were 9 RTC's involving motorbikes in Lochaber, 1 fatal and 2 with serious injuries. That is a lot.

Information from defensive driving course recently was that crossing double whites to overtake is permissable where the slower vehicle speed is less than 15mph.

acracer : Check this out

[b]Now then, no argument regarding that fact he’s done wrong[/b], but is this punishment, that looks like making him unemployed, as the sole breadwinner in a family of 5 (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?

Now I can see how you can, if you wish take it that way, but as I've repeatedly stated, my point is, is it reasonable and proportionate in relation to the attitude the system takes to much more serious transgressions on the roads? For yet another example, its now starting to look like no charges will be made against the driver who killed the Army major on the A1 at St. Neots the other week. So whilst I admit, that from a defensive viewpoint I personally wouldn't even consider cycling on the A1, the facts are that the guy was doing what he is perfectly legally entitled to do, and he was mown down from behind by a driver, on a clear open road with something like a mile of visibility, and yet apparently they've done nothing wrong. Consider that next to the £4000 mtb rider who ran down the lass and was villified. There again there was no real evidence of wrong doing on his part, other than the outcome, yet, he is charged and given the maximum sentence. Not right at all IMHO.

as I've repeatedly stated, my point is, is it reasonable and proportionate in relation to the attitude the system takes to much more serious transgressions on the roads?

Oh, and you might not be bleating about the fact he got done, but you very definitely are bleating about his sentence.

Nope, only insomuch as there does need to be some sort of proportion in these things, otherwise it is simply unjust

Just out of curiosity G, at what point should your mate have been banned? Or should he be allowed to carry on speeding (or being caught speeding to be precise) forever?

otherwise it is simply unjust

aracer - Member

otherwise it is simply unjust

bleating

and?

Just out of curiosity G, at what point should your mate have been banned? Or should he be allowed to carry on speeding (or being caught speeding to be precise) forever?

Answer :

there does need to be some sort of proportion in these things, otherwise it is simply unjust

If you want it more concise than that, I think he should have been banned when he was. However, I can't totally see the point of giving him a 6 month ban which in all liklihood will put him out of work, and thus cause a burden on society. I think 4 - 6 weeks, which is still severe in the circumstances, but just about survivable would be more sensible, plus perhaps a driver re-education prgoramme, or possibly a resit of his test before being able to drive again. I also think that the penalties across the piece should be proprotionate. If you really want to go off on one, try the penalties for drink driving. Seriously disproportionate IMHO.

If you really want to go off on one, try the penalties for drink driving. Seriously disproportionate IMHO.

I can see new life being breathed into this thread yet!

Personally I feel sorry for the guy.

If we all take a minute to consider the situation that because of a few misdemeanours this guy ends up in a situation which has huge ramifications for both his personal and work life.

Now - a common criminal who steals from a shop - what are the impacts on his life? The answer is absolutely nothing. He gives up his day on the dole to attend the magistrates court, he gets a slap on the wrist and possibly a 'community service order' which he is unlikely to attend. We pay for his court attendance and his dole - in short no ramifications on his life.

You see what I'm getting at here?

Of course G's mate should be punished but the issue here is getting the punishment to match the crime ergo not impacting so heavily on the poor guys life!

acracer : Who said anything about too light?

How about we play a different game? I'll post something, then you answer something else and I'll try to guess what you're on about...

Seriously disproportionate IMHO.

Too light?

I can see new life being breathed into this thread yet!

It has been demonstrated on many occasions that driving whilst either:

a) dealing with screaming kids in the back
b) trying to change a CD / playing with the radio / sat nav
c) map reading
d) using a phone
e) tired / bored on a long drive

can cause at least as much of a reduction in ability to control the vehicle as three times the DD limit - ergo surely similar risk to life - ergo surely should be punished to the same level. At worst, all the above get you is driving without due care and attention. That's a lot less than the mandatory ban D&D would get you for half a pint over the limit. It is therefore disproportionate. If the punishment has to fit the worst possible outcome of the crime, simply not paying attention should be right up there...

Thanks zokes, incidentally that is not to say that the punsihment for D & D is too low, just that there are many instances where it is not proportionate to other sentences. Similarly with speeding, with certain notable exceptions, such as in built up areas I've never come across a situation where driving at speed per se was unsafe, generally its driving inappropriately for the conditions thats unsafe.

generally its driving inappropriately for the conditions thats unsafe

I think most people would agree with that, the difficulty is that it's so subjective.

Unless the rule is 'drive as you see fit', which it can't be, then there has to be rules/boundaries as to what people can do on the roads.

Maybe they should be more flexible (higher speed limit on the motorway at night perhaps), or maybe there should be a return to more traffic police in place of speed cameras, so discretion can be exercised?

At last! Someone else who speaks sense.....

Precisely, I can actually remember when to get down for speeding it had to involve human interaction. It generated great lines of sardonic Police speak like :-

1) Enroute to wifes Uncles funeral, obviously getting an ear bashing from er'indoors..... "give me a break officer you can see I'm late for a funeral".... "Better late for one than early for another sir"

2) Having lost the car big style, and nearly wiped myself out due to a flood in a hidden dip, Policeman beckons me away from the scene and asks.... "do you know why I've brought you back here sir?"... "No officer"... "its because you drive like a c**t and I wanted to tell you so" ..... "erm thank you officer" .... now bugger off before I cease to have pity on you"

But more imnportantly a modicum of common sense was applied. Case 1, on reflection he was right, Case no 2 actually wasn't really my fault, and I was extremely shaken up at the time. He realised that, made sure that I was contrite and probably had learnt from the experience, then sent me off with a flea in my ear. Net result = More care in future and some respect for the plod and the law.

A letter to your MP I think!

Jeez. I'll just re-iterate...

I have some sympathy with the guy for being caught out for slightly exceeding the speed limit on a quiet road, late at night. I'm guessing we've all/mostly done the same. However, I have no sympathy for him not being able to see the speed camera / police van / whatever that caught him. To be caught 4 times signifies, to me, that he's just not paying attention, even when his livelihood depends upon it.

Is he Scottish?

Case no 2 actually wasn't really my fault, and I was extremely shaken up at the time. He realised that, made sure that I was contrite and probably had learnt from the experience

He got that one wrong then, obviously.

You were there, were you?

He got that one wrong then, obviously.

To quote the film Jarhead 'It's like a cock but smaller!'

PMSL!

He needs to get a driver. Someone I know did this - he had a mate who was out of work, so claiming. He then paid him a few bob to drive him around. On the premise that it was cash only.
Worked out well for all actually.
Not the end of the world for sure.

He needs to get a driver. Someone I know did this - he had a mate who was out of work, so claiming. He then paid him a few bob to drive him around. On the premise that it was cash only.
Worked out well for all actually.

See how a little bit of breaking the law has snowballed into benefit fraud and god knows what else!

might as well chip in - you can't see all the speed camera's you buch of self riteous idiots - other wise know one would get caught - if you spend all time your time looking at your speedo and scanning the road furniture for cameras how much time are you spending looking where your going? plus sneaky sh1ts in vans hide all over the place, sometimes speed signs are hidden by hedges etc, and this is used to the advantage of the cops. Should he of speeded - no he shouldn't have - have you ever speeded - of course you have accidently or other wise, you tell me no, then your a liar - should his family suffer for this, not really to the extent all you would be STW judge dreads out there would like. All he needs is a big enough fine to stop him doing it so often - not put out of work so a entire family may have to claim benefits.

[i]if you spend all time your time looking at your speedo and scanning the road furniture for cameras how much time are you spending looking where your going?[/i]

So you'rr not keen on looking in mirrors, or at road signs, side entrances or anything else that prevents you from having a fixed gaze at the road 100m ahead?

ac racer :

He got that one wrong then, obviously.

See there you go again...

What actually happened as was there was a hidden dip in the road, it had flooded to a depth of about 50cm. I drove along at may be 35 - 36mph and hit it at that speed,m car washed out quite literally and spun 360 degrees aqauaplaining as it went. Im my then inexpereince I'd made the classic mistake of assumption, and I assumed that the road was OK where I couldn't see it. PC plod had just shown up and I'd now guess that he couldn't have charged me with anything, although I'll never know, but between being shook up and the bollocking I got I learnt more and took more notice than any 3 points and fine would have taught me. I was terrified by it!

So you'rr not keen on looking in mirrors, or at road signs, side entrances or anything else that prevents you from having a fixed gaze at the road 100m ahead?

I think you'll find these are not cunningly hidden - idiot.

And your speedo is?

again - idiot.

From this thread, we can assume (broadly speaking) that:

a) People who get caught speeding should be publicly executed
b) People who get away with 4x death by dangerous driving because they aren't investigated properly are and shouldn't be mentioned ever again
c) Therefore, the self-righteous pricks on here who [b][u]GET AWAY WITH[/u][/b] speeding, no-matter how infrequently, shouldn't be punished in the slightest, because they weren't investigated properly (caught)
d) People who have two pints should be hung, drawn and quartered the moment they think about driving
e) But people who are actually less alert through other distractions / tiredness should always be given the benefit of the doubt until they have an accident, in which case, if a cyclist is killed, they'll still be given the benefit of the doubt
f) That whilst speeding should have its penalty increased to death, curiously, tax evasion, benefit fraud, and perjury should be decriminalised

And that is the twisted logic of the majority of posters on this thread. Have I missed anything?