[Closed] Can this be right?

Cant see a problem with that myself, or should only the great unwashed/chavs/single people etc only get banned as they serve no other purpose?

Buy him a bike! he can cycle for 6 months. Might even enjoy it!

EDIT: I should add that I spent 6 months with 9 points hanging over me and made very sure that I did not manage to pick up another 3, to avoid the position your colleague finds himself in.

Yes you are wrong. If you can't do the time don't do the crime. He has been done for speeding 4 times in three years. Once is unfortunate, twice is careless, 4 times is stupid.

If 6 of the points are off his license then he should not have been banned under totting up - or were they still on at the time of the offense?

Cameras are painted in bright colours, the car has a speedo, no excuses.

Can he not get to work another way? Train / bus/ cycle?

Sorry - but I'm with TJ on this - and it will be a sermon. 4 offences - so it's not like he was just "unlucky". And if he can't see the cameras in time to slow down, how good is his general road observation?

If his whole lifestyle/career was based on him driving, he should have been a damn sight more careful.

I would agree that this is wrong, surely the court should have take into account his work/family situation & given him a **** off fine instead.

A huge proportion of the most dangerous people on the road probably "need" to drive.

And comparing with the Rhyll incident is pointless. The driver was prosecuted for driving with bald tyres, and received the appropriate sentence for that offence. You friend was done for speeding. To the extent that you reckon people should only lose their licences if they kill people and really have no need to drive at all then I disagree. 😐

I am thinking about writing to my MP about what seems to me to be an injustice

What injustice?

bus, bike, canoe, horse, rollerblades, skateboard, train, walk................................................................................... 😀

Good to see lots of sympathy going on as usual......but the bottom line is he's been careless and is now paying the price. Yes, it sucks and seems completely unjust when compared to other convictions but them is the rules. Not sure writing to MP will alter outcome.

Aren't software engineers still in high demand?

have to agree with the above. The effects of the ban are harsh but he should have pulled his neck in after the first two collars.

As above, if he can't spot the cameras, what else can't he spot?

Did he get the chance to go on a driver improvement scheme rather than go to court?

Some people just can't read though can they?

The question is not should he be punished, the question is should the punishment more fairly fit the crime (unless I am badly wrong). But I doubt I am wrong - there is nothing more than some people on here like than to burn any motorist convicted of any offence.

IMO - he was unfairly treated - his circumstances, the nature and timings of the offences (past and present) should be considered and I think you are right to ask questions of the decision.

I agree with the comments above. The sentencing is fairly prescriptive in these situations but, if his circumstances are as you say, I am surprised at the outcome.

He clearly did not argue his case or have adequate representation as, in most cases you describe, the courts tend to give a 'last chance'. They'll often impose a heavier fine & a suspended ban of at least 12 months to enable someone to remain employed.

And Onzadog has a good point - a driver improvement course would seem a fair outcome (as well as a hefty fine).

pubic transport?
car sharing?

4 times is indeed a bit daft, you think he would have learnt, but i certainly see what your saying about the comparison to the rhyll incident.
i dont think its a case of your mate needing to get less, the rhyll driver should have gone down in a bigger harder way.

does a driving ban stop you from using a scooooter (possibly a stupid question)

i would suggest he looks at other options, and takes it like a man.
he knew the penalty. if its clear that cameras in your area are sensitive and stingey, then drive accordingly.

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.

Mate of mine who has to drive for a living (estate agent 🙄 ) went to court on an instant ban (100mph+ and yes he is an idiot) but because his employer did him a letter stating that if he was off the road for any longer than 3 week he would be made redundant the judge said he had no option other than to ban him for 3 weeks and increase his fine.

Not saying that i agree with this but that was my understanding of being banned for speeding, might be different though if it was an accumulation of points over a given period of time. 😕

Yep, TJ is right.
We all get caught (Well most) from time to time. I was on 9 points myself once, years ago, for a few months. I drove like a vicar.
Despite having drivel well over 20k miles a year for the last 3 years, I haven't been caught, mainly because I've stuck to the limits most of the time, especially round town and on motorways, because my job depended on my license.

Very shortly (Touch wood) I'll have a clean slate again....
😈

EDIT - No, I think the punishment is fair. If you can't back off the gas when you're on 9 points, tough titty.

Why can't he get to work by other means. I have to travel a lot with work and the main office is 45 mins drive away and I can cycle or use public transport all the time If I want.

He has no one to blame but himself really

I think it's pretty harsh tbh - I think it's a shame that lots of people get away with all sorts of terrible driving, but as long as they don't set off a speed camera then nothing happens to them.

Oh and would it not be possible for a software support guy to work from home ?

Or his partner ferry him to and from work, he/she doesn't work according to the o/p?

He clearly did not argue his case or have adequate representation as, in most cases you describe, the courts tend to give a 'last chance'. They'll often impose a heavier fine & a suspended ban of at least 12 months to enable someone to remain employed.

I agree. Last year I got clocked doing 121mph at the end of the M1 and cops pulled me up in Brent Cross and showed me the video. I went to court pleeded guilty, represented myself, gave my story of how being without a car would affect my education and work and walked away with a 42 day ban and £275 fine.

Actually, as I made the magistrates court feel guilty of my situation they asked me if the mimimum ban was acceptable for me. Well, all I can say is that I was more than happy to accept.

If you dont argue your case properly they will look to give you as much punishment as they can. I walked out of court told everyone who was there at court that day for driving offences how much I got and they were shocked. Before going into court they were all being advised by their solicitors they were looking at lenghty bans for their offences. Even the solicitors were shocked themsleves. Fat cats just taking money for a job you can do yourself.

Has his ban just stopped him driving to work, or has he been sacked for having a conviction that led to him being disqualified from driving?

Getting 4 speeding tickets in 3 years isn't just bad luck, it's got to be a blatant disregard for speed limits. It's hard to be sympathetic - if you're on 9 points and another one means loss of livelihood then surely the sensible thing to do it make sure you don't speed, or take risks on traffic lights with cameras, or use your mobile while driving or do anything, anywhere, that could get you another 3 points?

Rhyl only has 1 bloody l, and IIRC the tyres were not considered to be contributory to the tragic accident.

As for your IT guy, well I've been there with 11 points and I finally learned to drive within the limits. over 4 years ago since my last set of points now and I'm back on a clean license. I don't see how not having use of a car means you can't work though.

[i]Cameras are painted in bright colours[/i]

Indeed, they're big and they're yellow - so the words "driving without due care and attention" come to mind. Speeding with points and missing a speed camera - can't see the point in whinging about it.
And if he's the sole breadwinner, isn't that somethiing he should have though of before deciding that the speed limit didn't apply to him?

olly - yes. A ban applies to all vehicles. the only time you get a partial ban is if you have an HGV and do something HGV specific like loading dangerously, then you might lose the vocational licence (HGV entitlement).

with unemployent reaching millions , i`am sure he could find a driver
very easily .

rules is rules in my opinion, if we didn't have rules where would we be..?

FRANCE

and no one wants that!

I like things to be black and white. Grey areas like these cause more trouble than they're worth. He knew the rules and chose to ignore them on numerous occasions (9pts already on the slate etc).

Tell him to suck it up and take responsibility for his actions. If he can't use public transport can he work remotely?

(having children makes you more right wing and less tolerant it would appear)

I don't see how reducing the ban and imposing a heavier fine really helps solve owt. You break the law, your driving privileges (note; 'privilege', not 'right'. No-one has the 'right' to drive, it is a privilege which must be earned) are taken away. Or, is it ok for someone rich to drive like a complete C, and just get a 2 week ban because they 'need' their car, and can afford a big fine? A lengthy ban might at least give someone time to think about their actions, and hopefully encourage them to behave more responsibly in future.

As for his family; there are other jobs, and Benefits that they would be entitled to. They won't starve or go homeless.

I feel no sympathy. I'd rather see reckless speeders off the road.

but as long as they don't set off a speed camera then nothing happens to them.

Near us there are two schools and a 20mph limit.

The road is quite busy day and night and I often walk down it. I have seen overtaking (even though the car was actually trying to turn right!!!!!) and many, many cars going comfortably over the limit, some I would estimate at 50/60mph plus.

In the 7 years I have lived there I have seen police patrolling it once and there are no speed cameras.

He knew how many points he had on his licence and still risked loosing it but speeding again, can't see why there should be an sympathy given out.

[i]6 of the points were incurred in 2006 and are now off his licence.)[/i]

Nope they aren't removed until the 4th year.

Nope they aren't removed until the 4th year

Yup, takes 4 years to come off

i too had 9 points for a while - who's fault was that? Mine
but as said previously i made damn sure that i did nt get anymore as i did nt want to be in the position that your mate is now

that said i am sure that if your md or other director wrote to the court expressing what a useful part of the team he is etc and that he would become unemployed if he lost his licence and if he offered to go on a speed awareness course he may keep hi licence

Last year I got clocked doing 121mph at the end of the M1 and cops pulled me up in Brent Cross and showed me the video. I went to court pleeded guilty, represented myself, gave my story of how being without a car would affect my education and work and walked away with a 42 day ban and £275 fine.

"affect your education and work"??

not nearly as much as wrapping your car around an HGV would affect your education and work.

I know the rules, and when i creep over the speed limit on my own head be it when they pull me over.
dissapointing that its possible to blag your way out of a 120mph ticket imo

[slow clap]

I just love the way folk answer a different question to the one asked, well done mastiles_fanylion for actually reading the OP.

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?

Anyway, could all those who have not made any error in 6 years of driving please sign below, so I can demonstrate to him what a worthless piece of shite he is in comparision to the holier than though wussacks on here.

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. (and before the wolf pack winds up to full howl, there is a difference in English Law where the consequences of your actions are proportionately more serious, I think you will find its not taken into account in the verdict, but is covered in sentencing guidelines.)

In the meantime, try to get your heads around the meaning behind the following segements of the OP

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

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?

FFS.......... <wanders off to calm down muttering and shaking head>

I know the rules, and when i creep over the speed limit on my own head be it when they pull me over.
dissapointing that its possible to blag your way out of a 120mph ticket imo

Hey, I did the crime and did the time. I just knew what to say in court. Ever since my ban has come off I have not gone back to driving. I use my bike and public transport where ever I go now.

affect your education and work

I was doing a post grad course and traveling to uni over 40 miles away and my work paid for my studies. If i had no car I had no other option but to leave my study. Guess the court took pity in me.

Are you saying he should be allowed to rack up more points because he does more miles?

You can't pick and choose what laws apply to you - to be frank he knew the law, he ignored it, either willfully or carelessly, and now he's got to face the consequences.

Whether the law is right or wrong in your eyes is irrelevant here - it's not like he's a crusader for the right of the great british public to drive where the hell they like, however fast they like, is it? He's a fool. End of.

G - what you fail to understand is that many of us do not agree with you. I don't think a ban for being caught speeding 4 times in 3 yrs is disproportionate. You comparison to the Ryl (sp) case is spurious as that was a single offense of having an unroadworthy car that in the opinion of the court did not contribute to the accident.

The simple fact is your friend knew he was on a knife edge after getting 9 pts but still continued to drive above the speed limit and to drive so poorly that he did not see the speed cameras.

Perfectly reasonable ban IMO

The different outcome you can get for the same crime seems to depend on what area of the country you're caught, how good your solicitor is, which magistrates you get etc. This just seems wrong, and I have sympathy for someone feeling aggrieved when they hear someone else got done for exactly the same thing in similar circumstances and got a much more lenient punishment.

The fact that the proportionality of the punishment is down to how good his lawyer/blagging skills might be p!sses me off no end.

Have you told him that everyone thinks he's a twunt yet?

[i]he does approx 60,000 miles per annum, he offers rapid support services to a quite widespread customer base, [/i] so has more to lose by losing his licence so should have known better, no? Or does being a high milage driver who offers 24/7 rapid response somehow make it easier on someone he kills in an accident?

[i]Anyway, could all those who have not made any error in 6 years of driving please sign below, [/i] I have. I speed. I've even been caught. My fault, no question about it. I was driving the car and it was going too fast. For the next wee while I paid a lot more attention to speed limits and my speedo. Clean now, so back up to the old speeds. Maybe that's what your mate should have done.

[i]Anyway, could all those who have not made any error in 6 years of driving please sign below, so I can demonstrate to him what a worthless piece of shite he is in comparision to the holier than though wussacks on here.[/i]
I haven't done 6 years of driving, but no one in my family's recieved a ticket for speeding (or anything else) in what would be well over 100 years of driving, I'm pretty sure that they're not particularlry unique.

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.

It made me

a) Calm down
b) Get cruise control on every subsequent vehicle - It really does make a big difference
c) Appreciate that its just not worth it

If your friend didnt heed these warnings, of which he had 3 previous, i dont think he really has much to complain about. He also, when found in this position, should have invested in the best lawyer possible as it sounds like he hasnt agued much of a case.

Collegue of mine is currently waint his date to go and fight for his licence due to similar totting up points. He has a bill so far for a few thousand pounds for lawyer and he has the most fantastic letter from the MD to say that x number of jobs rely on his ability to bring in the business. I think he is still going down though so he is making plans for his ban, rather than cry about it after its happened

You comparison to the Ryl (sp) case is spurious as that was a single offense of having an unroadworthy car that in the opinion of the court did not contribute to the accident

Frankly TJ I am stunned that you of all people should write that. You could not be more wrong!

The Police only ever charged the guy with having 3 bald tyres. (The fixed penatly for which is 3 points each and a £60 fine), so he didn't even get the maximum penalty for that. He pleaded guilty in court, and admitted that he was going too fast for the conditions. He had previous for traffic offences as long as your arm. At the inquest the Police were roundly criticised for their inept handling of the case, for not charging the guy with the full range of offences that he committed, and I beleive senior officers were forced to resign over it.

You sir, unusual as it may well be, are frankly talking bol-locks in this instance!

I presume therefore, and rather surprisingly, that your name is the first on the list of patronising twunts who have never made any sort of mistake whilst driving in the last 6 years!

In the meantime, any danger at all of reading the thread, and in particular my two posts, and actually either getting lost, or answering the question?

he offers rapid support services to a quite widespread customer base,

A bit TOO flippin' rapid!

Sentences on people who hit cyclists should be higher. Doens't mean speeding offences should be lower to make them more proportionate. If it's his lively hood he should have been more careful, especially after being caught the first or second time.

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) So why for driving over the speed limit do you get banned and fined. Yeah I think hes been a tad careless getting caught while being on 9 points but to be frank everyone of us that drives knows that it is impossible to stick to the speed limit all the time. Whether its due to being distracted slightly, heavy foot etc. and 4 times in three years is not that many if you think about it, considering how many miles he does. I thought the court would have even differred the points for a month or two till his others were off to allow him to drive but he would still have the points. Did he plead his case at court?

Driving is a gamble, you are either lucky or you are not. Don't mind speed cameras as they slow traffic down at points in the road where accidents are. But thos camera van's should be blown up, they hide off the road, on bits where theres not a junction for miles. The only thing they are there for is to take money.

If he was doing like alot over the limit then he cant complain, but if it was pretty tight then I think he should be annoyed to say the least!

I does sound as though he didn't think things through & [as already said]- given the the grave consequences of getting banned - could possibly have put his case better or got someone to take the points for him.

Bloke down the road in a similar situation got asked by the beak how much annual leave he had left & was then banned for that period of time.

[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.