Done For Speeding

Lopéz · 11 May 2007 at 06:35

WIBSBOT said:
Self-respect and dignity ?

Doesn't seem to be much of it around these days but the OP sounds like a decent bloke.

In front of three magistrates you will never see again, an usher and a prosecution you will also never see again?

Why bother?

Stinky · 11 May 2007 at 07:13

when i was caught in feb 2006 doing nearly double the speed limit (child killer!!!!1111oneone and i have had all the **** already, and have learnt my lesson) i ended up in court and i was told to either write a letter explaining or to appear at court to pled mitigating reasons.

i did the later which i found really did help, same as you i had only just got a new job that required me to drive, now this is what saved my arse. they told mem that the offence was a ban, but because of my line of work and the requirment of a car that they would stack up the points and miss the ban.

but it really does depend on the people there looking at you lol.

good luck

Vertigo · 11 May 2007 at 07:24

Lopéz said:
I was quoting Vertigo1 who said that asking the court to take into account needing your car for your job wouldn't get you anywhere....

Whilst I appreciate that it worked for you, I wasn't claiming that it "wouldn't get you anywhere", merely that a lot of magistrates are growing increasingly tired of this defence and so it may do you more harm than good. If it's all you've got then I suppose you may as well try it but you're far better off trying to show how dependents or your employer would suffer, rather than yourself.

beast20vt · 11 May 2007 at 08:36

tbh i dont agree with some people getting away without a ban due to them having to drive for their job.why should they get off and someone who doesnt need to drive for their job get banned?
its not as if you can plead that you didnt realise you were going that fast or anything like that as 30mph over the limit is intentional

also to relate back to the original post,the guy was averaging over 100mph for some distance rather than just touching 100mph so i think that avoiding any sort of ban is unlikely

Jono · 11 May 2007 at 09:19

Why should muggers get off prison just because the prisons are full?

Hawk Tuah · 11 May 2007 at 09:31

beast20vt said:
on the 100mph on a clear motorway being safe-99% of the time it is unless you have a blowout but having one at 70mph is bad enough.also i never said it wasnt safe i said it was illegal.

Well thats obviously a load of crap. Otherwise 1 in a hundred cars doing that speed would crash.

I'd like to see the actual statistical figures. I bet you more people crash doing 70 than doing 100.

Jon Frost · 11 May 2007 at 09:47

Bug One said:
I bet you more people crash doing 70 than doing 100.

More people do 70 than 100 so, you would be right! ?!

(I like speeding, so i've no problem with people doing a ton on the motorway, if its safe and in a well maintained car.)

Vanilla · 11 May 2007 at 09:49

beast20vt said:
tbh i dont agree with some people getting away without a ban due to them having to drive for their job.why should they get off and someone who doesnt need to drive for their job get banned?

Family to support could be one reason.

[TW]Fox · 11 May 2007 at 10:15

Vanilla said:
Family to support could be one reason.

But this is the thing that I can't get my head around. On the one hand I can entirely see the point, why should the innocent family suffer becuase the father can't control his driving?

But then, you wouldn't not send somebody to prison for theft becuase he has a family, would you?

It just seems somewhat wrong that your personal circumstances - which you CHOSE to create - can influence how you are punished for a crime...

Technically, because Man B has decided environmentally friendly and use the train to get to work, he could be banned and lose his pride and joy for doing 105mph. Yet Man A, who works as what, say a white van man, would technically get off without a ban for 110mph... it just doesnt sit right with me.

Dashik · 11 May 2007 at 10:22

Vanilla said:
Family to support could be one reason.

If thats the case then they should know better and not speed in the first place. All the more reason to look after your license. The offender chose to speed.

[TW]Fox · 11 May 2007 at 10:28

Dashik said:
If thats the case then they should know better and not speed in the first place. All the more reason to look after your license. The offender chose to speed.

Exactly - surely it should act as a detterant - speed excessively and you lose your license. The only reason I don't drive at 100mph is becuase I fear losing my license. If i knew I could do it and not get banned, I would - my car can easily handle it, and I often drive on dual carriageways late at night. But that thought of not having a driving license stops me.

Surely the more important your license, the stronger the detterant - oh wait no, the more important your license the easier it is to escape with a fine :confused:

Vanilla · 11 May 2007 at 10:31

[TW]Fox said:
But this is the thing that I can't get my head around. On the one hand I can entirely see the point, why should the innocent family suffer becuase the father can't control his driving?

But then, you wouldn't not send somebody to prison for theft becuase he has a family, would you?

It just seems somewhat wrong that your personal circumstances - which you CHOSE to create - can influence how you are punished for a crime...

Technically, because Man B has decided environmentally friendly and use the train to get to work, he could be banned and lose his pride and joy for doing 105mph. Yet Man A, who works as what, say a white van man, would technically get off without a ban for 110mph... it just doesnt sit right with me.

I simply put it into perspective personally. Doing 101mph on the motorway isn't a henious crime, our speed limits are old and cars and drivers are far more capable these days.

Even if someone got off with a ban they'd get a large number of points. Effectively it is a second chance - a few more points and banned for good.

It's the same way a judge chooses to send one person to prison and another not. It's how a repeat offender consistenly avoids prison while a first times get's the book thrown at them - all is not equal.

There is no such thing as a blanket sentence, it's why they send people to court for such offences - so a human being can weight up all the factors and decide on a couse of action.

WIBSBOT · 11 May 2007 at 12:43

Lopéz said:
In front of three magistrates you will never see again, an usher and a prosecution you will also never see again?

Why bother?

I had images of someone blubbing like a baby which is *never* an endearing trait....

Hawk Tuah · 11 May 2007 at 12:55

WIBSBOT said:
I had images of someone blubbing like a baby which is *never* an endearing trait....

Do you remember that show a while back ' The Trial' or something like that.

It really got to me. The 'victim' started blubbing about how these footballers had 'ganged' her. She was crying her eyes out in the witness box while telling the story.

Anyway, when the 'celebrity' jury retired a few of the women were saying how it must be true because she was so upset and you wouldn't cry like that if it wasn't true.

I almost threw something at the tv - SO ANNOYED. YOU STUPID STUPID WOMAN - SHE IS AN ACTRESS - IT NEVER REALLY HAPPENED. GRRRRRRR.

Back to my point, blubbing in front of the magistrate does have a reaction and can help.

djcj · 12 May 2007 at 12:32

Hmmmm, bit of an interesting update, I received my NIP today and it has the wrong car registration number on it. I then looked at the form the policeman handed me at the roadside and his handwriting is terrible. The last letter of my reg is a C but his looks like an L. So on my NIP the reg ends with an L. I know i should take my punishment like a man as i was caught fair and square. But wondering whether to say to a judge, no your honour.....i wasn't speeding in THAT car *looks all dumb and innnocent*

iPWN · 12 May 2007 at 13:47

No, do NOT do this. The court will easily see that it is a typo, and you would find your punishment is harsher.

tonyyeb · 12 May 2007 at 14:31

[TW]Fox said:
But this is the thing that I can't get my head around. On the one hand I can entirely see the point, why should the innocent family suffer becuase the father can't control his driving?

But then, you wouldn't not send somebody to prison for theft becuase he has a family, would you?

It just seems somewhat wrong that your personal circumstances - which you CHOSE to create - can influence how you are punished for a crime...

Technically, because Man B has decided environmentally friendly and use the train to get to work, he could be banned and lose his pride and joy for doing 105mph. Yet Man A, who works as what, say a white van man, would technically get off without a ban for 110mph... it just doesnt sit right with me.

I agree

If it were jail time we were talking about it seems that prison would be full of single people with no family to cater for who live near to where they work! Seems unfair in a way. If anything (as had already been said) people who need their car for work and rely on their income to support a family should be even more careful. But that doesn't mean all you single guys who work less than a mile away should start aiming for a ton on the M1!

Boycie · 12 May 2007 at 14:41

[TW]Fox said:
Exactly - surely it should act as a detterant - speed excessively and you lose your license. The only reason I don't drive at 100mph is becuase I fear losing my license. If i knew I could do it and not get banned, I would - my car can easily handle it, and I often drive on dual carriageways late at night. But that thought of not having a driving license stops me.

Surely the more important your license, the stronger the detterant - oh wait no, the more important your license the easier it is to escape with a fine

Agreed, i also often drive home from work in the early hours of the morning on deserted dual carriageways and the thought of doing anymore that 75-80 doesnt cross my mind because i need my license for my job and the thought of loosing it puts speeding out the question.

Killajaz · 12 May 2007 at 15:04

Ouch. I understand your situation not knowing what will happen.

Back home in Sweden the system works somewhat different (and better imo).
If you drive 30km/h over the allowed 110km/h then the law states you will lose your license. The officer stopping you provides you with the proof (a recording of the speeding) and then makes the decision. You are allowed to drive for two days from the day of suspension. This is so you can park your car and get to where you where going obviously.

And you can look forward to a £500 fine, starting at 30km/h. Should you get caught at higher speeds, and depending on whether the officer stopping you thinks it was reckless driving you could have a judge increasing the fine.
If you start hitting serious speeds like 200km/h then there's a risk of facing jail time. Again each case is treated individually. My point was that anything over 140km/h on the motorway will equal loss of license. Repeating offenses will lead to driving school

Dolph · 12 May 2007 at 15:11

[TW]Fox said:
Exactly - surely it should act as a detterant - speed excessively and you lose your license. The only reason I don't drive at 100mph is becuase I fear losing my license. If i knew I could do it and not get banned, I would - my car can easily handle it, and I often drive on dual carriageways late at night. But that thought of not having a driving license stops me.

Surely the more important your license, the stronger the detterant - oh wait no, the more important your license the easier it is to escape with a fine

I always thought that road laws were supposed to make the roads safer. Taking the licence from people solely for exceeding speed X doesn't do that, just as giving people fines doesn't. In fact, the focus on speed has very much been counterproductive.

http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=16251