what about it? it's not even remotely the same as driving about over the speed limit multiple times. the law in her case takes into account diminished responsibility and all the surrounding factors and she was punished accordingly. it was down to those factors and the mental health, not a "oh she's in xxx occupation", was it? and she hadn't done it six times, had she? that driver's had multiple previous convictions. the law went easy on him the first time, i presume, in the act of probbably offering speed awareness courses instead of something more severe. and he didn't learn from that, he flagrantly and contemptuously broke the exact same law again, and maybe again, however many times it took to rack up 6 points. and as for a "diminished responsibility" aspect or whatever, as i said previously as far as i'm concerned what they said doesn't justify his actions it makes it even more emphatic that he shouldn't have been in control of a vehicle, never mind one doing that much over the biggest speed limit in the country.
Grenfell speeder
- Thread starter wolfie138
- Start date
Whilst I disagree with your misguided comment you second sentence is bob on. People think they are good drivers. This thread is full of people who think they would be fine at speeds well in excess of the current limits yet, every day we see people have accidents at a fraction of these speeds due to one simple thing - people suck! My step-father is a great example, he's a pursuit trained police driver and yet has had several crashes that were his fault (2). 1 he clipped a kerb on a traffic island (crap judgement of space) the other he went in the back of a learner driver who stopped for no reason and was too close/couldn't react quickly enough.
This paramedic might be the best driver in the world but other drivers aren't and one does not expect someone to be travelling 50% over the speed limit.
This is correct, but equally doesn't imply that a non-emergency services vehicle isn't equipped for driving at 116MPH safely. The abilities of the driver are more important.
I haven't seen any article state what those initial points were for so far.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,953
- Location
- Blurton
That is one of the most insulting things I've seen on here, let's hope you never have one of these 'drivers' out to you or your family.
yeah, i'm not surprised, given your penchant for twisting the meaning of post to create yourslef a little bit of drama.
what's that got to do w/ anything at all? oh hang on, i bet you're going to do the "and you claim you never speeded ever?" thing, right?
My aren’t you an angry angst filled individual.
Im trying to get some context to your post and I think your road and car experience help in that, though based on that petulant outburst I’m not interested in any discussion with angry boy as you already have all the answers.
Ahh that's why I got fired!
aww, you're all upset cos i pre-empted your "clever" tactic X-D
Probably not old enough to drive yet
Probably not old enough to drive yet
Well based on his postings in this thread he does come across as the petulant schoolchild, so you could well be right.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
Has this person now got carte blanche to speed at will?
Fortunately, someone with more common sense than you does give a damn.
Nothing wrong with this IMO. He's a trained professional driver and 116mph is hardly fast these days. You see that most days on the M4 between Reading and Bristol. Yes the circumstances were not great (not on a shout etc), but the leniency applied is correct in this scenario
so you're another in the crowd of a career being an excuse to allow anyone to drive how they like and break laws for no legitimate reason whilst being distracted and under stress. and you mention common sense, lol. okay.
"hardly fast". given the speed limit is 70 i would say it is.
"hardly fast". given the speed limit is 70 i would say it is.
The speed limit was set at a time when cars were pretty ****. Yes, the law says 70mph, that certainly doesn't mean that going above that is overly dangerous. Speed limits need a massive overhaul in general, cars are safer and stop a lot faster than they ever used too.
You are getting far too bent out of shape over this. Underlying issues with your hatred of speeders.
Acceptable speed and driving perceptions vary drastically between people. I was going out Sat, following a red astra, constantly tapping breaks on, doing 50mph in a 60, a pain to follow. We came around a bend and I overtook. I knew nothing was coming as I had a clear view of the road ahead before we even got to the bend do to us approaching down a hill. Pulled in in plenty of time, no issues, my wife didn't even say anything. Go to the meal and it turned out it was the other 2 couples we were going out with and one told me I was driving like a C Bomb... we had rather a little falling out over it because in my eyes (and everyone else's) it was fine, but to her i may as well have curled one off on the grave of her grandmother.
No more than anyone else.
He's used exactly the same method to avoid a ban (in this instance) that is open to anyone.
The only difference is that he would have had some proof of training to a higher standard than most people for high speeds, mind you I wouldn't be surprised if that counted against him as much as it did for him.
I suspect he'll be watching his speed a lot more carefully in future as the magistrates will likely have made it very clear to him that he only gets the one chance at using the extreme hardship argument.
Soldato
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2012
- Posts
- 3,308
- Location
- 2
This last bit is what I was asking about. Can people only use this excuse once or over and over again?