30% increase in banned drivers
Discussion
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,588-903184_3,00.html
A driver’s tale: 26 points and a police record
Home Office figures due early next year are expected to show a rise of around 30% in just 12 months in the numbers of drivers disqualified. The jump, insiders say, is a result of drivers reaching 12 penalty points under the totting-up system, rather than immediate disqualifications for drunk or dangerous driving.
The rapid rise is causing consternation among legal experts who know the law is based on widespread acceptance. If it catches too many people, and they think they have been penalised unreasonably, it becomes unenforceable.
Richard North is a typical victim. From his BMW 5-series to his elegant country home North is the epitome of respectability. So it surprised his neighbours when police pulled up on his drive in July with an arrest warrant for non-payment of speeding fines. He has made four court appearances in less than three years and he has accumulated 26 penalty points on his driving licence. “I am an ordinary man who is being criminalised,” he says.
For years, North says, he has driven with an unblemished record. All that changed with speed cameras. As a consultant to the European parliament he flies regularly to Brussels and Strasbourg. The drive to and from his Yorkshire home to one of the London airports or the Channel tunnel terminal is a 700-mile round trip, often at night or early in the morning. “It is a long journey but if I don’t do it I don’t see my family,” he says.
The last time North had an accident was when he clipped a parked car in 1976. But then, three years ago, he reached nine points under the totting-up system and found himself fighting for his licence. Within months he had appeared in front of the judge on four separate occasions in Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Derby and Barnsley to plead not to be disqualified. Twice he escaped. Each time, a further speeding offence landed him back in court. On the third occasion he was banned for 12 months, reduced to three on appeal. When his patience ran out he complained to the West Yorkshire safety camera partnership there were too many cameras and in the wrong places, a claim the partnership strongly denies. He was given the brush-off. After an acrimonious correspondence he was told by the partnership’s PR manager, Philip Gwynne, in an e-mail: "Would I be right in thinking you’re a close-minded (sic) bigot who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the arse?"
It seems that while North feels criminalised, others have sympathy. At his last court appearance in Barnsley, North persuaded magistrates he was indeed a responsible driver. The court took the unusual step of imposing a driving ban to run concurrent with the ban another court had imposed just two weeks earlier.
“I know it sounds like an excuse,” says North, “but I am just a hard-working professional who drives a lot of miles. Speed cameras are the bane of my existence.”
A driver’s tale: 26 points and a police record
Home Office figures due early next year are expected to show a rise of around 30% in just 12 months in the numbers of drivers disqualified. The jump, insiders say, is a result of drivers reaching 12 penalty points under the totting-up system, rather than immediate disqualifications for drunk or dangerous driving.
The rapid rise is causing consternation among legal experts who know the law is based on widespread acceptance. If it catches too many people, and they think they have been penalised unreasonably, it becomes unenforceable.
Richard North is a typical victim. From his BMW 5-series to his elegant country home North is the epitome of respectability. So it surprised his neighbours when police pulled up on his drive in July with an arrest warrant for non-payment of speeding fines. He has made four court appearances in less than three years and he has accumulated 26 penalty points on his driving licence. “I am an ordinary man who is being criminalised,” he says.
For years, North says, he has driven with an unblemished record. All that changed with speed cameras. As a consultant to the European parliament he flies regularly to Brussels and Strasbourg. The drive to and from his Yorkshire home to one of the London airports or the Channel tunnel terminal is a 700-mile round trip, often at night or early in the morning. “It is a long journey but if I don’t do it I don’t see my family,” he says.
The last time North had an accident was when he clipped a parked car in 1976. But then, three years ago, he reached nine points under the totting-up system and found himself fighting for his licence. Within months he had appeared in front of the judge on four separate occasions in Dewsbury, Huddersfield, Derby and Barnsley to plead not to be disqualified. Twice he escaped. Each time, a further speeding offence landed him back in court. On the third occasion he was banned for 12 months, reduced to three on appeal. When his patience ran out he complained to the West Yorkshire safety camera partnership there were too many cameras and in the wrong places, a claim the partnership strongly denies. He was given the brush-off. After an acrimonious correspondence he was told by the partnership’s PR manager, Philip Gwynne, in an e-mail: "Would I be right in thinking you’re a close-minded (sic) bigot who wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the arse?"
It seems that while North feels criminalised, others have sympathy. At his last court appearance in Barnsley, North persuaded magistrates he was indeed a responsible driver. The court took the unusual step of imposing a driving ban to run concurrent with the ban another court had imposed just two weeks earlier.
“I know it sounds like an excuse,” says North, “but I am just a hard-working professional who drives a lot of miles. Speed cameras are the bane of my existence.”
"The rapid rise is causing consternation among legal experts who know the law is based on widespread acceptance. If it catches too many people, and they think they have been penalised unreasonably, it becomes unenforceable"
I've been saying this for bloody ages, what limit has to be reached before a law becomes impractical because everyone has broken it? Maybe simple maths will force a sea change
I've been saying this for bloody ages, what limit has to be reached before a law becomes impractical because everyone has broken it? Maybe simple maths will force a sea change
Apache said:
"The rapid rise is causing consternation among legal experts who know the law is based on widespread acceptance. If it catches too many people, and they think they have been penalised unreasonably, it becomes unenforceable"
I've been saying this for bloody ages, what limit has to be reached before a law becomes impractical because everyone has broken it? Maybe simple maths will force a sea change
When I were a lad, people were put behind bars for smoking cannabis - now, if plod can be arsed to anything about it all, those same people's children get a caution for doing the same thing. I personally feel that there would have been less of a hard drugs problem today if a more sensible approach had been used in the past, but all that is history.
The imposition of the grossly unfair poll tax resulted in mass disobedience by otherwise law-abiding citizens. The tax didn't stand the test of the time, and was the beginning of the Tories and Thatcher's downfall.
I don't think I need a crystal ball to predict that the current fixation on speed will go the same way, turning yet more decent law-abiding people against the authorities.
Sooner or later this madness will have to stop. I only hope it does before the police lose what little respect they still have left with the population at large.
Apache said:
I've been saying this for bloody ages, what limit has to be reached before a law becomes impractical because everyone has broken it? Maybe simple maths will force a sea change
But this guy is not whinging about the speed limit law - just the way it is enforced. The law is the law and the powers that be can enforce it with whatever means they have available?
Does this guy think he's above the law because he has a 5 series and works in Europe? With that many Gatso convictions I reckon he's lucky not to get several convictions for driving without due care and attention too - since he if he was concentrating properly he wouldn't keep getting flashed.
Tough shit mate, keep paying the fines.
My view is that the courts should offer an option to pursue a course of advanced driving instruction and pass the test as alternative to speeding 'criminals' who find themselves facing a ban under toting up - the cost should be no more than what the 'crimnal' saves in taxi fares and the roads would be safer place with more Advanced drivers on the road
Toby
>> Edited by toby tucker on Wednesday 26th November 10:03
Toby
>> Edited by toby tucker on Wednesday 26th November 10:03
I see your point SPN, but it seems to me the speed limit is supposed to represent a generally safe speed (I seem to remember the original guideline was the speed that 85% of normal prudent drivers kept below in typical conditions) rather than an absolute limit that it is never safe to exceed. Given this, it seems unreasonable to enforce the speed limit rigorously without regard to whether the driver was actually dangerous. From the article is seems the 'offenses' occured on quiet roads and he could have been driving safely at a reasonable speed for the conditions. Clearly the magistrates thought so.
spnracing said:
I've been saying this for bloody ages, what limit has to be reached before a law becomes impractical because everyone has broken it? Maybe simple maths will force a sea change
But this guy is not whinging about the speed limit law - just the way it is enforced. The law is the law and the powers that be can enforce it with whatever means they have available?
Does this guy think he's above the law because he has a 5 series and works in Europe? With that many Gatso convictions I reckon he's lucky not to get several convictions for driving without due care and attention too - since he if he was concentrating properly he wouldn't keep getting flashed.
Tough shit mate, keep paying the fines.
Don't know why driving a 5 series or working in Europe should have anything to do with it. I was commenting on the amount of people being convicted not on this chap.
As you can see from the other threads re the change of attitude to cameras something will change. Alistair Darling is trying to blame the police by saying they have 'gone mad' the Tories are jumping on the media bandwagon. Still I imagine this is all of little interest to you SPN, if a law was passed enforcing drivers to wear a flashing red nose you'd probably comply unquestioningly. I'll save you the bother by saying "the law is the law and we only have ourselves to blame"
Work on it!
The worrying thing is that opinions as per SPN are what steers the mindset of the executive in this matter.
As long as that executive is slave to the letter of the law, spirited driving is facing total extinction.
We all know it's got f#ck all to do with safety but how to stop the rot?
Tories may limit or reposition some detectors but reduce them?
Bleaker than a very bleak moor, so enjoy what's left, while you can...
As long as that executive is slave to the letter of the law, spirited driving is facing total extinction.
We all know it's got f#ck all to do with safety but how to stop the rot?
Tories may limit or reposition some detectors but reduce them?
Bleaker than a very bleak moor, so enjoy what's left, while you can...
derestrictor said:
The worrying thing is that opinions as per SPN are what steers the mindset of the executive in this matter.
As long as that executive is slave to the letter of the law, spirited driving is facing total extinction.
We all know it's got f#ck all to do with safety but how to stop the rot?
Tories may limit or reposition some detectors but reduce them?
Bleaker than a very bleak moor, so enjoy what's left, while you can...
Perhaps I can offer a bit of optimism to you ???
Bad law can, and has frequently been, defeated by the population by mass disobedience. You can go back as far as you like for examples: to the 16th century if you like, and the disassociation from the Catholic church (!!) but the basic principles remain the same. There are of course, more recent examples - the Poll Tax and soft drugs spring immediately to mind. Those principles are quite straightforward, and here we are talking "practicalities," not "vision":
For a law to be effective it needs to have the support of the majority of the population. If a law ceases to have such support, it becomes unenforceable. We are starting to go that way with the current fixation on speeding.
The "executive" will soon have its mind changed for it, if and when it finds that the court system begins to collapse under the weight of motorists opting for a court appearance rather than meekly coughing up £60 in response to a FPN, and, perhaps more importantly, they begin to lose votes in the marginal constituencies because of their "mission."
By the way, does anybody know if there are any marginal constituencies on Brunstrom's patch in North Wales? If there are, I wouldn't be in his boots when the change of policy comes ......
GreenV8S said:
I see your point SPN
I'm not sure that you do.
Most of the 'powers that be' see speed limits as a law, not guidance like you have described at all.
The vast majority of pro-motorist lobbying (especially on here) is about getting rid of devices that enforce that law rather than updating it or changing it.
Derestrictor is right - the 'executive' are thinking along the line of my posts, not yours.
spnracing said:
Most of the 'powers that be' see speed limits as a law, not guidance like you have described at all.
The vast majority of pro-motorist lobbying (especially on here) is about getting rid of devices that enforce that law rather than updating it or changing it.
Derestrictor is right - the 'executive' are thinking along the line of my posts, not yours.
I dont believe the executive are thinking along the lines of either posts, simply that they and subsequently policy and the law will follow the vote trail.
The pro-motoring lobby, as you put it, on here is more focused on the method of implementation and enforcement of the law as opposed to the law itself.
Generally the feeliing is that a copper has the ability to view, make a judgement and use his discretion when faced with 'speeding' motorists and has a number of options based upon his judgement and discretion. These range from no action to stopping the driver and giving him some 'good advice' to issuing a ticket to arresting them there and then.
A device such as a GATSO and the single-agenda politically motivated organisations that operate them use no such judgement or discretion.
It is this mis-use and misunderstanding (or corruption of understanding) of the purpose of the law that pishes people off and no doubt this man in his BMW.
The law is not an entity, the be all and end all, to which we society must bend our knee and live under its iron gauntlet.
The law is there to serve and protect society from confusion and chaos.
The concept of 'following the letter of the law' is demonstrative of elevating the procedure of law above that of the best interests of society itself.
Swilly said:
Most of the 'powers that be' see speed limits as a law, not guidance like you have described at all.
The vast majority of pro-motorist lobbying (especially on here) is about getting rid of devices that enforce that law rather than updating it or changing it.
Derestrictor is right - the 'executive' are thinking along the line of my posts, not yours.
I dont believe the executive are thinking along the lines of either posts, simply that they and subsequently policy and the law will follow the vote trail.
The pro-motoring lobby, as you put it, on here is more focused on the method of implementation and enforcement of the law as opposed to the law itself.
Generally the feeliing is that a copper has the ability to view, make a judgement and use his discretion when faced with 'speeding' motorists and has a number of options based upon his judgement and discretion. These range from no action to stopping the driver and giving him some 'good advice' to issuing a ticket to arresting them there and then.
A device such as a GATSO and the single-agenda politically motivated organisations that operate them use no such judgement or discretion.
It is this mis-use and misunderstanding (or corruption of understanding) of the purpose of the law that pishes people off and no doubt this man in his BMW.
The law is not an entity, the be all and end all, to which we society must bend our knee and live under its iron gauntlet.
The law is there to serve and protect society from confusion and chaos.
The concept of 'following the letter of the law' is demonstrative of elevating the procedure of law above that of the best interests of society itself.
"Laws are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise"
And what EXACTLY is dangerous about this chap?? How many miles does he drive, how many people has he murdered with his speeding? I know EXACTLY how he feels.
mondeoman said:
And what EXACTLY is dangerous about this chap?? How many miles does he drive, how many people has he murdered with his speeding? I know EXACTLY how he feels.
I do to.
In my view, he is a hero.
He spends thousands of his hard earned money buying a posh car, maintains it, pays tax on it, fuels it, and then the one thing it's good at, moving him from A to B quickly & safely, the police won't let him.
How about if he buys some cheap car, like a Nissan Micra, and runs that instead.
I'd like to find out how happy the local BMW dealer, the local tyre dealer and the local petrol station would be, after a car change like that.
Folks buying posh cars are a vital part of the UK economy. Pity we haven't got a good reason to do so.
I think youll find that SPN is a "zero tolerancer".
He's demonstrated that viewpoint more times than i can remember, and ive not been here that long.
"Zero tolerancers" have the opinion that even the smallest, most minor of transgressions deserve the full weight of the law to be brought to bear.
Thus if you were ever unfortunate enough to be zapped at a piffling 30.5mph in a 30 "limit" (i cant take that word seriously), then you should be hammered, law wise for such dangerous and disgraceful conduct.
Theres just a minor problem with holding such "set in stone" POV's.
They take no account of any external occurances, so they end up criminalising people who arent actually doing ANYTHING wrong at all.
Laws are only acceptable when they are embraced by those the law is designed to protect/police/govern.
If they arent acceptable to the greater mass of people, they become UNENFORCEABLE....as is now being shown.
Zero tolerancers are usually the first people to be caught out by such extreme laws, and this has been shown to be true on several occasions.
He's demonstrated that viewpoint more times than i can remember, and ive not been here that long.
"Zero tolerancers" have the opinion that even the smallest, most minor of transgressions deserve the full weight of the law to be brought to bear.
Thus if you were ever unfortunate enough to be zapped at a piffling 30.5mph in a 30 "limit" (i cant take that word seriously), then you should be hammered, law wise for such dangerous and disgraceful conduct.
Theres just a minor problem with holding such "set in stone" POV's.
They take no account of any external occurances, so they end up criminalising people who arent actually doing ANYTHING wrong at all.
Laws are only acceptable when they are embraced by those the law is designed to protect/police/govern.
If they arent acceptable to the greater mass of people, they become UNENFORCEABLE....as is now being shown.
Zero tolerancers are usually the first people to be caught out by such extreme laws, and this has been shown to be true on several occasions.
spnracing said:
I'm not sure that you do.
Most of the 'powers that be' see speed limits as a law, not guidance like you have described at all.
If your point is that the law is clearly stated and those that break it can expect to be penalized, then I think I do get your point. I just don't agree with it. I don't think any law is so fundamentally and universally true that it should be rigorously and strictly enforced without consideration, and speed limits in particular are so arbitrary and so poorly related to actual harm or danger that it is unreasonable to automatically impose large penalties on anyone who breaks one. In fact, I don't think breaking the speed limit should be an offence. The offense should be dangerous driving, whether caused by excessive speed or not, and whether the speed was under or over the limit.
GreenV8S said:
In fact, I don't think breaking the speed limit should be an offence. The offense should be dangerous driving, whether caused by excessive speed or not, and whether the speed was under or over the limit.
There's hardly a road in the modern world where that thinking applies so you're somewhat up against it.
Gassing Station | Motoring News | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff