Speeding on M6 Toll - Need a Motoring Lawyer
Discussion
whyohwhy said:
Breadvan72 said:
Whilst the art of the advocate is, I think, somewhat overrated, a skilled plea in mitigation may make a difference to a sentence.
I get the distinct impression that there isn't any mitigation other than a lightly trafficked clear road and a heavy right foot. And maybe points on his licence already, but that's just a guess.
Also, you should explain that you are constantly raising money, or trying to, when not engaged in your professional role, and of course you drive yourself to charity speaking arrangements, sporting fixtures and auctions of memorabilia and never take a fee.
Both you and your wife "juggle" running a charitable foundation, while looking after your children, and it is unlikely that you would commit further offences with all those responsibilities.
Who knows, they might let you off without a ban, and a paltry fine!
blueg33 said:
I have seen loads of people pulled on the M6 toll. I am always amazed by the speed at which people approach the toll plaza, despite the 50mph limit.
I know they regularly do people on the approach to the M4 Severn Bridge toll so I'm always very nervous about the M6 toll approach, but you'd get flattened if you stuck rigidly to the limits.Mill Wheel said:
You need a brief to explain that a ban would have an adverse effect on others who rely on your extensive charity work, and a ban would also affect your TV work and intrude on the privacy of your children.
Also, you should explain that you are constantly raising money, or trying to, when not engaged in your professional role, and of course you drive yourself to charity speaking arrangements, sporting fixtures and auctions of memorabilia and never take a fee.
Both you and your wife "juggle" running a charitable foundation, while looking after your children, and it is unlikely that you would commit further offences with all those responsibilities.
Who knows, they might let you off without a ban, and a paltry fine!
More likely you need a brief to explain why despite having 9 points on your licence already you still can't operate the cruise control and modify you behaviour to reflect your current unfortunate circumstances. Also, you should explain that you are constantly raising money, or trying to, when not engaged in your professional role, and of course you drive yourself to charity speaking arrangements, sporting fixtures and auctions of memorabilia and never take a fee.
Both you and your wife "juggle" running a charitable foundation, while looking after your children, and it is unlikely that you would commit further offences with all those responsibilities.
Who knows, they might let you off without a ban, and a paltry fine!
Just a guess.
I'm not in favour of the 70 mph motorway limit, however having used that road frequently I can bet that difference in arriving at the tolls between doing 107mph and 78 mph is negligible.
However the difference in effect on licence is slightly more significant.
Go to court smartly dressed.
Don't get a lawyer, as that often conveys a certain sense of "arrogant ass with money".
Begin by saying that you've never been in any trouble before and that you're deeply ashamed to be in this position.
State that you were seduced into driving faster than is acceptable because of the openness of the road, the light traffic and the clear conditions.
Acknowledge the seriousness of the offence and that you accept full responsibility for your actions.
The most likely outcome is 6 points and £300 fine.
Take it and run!!
Don't get a lawyer, as that often conveys a certain sense of "arrogant ass with money".
Begin by saying that you've never been in any trouble before and that you're deeply ashamed to be in this position.
State that you were seduced into driving faster than is acceptable because of the openness of the road, the light traffic and the clear conditions.
Acknowledge the seriousness of the offence and that you accept full responsibility for your actions.
The most likely outcome is 6 points and £300 fine.
Take it and run!!
Snowboy said:
Bear in mind it's a panel of 3 magistrates who are probably decent people who chose to become magistrates to help make the world a bit better.
They spend most their days in car court dealing with chavs with no insurance or racing who show up to court in tracksuits and backwards caps.
My advice, wear a suit, be polite, don't make up bulls
t excuses.
Chances are you'll get the lower end of the punishment spectrum.
I know a couple of older Mags, and they think people who speed are lunatics (apart from themselves, of course) and would sentence them to death if they could.They spend most their days in car court dealing with chavs with no insurance or racing who show up to court in tracksuits and backwards caps.
My advice, wear a suit, be polite, don't make up bulls
t excuses.Chances are you'll get the lower end of the punishment spectrum.
They let chavs off lightly as they (the chavs) don't know any better.
Snowboy said:
Consider whether a short ban would be better than 6 points - they may ask you.
They asked me a long time ago, and ultimately I found the 1 week ban better than 6 points.
I'd be careful of that for insurance purposes - obviously different companies will vary, but some aren't bothered much about points whereas a short ban is a different matter altogether.They asked me a long time ago, and ultimately I found the 1 week ban better than 6 points.
sherbertdip said:
" A semi trained monkey can drive a car very fast in a straight line on an empty road, but only a person with intelligence, training and skill knows what to do when there is a monkey driving a car or something goes wrong or there's a bend, there are many more monkeys of various levels of training than the latter, that's why we have speed limits"
That presupposes that imposing speed limits will stop monkeys from crashing when things go wrong.What we need to do is get rid of the monkeys - not treat everyone like monkeys.
whyohwhy said:
Disagree. There are many absolutely awful drivers out there who have no idea about what is a sensible limit for either road or weather conditions and that's before you throw in the odd foreign trucker who can't tear himself away from his dvd.
70 is undoubtedly too low a limit for today's modern cars, as is 50 and 60 on a lot of rural roads.
However time and time again motorists prove that they are incapable of changing their behaviour and driving to conditions which means as far as the government is concerned they legislate for the lowest common denominator.
There needs to be a major improvement in car and truck driving standards before drivers can be left to their own devises.
I know there are many awful drivers out there, and some of the worst I've seen tend to be some of the slowest.70 is undoubtedly too low a limit for today's modern cars, as is 50 and 60 on a lot of rural roads.
However time and time again motorists prove that they are incapable of changing their behaviour and driving to conditions which means as far as the government is concerned they legislate for the lowest common denominator.
There needs to be a major improvement in car and truck driving standards before drivers can be left to their own devises.
But most drivers do slow down for danger and adverse conditions, and those that don't are less likely to slow down for speed limits either.
The "lowest common denominator" argument is specious, tending to hurt the careful majority far more than the careless minority.
A long time ago (I was driving a brand new V reg company Mondeo) I caught at 126 MPH on the A46 I received a 6 week ban and a fine. I took 3 weeks holiday and worked in the office for 3 weeks. Since then I don't go over 100 MPH in UK roads. I didn't use a lawyer, I was genuinely remorseful and with retrospect got a fair punishment
Sheepshanks said:
Snowboy said:
Consider whether a short ban would be better than 6 points - they may ask you.
They asked me a long time ago, and ultimately I found the 1 week ban better than 6 points.
I'd be careful of that for insurance purposes - obviously different companies will vary, but some aren't bothered much about points whereas a short ban is a different matter altogether.They asked me a long time ago, and ultimately I found the 1 week ban better than 6 points.
What Snowboy says makes good sense. If you take the points, for example 6, they're going to be live on your licence for 3 years. If you reach the magical 12, the chances are you'll fall to the mandatory 6 month totting up disqual. If you've managed 6 points in one go, it's possible you'll manage it again with 3 years. In any case, it's two minor offences.
If you're banned under totting up, you've then got 5 years of expensive insurance and probably no job if you rely on your licence to do it.
Even were the premium to be higher with a ban than points, bear in mind paying a little bit more with no points is better than being unable to buy your way out of a 6 month ban later.
Tactically, if you can afford a handful of weeks off the road, it makes far more sense to draw a line under the offence, take the hit and go forward with 12 free slots on your licence.
This long-standing attitude of trying to avoid a short ban at all costs totally ignores the reality of the position in the subsequent 3 years. That's where my thinking would be concentrated.
tenpenceshort said:
What evidence is there that insurance companies as an industry find a short ban significantly (if at all) worse than a haul of points? Bear in mind the offence code is the same either way.
My old policy with LV= didn't require me to even to tell them if I got points, they only needed to know if a conviction resulted in a ban. They don't offer that policy to new customers now anyway.I've seen it in general quote conditions for other companies that you can't apply if you've been banned, which leads me to assume that there would likely be a hefty policy loading with other insurers.
tenpenceshort said:
What Snowboy says makes good sense.
Agree with that. It would be trite to say "well don't get any more points" - I think I've done well to only be caught twice, but both were in dodgy circumstances that would have been hard to avoid in a career of 30-40K mile per year driving.LoonR1 said:
Sheepshanks said:
~ 6mins.
Either it's a big whoosh parrot for me, or you don't know how short the 50 limit approach to the tollbooths are. I reckon it's easily joggable in 6 mins so I can't see that being right. Have you measured the whole length of the toll road?Jon1967x said:
LoonR1 said:
Sheepshanks said:
~ 6mins.
Either it's a big whoosh parrot for me, or you don't know how short the 50 limit approach to the tollbooths are. I reckon it's easily joggable in 6 mins so I can't see that being right. Have you measured the whole length of the toll road?
If you arrived at the toll booth at 107MPH, then this x10 would happen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...Edited by Sheepshanks on Saturday 30th August 13:03
tenpenceshort said:
The guidelines for when you should be summonsed as opposed to given an FPN is 96mph. In other words, assuming it's safe to do so and you feel the need to drive above the limit, you may as well sit at an indicated 90-95mph as you would 80-85mph, as the sanction is typically the same.
Not really. major difference between 85 and 95 is you might not get stopped at all when doing the former.Elroy Blue said:
Not really. major difference between 85 and 95 is you might not get stopped at all when doing the former.
Stopped by whom? Granted this thread is about someone being pulled over, however in 35k-45k miles in the past year on the motorways, I could go weeks without seeing a marked or unmarked traffic car.Fully take your point if you're in an area with active traffic patrols, though I'd hope to spot them before they spotted me.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff