110 mph on motorway
Discussion
vonhosen said:
Not really because the offence of speeding says nothing about danger being caused at the time, there doesn't have to be any danger on any road at the time. The punishment is for transgression, not danger.
If there is danger, on whatever road, other legislation comes into play.
Actually the following is considered before sentencing...If there is danger, on whatever road, other legislation comes into play.
Factors indicating higher culpability :
Poor road or weather conditions
LGV, HGV, PSV etc.
Towing caravan/trailer
Carrying passengers or heavy load
Driving for hire or reward
Evidence of unacceptable standard of driving over and above speed
Factors indicating greater degree of harm:
Location e.g. near school
High level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity
techmoan said:
vonhosen said:
Not really because the offence of speeding says nothing about danger being caused at the time, there doesn't have to be any danger on any road at the time. The punishment is for transgression, not danger.
If there is danger, on whatever road, other legislation comes into play.
Actually the following is considered before sentencing...If there is danger, on whatever road, other legislation comes into play.
Factors indicating higher culpability :
Poor road or weather conditions
LGV, HGV, PSV etc.
Towing caravan/trailer
Carrying passengers or heavy load
Driving for hire or reward
Evidence of unacceptable standard of driving over and above speed
Factors indicating greater degree of harm:
Location e.g. near school
High level of traffic or pedestrians in the vicinity
It doesn't follow that they are the reasoning behind different tariffs to choose a penalty from in motorway & non motorway cases.
Besides, with the fine being 'means' based, that will have far more influence on any fine than suggesting it is higher on the Motorway because transgressions are likely to be more extreme.
What we are really saying is an affluent individual could end up paying significantly more for a significantly more trivial offence.
What we are really saying is an affluent individual could end up paying significantly more for a significantly more trivial offence.
ColinM50 said:
Think you got away with it there Techmoan. Thought about changing your job to lawyer or mitigating advisor?
Are you kidding no one would pay for it!If i am scally/druggy and knock an 80 year old into the gutter and leave her for battered and bruised for £13.28 I am afforded legal aid! I also get offered an expensive tax payer funded rehabilitation scheme The courts take pitty on me for having such rotten luck in life.
If I am an upstanding person caught doing 110 on the motorway I am treated like the scum of the earth and expected to pay for legal representation or be thrown to wolves. I have to pray I dont lose my licence, my job and my house!
Honestly, I represented myself on a toting up ban and got 21 day ban and £150.
When I was 17 I was caught going over 100 3 months after passing my test. The duty solicitor didn't want to know and offered no advice. He told the court I was an idiot and I offered no excuse for my actions. They don't offer duties anymore I believe for most driving offences now but my experience was I was better off mugging old ladies.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 20th September 13:15
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 20th September 13:20
Mr10secs said:
Don't forget if you appear in Magistrates' court and get found/plead guilty there is a £285 surcharge !!!!!! On top of costs and victim surcharge and fine !!!!!!!!!
Wrong. You would be liable for costs, not a surcharge. In a police prosecution, the normal award is £85 at the first hearing. If the CPS is involved then see here:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/costs/annex_1_-...
The victim surcharge depends on the date of offence and type of sentence;
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-sentenc...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff