110 mph on motorway
Discussion
Durzel said:
techmoan said:
Mitigating circs would be that I am a carer for my Grandad and need to visit every day after work as he suffers from parkinsons and early dementia. There is no public transport available. Also my employer is a new start up business, We have 1 MD and 1 sales guy. I am the only technical employee. If I was banned the business would not be able to function and out clients would also struggle to function without my support. Again no public transport available.
Not trolling but I wonder how much the Mags sympathise with this sort of exceptional hardship tactic. I mean - none of the above weighed heavily on your mind when you did over a ton, and most people are aware that getting caught at three figures a ban is a very real possibility. It seems incongruous to claim that the world would end if you got banned, when it obviously wasn't a factor you really honestly cared about before being caught? agtlaw - any thoughts?
(Again not judging you specifically OP)
"If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to his licence of further penalty points, the court will be far less inclined to find exceptional hardship where he is the only person to suffer as a result of a ban."
agtlaw said:
There will always be a bit of 'Well, you should have thought about that before you did X.' The Magistrates' Association guidance says this:
"If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to his licence of further penalty points, the court will be far less inclined to find exceptional hardship where he is the only person to suffer as a result of a ban."
Which says they cut way more slack to someone who can demonstrate that others will suffer as a result of them being punished."If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to his licence of further penalty points, the court will be far less inclined to find exceptional hardship where he is the only person to suffer as a result of a ban."
Ultimately it is discrimination, something we are supposed to avoid.
I don't see why fines should vary. Why should the ordinary people who are working, and let's be honest most people haven't got money to burn, be fined up to 800 quid for gods sake? As usual easy pickings. Meanwhile uninsured unlicensed scumbag tealeaf gets 80 quid fine. IMO fines should be fixed, relating to speed, end of story.
CoolHands said:
I don't see why fines should vary. Why should the ordinary people who are working, and let's be honest most people haven't got money to burn, be fined up to 800 quid for gods sake? As usual easy pickings. Meanwhile uninsured unlicensed scumbag tealeaf gets 80 quid fine. IMO fines should be fixed, relating to speed, end of story.
Seems high and my first fine was high, but on the flip side were is the deterrent?If an career speeder/dangerous driver kept getting £60-150 fines and carried on, killing your loved one, would be well that's ok I mean to fine someone £800 is crazy.
CoolHands said:
I don't see why fines should vary. Why should the ordinary people who are working, and let's be honest most people haven't got money to burn, be fined up to 800 quid for gods sake? As usual easy pickings. Meanwhile uninsured unlicensed scumbag tealeaf gets 80 quid fine. IMO fines should be fixed, relating to speed, end of story.
They're means tested and are [supposed to be] calculated using a multiplier of an offender's weekly income - the more serious the offence, the higher the multiplier and the higher the income, the higher the fine will be.Edited by SS2. on Tuesday 12th July 09:06
cmaguire said:
Which says they cut way more slack to someone who can demonstrate that others will suffer as a result of them being punished.
Ultimately it is discrimination, something we are supposed to avoid.
Why should inncocent family members (inc children)suffer because their loved one did something foolish. It's a social responsibility not to remove someone licence without considering fact like, wife and kids lose home and become incumbent on the state for hand outs. Ultimately it is discrimination, something we are supposed to avoid.
Would rather lynch the driver (probably a silly question in this site as the answer is yes) and then pay out lots in social welfare to the family. It's not a get out jail free card it's a final chance.
Why should innocent suffer....
There are laws - you break them then you expect to have to deal with the fall out - if you cant deal with it then dont beak the law. simple.
We all have speedometers we all know the speed limit. If we all went about foot to the floor......
come on chaps....play nice.
There are laws - you break them then you expect to have to deal with the fall out - if you cant deal with it then dont beak the law. simple.
We all have speedometers we all know the speed limit. If we all went about foot to the floor......
come on chaps....play nice.
techmoan said:
Mitigating circs would be that I am a carer for my Grandad and need to visit every day after work as he suffers from parkinsons and early dementia. There is no public transport available. Also my employer is a new start up business, We have 1 MD and 1 sales guy. I am the only technical employee. If I was banned the business would not be able to function and out clients would also struggle to function without my support. Again no public transport available.
To put mitigating circs forward you need to demonstrate how you not being able to drive will affect other people. Mags don't care how it affects yourself.
Problem with the family argument is, he can employ care staff to fulfil the same function. Is there really no other family, his own children, not just grandchildren ?To put mitigating circs forward you need to demonstrate how you not being able to drive will affect other people. Mags don't care how it affects yourself.
As for work, do you have a job description that shows you are an essential car user who must have a car for work ? Can you supply your last 6 months of car mileage claims to show vehicle useage at work ? Do you have business user on your car insurance.
As for no public transport- sorry mate, but unless you live somewhere very remote, I just don't believe you. It might be awkward to use, but as for non- existent ?
it all gets difficult to stack up under questioning. yr probably best doing as others say: turn up, string a sentence together and don't wear a tracksuit.
you'll be a blessed relief compared to the normal louts in court.
La Liga said:
I never understand why people don't keep it below the FPN threshold (is it >97 MPH these days?). It's still pretty quick.
Very much this.I like to make progress as much as anyone, but I don't ever go anywhere near three figures on the speedo, so 90 tops in reality. Have a speed warning set at 95 which I hardly ever hear.
The worst that can happen is an FPN and I can live with the first one.
As soon as I get one the speed warning is coming down to 75.
ruggedscotty said:
Why should innocent suffer....
There are laws - you break them then you expect to have to deal with the fall out - if you cant deal with it then dont beak the law. simple.
We all have speedometers we all know the speed limit. If we all went about foot to the floor......
come on chaps....play nice.
Because any dependants have little or no influence on the actions of the driver/primary bread winner.There are laws - you break them then you expect to have to deal with the fall out - if you cant deal with it then dont beak the law. simple.
We all have speedometers we all know the speed limit. If we all went about foot to the floor......
come on chaps....play nice.
austinsmirk said:
As for work, do you have a job description that shows you are an essential car user who must have a car for work ? Can you supply your last 6 months of car mileage claims to show vehicle useage at work ? Do you have business user on your car insurance.
As for no public transport- sorry mate, but unless you live somewhere very remote, I just don't believe you. It might be awkward to use, but as for non- existent ?
Yes I do about 600 miles a month for business and have all claims. I have business insurance too. I work in the middle of the New Forest. Public transport isn't available. As for no public transport- sorry mate, but unless you live somewhere very remote, I just don't believe you. It might be awkward to use, but as for non- existent ?
Durzel said:
techmoan said:
Mitigating circs would be that I am a carer for my Grandad and need to visit every day after work as he suffers from parkinsons and early dementia. There is no public transport available. Also my employer is a new start up business, We have 1 MD and 1 sales guy. I am the only technical employee. If I was banned the business would not be able to function and out clients would also struggle to function without my support. Again no public transport available.
Not trolling but I wonder how much the Mags sympathise with this sort of exceptional hardship tactic. I mean - none of the above weighed heavily on your mind when you did over a ton, and most people are aware that getting caught at three figures a ban is a very real possibility. It seems incongruous to claim that the world would end if you got banned, when it obviously wasn't a factor you really honestly cared about before being caught? agtlaw - any thoughts?
(Again not judging you specifically OP)
Edited by Durzel on Monday 11th July 20:22
TX.
Terminator X said:
In my experience the Mags kick the crap out of speeders, I have no idea how anyone manages to "get off" when stood in front of them. Ferocious Rottweiler's afaik.
TX.
Agreed, if you serial offender of non road traffic act stuff you can get conditional wrist slaps, till the cows come home!TX.
First speeding offence you get fine and points/ban which effect your insurance for 5 years!
Other halfs late. grandfather was a JP and I always got the impression I would of been better of mugging old ladies and leaving them in the gutter battered and bruised, than getting an appearance for totting up points, all those years ago.
Seemed to have it in for normal law abiding person, motorist, like a licence holder had a higher moral standard, than a common criminal.
Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 12th July 15:50
Exactly - we know how hard they jump on speeders - its in the papers its everywhere - the cameras the scamera vans et al.
I like driving fast but I know that the odds are against me so I dont. Its not worth it. Once you are caught they really like to go to town.
1. if you are in a fast car then you will have disposable - they smell the money
2. where does the money go ?
3. insurance love it as they can get more out you....!
4. the average low life mugger druggie has not a lot of cash to extract.
5. jail the druggie costs them money. so wrist slap etc...
I like driving fast but I know that the odds are against me so I dont. Its not worth it. Once you are caught they really like to go to town.
1. if you are in a fast car then you will have disposable - they smell the money
2. where does the money go ?
3. insurance love it as they can get more out you....!
4. the average low life mugger druggie has not a lot of cash to extract.
5. jail the druggie costs them money. so wrist slap etc...
Burwood said:
It's the opposite of discrimination matie. It's consideration of the facts and impact on others. To discriminate would be to ignore any mitigation or impact and just hand out the punishment.
Depends who we are refering to. It is discriminating against those who either don't or can't offer up some possible cock-and-bull story about how the local orphanage will have to close down if they lose their licence.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff