Chris Huhne... going soon?
Discussion
Derek Smith said:
The speed limit is a regulation, and a minor one at that, yet the penalty can be life changing. Draconian is the word. But that is the penalty for speeding. If the limits were there for safety reasons one could understand but the vast majority of speed cameras would appear to be placed in positions which generate revenue.
.
.
Progressive points system would be fairer (with non dangerous speeds). 1 point for the 1st offence, 2 points for the next, 3 for the one after or something like that. Strangely Labour had a plan something less draconian - reducing points from 3 to 2.Derek Smith said:
A chap at my rugby club ran small business. When his salesman was disqualified he had to lay off two of his staff. This chap drove tens of thousands of miles per year on roads which he did not know. At least one offence was down to both signs being obscured, although this did not sway the court. So the penalty for not conforming to minor regulations was the loss of his job, the knock-on effects to his family, the jobs of two other people and a company running on tight margins having to endure a year without profits. Draconian is a description I agree with.
How many chances should people get? Derek Smith said:
That said the offence of CPCJ is a serious one and if Huhne did indeed committed with his wife then this is not the sort of man whom we want as an MP. If true it was a pathetic response to a problem.
Unfortunately this seems to be exactly the sort of MP we have got (expenses scandal)Milky Joe said:
How many chances should people get?
Depends.Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
Soovy said:
Mill Wheel said:
There was a suggestion that the penalty for PtCoJ should match or be related to the penalty for the original offence, which would apply some degree of common sense to the level of time and money spent investigating PtCoJ.
Completely disagree.Out entire justice system is based on the fact that you do not Pervert the Course of Justice. The initial offence is completely irrelevant, and rightly so.
What say you...?
Disclaimer...this does not, in any way, suggest that Mr Huhne should not be hanged by the testicles until he squeals...
Milky Joe said:
How many chances should people get?
You haven't understood my points.It should not be a wuestion of 'chances'. If someone exceeds a speed limit without any other circumstance then a fine is ample. If there is danger then that is something different.
Also: I drive <10kpa. Mainly I drive locally. A person who drives 60kpa on roads he is unfamiliar with takes a big risk. I am an experienced driver. Various testers have suggested I'm a good, safe driver. Yet I have exceeded the speed limit at times when I have been unaware of doing so. Poor signage is the common reason, changes to speed limits is another. OK, if I got caught I'd have to accept that it is just one of those things. At no time has my speeding been dangerous.
So a professional driver who drives 60kpa can lose his licence and his job if he finds himself in such a situation every 59 thousand miles. For me that's more than 6 years.
You ask how many chances should people get, but the point is the drivers haven't had chances, they've been punished. That is not a 'chance.'
If the driving is not dangerous then they should be punished each time. It is a regulation, it is not a crime.
You can shoplift 20 times, at least according to the DM, and not get sent to prison. In fact you will not get what many feel is a punishment for the first few offences. Yet that is a crime.
So asking how many chances is really a pointless question.
scenario8 said:
That's fantastical bad fortune for your friend to have set off three seperate loaded speed cameras, before the camera thing really took off, on the same dual carriageway, each at only 1mph over the threshold. I wouldn't stand near him in a thunderstorm.
Or maybe I should..?
He is not alone although I have seen it suggested that in later times such misfortune might, in some instances, have seen all three 'offences' taken as one.Or maybe I should..?
Iirc correctly the dual carriageway in question had very recently been reduced from a 50 to a 40 limit. Bad news for locals familiar with with the roads and driving, for a while, as they naturally did before the limits changed. Second nature. We have all done it, as Derek has pointed out.
No doubt that was why all three cameras were freshly charged with film despite being only a few hundred yards between the first and the last.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The state cannot be cynical; that you regard the penalty and the law that governs it cynical is your problem. Like perjury, it is a dangerous precedent to start graduating the sentence for PCoJ according to the seriousness of the original crime. Would you want someone to receive a bigger fine for speeding because they were fleeing from the scene of a bank robbery rather than just driving home from work?LongQ said:
Depends.
Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
Your friend should have come on here and asked what he should do.Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
On the assumption that it was all the same limit, i.e. no higher/lower limit between the cameras nor going from one county to another, the offence is a continuing one and therefore should be seen as one offence. The court could, of course, award more points but if the speed was a fraction over the posted limit then even that could be appealed. It's a 3-pointer.
Bit of a horse and stable door I'm afraid.
When I was in prosecutions we had one file sent to me for comment where a PC had followed a chap from a 30 where he was speeding into a 40 where he increased his speed by 10mph. The chap was charged with two offences of speeding, one the 30 and the other the 40. The court were not happy with the second offence, saying that from the officer's own evidence he'd folowed the car for nearly half a mile whilst it was over the limit (can't remember the actual speed but it would not have been mroe than 10mph) anmd then stopped it almost as soon as he got over 40mph by the same amount. The magistrate suggested in the strongest terms to the officer that if the court felt he had waited just to get a second offence they would put in a complaint against him.
I was asked what I was going to do about it. (? Like I'd go up against a magistrate with no argument.) I just said that I woudl take on board the magistrate's comments when deciding such cases in the future. I was going to say that if a similar file fell on my desk in the future (as the chap had not accepted the tickets the file did come through my office but as there was nothing of note in it according to my clerk she just passed it on) I would consider putting in a complaint against the officer. But I decided against being clever on a G30 (general report). It can come back to bite you.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
An interesting analogy but may I suggest it has two problems.Firstly, in this day and age, the opportunities of speeding past a school at turfing out times are very few and the greater potential for an incident may well be the result of other challenges.
Secondly the incidents of school student death and injury, as recorded in some of the early fatal and serious injury accident database records were mainly in the teen and immediately pre-teen years and happened at time and locations that, so far as could be ascertained from the data, had, in most cases, little or no direct relationship with the educational establishment the deceased or injured party attended.
To put it another way ... whilst the concept of flashing light and 20mph limits near schools may have some value the majority of fatal and serious injuries occur some distance from the areas being 'managed' for danger. Which sort of suggests targets missed and approaches to problems that solve little or nothing. Still, the theing s that are measured to assess success are, surprise surprise, measurable. That's all that matters. Ignore meaningful. Does not matter at all. (Except in the most touchy feely way from time to time, mostly in the meedja.)
Derek Smith said:
Your friend should have come on here and asked what he should do.
'Twas long ago. Very early days of the cameras campaign. People had no idea how they would be affected by it. I doubt that anyone in a court would have listened to the "one offence" argument at the time.Edited by LongQ on Monday 17th December 21:54
anonymous said:
[redacted]
The observation really is that whilst all the focus is in evil motorists attemtping to speed past schools the reality is that most of the fatalities and serious injuries that give rise to that view, based on an age breakdown and the time of the incident analysed from the official KSO data from the 90s and early 00s, stongly suggested that the targeted areas were not those with the problems.From memory (I would have to dig out the old analysis) by far the greatest number of incident related to young people of school age (which does not impoly they wer at school as far as the data can identify) were in the 11 to 16 year age group. As I remember at that time the school age classifiaction ended at 16 but the figures pretty much held up to 18 as well though one could not be sure that the older 'children' were still at school or college of course.
The most common time of an incident was reportd as between 4 and 6 pm with the skew looking at the actual times being about 16:30 to 17:30 I think. So about an hour after leaving school.
That would fit with what I can observe from behaviour if I happen to be driving into my village when the school buses deliver those who travel outside the village for their education - mostly age 13 upwards.
There was, unsurprisingly, a morning blip as well, mostly between 8 and 8:30 am. So some time before school start. As I recall this had a winter bias but not by much.
Also the numbers, in the overall scale of things, are relatively small. SO the primary solution of 20mph zones near schools and focusing in speeding drivers probably missed the optimum approach for reducing the numbers by some distance. Grabs headlines though and is highly visible in a way that Johnnie playing chicken crossing the road kicking a football an hour after he left school is not. I seem to recall there was a strong male involvement bias as well which suggests that location alone is not the total answer.
Quite a few of the KSIs occured at times that one might have expected the students to be in school. Difficult to analyse though since they might have been holiday periods of some sort. Since school holidays around the UK are variable by date making an accurate historical assessment was a challenge too far. Not impossible but gather historical school holiday dates and trying to tie them to anonymous individuals was not really an option. However there did seem to be a trend for school age KSIs to be higher during periods that were likely to be holiday periods, especially July and August.
It seemed to me that there would be a lot more benefit in terms of cutting KSI numbers from educating the potential victims and raising their awareness of mortality (especially the males) than running speed cameras. Such awareness might even carry over to the late teens when the same group started to drive.
If one extended the age range from 16 through to about 25 the rate of involvement for pedestrians (especially males) was about the same. The time of day shifted into the evenings and then the 11pm to 3am period. Bear in mind a lot of the data related to a time when bar and pub licencing hours were still clearly defined.
More recently it is likely that the "iPod effect" comes into play for young pedestrian injuries. I have not looked at the data for some years but I do wonder if the report forms these days include anything to identify that potential risk involvement and any similar. And if they do, is it used consistently?
Sorry - a long digression from the primary subject. Apologies.
Pesty said:
is it usual that the accused be told that their case will be dropped in a months time?
Sorry to ask again but am I the only one worried by this?Surely this shows collusion by somebody in the police or prosecution. How can he be told that his case will be dropped in future?
That is some major corruption there isn't it?
or is it normal. Surely if the case is being dropped they drop it. Not tell you to keep quiet for a month.
Pesty said:
Pesty said:
is it usual that the accused be told that their case will be dropped in a months time?
Sorry to ask again but am I the only one worried by this?Surely this shows collusion by somebody in the police or prosecution. How can he be told that his case will be dropped in future?
That is some major corruption there isn't it?
or is it normal. Surely if the case is being dropped they drop it. Not tell you to keep quiet for a month.
There again, perhaps you are correct and aspects of society are even more screwed up than we think or would like?
I think (hope, as do you, I guess) that the second scenario, above, is the less likely background though
.LongQ said:
Depends.
Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
Sorry, but that sounds like a Pub story.Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
What road was that?
LongQ said:
Iirc correctly the dual carriageway in question had very recently been reduced from a 50 to a 40 limit. Bad news for locals familiar with with the roads and driving, for a while, as they naturally did before the limits changed. Second nature. We have all done it, as Derek has pointed out.
No doubt that was why all three cameras were freshly charged with film despite being only a few hundred yards between the first and the last.
In our area when cameras first came along the Police bought 8 camera housings and 1 camera, so having 3 together all with cameras in them is, erm, unluckly.No doubt that was why all three cameras were freshly charged with film despite being only a few hundred yards between the first and the last.
I do have a colleague who was done 3 times in 2 weeks though, after 30 years of a clean licence. Spent the next 3yrs crapping himself. He wouldn't drive anywhere unless he really had to.
There's also the story of the woman on the M5 passing a Gatso in roadworks but convinced it wasn't working. She got done 9 out of the 10 times she passed it before the letters started arriving.
Steve Zodiac said:
LongQ said:
Depends.
Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
Somewhere around High Wycombe as I recall.Many years ago, before the camera things really took off, a friend of mine was leaving home for a day's work at 4:30 AM. On a road near his home, an empty dual carriageway, with a recent speed limit change, he just managed to trip 3 consecutive cameras, all of which just happened to be loaded with film.
No traffic, no danger, +1mph on the threshold. 9 points in one hit and some serious wallet emptying.
What was the question?
It was a while back.
He's not the sort of person to make things up as far as I know.
Sorry, but that sounds like a Pub story.
What road was that?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff