OK for Sir Alex, not OK for everyone else
Wednesday 10th May 2006
A 67-year-old woman driving a Toyota at 49mph on an empty stretch of the A27 but in a 40mph zone was this week fined £160 for speeding. She also collected three penalty points. The offence, captured by a speed camera, was committed last August.
£160 fine for bursting speeder
Driver clobbered for needing the loo
She explained to magistrates that matters were pressing. "I realised that I needed to use the loo and when you get to my age you think about it a bit more," the court heard, according to the Press Association. "I might not have slowed down even if I had seen the speed sign because I was desperately in a hurry and there was no traffic around."
She got home just in time but magistrates were not in a mood to be lenient.
Discussion
why are there 40 limits on an A road
what percentage of A roads are now no longer national speed limits under this goverment.
i live in selsey and all roads in are now restricted speed.
so i now go thought a little village that hates traffic as it is now faster than using the A road. plus less speed traps
:-)
what percentage of A roads are now no longer national speed limits under this goverment.
i live in selsey and all roads in are now restricted speed.
so i now go thought a little village that hates traffic as it is now faster than using the A road. plus less speed traps
:-)
Raify said:
I agree. She should have stopped, squatted by the side of the road, hitched her dull grey apple-catchers to one side and p155ed in the street.
I bet the fine for public micturation is less than NIP.
no doubt. In fact, I'd pull up at a speed camera and wizz on it if my 'stream' were mighty enough to reach it. Now jobsworth talivan operators, there's a more realistic target...
Police are taking enquiries about a toilet seat that was stolen from a public loo. The officers are looking for something to go on.
She should have 'gone pee pee' before setting off.
slightly o/t when my g'pa was a copper back in the 50's, if there was someone pissing is the street, a policeman had to volunteer their helmet. Non did mind!
>> Edited by joesnow on Wednesday 10th May 12:09
She should have 'gone pee pee' before setting off.
slightly o/t when my g'pa was a copper back in the 50's, if there was someone pissing is the street, a policeman had to volunteer their helmet. Non did mind!
>> Edited by joesnow on Wednesday 10th May 12:09
joesnow said:A mate left his lid locked to his motorbike and returned to discover someone had "used" it. He discovered this as he pulled it onto his head. Sadly we're talking about a number two.
slightly o/t when my g'pa was a copper back in the 50's, if there was someone pissing is the street, a policeman had to volunteer their helmet. Non did mind!
splatspeed said:
why are there 40 limits on an A road
what percentage of A roads are now no longer national speed limits under this goverment.
i live in selsey and all roads in are now restricted speed.
so i now go thought a little village that hates traffic as it is now faster than using the A road. plus less speed traps
:-)
I used to live there and drove that road when nearly all of it was a national limit and it's safe to do so. One of the worst accidents on that road was caused by plod themselves!
I still go back occasionally and that drive is as boring as hell now. Plus most of the nice twisty country lanes leading off of it have had their limits lowered too.
ATG said:
slightly o/t when my g'pa was a copper back in the 50's, if there was someone pissing is the street, a policeman had to volunteer their helmet. Non did mind!
Harsh mate, bet you very nearly pissed yourself when you heard about that.
£160 is pretty strict for 49mph, especially considering that scamera guidlines rule out prosecutions for offences upto and including 10% of the limit plus 2 (so 46mph in this case). So effectively that's 3mph over, at a cost of £53 per mph. Steep!
I think this is a case of "We'll show her not to appeal the fixed penalty notice".
I think this is a case of "We'll show her not to appeal the fixed penalty notice".
wab172uk said:She decided to contest it in court instead of bending over and confessing everything on the NIP. The NIP is cheaper to administer than a court appearance, hence the lower fine.
Why £160 ?? Surely all she should have got is a £60 fine. Another case of taking advantage of those worse off.
Sir Alex Ferguson didn't get off speeding, he was prosecuted for driving on a motorway hard shoulder. His excuse was that he "had diarrhoea", and he was let off. I think the OP's point still stands though. Why should he get off a minor motoring infrigement, while a non-famous person unable to afford a top-rank motoring solicitor gets butt-f**ked for a similar thing?
imoho the point here isn't that she willfully broke the law, or argues that she be excempt from it. She merely wished to explain and reason her actions.
She was 'caught' travelling above above the posted limit and issued with a ticket. The person issuing the ticket cannot make the decision whether or not the lady was justified in breaking the limit - that decision must be made by an independant party.
It seems very harsh (read ridiculous) that the only way you can explain your actions is by pleading not guilty, at which point you get clobbered with a bigger fine.
She was 'caught' travelling above above the posted limit and issued with a ticket. The person issuing the ticket cannot make the decision whether or not the lady was justified in breaking the limit - that decision must be made by an independant party.
It seems very harsh (read ridiculous) that the only way you can explain your actions is by pleading not guilty, at which point you get clobbered with a bigger fine.
Will Ferrari said:
Why does an elderly lady get to even consider that she should be let off? Everyone thinks they are special, whats the point in having laws if no-one sticks to them . She is just a typical criminal, so what if she needs the loo, her problem.
Will, 3 points on licence
The last survey I remember (I'll post a link when I find it) did indeed show that the majority of the driving population breaks a speed limit at one time or another. Now in court if you can prove that your actions were consistent of what any "reasonable" person would have done in that situation then you have committed no crime.
Assuming the majority of people are reasonable then the conclusion from the survey would suggest that "speeding" is a reasonable action.
Hence speeding is not a crime (in given circumstances). Therefore she is no criminal and the spirit of the law has been broken by this conviction.
mk1fan said:
It seems very harsh (read ridiculous) that the only way you can explain your actions is by pleading not guilty, at which point you get clobbered with a bigger fine.
I wanted to contest my speeding fine 4 years ago, as I wasn't driving !!! Seriously. I'd dropped off the pool car at 5pm, then went home in my car. Someone then borrowed the pool car and did 41mph in a 30mph zone. As I was the last official person to drive the car, the company pointed the finger at me, even though the MD saw me drive off in my car.
If I'd gone to court I risked getting a £1000 fine. I couldn't take the risk, so payed the fine, and got 3 points.
Would still like to know who it was. There is a punch waiting for them !!!!!
Jinx said:
Why does an elderly lady get to even consider that she should be let off? Everyone thinks they are special, whats the point in having laws if no-one sticks to them . She is just a typical criminal, so what if she needs the loo, her problem.
Will, 3 points on licence
The last survey I remember (I'll post a link when I find it) did indeed show that the majority of the driving population breaks a speed limit at one time or another. Now in court if you can prove that your actions were consistent of what any "reasonable" person would have done in that situation then you have committed no crime.
Assuming the majority of people are reasonable then the conclusion from the survey would suggest that "speeding" is a reasonable action.
Hence speeding is not a crime (in given circumstances). Therefore she is no criminal and the spirit of the law has been broken by this conviction.
Well on that basis that just proves that you can pretty much explain away anything! ;-)
Notwithstanding, I have sympathy for the weak bladdered
JJ
I think the severity of the fine may be something to do with this:
Old Lady said:Admitting to a lack of/lapse in observation (read standard of driving), an apparent complete absence of remorse and an implication that she would/will do the same again.
I might not have slowed down even if I had seen the speed sign.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff