What would you do if you were banned?
Discussion
I was once 'done' for doing 41 mph in a 30 limit (Wragby Road, Lincoln). My stupid fault - I thought that it was a 40 mph limit on that stretch..
Since then I've always thought "What you would do if you were banned" and have stuck to the limit. But nowadays the huggy-fluffy brigade are introducing more and more totally unneccesary limits and what was once a decent back lane route at 60 mph has now become a series of nanny-council 40 mph zones joined together by a few yards of national limit road...
The A44 between Woodstock and Chipping Norton has miles of totally pointless 50mph limit - yet the country lanes which link to it are national 60 mph roads. That's our daft local tree-huggers for you!
One other beef - why when there are HUGE SIGNS on the M25 advertising the number of infringements, the roadworks speed limits and the presence of enforcement cameras, do idiots insist on trying to exceed the limit through them? Can't they read??
>> Edited by nickwilcock on Monday 12th April 11:52
Since then I've always thought "What you would do if you were banned" and have stuck to the limit. But nowadays the huggy-fluffy brigade are introducing more and more totally unneccesary limits and what was once a decent back lane route at 60 mph has now become a series of nanny-council 40 mph zones joined together by a few yards of national limit road...
The A44 between Woodstock and Chipping Norton has miles of totally pointless 50mph limit - yet the country lanes which link to it are national 60 mph roads. That's our daft local tree-huggers for you!
One other beef - why when there are HUGE SIGNS on the M25 advertising the number of infringements, the roadworks speed limits and the presence of enforcement cameras, do idiots insist on trying to exceed the limit through them? Can't they read??
>> Edited by nickwilcock on Monday 12th April 11:52
For what its worth....its a nice feeling 'detaining' a Disqual Driver as they are blatantly taking the piss (whatever the reason for Disqualification).
As MC has already pointed out, with the various new checks coupled to good old fashioned Policing, if youre banned....you will get caught (and rightly so).
As MC has already pointed out, with the various new checks coupled to good old fashioned Policing, if youre banned....you will get caught (and rightly so).
gone said:
gone said:
It takes a very strong nerve to deal with a Police officer who has stopped you, yourself knowing that you are committing a serious offence without giving off stress signals which he/she is likely to pick up on and dig deeper.
Get real
When you've done your probationary period at least, I think you may be qualified to comment until then you can roll your eyes all you like. Its you that needs to get real!
I, unlike you, am nearer to retirement than probationary periods.
You may well intimidate the young and impoverished motorist with your particular brand of swagger, however you merely amuse me. The notion that a conversation with policeman would be intimidating is one that applied long ago perhaps but certainly not now. If you were to pull me on the road you would be the one left feeling intimidated and confused, so please get real. 
When I was much much younger (and stupid) I went through a speed camera in Liverpool 3 times in one day - in the days of shady hidden cameras - and the fastest I was caught at was 36 (30mph zone). I already had 7 points, and was given 3, 3, and 4(?!) so, with 17 points at 19 years of age, I was banned for 12 months - the same as bloody drink-driving!
Anyway, I was a freelance graphic designer and travelled all over the NW every day working for different agencies so not having transport would have meant I'd have to sign-on. As I didn't technically have an employer, the court wouldn't accept this as a reason for me continuing to drive.
My brother (1 year younger, spitting image of me) was away at Uni at the time, so a plain white Orion was bought and insured fully-comp in his name.
I'm still ashamed of this, and no matter how much my insurance is now (below £2000 for the first time this year and I'm 26) I still pay it.
I still find it hard to believe what I did, but at the time I felt I had no option.
I don't think I'd do it now as I've too much to loose, but when you're 19 you think you're untouchable...
Anyway, I was a freelance graphic designer and travelled all over the NW every day working for different agencies so not having transport would have meant I'd have to sign-on. As I didn't technically have an employer, the court wouldn't accept this as a reason for me continuing to drive.
My brother (1 year younger, spitting image of me) was away at Uni at the time, so a plain white Orion was bought and insured fully-comp in his name.
I'm still ashamed of this, and no matter how much my insurance is now (below £2000 for the first time this year and I'm 26) I still pay it.
I still find it hard to believe what I did, but at the time I felt I had no option.
I don't think I'd do it now as I've too much to loose, but when you're 19 you think you're untouchable...
tonyrec said:
But surely if youre in the wrong then youre in the wrong....no matter how ancient you are.
Well that is an interesting question.
I am an athiest therefore not covered by the ten commandments and not governed by any supreme being.
From this it is not difficult to deduce that if I consider God a non starter, I sure as hell am not governed by anything that a bunch of barmy politicoes introduce.
In conclusion, everyone has to live within some kind of framework, even "Outlaw is back"
, so my understanding of the framework is this. Laws are passed by failed barristers who got into politics. The laws are all crap and designed to make money for the Barristers mates. If you have enough money you can get away with anything so long as you don't upset the Barristers and judges. Therefore the police may be nice people but in the general scheme of things they don't matter. All that matters is how you play the game. Turning my attention to traffic law in particular, I have this to say. No traffic law whether enforced or not has ever saved a single life. The only actions that can have any effect on road deaths are these 3.
Road design
Vehicle equipment design and useage
road user skill.
In other words all the breathyliser, speed guns, bumps, police officers and daft adverts have had no discernable effect.
It is therefore pointless in my view to continue with such futility which is why regardless of whether I am right or wrong within your laws which you support, I would do everything possible to wriggle out of whatever bit of nonsense is thrown at me because in the end it is of no consequense. Sorry, it was a short question and a very long answer but you did ask
nonegreen said:
... so my understanding of the framework is this. Laws are passed by failed barristers who got into politics. The laws are all crap and designed to make money for the Barristers mates. If you have enough money you can get away with anything so long as you don't upset the Barristers and judges.
Here Here!! Well said Nonegreen.
I've oft said that you can have as much freedom as you're willing to pay for. In the US I'd imagine that goes double.
Back to the topic...I've got four friends that have loss licenses. Two suffered through it - public transport, bummed rides, emergency trips only (allowed), one was allowed to drive from work to home only. One applied for a new license out of state. We live in Texas, his folks live in Michigan. Got a license in MI, registered his car in MI, got insurance for his Texas address (based on what county you live in). All legal. Texas didn't share info on bans and tickets at the time. These days I think they do share bans. Fourth friend has an uncle and aunt that live in central Mexico. Paid a handsome "tip" to the local municipal head and received a Mexican driver's license. Kept his car registered and insured at his Texas house. He was stopped often, and even received a few tickets, but the ban was never brought up. As far as Texas is concerned, they will gladly take your registration fees, and the insurance is private and they don't care if you have a ban or not.
naetype said:
I absolutely refuse to bring myself down to the level of the scum we so rightly criticise on these very forums. We are all responsible for our actions and should therefore be prepared to bear the consequences. This may not apply to Mr Bliar but I ain't him.
Therefore I'd take it on the chin and enjoy the benefits of our wonderful public transport.
Regardless of the judicial idiocy that can lead to a ban under totting up, I would never drive while banned. Quite rightly, we all bemoan the
wits who do this all the time and demand floggings and worse for the culprits. Yet we have members here who would do likewise without a second thought. What utter hypocrisy. Shame on you! 
judas said:
Regardless of the judicial idiocy that can lead to a ban under totting up, I would never drive while banned. Quite rightly, we all bemoan the
I only ever advocate flogging for currupt public servants with an agenda that is not in the public interest. A good example of this would be the murdering scamera partnerships.
nonegreen said:
I only ever advocate flogging for currupt public servants with an agenda that is not in the public interest. A good example of this would be the murdering scamera partnerships.
And that, sir, is something I heartily applaud
My comments, however, are more concerned with banned = uninsured, rather than any notion of the law breaking aspect (and the multitude of associated political agendas attached thereto). Practicality dictates that any responsible driver take this into account before making a decision to drive whilst banned.judas said:
I only ever advocate flogging for currupt public servants with an agenda that is not in the public interest. A good example of this would be the murdering scamera partnerships.
And that, sir, is something I heartily applaud
Well you have a fair point there. Liability should then pass to the state of course because it is very stupid to ban taxpayers and then expect them to be insured. As the state provides no public transport of any use, makes speeding mandatory by the creation of congestion and deliberately reduceing limits to unrealistic levels together with the placement of saturation speed detection techniques. By any other measure this would qualify as entrapment and therefore the ban would be invalid.
We could argue the toss till the cows come home but the bottom line is we need to change the government and make being anti car as socially unacceptable as being a child molester or rapist. Zero tolerance of lentilism....
Banning people for speed infingment is simply stupid and unnecessary, dangerous driving etc fair enough.
Tony: If you were had been caught for every transgression over the limit in the past week whilst driving off duty, would you consider it necessary to ban you from driving? I think not.
Tony: If you were had been caught for every transgression over the limit in the past week whilst driving off duty, would you consider it necessary to ban you from driving? I think not.
If I lost my licence now, I'd lose my job. I wouldn't be able to support my family so would probably go on a bender, steal a Loading shovel and go on a rampage.
Knock down as many gatso's, talivans and police cars as possible (but allow the drivers time to get out, like just push the bucket through the bonnet before smashing the roof flat) on a tank full of diesel.
With the big foam filled wheels and a locked door, no one in thier right mind would be able to stop me. Just don't slow down.
Edit to say: [EddieIzzard]In my mind[/EddieIzzard]
>> Edited by Byff on Tuesday 13th April 10:25
Knock down as many gatso's, talivans and police cars as possible (but allow the drivers time to get out, like just push the bucket through the bonnet before smashing the roof flat) on a tank full of diesel.
With the big foam filled wheels and a locked door, no one in thier right mind would be able to stop me. Just don't slow down.
Edit to say: [EddieIzzard]In my mind[/EddieIzzard]
>> Edited by Byff on Tuesday 13th April 10:25
nonegreen said:
gone said:
[quote=nonegreen]
[quote=gone]
I, unlike you, am nearer to retirement than probationary periods.
Very big assumption there then
I really enjoy meeting the likes of you Non-Green,
24 years experience rarely sees me coming off worse and at worst I will swagger away at least one ticket lighter! I'm getting real
>> Edited by gone on Tuesday 13th April 10:28
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff