Finally got my summons!

[paulie-mafia]

It took nearly 6 weeks, but it arrived today. I'm being charged for speeding on the M4. BiB statement says he followed me for 2 miles and clocked 110mph on his calibrated speedo. I've got the option to plead guilty by mail too, which is a bonus.

Just got to mail it off then wait to hear my fate!

[7db]

Ouch. If they are considering a ban (which you'd have to think they were, given the guidelines), they will probably write and give you a chance to appear for sentencing.

[paulie-mafia]

Yeah, that's a good point. I'd like to avoid a ban if possible, but I don't really have any mitigating circumstances. This is a first offence though - I have 10 years of completely clean driving.

[shuvitupya]

paulie-mafia said:

I have 10 years of completely clean driving.

Clean from filth

Could not resist, but I do not know a way out of this one !

[justinp1]

paulie-mafia said:

Yeah, that's a good point. I'd like to avoid a ban if possible, but I don't really have any mitigating circumstances. This is a first offence though - I have 10 years of completely clean driving.

Completely clean driving, or just the first time you have been caught!?

[supermono]

paulie-mafia said:

I don't really have any mitigating circumstances.

It's hard to understand why you might need any. 110mph isn't exactly bending space time. It's only abuot 20mph-25mph different from all the other traffic on the road, probably.

Now if you'd have had a speed differential of 85-90mph, that would be almost suicidal. Say for example if you were stationary on the side of the motorway instead. Maybe talking to the police or something....

I wonder how long it'll take a lawyer to show that the levels of danger are increased massively when the bib makes you park next to motorway traffic with no barrier. Can you imagine everyone watching races by standing just on the grass beside the tarmac? It's not that different really.

Sorry for the hijack, very good luck with the outcome. I can only hope that it won't be desperately bad.

SM

[tigger1]

paulie-mafia said:

BiB statement says he followed me for 2 miles and clocked 110mph on his calibrated speedo.

So you were followed for around a minute at that kind of speed then...and the officer waited that long rather than pull you after half a mile (15 secs or so) because...

That's right, probably was hoping you'd do something dangerous. I don't think the argument holds up in court, but 110mph...if it's a decent machine your driving, and on the right roads (quiet, good vis' etc)...not exactly crime of the century.

[10 Pence Short]

From memory of when I was banned some time ago for speeding, you'll be able to plead guilty to the offence and not attend the first hearing, but you'll be obliged to attend the second hearing, which will effectively be "intent to disqualify".

In terms of mitigation, consider the weather conditions, how busy the road was, your driving history and experience (including any qualifications in addition to the driving test) and, importantly, any director indirect effects losing your licence will have.

I would guess in this case, should there be no real aggrevating factors, that you'd be looking at a 14/ 28 day ban and £300 ish.

[7db]

You don't have to turn up to the sentencing -- although they will request you to. You shuld drive on or after that day until you have confirmation of whether you are banned or not. If you are banned whilst not present, the ban still holds from when the magistrate passes sentence - regardless of whether you are present or not.

[TripleS]

I can only wish you all the best Paul.

Dave.

[Peter Ward]

So all the time you were doing 110mph, the police car was too. If it was inherently dangerous for you, it was the same for him. Yes, I know he's authorised to do it, he's had who-knows-how many weeks of advanced training, etc, etc, but the fact remains that we're led to believe that speed in itself is dangerous and he was doing exactly the same.

Casting around for other victimless crimes, I remembered carrying a weapon. Again, there is no danger unless it is actually used as such. Yet at the same time we see increasing numbers of police carrying weapons. The argument will no doubt be that he's authorised, has had weeks of advanced training, etc, etc -- and that we can trust a police officer to use it wisely. But when "weapons" include knives intended for cooking, well, that argument starts to look weak.

Should we be surprised? We now have offences defined by whether someone finds something offensive. Money laundering gets a bigger punishment than rape. It's not going to get any better.

In short, I'm sorry to hear that you're going to be banned for something I see every time I'm on a motorway. We know it's not inherently dangerous, while we see things happening around us which are and yet are not picked up. Life's not fair but there you go.

[vonhosen]

Peter Ward said:

So all the time you were doing 110mph, the police car was too. If it was inherently dangerous for you, it was the same for him. Yes, I know he's authorised to do it, he's had who-knows-how many weeks of advanced training, etc, etc, but the fact remains that we're led to believe that speed in itself is dangerous and he was doing exactly the same.

What's a dangerous speed for one person may not be for another, because we are not all of the same ability level etc.

Also the offence of speeding is a preventative measure in relation to danger, not one of danger present. If the speed was dangerous for the circumstances & there was evidence of that, then dangerous driving is what you'd be summonsed for. Speeding requires no element of danger to prove, though there may be the potential for danger not actual.

[Zod]

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

So all the time you were doing 110mph, the police car was too. If it was inherently dangerous for you, it was the same for him. Yes, I know he's authorised to do it, he's had who-knows-how many weeks of advanced training, etc, etc, but the fact remains that we're led to believe that speed in itself is dangerous and he was doing exactly the same.

What's a dangerous speed for one person may not be for another, because we are not all of the same ability level etc.

they would prosecute Alain Prost for driving at that speed. They would prosecute you for driving at that speed.

There are many idiots on our roads who do not have the ability to drive safely at 70mph. They do not get prosecuted i fthey stick to the speed limit.

[vonhosen]

Zod said:

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

So all the time you were doing 110mph, the police car was too. If it was inherently dangerous for you, it was the same for him. Yes, I know he's authorised to do it, he's had who-knows-how many weeks of advanced training, etc, etc, but the fact remains that we're led to believe that speed in itself is dangerous and he was doing exactly the same.

What's a dangerous speed for one person may not be for another, because we are not all of the same ability level etc.

they would prosecute Alain Prost for driving at that speed. They would prosecute you for driving at that speed.

There are many idiots on our roads who do not have the ability to drive safely at 70mph. They do not get prosecuted i fthey stick to the speed limit.

Yes because as I said before, there is no element of danger required to prosecute for speeding.

The only way to actually judge someone's ability accurately is to watch them perform from within the car. Practically anyone can do what is required to get a car to high speeds, but it is what they do in the car & how they react to potential danger that sorts out whether they are competent & safe at that speed or not. That can't always be accuartely judged from outside the car in the time someone is observed driving at speed on our roads. We have all been tested as competent up to our speed limits though & people are therefore trusted to make judgements around appropriateness of speed, up to those limits. We are not tested or trusted to make those assessments beyond those limits. It doesn't matter if you are a track star or not. Being good on a track is no guarantee of being good on road, just as being good on road is no guarantee of being good on a track. If people's behaviour within the limits fall short of expected standards then Police officers DO stop them & deal with them for those offences, above the speed limit OR below it.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th June 17:07

[MrsMiggins]

supermono said:

Can you imagine everyone watching races by standing just on the grass beside the tarmac? It's not that different really.

You mean like this? I was sitting on the grass though.

[deeps]

Hard luck Paulie mafia, that speed in itself obviously isn't dangerous, but the law's not about safety is it.

Is a short ban better than getting points though? I mean, if someone gets a 14 day ban do they also get 9 or 12 points? Or do they serve the ban then start again with a clean license?

Anyone know whether someone who gets a ban under totting up has all their points wiped off?

[Zod]

vonhosen said:

Zod said:

vonhosen said:

Peter Ward said:

So all the time you were doing 110mph, the police car was too. If it was inherently dangerous for you, it was the same for him. Yes, I know he's authorised to do it, he's had who-knows-how many weeks of advanced training, etc, etc, but the fact remains that we're led to believe that speed in itself is dangerous and he was doing exactly the same.

What's a dangerous speed for one person may not be for another, because we are not all of the same ability level etc.

they would prosecute Alain Prost for driving at that speed. They would prosecute you for driving at that speed.

There are many idiots on our roads who do not have the ability to drive safely at 70mph. They do not get prosecuted i fthey stick to the speed limit.

Yes because as I said before, there is no element of danger required to prosecute for speeding.

The only way to actually judge someone's ability accurately is to watch them perform from within the car. Practically anyone can do what is required to get a car to high speeds, but it is what they do in the car & how they react to potential danger that sorts out whether they are competent & safe at that speed or not. That can't always be accuartely judged from outside the car in the time someone is observed driving at speed on our roads. We have all been tested as competent up to our speed limits though & people are therefore trusted to make judgements around appropriateness of speed, up to those limits. We are not tested or trusted to make those assessments beyond those limits. It doesn't matter if you are a track star or not. Being good on a track is no guarantee of being good on road, just as being good on road is no guarantee of being good on a track.[/b[ If people's behaviour within the limits fall short of expected standards then Police officers DO stop them & deal with them for those offences, above the speed limit OR below it.

Edited by vonhosen on Friday 16th June 17:07

which is why I picked Prost and you.