Speeding worse than no insurance?
Discussion
Case 1:
Our Safety Camera Officer captured a Ducati Multistrada motorcycle traveling at 112mph on the A169 High Horcum in a national speed limit. The driver admitted to the offence and pleaded guilty at court on the 07/11/2018 and was disqualified from driving for 42 days and ordered to pay fine and costs totalling £972.
Case 2:
driving without insurance, MOT, and with insufficient tread on his tyres. He was fined £505, with a £50 victim surcharge and £85 costs.
Why is the speeding a ban with a bigger fine and the no insurance, no mot and illegal tyres not a ban?
Our Safety Camera Officer captured a Ducati Multistrada motorcycle traveling at 112mph on the A169 High Horcum in a national speed limit. The driver admitted to the offence and pleaded guilty at court on the 07/11/2018 and was disqualified from driving for 42 days and ordered to pay fine and costs totalling £972.
Case 2:
driving without insurance, MOT, and with insufficient tread on his tyres. He was fined £505, with a £50 victim surcharge and £85 costs.
Why is the speeding a ban with a bigger fine and the no insurance, no mot and illegal tyres not a ban?
Because the rules are set by idiots.
The "think of the children" brigade are calling the shots and speed is the enemy.
Empty vessels make the most noise, and the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the oil. Think tanks and social media have given a virtual megaphone to the loudest voice. (See Brake, Momentum, Extinction Rebellion etc...)
it's about time some sensible, logical order was restored to this world.
The "think of the children" brigade are calling the shots and speed is the enemy.
Empty vessels make the most noise, and the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the oil. Think tanks and social media have given a virtual megaphone to the loudest voice. (See Brake, Momentum, Extinction Rebellion etc...)
it's about time some sensible, logical order was restored to this world.
Never you mind said:
Case 1:
Our Safety Camera Officer captured a Ducati Multistrada motorcycle traveling at 112mph on the A169 High Horcum in a national speed limit. The driver admitted to the offence and pleaded guilty at court on the 07/11/2018 and was disqualified from driving for 42 days and ordered to pay fine and costs totalling £972.
Case 2:
driving without insurance, MOT, and with insufficient tread on his tyres. He was fined £505, with a £50 victim surcharge and £85 costs.
Why is the speeding a ban with a bigger fine and the no insurance, no mot and illegal tyres not a ban?
Case 1: Almost double the speed limit (assuming Google is correct when it says its all single carriageway). Our Safety Camera Officer captured a Ducati Multistrada motorcycle traveling at 112mph on the A169 High Horcum in a national speed limit. The driver admitted to the offence and pleaded guilty at court on the 07/11/2018 and was disqualified from driving for 42 days and ordered to pay fine and costs totalling £972.
Case 2:
driving without insurance, MOT, and with insufficient tread on his tyres. He was fined £505, with a £50 victim surcharge and £85 costs.
Why is the speeding a ban with a bigger fine and the no insurance, no mot and illegal tyres not a ban?
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
Ban for between 7 and 56 days or six points.
Case 2: The MOT would most likely be dropped at court or no further sentence. Maybe the tyre as well.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magi...
Fines are always income based. Someone on min wage is going to get fined less than a CEO of a multi national company.
Also don't know their previous driving history...first offence for case two? Case one might have six points already (in which case getting the 42 day ban is better than six points as it would be a six month ban!).
Fines are means tested, maybe the motorcycle rider earns more.
Presumably the second guy also got (at least) 6 points as well.
Case 3 - Man gets three years suspended sentence for manslaughter after he punched someone
Omg speeding is worse than manslaughter!???!!??
Presumably the second guy also got (at least) 6 points as well.
Case 3 - Man gets three years suspended sentence for manslaughter after he punched someone
Omg speeding is worse than manslaughter!???!!??
Prizam said:
Because the rules are set by idiots.
The "think of the children" brigade are calling the shots and speed is the enemy.
Empty vessels make the most noise, and the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the oil. Think tanks and social media have given a virtual megaphone to the loudest voice. (See Brake, Momentum, Extinction Rebellion etc...)
it's about time some sensible, logical order was restored to this world.
+1The "think of the children" brigade are calling the shots and speed is the enemy.
Empty vessels make the most noise, and the squeaky wheel is the one that gets the oil. Think tanks and social media have given a virtual megaphone to the loudest voice. (See Brake, Momentum, Extinction Rebellion etc...)
it's about time some sensible, logical order was restored to this world.
https://goo.gl/maps/yYo4aqHLZrQTavHj9
Seems like a good/safe spot to do 112 if you're planning to do 112. It's not like it's 60 outside a school or in a town.
No insurance, No MOT & insufficient tread on tyres is happening wherever the car is. Bit of a rain and the car could crash, hurt people and there's no insurance to pay out for damage or victims.
I know which one I think is worse. Bet the bike was in top condition and fully legal too.
Seems like a good/safe spot to do 112 if you're planning to do 112. It's not like it's 60 outside a school or in a town.
No insurance, No MOT & insufficient tread on tyres is happening wherever the car is. Bit of a rain and the car could crash, hurt people and there's no insurance to pay out for damage or victims.
I know which one I think is worse. Bet the bike was in top condition and fully legal too.
The maximum sentence for speeding is a £1000 fine or £2500 for a motorway offence. If penalty points are endorsed then the range is 3-6 points. Otherwise, a disqualification order is for any length.
For speeds in excess of 101 mph, the Sentencing Council guideline suggests a starting point of Band C fine (150% of net weekly income). The starting point is subject to discount for an early guilty plea, usually one-third off following a guilty plea indicated at the first opportunity. High income offenders should not expect a fine in excess of 75% of the maximum sentence.
Liabilities of £972 suggest a fine of approximately £800, a surcharge of £80 and prosecution costs of £85. The fine is arguably too high and an appeal against sentence should be considered.
For speeds in excess of 101 mph, The Sentencing Council guideline refers to 7-56 days; except for cases where the speed is deemed to be “grossly excessive” - in which case a ban in excess of 56 days should be anticipated.
For speeds in excess of 101 mph, the Sentencing Council guideline suggests a starting point of Band C fine (150% of net weekly income). The starting point is subject to discount for an early guilty plea, usually one-third off following a guilty plea indicated at the first opportunity. High income offenders should not expect a fine in excess of 75% of the maximum sentence.
Liabilities of £972 suggest a fine of approximately £800, a surcharge of £80 and prosecution costs of £85. The fine is arguably too high and an appeal against sentence should be considered.
For speeds in excess of 101 mph, The Sentencing Council guideline refers to 7-56 days; except for cases where the speed is deemed to be “grossly excessive” - in which case a ban in excess of 56 days should be anticipated.
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 25th April 12:45
martinbiz said:
112mph on an NSL single carriageway is verging on suicidal.T boning a car at that speed would likely kill it's occupants as well as the rider. Without knowing all the facts it's guesswork, but on the face of it he may have got off lightly
Agree.Nothing wrong with speed in itself, in the right place. A nsl single darriageway is not the right place. Take it to a track.
Why do people not accept speed limits are law, not advisory. I don't agree with fixed limits, and so many, but it's the law.
No sympathy for no insurance and other offences, and I would prefer the full details of both cases before saying 1 has been punished less/different to the other.
As a question, why do people think it is ok to disregard the laws they don't like? Can I choose which laws I can break, or do they all apply ?
agtlaw said:
. High income offenders should not expect a fine in excess of 75% of the maximum sentence.
Can you explain this a bit more? Lets say someone gets caught at ohh I dunno, 110mph on a dual carriageway and is considered a high earner. Does that mean the fine, if early guilty plea is submitted, will be £750?Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 25th April 12:45
martinbiz said:
112mph on an NSL single carriageway is verging on suicidal.T boning a car at that speed would likely kill it's occupants as well as the rider. Without knowing all the facts it's guesswork, but on the face of it he may have got off lightly
And driving round with no insurance, no mot and illegal tyres is perfectly OK is it? So let's say, using the typical stretch of imagination on PH, that said non insured driver with zero tread on tyres, drives past a school when it's been raining after a sunny day has to stop suddenly as a child runs out and mows down said child as his braking limits has increased dramatically, that's OK is it as he wasn't breaking the speed limit. Get a f
king grip Never you mind said:
And driving round with no insurance, no mot and illegal tyres is perfectly OK is it? So let's say, using the typical stretch of imagination on PH, that said non insured driver with zero tread on tyres, drives past a school when it's been raining after a sunny day has to stop suddenly as a child runs out and mows down said child as his braking limits has increased dramatically, that's OK is it as he wasn't breaking the speed limit. Get a fking grip
Or the driver is partly blind or simply doesn't react and mows down a child. Even though they are only doing 15mph.king grip Speed kills don't ya know. Driving standards and car maintenance is a lot harder to police, so speed is the easy target and the focus of many "think of the children" groups.
Dorris will whip out her hairdryer and yellow jacket and stand on the edge of her village noting down the reg plates of those doing 33mph, but no s
ts are given about the standard of driving, bald tyres, insurance, MOT or TAX. All, of which in my opinion are far more important than doing a few MPH above the limit.Prizam said:
Or the driver is partly blind or simply doesn't react and mows down a child. Even though they are only doing 15mph.
Speed kills don't ya know. Driving standards and car maintenance is a lot harder to police, so speed is the easy target and the focus of many "think of the children" groups.
Dorris will whip out her hairdryer and yellow jacket and stand on the edge of her village noting down the reg plates of those doing 33mph, but no sts are given about the standard of driving, bald tyres, insurance, MOT or TAX. All, of which in my opinion are far more important than doing a few MPH above the limit.
So what you're saying is there should be more cops (a lot more) who are basically stopping every other car for random spot checks?Speed kills don't ya know. Driving standards and car maintenance is a lot harder to police, so speed is the easy target and the focus of many "think of the children" groups.
Dorris will whip out her hairdryer and yellow jacket and stand on the edge of her village noting down the reg plates of those doing 33mph, but no s
ts are given about the standard of driving, bald tyres, insurance, MOT or TAX. All, of which in my opinion are far more important than doing a few MPH above the limit.Just as long as those same cops turn a blind eye to speeding though, yeah? Or more specifically - you speeding. Everyone else, particularly people who drive past or near your house, should have the book thrown at them.
What on earth are you on about?Coilspring said:
martinbiz said:
112mph on an NSL single carriageway is verging on suicidal.T boning a car at that speed would likely kill it's occupants as well as the rider. Without knowing all the facts it's guesswork, but on the face of it he may have got off lightly
Agree.Nothing wrong with speed in itself, in the right place. A nsl single darriageway is not the right place. Take it to a track.
Why do people not accept speed limits are law, not advisory. I don't agree with fixed limits, and so many, but it's the law.
No sympathy for no insurance and other offences, and I would prefer the full details of both cases before saying 1 has been punished less/different to the other.
As a question, why do people think it is ok to disregard the laws they don't like? Can I choose which laws I can break, or do they all apply ?
There are so many laws that it is virtually impossible to go through a day without breaking one, so yes, you do chose which ones you break.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff