£1,639 fine & 6 month ban for 68mph on M1
Discussion
Regardless being a minister or not, if the M1 really was empty, why on earth was there a 40mph limit in force late at night?
Seems a bit harsh?
https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-minister-ro...
Seems a bit harsh?
https://news.sky.com/story/immigration-minister-ro...
The article is light on detail, but the six month pay suggests that he was banned for totting up (ie reaching 12 points), rather than sunbelt for that offence.
As for why there was a 40 mph limit in force in the middle of the night, who knows? Maybe there was a broken down car in a live lane somewhere ahead? Again we have no real detail beyond his own sorry statement.
As for why there was a 40 mph limit in force in the middle of the night, who knows? Maybe there was a broken down car in a live lane somewhere ahead? Again we have no real detail beyond his own sorry statement.
While this is stupid in one sense, it's also extremely incompetent to not notice a 40mph limit on the M1. I can't see how you could do that while being even a vaguely competent driver. And 68 in 40 is an egregious breach of the limit. I do far worse of course, but it isn't an accident. And as others have said that's totting up - so he has more speeding tickets.
MPs need to be held to a high standard given all their stupid laws. So he can suck it up.
Maybe this will encourage him to remove the whole concept of speed limits as any reasonable person should. Not holding my breath for that.
MPs need to be held to a high standard given all their stupid laws. So he can suck it up.
Maybe this will encourage him to remove the whole concept of speed limits as any reasonable person should. Not holding my breath for that.
Aretnap said:
The article is light on detail, but the six month pay suggests that he was banned for totting up (ie reaching 12 points), rather than sunbelt for that offence.
..........Mr Jenrick was fined £307 and handed three penalty points in March for speeding on the A40 in west London in August 2021.https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/minister-robert-j...
March ! .....from 2021
Maxdecel said:
Aretnap said:
The article is light on detail, but the six month pay suggests that he was banned for totting up (ie reaching 12 points), rather than sunbelt for that offence.
..........Mr Jenrick was fined £307 and handed three penalty points in March for speeding on the A40 in west London in August 2021.https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/minister-robert-j...
March ! .....from 2021
Bloody nuisance person tbh.
(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
Somewhatfoolish said:
And look at the lane hogging in that photo!
Bloody nuisance person tbh.
(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
Priority lane/ViP ? Bloody nuisance person tbh.
(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
Somewhatfoolish said:
And look at the lane hogging in that photo!
Bloody nuisance person tbh.
(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
One magistrate only, as the case concluded at the Single Justice stage. He didn’t appear at court. Disqualified in absence. On another forum, various legal walts claim this doesn’t happen. It appears that he declared his net weekly income as £1,107. Bloody nuisance person tbh.
(He also appears to have foolishly given his actual income to the mags - not a clever thing to do if you can avoid it and you earn over the assumed income, which while over the average is not much by pistonheads standards)
For those who ask why the limit is there when there is nothing on the road . . .
- a crew may have just joined the motorway behind you to start putting cones out for roadworks.
- a crew may have just lifted the last cones following some roadworks.
- maybe there has been a report of people/animals on the road.
and many other things, just because you didn't see anything doesn't mean there is no reason for the limit.
I use "didn't" and not "couldn't" because many drivers observation skills are poor, just watch one of the various police programmes and count the number of drivers who didn't see blue flashing lights behind them.
- a crew may have just joined the motorway behind you to start putting cones out for roadworks.
- a crew may have just lifted the last cones following some roadworks.
- maybe there has been a report of people/animals on the road.
and many other things, just because you didn't see anything doesn't mean there is no reason for the limit.
I use "didn't" and not "couldn't" because many drivers observation skills are poor, just watch one of the various police programmes and count the number of drivers who didn't see blue flashing lights behind them.
agtlaw said:
One magistrate only, as the case concluded at the Single Justice stage. He didn’t appear at court. Disqualified in absence. On another forum, various legal walts claim this doesn’t happen. It appears that he declared his net weekly income as £1,107.
My understanding based on legal advice was that, at least for speeding offences at the time said advice was given, if you opt not to attend court and you are not required to attend the magistrate cannot disqualify you. Is this now incorrect, or does it change if totting up is involved?IJWS15 said:
For those who ask why the limit is there when there is nothing on the road . . .
- a crew may have just joined the motorway behind you to start putting cones out for roadworks.
- a crew may have just lifted the last cones following some roadworks.
- maybe there has been a report of people/animals on the road.
and many other things, just because you didn't see anything doesn't mean there is no reason for the limit.
I use "didn't" and not "couldn't" because many drivers observation skills are poor, just watch one of the various police programmes and count the number of drivers who didn't see blue flashing lights behind them.
Maybe the reason for the limit is that the technology has failed?- a crew may have just joined the motorway behind you to start putting cones out for roadworks.
- a crew may have just lifted the last cones following some roadworks.
- maybe there has been a report of people/animals on the road.
and many other things, just because you didn't see anything doesn't mean there is no reason for the limit.
I use "didn't" and not "couldn't" because many drivers observation skills are poor, just watch one of the various police programmes and count the number of drivers who didn't see blue flashing lights behind them.
Or maybe someone lowered it and forgot to remove the lower limit?
Or maybe it’s been lowered to catch more people ignoring the limit as there is no reason for it?
I have driven the M25 and M1 plenty of times recently late at night and often have limits for one or two gantries for no reason at all.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff