RE: Footballer's Car Caught Going 102mph
Tuesday 11th September 2007
Footballer's Car Caught Going 102mph
Damien Duff gets three points and a fine, just getting in before the law change
The Newcastle United star's Range Rover was spotted by a mobile speed camera van travelling at 102mph through a section of roadworks on the A1 in Northumberland. A letter was sent to Mr. Duff, as the owner of the vehicle, asking him to identify the driver.
He did not respond to the letter and did not attend the ensuing court appearance, so the Tynedale Magistrates Court proceeded in his abscence. He was given a £100 fine, a £60 cost order, and three penalty points on his licence.
Future car owners who follow Mr. Duff's example will not receive the same treatment, however. From 24th September, failure to name the driver in such a case will result in six penalty points instead of three, under Article 172 of the Road Traffic Act.
Discussion
It's hard to assess what the "correct" penalty should have been without the facts. Was he swerving through 40mph traffic narrowly missing legions of roadworkers who were diving for cover? Or was he simply wafting through at midnight a stretch of so-called roadworks with no activity and no other traffic.
Perhaps he'd accelerated up to 102mph having left the coned area and gone into what amounts to an ordinary motorway section, but failed to realise that he'd fallen victim to a bizarre "limit overhang" zone -- where the limit is held falsely low for an extra half a mile or so. Indeed that would be the perfect place for the camera people to find their customers.
That's the problem with trying to assess danger armed simply with a number of MPH -- you can't.
SM
Perhaps he'd accelerated up to 102mph having left the coned area and gone into what amounts to an ordinary motorway section, but failed to realise that he'd fallen victim to a bizarre "limit overhang" zone -- where the limit is held falsely low for an extra half a mile or so. Indeed that would be the perfect place for the camera people to find their customers.
That's the problem with trying to assess danger armed simply with a number of MPH -- you can't.
SM
supermono said:
It's hard to assess what the "correct" penalty should have been without the facts. Was he swerving through 40mph traffic narrowly missing legions of roadworkers who were diving for cover? Or was he simply wafting through at midnight a stretch of so-called roadworks with no activity and no other traffic.
Perhaps he'd accelerated up to 102mph having left the coned area and gone into what amounts to an ordinary motorway section, but failed to realise that he'd fallen victim to a bizarre "limit overhang" zone -- where the limit is held falsely low for an extra half a mile or so. Indeed that would be the perfect place for the camera people to find their customers.
That's the problem with trying to assess danger armed simply with a number of MPH -- you can't.
SM
End of the day he got caught doing 102 mph in at least a 70, more likely a 50 / 40 if there were roadworks. That would be an instant ban for any member of the ordinary public. Doesn't matter about placement of the camera, limit overhang, or need more information etc - He was caught and got off very lightly. Perhaps he'd accelerated up to 102mph having left the coned area and gone into what amounts to an ordinary motorway section, but failed to realise that he'd fallen victim to a bizarre "limit overhang" zone -- where the limit is held falsely low for an extra half a mile or so. Indeed that would be the perfect place for the camera people to find their customers.
That's the problem with trying to assess danger armed simply with a number of MPH -- you can't.
SM
Reminds me of Pete Doherty - If i were caught every week with smack or coke i'd be in Jail getting friendly with Big Geoff, but because he is famous he comes out of Court looking like a sweaty smug gimp.
danrc said:
That would be an instant ban for any member of the ordinary public. Doesn't matter about placement of the camera, limit overhang, or need more information etc - He was caught and got off very lightly.
As I understand it any MOP could not show up and get the same treatment -- I don't think his footballer status changed that. He was guilty of failing to notify who was driving. That law changes this month so he and everyone else would get a stiffer penalty for that. The alleged speeding offence wasn't even considered, after all he might not have been driving or driving at that speed.SM
Yep, I got 6 points, £250 fine and a 7 day ban for going at 104 on the M23 at 11am. As anyone knows the M23 is almost dead at this time of day. I was followed by an unmarked police car for 8 miles as min their words "we wanted to see how fast you would go". So much for worrying about speed kills, more like how big a fine and ban can we give you.
freedman said:
johnnystorm said:
The Telegraph reported this as 102 in a 50. Glad to see a fella like that on a limited income gets a low fine that matches his reduced pay packet.
The speed is irrelevant he has been charged with failing to provide the details of the driver, not speeding.Bu Labia - "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", and now "we can't even be arsed to prosecute somebody for doing 52mph over the speed limit".
Whoa, hold on chaps...I detect a distinct hint of hypocrisy in the air here!!!
1) Was it him? Knowing what footballers are like, he may have lent it out and not been 100% sure who was driving.
2) He used the rules to his advantage...
- isn't that what some people on here have been advocating given the current system?!?;
- can you honestly say that you wouldn't have done the same when faced with a ban?!?
3) As said above, we've no idea if the limit was reasonable or not (see far too many 'roadworks' with nothing happening, and plenty of D-Cs can support 100mph at times without it being dangerous.
So...until we know the full facts (unlikely), don't go off with both barrels, eh?
1) Was it him? Knowing what footballers are like, he may have lent it out and not been 100% sure who was driving.
2) He used the rules to his advantage...
- isn't that what some people on here have been advocating given the current system?!?;
- can you honestly say that you wouldn't have done the same when faced with a ban?!?
3) As said above, we've no idea if the limit was reasonable or not (see far too many 'roadworks' with nothing happening, and plenty of D-Cs can support 100mph at times without it being dangerous.
So...until we know the full facts (unlikely), don't go off with both barrels, eh?
danrc said:
And people wonder why the law is not taken seriously? One rule for them and one rule for us. And 6 points for not identifying a driver! Seems a bit OTT to me.
No driver = no speeding offense and instead a S172 offence.
Then you say 6 points is too steep - its being brought in precisely because of people not naming the driver when to name them they would face a higher punishment (ie a ban).
Pepipoo advises people to do this all the time.
havoc said:
Whoa, hold on chaps...I detect a distinct hint of hypocrisy in the air here!!!
1) Was it him? Knowing what footballers are like, he may have lent it out and not been 100% sure who was driving.
2) He used the rules to his advantage...
- isn't that what some people on here have been advocating given the current system?!?;
- can you honestly say that you wouldn't have done the same when faced with a ban?!?
3) As said above, we've no idea if the limit was reasonable or not (see far too many 'roadworks' with nothing happening, and plenty of D-Cs can support 100mph at times without it being dangerous.
So...until we know the full facts (unlikely), don't go off with both barrels, eh?
He ignored the notice. Court appearance and no show=warrant? The story is a pile of rubbish. Who cares if his speed was dangerous or appropriate. He ddint plead mitigation did he. he ignored the notice and got zip. Again that is complete shite. 1) Was it him? Knowing what footballers are like, he may have lent it out and not been 100% sure who was driving.
2) He used the rules to his advantage...
- isn't that what some people on here have been advocating given the current system?!?;
- can you honestly say that you wouldn't have done the same when faced with a ban?!?
3) As said above, we've no idea if the limit was reasonable or not (see far too many 'roadworks' with nothing happening, and plenty of D-Cs can support 100mph at times without it being dangerous.
So...until we know the full facts (unlikely), don't go off with both barrels, eh?
Edited by burwoodman on Tuesday 11th September 09:19
Really, it's likely the conditions were perfectly ok for travelling at that speed. It's just that we have limits which are too low either for revenue reasons or for cultural / control mentality reasons. I was reading only the other day of a biker doing 175mph on a German autobahn coming upon a police car, whereby the police car moved over and they waved him past. No problem. A town in Germany is planning to remove all stop signs and traffic lights because they have worked out that it will improve safety. The same thing has heppened in parts of Holland. Intelligent and thoughtful - refreshing.
MilnerR said:
So the way forward seems to be to get your car registered to someone without a licence......
You pinched my post !!! But I wanted to be sure of the process. NIP is sent to "Registered Keeper" I guess but I don't think there's anything to say RK should be licence holder is there ? Or does that cause complications with insurance etc? For example what's to stop RK being your child or V. elderly relative?Harsh. November 2005 year was clocked at "exactly" 100mph by a handheld laser device on M25. It was about 1am and aside from me there was an HGV about half a mile away.
Due to a house move in early 2006, I didn't get the original summons so by the time it did catch up with me it was a warrant delivered via my parents home (despite having changed my license and V5 to my new address)! Anyway the hearing was less than a week away, so I didn't have time to prepare a defence so just gave my details, a written statment/ apology/ grovel etc.
6 points and a £250 fine plus costs. Thats what I got for being honest, not trying to fight the system.
In that respect, this kind of story makes me angry as efforts have been purposely made NOT to comply with the judicial process. And the reward for not complying with the system is a lesser penalty? Is ignoring a summons not contempt of court?
Therefore if the rules are changing to close such loopholes, then it is a good thing as the law can only work properly if it is applied consistently across the board. Only then can the wrath of the law be respected and seen as a deterrent. Back this up with law enforcement/ policing that is based on integrity and consistency, rather than cost of service and achieving goverenment targets. The public would begin to trust the police again and crime would be hit very hard...
Due to a house move in early 2006, I didn't get the original summons so by the time it did catch up with me it was a warrant delivered via my parents home (despite having changed my license and V5 to my new address)! Anyway the hearing was less than a week away, so I didn't have time to prepare a defence so just gave my details, a written statment/ apology/ grovel etc.
6 points and a £250 fine plus costs. Thats what I got for being honest, not trying to fight the system.
In that respect, this kind of story makes me angry as efforts have been purposely made NOT to comply with the judicial process. And the reward for not complying with the system is a lesser penalty? Is ignoring a summons not contempt of court?
Therefore if the rules are changing to close such loopholes, then it is a good thing as the law can only work properly if it is applied consistently across the board. Only then can the wrath of the law be respected and seen as a deterrent. Back this up with law enforcement/ policing that is based on integrity and consistency, rather than cost of service and achieving goverenment targets. The public would begin to trust the police again and crime would be hit very hard...
Lostusernamedamn said:
Really, it's likely the conditions were perfectly ok for travelling at that speed. It's just that we have limits which are too low either for revenue reasons or for cultural / control mentality reasons. I was reading only the other day of a biker doing 175mph on a German autobahn coming upon a police car, whereby the police car moved over and they waved him past. No problem. A town in Germany is planning to remove all stop signs and traffic lights because they have worked out that it will improve safety. The same thing has heppened in parts of Holland. Intelligent and thoughtful - refreshing.
What is your point. We live within a totally unfair unforgiving mandatory system that is poor at best and this just makes more of a mockery of it.Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff