NIP 110mph+ in a 50mph zone - non disclosure

[cmaguire]

And he has already told us he has had at least one client prosecuted for s172.
Therefore said client avoided the speeding charge.

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

And he has already told us he has had at least one client prosecuted for s172.
Therefore said client avoided the speeding charge.

That's not the point being addressed or a point of contention. Of course there are people dealt with for just the 172 or just the speeding, everybody accepts that.
The matter of contention was people being done for both, which they can be & people being disqualified for just the 172 offence, which they also can be.

[cmaguire]

There was me thinking the point was whether failing to identify the driver by the s172 was a plausible way to avoid the actual speeding offence.
I am right you know

[Dammit]

In that Agtlaw has direct experience of people getting off using that tactic - yes.

But he also makes it clear that others who have employed that tactic have failed to avoid the speeding ban.

The question is, would you be one of the "stupid and under-represented"?

[vonhosen]

cmaguire said:

There was me thinking the point was whether failing to identify the driver by the s172 was a plausible way to avoid the actual speeding offence.
I am right you know

But there are no guarantees with it, that's the point
(We already knew some get prosecuted for just the 172 & not the speeding, so that's no news or surprise).

Also if you're avoiding the speeding offence with the intention of avoiding a ban, there's no guarantee with that.

You know I'm speaking the truth.

[mickmcpaddy]

TooMany2cvs said:

TBH, I think Mick is just showing his true colours here.

He fought the law, and the law won. If tilting at windmills counts...

Why do I have to google so many smart arse replies on this website, it just makes people look like condescending wkers when they post bks like that, why dont you try the opera instead, I belive its well suited to ponces.

Anyway I have fought the law a few times, I've managed to get an apology, lessons will be learned bla bla bla... and I've also come away from a banged to rights speeding charge with a J000 conviction, can any other so called smart arses match that?

[mickmcpaddy]

Durzel said:

I'm not sure being smug about it is the right attitude though. This is an obvious loophole that people that are grossly exceeding the speed limit can choose to take, but I'm not sure we should celebrate this state of affairs or be coy about the whole "oops how forgetful" side of things. I'm sure your client learnt a lot from this experience, which is sortof the purpose of points is it not? (for average people without large disposable incomes at any rate)

shrug maybe I'm just cranky.

Well when the legal system closes ranks and makes its virtually impossible for the ordinary person to get justice - have you seen how much you stand to loose if you go not guilty at court these days? Could be over a grand once they have wheeled several of their "experts" out. So whats the issue when someone who is wadded plays them at their own game.

[Dammit]

If I follow you here:

a) It's hard for the "ordinary person" to get justice
b) So therefore it's ok to cynically exploit loopholes to get away with anti-social behaviour

Problem with this line of reasoning is that a and b are not (logically) connected.

i.e. a doesn't justify b.

[TooMany2cvs]

mickmcpaddy said:

have you seen how much you stand to loose if you go not guilty at court these days?

Depends if you did it or not.

[mickmcpaddy]

TooMany2cvs said:

Depends if you did it or not.

Does it, who would risk £1000+ at court going up against experts for the prosecution who have unlimited funds to pay for them when you can just take a SAC or £100 FP. Even if you win with a decent lawyer you still lose out financially because you can only get legal aid back. Its so obviously been set up so you just roll over.

I've took 4 or 5 speeding cases to court in the past when in the worst case scenario I would be £150 worse off, it was worth it just for entertainment value.

[mickmcpaddy]

Dammit said:

If I follow you here:

a) It's hard for the "ordinary person" to get justice
b) So therefore it's ok to cynically exploit loopholes to get away with anti-social behaviour

Problem with this line of reasoning is that a and b are not (logically) connected.

i.e. a doesn't justify b.

Is speeding anti social behaviour? I did 35 in a 30 on the way home and no one shouted "you fking dirty chav tt" at me like I shouted at a track-suited youth who spat on the floor the other day.

[cmaguire]

mickmcpaddy said:

Is speeding anti social behaviour? I did 35 in a 30 on the way home and no one shouted "you fking dirty chav tt" at me like I shouted at a track-suited youth who spat on the floor the other day.

It is also selfish apparently. I've no idea why.

Doing 40 in a 60 for no apparent reason would appear to me a better fit for that.

[Dammit]

@cmaguire - I did tell you that you lacked the capability to understand these things.

I think the pair of you need to look up what anti-social means, it's not just spitting on the floor and swearing.

[cmaguire]

Putting words in my mouth now. Selfish I believe I said.

There are certainly circumstances where speed can be either or both of those things. However, much like inappropriate speed is conveniently now inferred from merely exceeding a limit, the same attitude applies where selfish or anti-social are concerned.

People are way too hung up on speed limits as some definitive difference between good and bad.

[TooMany2cvs]

cmaguire said:

People are way too hung up on speed limits as some definitive difference between good and bad.

Given that we're talking about "exceeding the speed limit", it's nothing to do with merits, just which of two numbers is larger. And, when it comes to the vigour with which it'll be pursued and the likely penalty, how much bigger. 110 is a lot bigger than 50, for instance.

If we were talking about fast enough/Scottish enough to be "dangerous", then "good/bad" might come into it.

[cmaguire]

I would imagine the authorities would be loathe to let 150 pass, and doubt very much that AGTLaw's old fella put that to the test.

But 110? Less convinced on that one.

[TooMany2cvs]

cmaguire said:

I would imagine the authorities would be loathe to let 150 pass, and doubt very much that AGTLaw's old fella put that to the test.

But 110? Less convinced on that one.

110 in a 70, probably not - fairly vanilla.
110 in a 50, though?

I guess it depends on the 50, as well.

[anonymous-user]

Dammit said:

@cmaguire - I did tell you that you lacked the capability to understand these things.

I think the pair of you need to look up what anti-social means, it's not just spitting on the floor and swearing.

So you have never breached the speed limit?

[anonymous-user]

TooMany2cvs said:

mickmcpaddy said:

have you seen how much you stand to loose if you go not guilty at court these days?

Depends if you did it or not.

Not really.

Plenty of people who didn’t do it end up being found guilty.

[TooMany2cvs]

yonex said:

Dammit said:

@cmaguire - I did tell you that you lacked the capability to understand these things.

I think the pair of you need to look up what anti-social means, it's not just spitting on the floor and swearing.

So you have never breached the speed limit?

I'd like to say I've never breached it by as large a margin as we're talking about here.

But I <ahem> might not be being scrupulously honest if I did so.

If I had, would I have been driving like an anti-social at the time? Frankly, yes... And I'd really prefer not to have quite a few similar incidents taken into consideration, thank you very much.