Update on my speeding offence

[susiwong]

Hi everyone,

Well, the court case has been and gone - and I am still on the road!!!

Thankyou to everyone for your support - it meant a lot as I was getting totally stressed out about the whole thing - having never been in trouble with the law before.

So the update is

Was caught doing 117mph on a motorway - got 5 points, £400 fine and the solicitor only charged me £200.

I wrote both cheques there and then with a smile on my face - and celebrated when I got home with a bottle of champagne. I still have my license and that means I keep my job!!! Result!!! I have no doubts that I got off very light - good solicitor!!!

Thanks again for all the support and advice.

[Dibble]

Well done, sounds like you were very lucky.

Now don't chance it again, and go easy.

[Don]

Yep. Beware of totting up. So far your experience has cost you £600. If you want to save the loot in the future an investment now in technology (Road Angel, Bel Euro 550) and Driver Training (IAM/RoADA) might pay off. Either organisation should still take you with just 5pts.

That and take it easy out there...

Glad it turned out not too bad for you...

[TripleS]

I'm very glad to hear it is all over, and that the result is one you can feel happy about.

I still feel that one should not be penalised simply for 'speeding' so long as it is done in a decently safe manner, but unfortunately that's not the way the system works at present.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Fat Audi 80]

TripleS said:

I'm very glad to hear it is all over, and that the result is one you can feel happy about. I still feel that one should not be penalised simply for 'speeding' so long as it is done in a decently safe manner, but unfortunately that's not the way the system works at present. Best wishes all, Dave.

[controversial] How about just giving points and fines to people who actually have collisions.... [/controversial]

[Mr2Mike]

Fat Audi 80 said:

[controversial] How about just giving points and fines to people who actually have collisions.... [/controversial]

So you think it's fine to drive around untaxed, unlicensed and uninsured as long as you don't crash. Causing an accident but not being involved is ok too? And I suppose everyone who has a parking accident should be prosecuted? (well, I agree that the ones that scarper afterwards should be).

[MickC]

Don said:

Driver Training (IAM/RoADA) might pay off. Either organisation should still take you with just 5pts.

[Hyjack]
Don, do you know what the IAM policy is about points on your licence? Presumably they don't mind any when you sign up, but once you have passed the test and joined, then get points, how many/how long before they kick you out?

Cheers
Mick
[/hyjack]

[Don]

I got three whilst a member of the IAM - wrote to them when I renewed - they didn't even respond!

I expect if you got to nine points or had a serious ban they might get shirty about it...

[TripleS]

Fat Audi 80 said:

TripleS said: I'm very glad to hear it is all over, and that the result is one you can feel happy about. I still feel that one should not be penalised simply for 'speeding' so long as it is done in a decently safe manner, but unfortunately that's not the way the system works at present. Best wishes all, Dave. [controversial] How about just giving points and fines to people who actually have collisions.... [/controversial]

Yes Steve, I'm afraid it will be seen as controversial by some people but that would be a much more sensible system. The idea of penalising people for 'speeding' (even if they keep out of trouble) but taking no action against those who actually have shunts is sheer nonsense.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[v15ben]

You can't really give points for accidents, after all with all the malarky of trying to get an insurance claim settled for a crash is bad enough!
How would you choose who to give points to and how would they work as regards severity? Number of lives lost, permanent injuries caused?

I think it should be dangerous driving, fog light numpties, MLMs and all the other wallies who are regularly discussed in these pages who should get points, but not simply for driving fast in itself! All IMO of course

[Roadcop]

I'm pleased for you......

Good job you weren't a police officer, or else the comments on here would have been along the lines of "One rule for them and one for the rest of us"

I'll have one on you..

[Targarama]

Don said:

I got three whilst a member of the IAM - wrote to them when I renewed - they didn't even respond! I expect if you got to nine points or had a serious ban they might get shirty about it...

My Mum passed her IAM test a few years ago now. A few weeks later she had an accident where she pulled out from a side road in front of some lorries coming up a hill - with plenty of time. Unfortunately there was a motorbike overtaking the lorries over a solid white line. Bike went over the roof of her Chevette, rider was not badly hurt. Mum got done for dangerous driving (the biker shouldn't have been there, but she was the one who pulled out). Anyway, the bike cop who attended the accident was the same person who presented her with her IAM award at the next meeting a few weeks later IAM didn't seem to mind about the accident BTW.

[spicy]

Susi so pleased for you. I was wondering just yesterday if you would have been to court yet. Glad it worked out okay.

[medicineman]

I'm with Fat Audi 80 on this one. How about speed all you want, if you cause an accident then you get the book thrown at you. Or is this an example of where the consequence = punish for example Selby rail crash. This is based on the following evidence that everything and the cat has been thrown at speed and still the death toll goes up.

[TripleS]

medicineman said:

I'm with Fat Audi 80 on this one. How about speed all you want, if you cause an accident then you get the book thrown at you. Or is this an example of where the consequence = punish for example Selby rail crash. This is based on the following evidence that everything and the cat has been thrown at speed and still the death toll goes up.

Yes it looks as if a few of us might be of like mind on this point, i.e. you have a free choice of speed so long as you don't have a shunt. So far so good.

I'm sorry if what follows seems a bit disjointed, but these are just a few further thoughts in case anyone finds them helpful and can build on them:

I have previously said that for me there are three principal factors regarding my use of high speed:
1. Mechanical failure.
2. Tyre problems
3. The intervention of a stray animal.

Rightly or wrongly I believe I can ensure a fairly high degree of protection against most other sources of trouble, though of course there always new things that can usefully be taken on board to improve the situation further. Maintaining a willingness to learn helps to give effect to this advancement.

On motorways and dual carriageways we at least should be spared the problem of vehicles travelling in the opposite direction, so in general speed differentials should be not too great, and I think it is advisable to see that they are kept within reasonable bounds. Having recognised that, the other main factor in my mind is, as always, to leave yourself sufficient space and time in which to avoid a shunt if somebody in front slips up in some way.

It seems to me the most difficult situations confront us on single carriageway roads, and ironically somebody in another thread some weeks ago did express the view that driving fast on single carriageway roads is where the most fun is to be found. A straight blast along a motorway or dual carriageway is relatively unsatisfying to me, so I rather tend to agree with that.

Single carriageway roads do however present the more serious problems from the point of view of the high speed driver, for various reasons. Obviously there is a greater range of hazard types and frequency, pedestrians, cyclists, horse riders, junctions, and of course oncoming traffic and the much greater difficulties of overtaking. I suppose if one can make safe use of highish speeds in such an environment then it does seem to offer a higher degree of satisfaction.

To a very large extent I feel I can protect myself against most of the things that might go wrong as a result of errors by other drivers, but one or two scenarios do bother me, and I am not sure what views the law might take of them.

Suppose I were to be driving at 80 or 90 mph (and it could sometimes be more) on a SC road. The road is fairly straight, and the bends, such as they are, have good visibility and are generally quite open. There is no question of me running out of braking space on the approach to a corner for example, nor am I going to exceed the lateral grip for cornering purposes. I can therefore be relied upon to stay on my own side of the road, unless the other side is available and I can use it to advantage, but consider this:

While I am travelling very quickly on my own side of the road, an oncoming vehicle crosses (for whatever reason) onto my side and I can not avoid a collision. In my mind the fault lies entirely with the other driver for crossing onto my side of the road at an unsafe time, but would I be held to be partially at fault due to my high speed? As I see it my speed should not matter so long as I stay on my side of the road and I don't hit stationary objects or anything travelling in the same direction, but what do you think?

The other situation in which I could feel vulnerable is where an oncoming vehicle is performing a reckless overtake at a blind bend or a summit, but in that case even if I were to be travelling within the speed limit a collision may well be unavoidable.

Sorry about the length of all that, but constructive comments will of course be welcome.

Enjoy your driving, but keep thinking and stay safe.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[medicineman]

Hi triple S,

Regards your comments,I don't think any one can ever guard themselves against idiots on the road. Both evets you describe involve a vehicle crossing onto your side of the road. I feel that any idiot doing this probably won't be travelling within the speed limit anyway and regardless of your speed the resulting speed differental would probably be high enough to cause death or serious injury.

There are sereval reasons I feel that spped limnits hould be advisory.

1) Everyone breaks them, including those responsible for deciding, enforcing, prosecuting and sentancing said limits.
2) Despite everything death rates are going up.
3) It may make everyone think, how many people do 60 in a 60 only to relaise that the next corner need taking at 40.
4) So I and many others could enjoy a little high speed run every now and again.

[Don]

Targarama said:

Don said: I got three whilst a member of the IAM - wrote to them when I renewed - they didn't even respond! I expect if you got to nine points or had a serious ban they might get shirty about it... My Mum passed her IAM test a few years ago now. A few weeks later she had an accident where she pulled out from a side road in front of some lorries coming up a hill - with plenty of time. Unfortunately there was a motorbike overtaking the lorries over a solid white line. Bike went over the roof of her Chevette, rider was not badly hurt. Mum got done for dangerous driving (the biker shouldn't have been there, but she was the one who pulled out). Anyway, the bike cop who attended the accident was the same person who presented her with her IAM award at the next meeting a few weeks later IAM didn't seem to mind about the accident BTW.

If it happened the way you describe it I am ASTONISHED that your Mum got a Dangerous Driving conviction. I'd have thought that the blame there was 50/50 AT LEAST. Did the biker get a dangerous driving conviction for overtaking in an illegal way, too?

[turbobloke]

It's great that you got a result, but sad that the whole case rested on a number rather than the impact of what was going on. Can't see why you should have had to suffer just because of a three digit number. Did you feel unsafe because you were endangering yourself? Were you an actual danger to anyone else (not possible - we are all possibles every minute of every day)? No, thought not. Sad indictment of this country's priorities, but great news again about the result, your job and everything. The law and safety have parted company, the law on vehicle speed is in disrepute. The law on speed is an ass. Sympathy also to the BiB who have to enforce it.

[toolman]

Don said:

I got three whilst a member of the IAM - wrote to them when I renewed - they didn't even respond! I expect if you got to nine points or had a serious ban they might get shirty about it...

I started the training with 6. They said it would be Ok so long as I did not accrue anymore.