You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-39053658 ]Motorist with 62 penalty points[/url]
What do we reckon?
Genuine case under "hardship" plea?
Funny handshake?
Friend of Chief Constable?
Skilled lawyer + weak magistrate?
Something very dodgy, for somebody who appears completely incapable of learning or changing their ways to be allows into a car on a public road seems madness. It just can't be safe or fair on other road users
Surprised an insurer have agreed to take them on. That's assuming their insurers know, they must be paying a pretty penny.
I think they were saying this morning that there are 10,000 people with driving licences in the UK who have 12 points or more.
If the genuine hardship that allows them to keep their licence is that genuine, then these people should understand the importance of staying within the limits to keep their licence.
I don't know why with driving, people are allowed to get away with so much....
Multiple points could be amassed on the same trip, or within a few days so before NIP is issued. Thus no opportunity to amend their ways maybe?
R4 this morning there was a lawyer on whose line was
- someone's insurance could lapse as a complete accident because they failed to update their debit card/direct debit
- that gets 8 points
Hmmm. Well, the Gov.UK website says that's 6 points not 8. And they need another 6 points on top of that to actually hit 12.
Multiple points could be amassed on the same trip
Isn't there or wasn't there a limit on how many points you can pick up in one trip?
Even if I'm completely wrong about that can't imagine a magistrate would take a more lenient view of you nicking mars bar from every shop on your way to work than they would single theft a week over six weeks.
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware. Personally I think that needs changing.
If their livelihood or the welfare of others depends on them having a driving licence then they should drive accordingly.
62 points is taking the piss.
You could try not breaking the law in the first place.
jambalaya - Member
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware. Personally I think that needs changing.
Yes being unaware you are speeding is Driving without Due care at the very least.
I've been driving since 1995, I'm not going to claim to be some sort of driving god or make out that I stay totally within the law. I think I am just a normal driver, but I take it seriously and don't drive like a dick.
I have no points on my license and never have.*
I don't GAS about peoples hardship. If I can manage to drive for 22 years without getting a single point, speeding ticket or ever being stopped by the police others can, they just don't care!
*Go on tell me I'm orsumz!!
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware
Mobile camera maybe but fixed? They make a hell of a flash which if you didn't notice you really shouldn't be driving.
I'd guess the guy in question picked up most of his points from cameras on the m62 because the variable signs weren't lit so he assumed that meant [s]there was no speed limit[/s] he wouldn't get caught.
You could try not breaking the law in the first place.
What a stupid thing to say. 🙄
Like most court cases, without knowing the actual detail means it's very difficult to know why they've come to (any) answer.
If they introduced shorter bans for fewer points it would be harder to claim your life was in ruins in front of a gullible magistrate. Six points = six weeks without a licence.
Some points awards are indefensible (you have to plead guilty) such as the insurance example. Without knowing the details it's impossible to draw a conclusion
I've been driving since 1995, I'm not going to claim to be some sort of driving god or make out that I stay totally within the law. I think I am just a normal driver, but I take it seriously and don't drive like a dick.
How do you make progress?
What a stupid thing to say.
Why, what's so hard about driving within the law? It may be boring, but it's not hard.
If it's been accumulated over time, I don't think that's acceptable- in fact the whole "exceptional hardship" thing strikes me as mostly bullshit, if you desperately need your car to work or live you should drive carefully. But it seems like if you're a professional driver or you have a special need, it's almost licence to drive badly.
But if it's been over a really short time as it could be, it does feel a bit different. They've just changed the speed limit near me and I'm sure if there was a speed camera there they'd catch some people doing 29 in a 20 twice a day and they could tot up 60 points before the first NIP arrived... Just to give a silly example.
Why, what's so hard about driving within the law? It may be boring, but it's not hard.
Because I've yet to meet a single person who has never broken a single law in their entire life. And we don't get to choose which laws we can or can't break.
Ergo it's a stupid thing to say.
Why, what's so hard about driving within the law? It may be boring, but it's not hard.
some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
I occasionally break traffic laws, same as everybody else. The only times I've had points on my licence it's been thanks to my own stupidity, i.e poor observation and failure to spot revenue cameras.
Tower Bridge was a classic example of that Northwind - they changed it from a 30 to a 20 overnight with no warnings, no signage, etc.
The only place it was noted was on the City of London website which of course you are expected to visit to ensure you knew they'd changed it.
Their excuse for not ammending the signage?
"Listed monument status"
So 29mph at 5:30am the following day got 4 points and a £240 fine with £40 costs and £10 victim surcharge.
For 11 vehicles in a convoy going "somewhere"
Because I've yet to meet a single person who has never broken a single law in their entire life. And we don't get to choose which laws we can or can't break.
Of course not, I speed every time I drive the car or ride one of my motorbikes. But if my job depended on it, I'd modify my driving/riding. Luckily it doesn't. It'd be a pisser if I lost my licence, but not the end of the world for me or my family.
The occasion lapse is understandable, but I cannot see, nor accept that to accumulate 62 points you should be allowed to continue driving.
some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
Whatever they're awarded for the driver's action need to change.
Of course not, I speed every time I drive the car or ride one of my motorbikes.
Please stop doing that
Of course not, I speed every time I drive the car or ride one of my motorbikes.
As far as I can see, so do 99.9% of all motorists.
You very very rarely see a car sticking to the 20mph speed limit which applies to 90% of Cambridge roads.
Basically, 99% of motorists intentionally speed every time they get in a car (myself included).
Basically, 99% of motorists intentionally speed every time they get in a car (myself included).
Please stop doing that too!
Tower Bridge was a classic example of that Northwind - they changed it from a 30 to a 20 overnight with no warnings, no signage, etc.
The only place it was noted was on the City of London website which of course you are expected to visit to ensure you knew they'd changed it.
Is that true? How can it be a speed limit if there are no signs?
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @51.5070302,-0.0743193,3a,75y,190.69h,77.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1snhyB7ED4Dp2Ig2VuBo44jA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]There are signs there now[/url].
You very very rarely see a car sticking to the 20mph speed limit which applies to 90% of Cambridge roads.
As noted yesterday I, briefly, followed an Octavia doing 50mph in the middle lane of the M56 (70mph limit). I imagine it was a speed that was comfortable enough for him to read the emails (or whatever it was that he was reading) on his phone!
He probably hates speeders too.
#SelfAware
Would be interesting to hear the facts rather than speculation
cynic-al - Member
Would be interesting to hear the facts rather than speculation
No it wouldn't, they'll (possibly) be dull and require zero pitchforks.
Please stop doing that
No.
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware.
As someone who's managed to drive for nearly 30 years and never pick up a speeding ticket I'm not convinced that anyone who even vaguely attempts to drive within the speed limit would manage this. If, on the other hand, you're someone who habitually speeds and only obeys speed limits when they think theres a camera present maybe - but those are the sort of drivers we should be taking off the roads.
simons, you can get points on your licence for (among other things)
not having insurance, not responding to summons, failure to inform...
It's not all about speeding.
from having sat in court when such cases have been heard it's gullible and weak magistrates. In practice "Exceptional circumstances" = claiming to need to drive to keep your job. Even if you don't have a full licence anyway because you never took or passed a test, and your job is a cash-in-hand farm labourer because you're actually claiming benefits and are registered as unemployed, and you live half a mile from the farm. Here, have another 6 points on the licence you don't hold.
Magistrates as a rule will believe any old sh1t that's put in front of them when it comes to mitigation, I've lost count of the number of criminals who are 'carers' and I've never seen or heard of a mag asking for any form of corroboration for any such claim.
Yes Bails - I was one of the drivers who had to attend court!
They changed the signage almost 2 months later!
In fact on the day of the court the signage still had not been changed and the Magistrate bought the City to task over it as they were only going to put Gateways and no repeaters up for the average scameras.
We didn't get leeway though as "in our capacity as officers of the court we should be fully aware" - one appointed civilian, 9 police officers and one HCEO all hit the same.
This was back in Oct 2007.
not having insurance, not responding to summons, failure to inform...It's not all about speeding.
yep all good reasons not let somebody back on the road....
Basically, 99% of motorists intentionally speed every time they get in a car (myself included).
Not sure if 99% but it is certainly a very high %.
If I get caught for a burglary can I claim that time in prison will have a negative impact on my life so I should be let off...
jambalaya - Member
As above and in the BBC piece, you could get multiple penalty points from speed cameras and be completely unaware. Personally I think that needs changing.
You will get seperate NIP and fixed penalties.
You can reject the offer, go to court and then the court has discretion to combine the offences. For example, if you get flashed by several camera on the same road as you drive along it, then they will often accept that as a single offence. It won't be 3 points and £60 but it is probably less points than all the fixed penalties.
Less likely to succeed if they were different trips (e.g. out and back, or different days). Magistrate could still award a penalty that would stop short of a totting up ban. So if hammyuk did the same thing every day for a week, they haven't received the NIP to let them know of any offence and wouldn't have the opportunity to "change their ways". A magistrate could give a different penalty and not a ban.
The magistrate could also treat each speeding camera as a separate offence and screw you over if the offences are grievous, you are a knob or they are hungry.
It's the simplicity of the fixed penalty notice vs the discretion of the bench.
What do we reckon? [i][62 points][/i]
Genuine case under "hardship" plea?
Its difficult to understand how this happens, because you can only use the same hardship argument once. To amass 62 points, you would expect the person to have been before the bench several times. However its just possible that there is some genuinely exceptional reason (the court hearing would have been open to the public so the press could have reported it at the time). If there was the sort of error the headlines would imply on the part of the Bench the crown should have appealed it.
Except that when determining hardship the nature of the offence and any mitigation involved is supposed to be ignored.Multiple points could be amassed on the same trip, or within a few days so before NIP is issued. Thus no opportunity to amend their ways maybe?
You should go to a court and hear some cases. You'll find only a fraction succeed*, and those that do won't be just because they are professional driver. How the media portray it and what happens in court is not necessarily the same.But it seems like if you're a professional driver or you have a special need, it's almost licence to drive badly.
* There may be some disparity between areas on how big that fraction is. Anecdotally it seems to be less likely North of the Border, which is slightly counter intuitive with the impact in rural areas being higher.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head [with the possible technical exception of drunk in charge, and failing to name the driver] - can you explain? all the "keeping..." type offences I can think of don't carry points.some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
R4 this morning there was a lawyer on whose line was
- someone's insurance could lapse as a complete accident because they failed to update their debit card/direct debit
- that gets 8 pointsHmmm. Well, the Gov.UK website says that's 6 points not 8. And they need another 6 points on top of that to actually hit 12.
Well yes and no. Firstly if someone has a genuine belief that they were insured and can convince the court that belief was reasonably held they can be found technically guilty without having points added. The court expect to see evidence that you took reasonable precautions (like having enough money in your account, opening mail etc!). The court can impose 6-8 pts, although the fixed penalty is 6.
I claim B.S. No signage would have made it unenforceable.Tower Bridge was a classic example of that Northwind - they changed it from a 30 to a 20 overnight with no warnings, no signage, etc.
Wasn't there a recent case of a van driver who killed a cyclist whilst using mobile phone at the wheel & had been let of numerous times for same offence 👿
you can try... and as with road offences sometimes you might have a genuine case - e.g. a single mother with young children might be less likely to face a custodial sentence because of the exceptional hardship it would cause others. But its not an automatic thing that because you argue it you will win.If I get caught for a burglary can I claim that time in prison will have a negative impact on my life so I should be let off...
I'm just a grumpy old git with a small lifetime points score.
I think that if someone claims exceptional need, for instance to transport a less-able relative, their licence should be restricted to that, and only that, or to working hours, or commuting, or whatever. And their insurance should reflect this condition.
It shouldn't mean carry on as before.
[i]* There may be some disparity between areas on how big that fraction is. Anecdotally it seems to be less likely North of the Border, which is slightly counter intuitive with the impact in rural areas being higher.[/I]
Yes, but the 'powers that be' seem to live in the same bubble as the Westminster ones.
Not sure if was a cyclist but that's irrelevant anyhow.
Yes there was a case fairly recently in which someone was killed by a van driver who was using his mobile and who had several previous appearances for using his mobile whilst diving.
[i]van driver who killed a cyclist whilst using mobile phone at the wheel & had been let of numerous times for same offence[/i]
Do what? He was a serial killer and they let him off?
He'd not been let off for killing people in the past, but had been done more than once, (3 times possibly?) for using a mobile while driving.
Which is some going considering how weakly this is enforced, he must have pretty much had it clamped to the side of his head.
poly - MemberYou should go to a court and hear some cases. You'll find only a fraction succeed*, and those that do won't be just because they are professional driver. How the media portray it and what happens in court is not necessarily the same.
That's a fair point, what we see is basically outliers isn't it.
I claim B.S. No signage would have made it unenforceable.
I think what was meant was, no additional signage ie "LOOK OUT SPEED LIMIT CHANGE" and the like- just normal limits.
(a mate of mine got caught out by that change, he'd been dispatching for 20 years in London with a completely clean licence which makes him an incredible freak frankly, he wasn't a happy bunny... But it was classic "Driving within what you think the limit is" which is still speeding, just, speeding that people feel peeved when they get busted for.)
Lol @ dezB
From 2009 to 2015 he'd received 5 fixed penalty notices and two driver awareness courses all for using mobile phone whilst driving, 6 weeks before killing the cyclist he had argued that loosing his licence would be bring undue hardship on his family as he drove for a living
not having insurance, not responding to summons, failure to inform...
I think idiot applies to anyone that does any of these.
some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head
Three points for a bald tyre, isn't it? Do you need to be actually travelling for that to apply? You could potentially get a disqualification without going anywhere near your car if so.
No poly - not BS.
If you'd bothered reading my second post you'd have seen I was one of the drivers in court.
The gateway signs at either end were 30mph - there were NO repeaters at all on the bridge and it is lit at regular intervals. Basically they changed the limits without bothering to change the gateway signage AND install repeaters as is necessary by law at a time when revenue from speeding went straight back to the force in question.
They were STILL 30mph on the day of the court hearing and we produced pictures to prove it.
Magistrate didn't care because they stated the "City of London had done its duty to inform those visiting the City that the changes were taking place.
Referring to another recent thread - I then had a "falling out" shall we say with Admiral not quite 5yrs later over points, declaring them, statutory timescales, etc.
Hence why I called out the poster to state what he thought I was advising wrongly on. (I didn't actually give any advice on that thread btw)
I can't think of anything off the top of my head
Failure to give information (MS90)
I started writing my reply before your second post was written.No poly - not BS.
If you'd bothered reading my second post ...
sounds like you should have appealed.
Magistrate didn't care because they stated the "City of London had done its duty to inform those visiting the City that the changes were taking place.
I have a client which has a driver who amassed 27 points in 10 days thanks to a local authority change. He had been doing the same delivery round for 12 years and Westminster changed a "Controlled Zone" sign (like the one below) by simply removing the bottom section making it applicable 24/7. [img] 
[/img]
His delivery slot was between 3.30 & 4.00am 6 days a week & it was on the 9th working day after the change the first penalty notice arrived - the street concerned is now monitored by camera so it's all automated.
The court, as I understand it, reduced his points total to 12 & the fine to £280 to acknowledge the lack of notification signage/information.
I'm not sure I'd have spotted it either.
someone's insurance could lapse as a complete accident because they failed to update their debit card/direct debit
I'd say it's almost impossible this could happen as a "complete accident". If your policy is auto renew, and your card or direct debit payment fails at renewal, the insurer will renew you anyway and retry the payment collection or start a debt chase to recover the failed payment.
You would have to go through the debt process, ignore the subsequent warnings and fail to pay up before they cancel your policy. Insurers want your money, so they won't cancel a policy until they are absolutely sure you are not going to pay!
I think this a lawyer pulling wool over the eyes of a court that doesn't understand the process.
IMO, 12 points = life time ban.
You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.
You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.
Giving points for being stupid is never going to work. 😛 Where will I get a taxi from?
You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.
I'd agree with that if I didn't want to tempt fate and my clean licence. 8)
poly - Member
sounds like you should have appealed.
we did - was thrown out due to our status 😐
s27 of the C&U regs refers to "...used on a road..." rather than kept on a road. There might be an argument about whether keeping a vehicle on the road is using it, but the burden would fall to the crown to show who left it there (i.e. the driver not the registered keeper).Three points for a bald tyre, isn't it? Do you need to be actually travelling for that to apply? You could potentially get a disqualification without going anywhere near your car if so.
yes I explicitly mentioned that. You don't get a s172 conviction (MS90) entirely by accident!I can't think of anything off the top of my head
Failure to give information (MS90)
I believe it is, other than very local press a story about magistrates hearing a single genuine case of exceptional hardship and deciding that it was not fair to disqualify isn't news worthy. Similarly the majority of exceptional hardship cases where the magistrates refuse it, isn't very interesting. Of course magistrates are ordinary people (that being the essential requirement) and as such there are outliers their too. There is also a role for the crown to play in cross examining the offender on the validity of their claims; if they don't challenge the offender on the availability of public transport, the ability to cycle, the evidence to support their claims etc - then it means the magistrates will generally only hear one side of the argument. And there are outliers in terms of prosecutors too.That's a fair point, what we see is basically outliers isn't it.
A few road users on here really need to have a careful look at themselves, especially with regard to the danger that their speeding causes others.
Speeding is just one aspect of inattention, or is simply arrogance- 'my journey is more important than...'
"I can speed safely and avoid (speed traps, children, pets, deer, other inattentive drivers, pedestrians, potholes..)"
There is no excuse for speeding nor any need. Plan your journeys better or don't travel.
If you selfish idiots had ever been present to participate in the aftermath of a speed related road accident, I think you would take the wake up call.
A few road users on here really need to have a careful look at themselves, especially with regard to the danger that their speeding causes others.
You make it sound acceptable to have an accident as long as you're within the speed limit.
Inattentive, poor drivers need to take a good look at themselves, especially those that think driving is a right, and the effect their poor driving has on others.
You can drive at well over most posted national speed limits and not collect ANY points if you pay attention.
Hardly news though is it. There are so few cameras and traffic police that only 0.001% of roads are covered at an moment in time, which basically leaves the other 99.999% unpoliced.
I think highlandman's username makes it obvious what is to be considered speeding.
Was that sheep breaking the law as it cut you up yesterday?
Hooligan!
Speeding is not the factor and you need to sort your thinking out.
Any traffic officer or investigator will tell you - inappropriate speed[i] is the issue and only a contributory factor is a small percentage of accidents.
The overall poor and deteriorating standard of driving and the fact it is considered a [b]right[/b] is the issue in this country.
Speeding is not the factor and you need to sort your thinking out.
Any traffic officer or investigator will tell you - inappropriate speed[i] is the issue and only a contributory factor is a small percentage of accidents.
We don't need to ask a traffic officer because one of the West Midlands Police traffic officers has volunteered this:
Speed kills, there is no doubting this. Whether as a singular factor or as an aggravating factor in combination with other judicious driving actions it is present in the majority of fatal and serious collisions we attend and subsequently investigate. It is actually present in the majority of all collisions.
https://trafficwmp.wordpress.com/2016/04/25/cash-cows-stealth-taxes-and-revenue-raisers/
I'd say it's almost impossible this could happen as a "complete accident". If your policy is auto renew, and your card or direct debit payment fails at renewal, the insurer will renew you anyway and retry the payment collection or start a debt chase to recover the failed payment.
I once received a £90 fine and six points for driving without insurance due to a 20 minute gap between two consecutive policies. I'd absolutely no idea until I produced my documents at the cop shop.
Fancy driving to the police station with no insurance, almost as silly as drink driving to an interview at one.
There's a lot of hot air being generated on here - [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-39063797 ]maybe this lot[/url] have something to do with it?
There's a lot of hot air being generated on here - maybe this lot have something to do with it?
What is the law on impersonating police officers?
I once received a £90 fine and six points for driving without insurance due to a 20 minute gap between two consecutive policies. I'd absolutely no idea until I produced my documents at the cop shop.
Was that renewal of an existing policy from one insurer, or consecutive policies provided by two different insurers?
What is the law on impersonating police officers?
I don't think they [b]are[/b] impersonating police officers - their hi-viz jackets don't have "Police" plastered over them. Technically they are just standing by the side of the road pointing hair dryers at motorists 😉
I once received a £90 fine and six points for driving without insurance due to a 20 minute gap between two consecutive policies. I'd absolutely no idea until I produced my documents at the cop shop.
and you were unlucky enough to get pulled over during those 20 minutes? what are the chances of that?
You make it sound acceptable to have an accident as long as you're within the speed limit.
There should be automatic points involvement in an 'at fault' collision as a matter of course IMO.
points for a bald tyre even if not being driven
which makes a certain amount of sense. Hard to see how the vehicle wasn't driven with a bald tyre - few people are likely to have removed good tyres, replace with bad, and leave on the road.
As of 2011, 43% of drivers with 12 points or more were still driving.
If almost half of drivers can plead "exceptional hardship" or some other special circumstance to avoid a ban, it's not really that exceptional...
(HT to Bez of this parish)
[quote=poly ]
some points can be awarded without the car being driven.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head [with the possible technical exception of drunk in charge, and failing to name the driver] - can you explain? all the "keeping..." type offences I can think of don't carry points.
You then go on to discuss what is presumably the most common one 😕
Well yes and no. Firstly if someone has a genuine belief that they were insured and can convince the court that belief was reasonably held they can be found technically guilty without having points added. The court expect to see evidence that you took reasonable precautions (like having enough money in your account, opening mail etc!). The court can impose 6-8 pts, although the fixed penalty is 6.
My mum got done for no insurance (the main reason for it happening is that she kept trying to pay by cheque and the insurance company no longer took cheques - she then buried her head in the sand). From all the documentation I saw I'm sure that she wasn't actually caught driving, but it was issued by the DVLA under the current continuous insurance rules.
FWIW I wrote to the court pleading guilty and explaining the circumstances (by the time I found out about it she'd already also ignored a fixed penalty notice). Wasn't particularly interested in avoiding points, as she hasn't driven since anyway so didn't mention that at all, simply hoping to avoid too big a fine. The magistrates gave what I presume is the minimum possible fine (still a bit more than the fixed penalty) but no points which somewhat surprised me - it must have been a good letter! I certainly didn't try to claim that she'd followed all reasonable precautions, though it was clear that it wasn't deliberate and the magistrates presumably had sympathy on an old lady.
Speeding is not the factor and you need to sort your thinking out.
Speeding is most definitely a factor. Reaction times, stopping distances and severity of an accident are all affected by speed.
My older brother would more than likely still be alive if the man that ran him over had been traveling within the speed limit. That's according to one of the investigators. Five mph over resulted in the loss of life and why? So he could get to his destination a few seconds earlier and because he knew that stretch of road.
You need to sort your thinking out.
If I cannot drive I cannot work. I therefore do not speed even on the tedious 30mph country lanes that I would really like to blast down.
Just like not using your phone when driving or paying attention to the road it really isn't something that is hard to do.
62 points = lifetime ban and that's it.
It'll be some cardiac surgeon or something, at the top of their field and is on call to keep the lizards in control of the country working at peak performance.
stuff that, name and shame. If he/she can't be without a licence, give them a speed limited to 30mph Nissan Micra or a G-Whizz and let them get on with it