You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Blatant criminal lying on multiple occasions. So many times she had the chance to stop this. Why just community service ffs?
Plus how crap is she behind the wheel? Does she have any sense of speed, condition's or even awareness of cameras ffs?
She didn't? She got a suspended sentence and community service?
Maybe she agreed to go on a speed awareness course?
I know that attendance at one certainly stopped me hitting 100 mph on my route home from it.
She jumped the red light in Rotherham. Probably trying to avoid a car jacking.
Not sure why she escaped a ban though.
Lock her up so she loses her job and becomes another state dependant that the Daily Wail love so much?
Ignoring what should have been done re the deception/perverting justice etc Why has she not been banned? She has accrued enough points.
She must be a bad driver as she got caught by stationary cameras on her commute
Why couldn't she slow down? Simples. Its not rocket science is it?
The thinking must have been 'carry on as before' as I have an 'insurance policy'
Deception- needs more than a suspended IMO.
Why couldn't she slow down? Simples. Its not rocket science is it?
That's very true in a way. It's very easy to avoid getting caught if you have a modicum of intelligence, but act like an arse like she seems to have been doing and it's only a matter of time. The ting is, even then, she'll have got away with it 100 times for every time she was caught, and that's the scary part.
She's a business women who drives a big car and can afford a lawyer, surely you don't expect the law to punish a citizen of her standing.
Can't believe that in this day and age that you still have to manually inform the DVLA of a death though, you think some of these things would link up...
I know. Folk like that are lucky that there isnt a speed camera on every street.
Ahh jeez. I just re-read the article and took notice of the pic. Static speed camera in town. They kindly print lists of where they are, put signs up telling you they're there, and then paint them bright yellow. And any decent satnav will warn you too.
She don't need punishing, she needs training of some sort and an eyesight test!
Should have gone to Specsavers!
Thats what I mean- how bad is her awareness for many things?
Goodbye to the speed cameras!!!
Goodbye to the speed cameras!!!
Hopefully hello to more mobile camera units (and I mean that).
I would have thought that perverting the course of justice in this way would have attracted a bigger punishment really. Seems to be worth the risk if I ever get so many points - shame my Mum's not dead yet though....
I honestly don’t know why I did it
I can think of a few reasons why you did it, you irresponsible, lying, self-important cow.
Just like I'd have a pretty good idea why you should have your car taken away and crushed, 'cos clearly you can't be trusted with it.
As for 'speed awareness'. Helpfully, they put these signs up every few hundred yards telling you the maximum allowed speeds, and theres a dial on my dashboard which tells me actual. As long as the number is on the dashboard is less than the one on the sign, all's good. In fact, you might even consider thinking about the road ahead and see if a lower number still might be appropriate - like they taught you in your test. Clear enough?
I honestly don’t know why I did it
Reads as 'I kept on getting away with it so why not? and no one would have known if it wasn't for the fact that I cant drive for toffee'.
From October, the mobile speed cameras on the M4 between Chippenham and Swindon won't be there anymore. KSIs went down (IIRC from Points West last night) while they were operational.
It'll be interesting to see what happens next.
Edited to remove half-remembered stats.
MSP - MemberShe's a business women who drives a big car and can afford a lawyer, surely you don't expect the law to punish a citizen of her standing.
I think that sums it up quite succincly. Money talks!
Mobile cameras
Why has she not been banned?
12 points means you're eligible for a ban, it's not automatic. Typically you'll get a ban unless you can prove unnecessary hardship (eg, you're physically disabled and wholly reliant on the car for survival) or if you'll lose your job if you lose your licence.
My guess is it's the latter that applied here. If they don't issue a ban, they should ramp up the fine instead.
(from memory; I am not a lawyer, etc)
Can't believe that in this day and age that you still have to manually inform the DVLA of a death though, you think some of these things would link up...
Unfortunately not, as not everyone can has a licence and at the time it's probably easy to overlook.... [b]however[/b] to say that your dead mother was driving is another thing completely.
Sergeant Mark Beales of Greater Manchester Police said the offence was ‘despicable’, adding: ‘We will always pursue people who provide false details as this case shows and the matter is something we take very seriously.’
Yeah, and give them a suspended sentence FFS!!!
Ah well, she did say sorry so that's alright then.
She'll be back. some people can't help their right foot.
Hopefully hello to more mobile camera units (and I mean that).
Not much harder to avoid than static ones these days. They print lists of where the sites are, satnav warns you, they put them in bloody great big signwritten vans, and park them in odd places with a nice view up the road
🙂
Just some old stories below but there are more recent out there..
http://www.micra.org.uk/threads/23165-PistonHeads.com-Speed-Guns-In-Builder-s-Vans?p=264636
In general- why should they advertise where they are located? Its not a game is it?
Im a fine one to talk sometimes- most of the time I'm law-abiding but on the times I do become fruity behind the wheel and caught then tough.
Not much harder to avoid than static ones these days. They print lists of where the sites are, satnav warns you, they put them in bloody great big signwritten vans, and park them in odd places with a nice view up the road
But they still speed and then complain when they get caught!!
Trouble is, people will read this story, and as it's so clear cut what's happened - she's clearly lied to the authorities all along and the Judge for whatever reason (business woman / blonde / fellow big car owner) decided that she should have a suspended sentence / community service - and anyone reading this will think the law is an ar5e!!
Speed camera vans should also all be removed and more police cars back on the roads, this of course won't happen! I pass four cameras to and from work everyday and can honestly say my driving is impaired because of them!! I spen more time looking down and checking the speed than at the road!! Saw that Oxfordshire are culling their mobile units aswell as fixed in the paper on Monday!!
Ive also heard of someone who evaded a fine recently by simply stating it wasn't him on the bike. Claimed it was a ringer and cps could do no more!
Speed camera vans should also all be removed and more police cars back on the roads,
It isn't either or though. If speed camera vans catch lots of people speeding, that makes money from the fines which can be spent on more police cars on the road. The logical solution is to make speed camera vans harder to spot, and not publicise their location, in order that they can bring in more money from bad drivers, so we can afford larger numbers of transport police cars, to catch people who suck at driving in different ways.
I spen more time looking down and checking the speed than at the road!!
On my 3rd driving lesson, the driving instructor explained how to use gears correctly, and listen to the engine, in order to not have to watch the speedometer all the time. It doesn't seem particularly hard. Perhaps you could take some extra driving lessons, they might be able to help you learn to judge your speed a bit better.
Joe
She showed complete disregard for the law.
It was hardly a case of 'oh no I made an error of judgement but panicked and decided to cover it up, then another and cover it up and then another and then as I got away with it I thought 'why not' and another.....
I spen more time looking down and checking the speed than at the road!!
So sorry that you are being forced to obey the laws and this then makes you a worse driver. Thank god someone as compotent as you can safely speed for the rest of the journey
In general- why should they advertise where they are located? Its not a game is it?
Point = Missed. By a mile. The fact is that camera locations ARE available to all, so if you get caught, who's fault is it?
But they still speed and then complain when they get caught!!
I don't complain. Yes, I'll be glad to see the back of speed cameras now they are being put out of use, but the only advantage to me is that I'll be able to watch where I'm going, rather than staring at the speedo when I get near one.
It isn't either or though. If speed camera vans catch lots of people speeding, that makes money from the fines which can be spent on more police cars on the road
Ahh, but it don't work like that, do it? As we know, the governmnet are removing the funding for the cameras, so they are being shut down. Why would they be shut down if they didn't need the funding and were self financing? Tell me that.....
The logical solution is to make speed camera vans harder to spot, and not publicise their location, in order that they can bring in more money from bad drivers
No. Wrong. They aren't making money from bad drivers, but from speeding drivers, and there is a difference. Yes, some of them like the OPs example are bad drivers, but the majority aren't bad, just unlucky, got distracted etc. Cameras don't catch uninsured drivers, banned drivers, or bad drivers. And it's quite possible to be VERY bad indeed and not go over the limit. Cameras treat the symptom of the disease, not the cause.
I've said it for years and years, and I'll repeat it until I die, but what we need is better training, retesting and regular medicals. But this won't happen becasue it would reduce the numbers of drivers on the roads, tax revenue, and loose votes at the election.
Imagine for instance if we had a graded license system put into place... Lets say on passing you were graded as B or C and restricted to so many BHP per ton. Then at your retest in 5 years time you would have the opportunity to improve from a C to a B, or an A (A not being available to first time passes) and only an A grade would leave you unlimited to car choice. It's only vague idea and obviously has it's pitfalls, but it would promote an awareness of driving standards and encourage people to improve.
Now, most people pass their test then forget all about it, stick their head in the sand, and refuse to believe they can learn more or improve. Then, to treat one symptom of this (Speeding) we get it rammed down our throats that cameras are the fix, until people actually begin to believe it. There's more people believe in the 9/11 conspiricy theories on STW alone, than question the BS we're fed about driving in the UK......
You're right, of course. Speed limits were put in place forever ago when we were driving Austin Healeys. Modern vehicles, even crap ones, have massively shorter stopping distances. Result, almost everyone speeds. Even the blue-rinse brigade, I regularly get stuck behind one on the way to work who's driving is fixed at 40mph irrespective of whether the posted limit is 30, 40, 50 or 60.
The whole "speed was a factor" in incident reports is a symptom of this. Just because a driver was speeding doesn't mean that speed was a [i]causal [/i]factor. More likely they were speeding whilst changing CDs / fiddling with their phone / checking out the blonde jogger on the other side of the road.
Thing is though, it's an easy, measurable win. "Where you speeding, yes / no" - very easy to prove. Driving without due care, much much harder to get a conviction because it's often an objective thing.
Isn't anydody asking the question as to why her dead mother was still on their system. To me when the police (or whoever deals with putting points on) input the name into the system it should have come up she was dead!
Isn't anydody asking the question as to why her dead mother was still on their system. To me when the police (or whoever deals with putting points on) input the name into the system it should have come up she was dead!
It's a fair point.
I pass four cameras to and from work everyday and can honestly say my driving is impaired because of them!! I spen more time looking down and checking the speed than at the road!!
Er, you need to be able to look after your speed whilst looking at the road. I can do it, why can't you? Are you not capable in some way?
Just because a driver was speeding doesn't mean that speed was a causal factor.
Nope, but it makes matters worse. If it takes 5 seconds to select something say on your stereo/satnav/phone:
a) you'll have gone further not looking at the road
b) other people will have less time to clock you're not paying attention and take action
c) if you hit something whilst not looking the crash will be worse
.. if you are going faster.
Admittedly hardly any crashes are caused purely by speed, and most are caused by not paying attention; but it's a given that people are going to lose concentration at some point, so lower speed therefore makes us all safer.
I dunno why I have to keep explaining this. It seem blatantly obvious to me. Do everything you can to make yourself safe - travelling at or around the speed limit is an easy one, to be done alongside concentrating properly.
They aren't making money from bad drivers, but from speeding drivers, and there is a difference
They are fining law-breakers. I don't see how you can argue against that.
If you want, you could have different speed limits for better drivers and worse ones - but that would be wildly impractical, don't you think? The only other option would be to abolish speed limits, which would also be wildly impractical!
Isn't anydody asking the question as to why her dead mother was still on their system. To me when the police (or whoever deals with putting points on) input the name into the system it should have come up she was dead!
They are working on that.
Lots of systems are not currently joined up. We reported a car stolen, then a month later we got a letter asking why we hadn't paid a parking ticket... From the same plod.
Nope, but it makes matters worse. ... Admittedly hardly any crashes are caused purely by speed,
No arguments on either point there, it's the implication that the latter is the case which irks me somewhat.
lower speed therefore makes us all safer.
You're going to have to back that up with statistics, because I believe it's an obvious but incorrect assumption. At slower speeds people get bored, reckless, inattentive, impatient, aggressive... none of which makes for "safer" driving.
Speed limits were put in place forever ago when we were driving Austin Healeys. Modern vehicles, even crap ones, have massively shorter stopping distances. Result, almost everyone speeds.
True, but also there were far less cars on the road at the time. Less cars means more space. More space means stopping distances aren't such an issue before you hit the one in front. Less space also means junctions, etc. are more 'contested' now than they used to be, meaning people are more likely to pull out in front of us then in the old days when a car would pass your junction less frequently
OK, granted we're better off now for a kid running into the road in front of us, we have a better chance to stop then. But I still can't see that as being a justification for speeding in a built up area, because I've got good brakes.
Re speed: I've said this about motorbikers. The bollocks about 'make good progress' as though this is seen as a way to keep out of the evil clutches of car drivers who otherwise might climb allover them and hump them...
Make good progress also means you arrive quicker at developing hazzards....
That lad in his car pulling out of the Tjunction was can't best gauge speeds of a thin motorcycle with its headlight glaring ....you approach him at 40+ on your motorbike ....boy your going to REALLY T-bone his car hard aren't you?
On my 3rd driving lesson, the driving instructor explained how to use gears correctly, and listen to the engine, in order to not have to watch the speedometer all the time. It doesn't seem particularly hard.
In a modern, well insulated car, probably with a high power diesel with a gearbox with six or seven ratios? I'll bet you can't. At an indicated 90, (81mph), my Octavia makes more noise with the tyres and wind, I can't hear the engine. I used to own a Puma, and I got used to using the tacho, at 3000rpm in top I would be doing 60. Then I borrowed a new Audi A3 1.9TDi with a six speed 'box. I was happily cruising at 3000 in top, delighting at how quiet the engine was, I could barely hear it. I happened to look at the speedo and saw I was doing 95...
The engine was barely audible, diesels are more heavily soundproofed, so your little 'trick' is useless.
junkyard, molgrips, joe, your driving prowess amazes me! when the cameras are in a 30 all i care about is not going over 30, thats it, its so easily done without being reckless, i dont want 3 points and a sixty pounder!! ive been driving 15 years in everything from a mk3 diesel escort, to transit vans, to my current new van and fully chavved 300 brake impreza! in all that time ive had one fixed penalty 10 yrs ago for speeding in a 30!
Good riddence to stupid drivers -they should keep the cameras so repeat offenders are banned. The odd mistake people do but not that many times!
31 in a 30, flash flash, forty quid and three points TVM. If you can tell the difference between 30 and 31 by ear you're a better man than me, and I've been driving for twenty years.
See, this is the problem; without the human intervention there's no provision for common sense. Were you doing 25 in a 20 zone past a school at 3:30am or 3:30pm? Did you accelerate briefly to avoid a hazard, or do you spend your entire life habitually hooning around at twice the posted limit? There's no distinction when you're dealing a machine.
Not that I'm saying it's right to speed per sé; just that perhaps different circumstances should carry different penalties. But no, they even force you to accept the machine's 'word' rather than get people involved with a proscution, by threatening you with increased penalties should you dare to want to discuss a ticket in court rather than sucking up a fixed penalty.
Meanwhile, little barstewards like the one I saw today on a trials bike with no helmet or numberplate get off scott free, can't catch those buggers on an automatic camera.
Here here cougar!!