[Closed] Speeding penalty points

Hob Nob?

Yeah, why not turn a traffic offence into perverting the course of justice? They're both potentially in the cack if they get slammed with that.

it as its obviously a crime

if the photo is checked they will see it is a woman and not a man driving

Yes please [b]Cougar[/b] 🙂

Bushwacked - Member
she needs her car to drive.

Not at all. Presuming you meant "she needs her car for work" she should have thought of that well before now.

[i]she needs her car to drive[/i]

but doesn't need it enough to take care when she already has 9 points on her licence.

My 2p;

1) Can't believe she'd ask him, tbh.

2) I'd say no, it's just morally wrong.

3) 1 and 2 clearly don't apply if she's a government minister.

Bushwacked - I'd direct your mate and his wife towards the pepipoo forums. He's not going to get any sympathy on here.

If she [i]needs [/i]her car for work (ie, she'd lose her job without it) then she's got a case for "unnecessary hardship" which would mean a bigger fine rather than a ban.

If her livelyhood doesn't depend on it then she doesn't "need" a car at all, what she needs is banning so that she can learn to either slow down or be more observant. It's easy to get caught out once, but if you're speeding and paying so little attention that you repeatedly can't see great big yellow boxes at the side of the road, you shouldn't be speeding.

</2p>

LOng story but basically she started a new job back 2 years ago and was given quite a powerful company car that she wasn't used to (previous car Skoda Fabia). Within 3 months she'd got 9 points all for driving just over slightly over the limit (one was doing 44 in a 40). Learnt her lesson and has been driving very cautiously since.

Apparently this latest one was where the motorway goes from a 70 down to a 50 and she was caught doing 58 by a camera. I wonder if its worth contesting it.

Yeah, she needs her car for work, works in the health industry advising Oncology departments and travels a fair bit (well 20k miles a year)

Well if I was in that situation, I reckon I'd not discuss it with my mates - or if I did, I'd ask them not to post it on a public internet forum. So much easier for the police when they have some evidence.

If it was on a motorway was it an average speed check one through roadworks then?

Well if I was in that situation, I reckon I'd not discuss it with my mates - or if I did, I'd ask them not to post it on a public internet forum. So much easier for the police when they have some evidence.

I'm not sure a transcript from an internet forum talking about someones mates wife would be permitted as evidence.

Apparently this latest one was where the motorway goes from a 70 down to a 50 and she was caught doing 58 by a camera. I wonder if its worth contesting it.

I'd also advise not using the "new powerful car" line in court - unlikely to get any more sympathy for it there than on here.

Learnt her lesson and has [s]been driving very cautiously[/s] managed to avoid getting caught since.

I take it this replacement car was equiped with a speedometer?

I'm not sure a transcript from an internet forum talking about someones mates other half would be permitted as evidence.

She needs her employer to state on record that they'd have to sack her if she lost her licence. She'd more than likely escape a ban in that case.

doesn't that motorbike/professional northerner/barge builder bloke have about 30 points on his licence or something?

http://road.cc/content/news/44102-courts-let-nearly-half-motorists-who-accrue-12-or-more-penalty-points-continue

Whatever the whys and wherefores you have now implicated yourself in perverting the course of justice.

I have every sympathy with people who get caught as a one-off - I suspect many from here have been there - me included and it was a wake-up call to sort myself out and pay a bit more attention to what was around me rather than what time I was going to arrive at my destination.

9 points is more than likely three offences for the OP's [s]friend's[/s] wife - she really ought to be paying more attention. Maybe it's best if she's off the road for a bit, eh?

Kettles on Cougar...don't mind if I do.

I would not take the points, she has a responsibility to drive carefully - we all muck up at times, but heading for 12 points is a reflection of her poor / fast driving IMO. She needs to MTHFU and take that responsibility, not blame a car that is 'too fast'; or decide after the fact that she 'needs' a licence more than to be somewhere a few mins early; or put hubby in a position he should not need to be in. etc.

I've driven all sorts from 60 horsepower Superminis to 300 brake barges.

Getting nicked once for "I didn't twig I was speeding" is just about understandable, three times isn't.

I suspect she's best off going up before the beak with a good lawyer and pleading poverty if she gets banned.

LOL @ 'it was a fast car' excuse.

Maybe she's really really fat, and has a heavy right foot?

You won't get much love here I would imagine - remember everyone becomes perfect themselves when behind a keyboard 😉

Regarding getting someone to take the hit for you - sounds risky though in practise I have no idea if a human eye ever passes over these cases. However, I would imagine she would not be the only looser if she lost her job through being banned, he would be pretty hard done my too in terms of houshold income so he would be taking the hit for the team. Not sure I would go down that road though.

My two thoughts:-

1. Never understood why exceptional circumstances were made for those needing a car for work (or mother's avoiding prison sentences come to that). We all know "the rules" when we do wrong - if you have more to loose you should take that into account when making your decisions. I would have thought the reasoning behind the 12 points to a ban is that it is proof of poor driving & you are no less poor just because you "need" your car more.

2. Those 50mph reduced speed motorway zones - arn't we in general so much better behaved through those than we used to be? I'd have more respect/understanding though if I could always see the points of them. They make perfect sense when there are workmen in the area or we are driving in temporary lanes that are not marked properly or narrow but I've lost count of the times I've been through areas where all the cones are stacked up on the side of the road and the workmen and machinery are nowhere to be seen.

I would join the no sympathy gang; I accept the "she'll maybe loose her job so beg the judge not to ban her" argument - but actually that is the whole point of 12 points adding up to a ban - it is a major incentive to follow the law. The article posted above suggests that it works more often than I would expect. I have only ever heard it being used successfully where it not only impacts YOU but other people. E.g. a small company owner gets banned and the whole company is in jeopardy.

Having said all that the onus is on the registered keeper and the driver(s) involved to explain who was driving. It seems very unlikely that you would get caught "lying" and even more unlikely that they could prove it was anything other than a genuine error.

1. Never understood why exceptional circumstances were made for those needing a car for work (or mother's avoiding prison sentences come to that).

It's called 'exceptional hardship.' You're receiving a sentence which is largely fixed based on guidelines and past case histories. If you've got two people who commit the same crime but for whom the punishments would be unfairly disparate, that is taken into account. So if a driving ban would result directly in a loss of employment, that is viewed as unfair (as it would effectively be extra punishment) and they'd consider sentencing a larger fine instead of disqualification in that case.

I would suggest that, whatever course of action the OP and his wife take, she gets herself booked in pronto for some driving lessons. She's evidently a pretty inattentive driver and I'd hope would take some instruction to become a safer road user.

Or next time it could be a child's face....

It seems very unlikely that you would get caught "lying" and even more unlikely that they could prove it was anything other than a genuine error.

It's called 'exceptional hardship.' You're receiving a sentence which is largely fixed based on guidelines and past case histories. If you've got two people who commit the same crime but for whom the punishments would be unfairly disparate, that is taken into account. So if a driving ban would result directly in a loss of employment, that is viewed as unfair (as it would effectively be extra punishment) and they'd consider sentencing a larger fine instead of disqualification in that case.

I understand how it works, but don't agree with the principle.

She's on her own on this one as far as I'm concerned. If use of a car was so important to her then a bit more care and attention was probably required.

I wouldn't be entirely unsympathetic; I'd get down to Evans and buy her a nice commuting bike...

I got 3 points once, knew it was coming as soon as I saw the gatso, didn't complain about it as I'd done the crime. Took it on the chin and learnt from it.
Now have had a clean licence since the points expired last year.

Is your [i]mate[/i] certain the driver can't be identified from the piture? Have they actually seen the picture? Can it be proved he was somewhere else i.e. at work rather than driving the car when the offence was comitted?

I understand how it works, but don't agree with the principle.

Sorry, you said...

Never understood why exceptional circumstances were made

... not that you didn't agree with it. Fortunately, you don't have to.

Would you agree that 'ability to pay' should be taken into account when issuing fines?

I'll tell you who I feel sorry for in this instance, Bushwacked. The answers above are as predicatble and sanctimonious as always.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some of your lives:

Missus (love of your life, mother of your children, etc):
"I've been incredibly stupid and been done for speeding yet again. I think I'm going to lose my license, and with it my job, and therefore also the house."

STW Massive:
"Oh dear oh dear, what a silly woman. I'm off out on my SS 29er round somethere that isn't a trailcentre. Make sure you've packed your bags by the time I'm back.

STW Massive:
"Oh dear oh dear, what a silly woman. I'm off out on my SS 29er round somethere that isn't a trailcentre. Make sure you've packed your bags by the time I'm back.

By the way, I know someone who did this and it went wrong. They wrote back to him and said unless your wife is 6'2" with short hair and a beard, you may want to double check who was driving your vehicle that day (with a few threats abour perverting etc). They didn't turn up with a Tactical Aid Unit and put him in solitary for ten years.

If you've got two people who commit the same crime but for whom the punishments would be unfairly disparate, that is taken into account.

Do they take into account the fact that if you're driving your own car your insurance might jump considerably, whereas if your company provides the insurance you're not paying the premium?

I presume the company has to declare on the insurance that a driver has 12 points? Wonder if they could refuse to insure irrespective of whether a person kept their licence with 12 points?

I'll tell you who I feel sorry for in this instance, Bushwacked. The answers above are as predicatble and sanctimonious as always.

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in some of your lives:

Missus (love of your life, mother of your children, etc):
"I've been incredibly stupid and been done for speeding yet again. I think I'm going to lose my license, and with it my job, and therefore also the house."

STW Massive:
"Oh dear oh dear, what a silly woman. I'm off out on my SS 29er round somethere that isn't a trailcentre. Make sure you've packed your bags by the time I'm back.

+1 🙂

I'll tell you who I feel sorry for in this instance, Bushwacked. The answers above are as predicatble and sanctimonious as always.

one was doing 44 in a 40

No it wasn't!

you only get a fixed penalty in a 40 for 46 or over.

I'd take them for my wife if we were in the same situation. Its no biggie.

Oh sorry. What I meant to write was:
Go for it - I'm sure they'll never notice. I understand how easy it is to get caught for speeding 4 times, especially when you've got a car which goes a bit fast.

Genuine out-loud laugh at that.

I'd take them for my wife if we were in the same situation. [s]Its[/s] 3 month jail sentence is no biggie.

3 month jail sentence is no biggie

They have to catch you first.

They have to catch you first.

If it was going through the variable speed limit schemes (like on the M25 or M6 etc) then the camera photograph would not be able to show who is driving seen as they face the rear of the car.

Aracer would you actually effectively sack your wife just to teach her a lesson about speeding?

This was a few years ago, but just goes to show what happens when it all goes horribly wrong:

[url= http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1805443.0/?act=complaint&cid=739055 ]BMW Finanace Manger jailed for speeding, and lying in court...[/url]

Aracer would you actually effectively sack your wife just to teach her a lesson about speeding?

Aracer, have you ever thought about a career change; stand-up perhaps?

What with classics like;

Oh sorry. What I meant to write was:
Go for it - I'm sure they'll never notice. I understand how easy it is to get caught for speeding 4 times, especially when you've got a car which goes a bit fast.

and

I'd take them for my wife if we were in the same situation. Its 3 month jail sentence is no biggie.

I honestly think you'd go down a storm. You're stage name could be
"Aracer - The sarcastic online forum editor", or something equally snappy.

Hmm, so I'm advising against risking a more serious charge which is likely to be far worse for the OP than his [s]mates[/s] wife losing her job, and have also posted something suggesting that 12 points doesn't necessarily mean a ban, yet I'm the baddie round here? 🙄

Would it really be preferable to advise OP that everything is OK and [s]he[/s] his mate should take the points for wifey?

Second page and no one has yet mentioned Chris Huhne - what is going on?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14723358

I'd take it. If they go to photo, just claim that you thought it was you (I mean, her husband) who was driving the car around that time. The alternative is she picks up 12 points, struggles with job, may lose it. Drop in income, poverty, social unrest, riots.

Take the hit, I would.

It's a fairly widespread practice

Estimated at 750,000 cases, mainly women taking the hit for their husbands/boyfriends
Points dished out over the last decade went up quite a bit but bans from accruing 12 points went down 🙂

Depending how well you know your mate I would tell him that she clearly shouldn't be driving on public roads anyway.

Re the possibility of not losing your licence due to pleading exceptional hardship. I know from personal experience that exceptional hardship defence will not work unless you can prove the hardship relates to other innocent parties, i.e if your wife's ability to drive is essential to providing care or financial support to others. Simply losing her job if she doesn't have a licence is not sufficient as the hardship will only be to herself.

Depending how well you know your mate I would tell him that she clearly shouldn't be driving on public roads anyway.

I'd say based on the scant info here that is a bit harsh. However whilst it's pretty easy to pick up points for minor levels of speed indescression, not being observant enough to spot the cameras that many times is a little worrying. I've done it myself and gave myself a royal kick up the arse and I think my driving is better because of it.

It's a bit like the "have you ever hit a cyclist" thread. Lots of us on there owning up to momentary lapses of concentration/attention. 4 times in 2 years is, however, a bit more than a one-off and perhaps points to a general lack of care and attention whilst driving. I'd say she's a danger on the road and should be taught so accordingly.

LOng story but basically she started a new job back 2 years ago and was given quite a powerful company car that she wasn't used to (previous car Skoda Fabia). Within 3 months she'd got 9 points all for driving just over slightly over the limit (one was doing 44 in a 40). Learnt her lesson and has been driving very cautiously since.

The "more powerful car" joke is just that. I have a VERY powerful car and a very powerless car. I don't speed any more in the powerful car than I do in the gutless one unless I choose to do so. 9 points says "I don't care about the law or have no idea about car control" and so I'd suggest he saves her and others lives by letting her take the points and the ban.

"Oh dear oh dear, what a silly woman. I'm off out on my SS 29er round somethere that isn't a trailcentre. Make sure you've packed your bags by the time I'm back.

As if anyone would react like that. I mean, a 29er? come on.

while I agree that she should be more careful on the road, and as she's your (mates) wife not mine I'd sooner her be off the road for a while and then forced to do a course to get her license back

however if it was my wife I'd prob take the points and then plead ignorance that I wasn't driving

not the right thing to do, but then again it's real life we're talking about rather than holier than thou forum hypothesising isn't it.

More importantly I'd also be expecting to be woken up with my todger being gobbled for the next few months (I'd say however long the possibly jail term for perverting the course of justice was, as if it goes wrong you could be the one gobbling cock) and suggest that a few driving catchup lessons etc wouldn't go a miss. I'd do the suggestions while her mouth was full so there'd be no way to disagree 🙂

If I was the OP's friend, I'd be questioning if I wanted a wife who wanted me to a) take the fall for her own stupidity, and b) wanted me to commit a greater crime than the original offence to do so. You can't 'accidentally' get 9 points on your license - if you get caught once, you should be bloody careful about your speed after that. If you get caught twice, even more so. Three times? You might want to think about giving up the car if you're so incapable of obeying speed limits, or at the very least obeying them when you're being watched.

If she does genuinely need her car for her job and can't get by on public transport then chances are the judge will let her keep her licence. It does sounds like she needs to face the very real risk of losing her licence, as the penalties so far don't seem to have made much of an impression.

can i have their names, could make a few quid out of this 🙂

+1 Mrs Toast

I'd be questioning if I wanted a wife who wanted me to a) take the fall for her own stupidity, and b) wanted me to commit a greater crime than the original offence to do so

Boom

If she does genuinely need her car for her job and can't get by on public transport then chances are the judge will let her keep her licence

sadly

You don't think they might be a tad suspicious at a company car being driven by the partner of somebody with 9 points?

Firstly - I think you are putting too much thinking into how they process it. Its unlikely that they would even realise than Mr X doesn't work for BigPharma Ltd. Indeed they probably don't even know the car is leased to BigPharma Ltd since it is probably Nameless LeaseCo Ltd who are the registered keeper.

Secondly - I doubt that even if they made the association between LeaseCo, BigPharma and Mrs X that they even know she has 9 points.

Thirdly - it is entirely credible that Mr X was driving Mrs X car. Even if it was Mon-Fri 9-5, the prosecuting agency has no reason to believe that she was actually at work on the day of the offence.

Fourthy - as someone else says its very common, but usually the wife taking the husbands points - so naming a male driver will raise less suspicion.

and "genuine error" doesn't tend to wash in a case of PTCOJ.

The OP's "friend" can of course request the pictures before responding but it then becomes "impossible" to lie if they can be identified.

The only way I can see someone getting caught is if it was during normal working hours and the employer are involved in reporting the details, or if they blab to someone (and the Chris Hume example does highlight why you would want to trust someone entirely before risking it)!

Provided he's not done anything silly like posting it on the internet

Mrs Toast - Member
If I was the OP's friend, I'd be questioning if I wanted a wife who wanted me to a) take the fall for her own stupidity, and b) wanted me to commit a greater crime than the original offence to do so

They were my main criteria when buying my wife.

Luckily I'm not married!!!

You are only required to use "reasonable diligence" to establish who was driving and not go to 'exception lengths'. As there is no statutory duty to keep records it seems perfectly plausible to me that there will be plenty of cases where the wrong driver is identified (through genuine error). Since that possibility exists a PtCoJ prosecution would need to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that this was intentional. Provided he's not done anything silly like posting it on the internet, there is probably no evidence that this was anything other than confusion over the date/time! If the police really wanted to catch the offender they would stick the photos in with the letter!

Not quite true. You have to use reasonable diligence to establish who was driving, however on a personal issue company car its more than likely the person its leased to, or there partner. You would probably be charged with "failure to furnish" which carries a very hefty fine and a conviction code that insurers will batter you for having on your license

Perverting the course of justice is a custodial sentence is it not??

Its not even that she has 3 previous counts for me, its that she has 3 previous in 3 years.
She's just not caring.

Not quite true. You have to use reasonable diligence to establish who was driving

[url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23386016-the-strange-case-of-lord-loophole-and-the-mystery-driver-in-his-speeding-car.do ]Can't you just claim you don't remember?[/url]

50 limits on motorways almost always average speed cameras? So, over a mile or so she didn't think to get he average speed down a tad - more than likely her indicated speed was above 60 too.

50 limits on motorways almost always average speed cameras?

No

This wasn't on the A34/A30 merge at Winchester where it joins the M3 was it?

Tell him to tell her "i`ll take the points but..........." then start enjoying his new sex slave. 😆

She is an idiot and clearly can't drive and shouldn't be driving! Once fair enough but that many occasions, her fault if she loses her job, no sympathy.

AS for him taking her points as already stated, does he really want to go to prison? remember you may think that there is a speed camera which MAY NOT catch a picture of her driving. If they start looking into this they will do FAR more than just get the speeding picture! Rememebr in this day and age big brother is watching you, think who police will go and speak to you. And yes the police do a lot of investigations into stuff like this nowadays as it is such a serious offence.

Tell her to MTFU and take the points but attend court with a decent lawyer who can give her frigging sob story and get her a £1000 fine instead. Good luck!!!

And yes the police do a lot of investigations into stuff like this nowadays as it is such a serious offence.

unless - of course - it's fellow officers that have 'forgot' who was driving

Uplink, it may have happened in other forces however most forces there are various systems in place to log who is driving when, fob access to car keys etc. Plus there is a department that investigates coppers and I know of many who have been booted/convicted.

I'm sure it gets reported out of proportion, but we certainly seem to get a lot of 'ducking and diving' by officers around here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3151221.stm

The majority of people on this forum would use a legal loophole to get them out of a speeding charge, not saying it's right or wrong but just pointing it out!!

[i]The majority of people on this forum would use a legal loophole to get them out of a speeding charge[/i]

how did you establish that?