Speeding fine.

[Blue in Munich]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617


When I read about things like this that's when I despair on how law is often handed out in this land...

Cannot think of one good reason why a huge fine wasn't applied and a lengthy ban...
For me, someone is clearly telling porky pies...

There is good reason why the CPS are sometimes referred to as the Criminals Protection Society by both serving and retired police officers. If the story has been accurately reported then it appears there's not a lot more that the police could do.

As for the sentence, they've apparently got off cheap with the fine (although there's no income details & the magistrates will have to follow guidelines according to the defendant's income) but it appears they've been given the maximum penalty points; the offence does not carry a ban according to the penalty table I've seen.

 

[nickjdavis]

With regards to the accuracy of Speedo's...

About 15 years ago I was pulled over on the M25 one evening....10pm, 4 lane stretch of motorway, dry, clear night, no traffic except in lane 1....I was on the way to "rescue" my girlfriend who had broken down at Clacketts Lane services and was in lane 4 to give what little traffic there was the widest berth possible given the speed I was driving at.

When pulled over and informed what speed I was doing I was asked if I wanted to see the dash cam recorded evidence. I declined, but commented on my surprise that the recorded speed was identical to what my Speedo was saying and that I always thought that Speedo's "over read".

The Officer asked me if my car had ABS and when I confirmed that it did he said... and I can still remember his words as clear as if he said them yesterday (simply because when I went to court the prosecution totally mis-stated what he did say... attributing his words to me!!!)...

" don't ask me why, because I'm not technically minded, but cars with ABS Speedo's seem to be a lot more accurate".

(In court the prosecution presented this as..." When Mr.Davis was informed he was doing 107mph he remarked that these cars with ABS's Speedo's were bloody accurate weren't they?")!!!

How true what he said was I will never know... but the magistrate lapped the prosecutions misrepresentation up and banned me. (I had pleaded guilty and written to the court presenting the mitigating circumstances but given the speed I was doing it was a mandatory court appearance).

Whilst I was waiting at the court for my turn to go before the beak, I got chatting to a young couple... only in their very early twenties. They'd got married and had arrived at Heathrow to fly off on honeymoon when hubby realised he had left the passports and plane tickets at home. Rushing back to pick them up he inevitably got pulled.

The couple missed their flight, had to delay their trip by a couple of days and pay extra to rearrange their flights. When they got back from honeymoon there was a letter on the doorstep informing the wife that she'd been made redundant.

Pitiless magistrate proceeded to ban husband for three months.

 

[JohnnyDee]

My view is that, by and large, magistrates should be done away with forthwith.

Most are pompous and opinionated busy-body nose-poking would-be do-gooders who read the Mail and are only too happy to be apalled by what the grubby working classes have to resort to to exist.

How any justice system believes that it can be served by or rely on such a group of reactionary clueless oafs beggars belief.

 

[Hobbit]

When we have a thread about golf rules the vast majority of people on here huff and puff, "the rules are the rules." Golf doesn't kill, and no one in a speeding car sets out to do so, but which is the more important rule? It amazes me how many people are trying to justify doing something that can kill.

 

[Captainron]

I don't give a monkeys if the road was clear, there were no other cars etc. The limit is the limit. Stay under the bloody limit! If you get caught then suck it up and take your punishment!

 

[Imurg]

At the end of the day, the limit is the limit. Why it's the limit is of little relevance.
It just is....
We have roads that are 30 that could easily be 40 but they're not.
Most drivers are hypocrites when it comes to speed.
The majority are quite happy to break the law......unless there's a patrol car or camera, in which case they're bang on the number
If its the right thing to do when you might get caught then its the right thing to do all the time.
There's a stretch of 30limit near me on the run up to a roundabout.
For 1/4 mile before there are 'hatched' lines on the road and nobody EVER overtakes there.
Until the approach to the roundabout where it becomes 2 lanes and they bomb past you at 45+. Follow the rules in one place but nothing another..

Many times a day I'll be doing 30 in a 30 and have a long tail of cars behind, or I'll get overtaken and that car then sits in front of me at the same speed - and that's when I'm driving, not just the kids.. Some years ago, the authorities were over the moon because 50% of drivers were now obeying the 30limit.
50%........and they were happy with that..

The Law is the Law - any Law.
Break it and face the consequences.

 

[woody69]

My view is that, by and large, magistrates should be done away with forthwith.

Most are pompous and opinionated busy-body nose-poking would-be do-gooders who read the Mail and are only too happy to be apalled by what the grubby working classes have to resort to to exist.

How any justice system believes that it can be served by or rely on such a group of reactionary clueless oafs beggars belief.

And what pray tell would you have in their place?

 

[MegaSteve]

There is good reason why the CPS are sometimes referred to as the Criminals Protection Society by both serving and retired police officers. If the story has been accurately reported then it appears there's not a lot more that the police could do.

As for the sentence, they've apparently got off cheap with the fine (although there's no income details & the magistrates will have to follow guidelines according to the defendant's income) but it appears they've been given the maximum penalty points; the offence does not carry a ban according to the penalty table I've seen.

It was, by forum standards, only a minor rant on my part...
I appreciate police and magistrates have done all they can...
But, as a 'failed' cyclist it frustrates the hell out of me...
Should I ever take to the roads again, on two wheels, think I'd be investing in one of those helmet cams...

 

[JohnnyDee]

And what pray tell would you have in their place?

People with a qualification in Law.

 

[woody69]

People with a qualification in Law.

So judges? You'd get rid of the lay magistrates and replace them with judges to over see the less serious cases magistrates currently review, such as minor theft, criminal damage, assaults, public disorder and motoring offences.

I suspect the only reason for magistrates is they are lower cost.

 

[JohnnyDee]

So judges? You'd get rid of the lay magistrates and replace them with judges to over see the less serious cases magistrates currently review, such as minor theft, criminal damage, assaults, public disorder and motoring offences.

I suspect the only reason for magistrates is they are lower cost.

Perhaps fully bewigged and gowned-up judges might be over-egging it - but maybe ex/retired barristers and solicitors etc. whose views may be based on knowledge of the 'Law', and heaven forbid, be tempered with a modicum of compassion and open-mindedness.

In fairness to magistrates I believe they are reimbursed expenses only and not paid as such.

My view comes about really as I have known a few over the years (not professionally ) and hearing them expressing themselves warmly on all manner of issues during this time does not instil within me any confidence that their views are impartial or indeed well-balanced.

 

[Robster59]

At the end of the day, the limit is the limit. Why it's the limit is of little relevance.
It just is....
We have roads that are 30 that could easily be 40 but they're not.
Most drivers are hypocrites when it comes to speed.
The majority are quite happy to break the law......unless there's a patrol car or camera, in which case they're bang on the number
If its the right thing to do when you might get caught then its the right thing to do all the time.
There's a stretch of 30limit near me on the run up to a roundabout.
For 1/4 mile before there are 'hatched' lines on the road and nobody EVER overtakes there.
Until the approach to the roundabout where it becomes 2 lanes and they bomb past you at 45+. Follow the rules in one place but nothing another..

Many times a day I'll be doing 30 in a 30 and have a long tail of cars behind, or I'll get overtaken and that car then sits in front of me at the same speed - and that's when I'm driving, not just the kids.. Some years ago, the authorities were over the moon because 50% of drivers were now obeying the 30limit.
50%........and they were happy with that..

The Law is the Law - any Law.
Break it and face the consequences.

This!
I've broken the speed limit in the past and got caught. Did I complain? No, because I knew the limit and broke it, or in one case didn't notice the limit had gone down to 30mph.
Nobodies fault but my own.

 

[Ethan]

Wow, so many admitted criminals.

As a balance to all that 'the law is the law' stuff, people have the right to expect that the design and application of the law is fair. This means that the determination of speed limits is genuinely based on safety and not just to catch people to boost income. And speed limits shouldn't be reduced just to placate residents who don't like the noise of cars. The police should want drivers watching the road rather than carefully scrutinising their speed and road signs all the time.

Slow driving can also cause harm, when drivers cause massive tailbacks and then when released, even if nobody breaks the limit, the risk of accidents is increased.

 

[Spear-Chucker]

Wow, so many admitted criminals.

As a balance to all that 'the law is the law' stuff, people have the right to expect that the design and application of the law is fair. This means that the determination of speed limits is genuinely based on safety and not just to catch people to boost income. And speed limits shouldn't be reduced just to placate residents who don't like the noise of cars. The police should want drivers watching the road rather than carefully scrutinising their speed and road signs all the time.

Slow driving can also cause harm, when drivers cause massive tailbacks and then when released, even if nobody breaks the limit, the risk of accidents is increased.

Rather agree, Ethan. On most counts actually. To pick up on one point, I find slow driving and people refusing to work up to the speed limit extremely frustrating and dangerous given the daily occurrence of watching the terminally impatient risking lives trying to get past them. Not helped when the local council puts up signs encouraging people to drive slower and not attempt the speed limit!

Sadly the line between limits to save lives and generate income have become blurred beyond repair and the relentless campaign against the humble motorist continues as we're too soft (read defenseless, I suppose) a target. Improvements in technology and understanding should mean we could take a much more informed view against legislation introduced 40+ years ago but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

 

[Blue in Munich]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-35472617


When I read about things like this that's when I despair on how law is often handed out in this land...

Cannot think of one good reason why a huge fine wasn't applied and a lengthy ban...
For me, someone is clearly telling porky pies...

There is good reason why the CPS are sometimes referred to as the Criminals Protection Society by both serving and retired police officers. If the story has been accurately reported then it appears there's not a lot more that the police could do.

As for the sentence, they've apparently got off cheap with the fine (although there's no income details & the magistrates will have to follow guidelines according to the defendant's income) but it appears they've been given the maximum penalty points; the offence does not carry a ban according to the penalty table I've seen.

It was, by forum standards, only a minor rant on my part...
I appreciate police and magistrates have done all they can...
But, as a 'failed' cyclist it frustrates the hell out of me...
Should I ever take to the roads again, on two wheels, think I'd be investing in one of those helmet cams...

I don't actually disagree in principle with a lot of what you posted first time round but as you'd effectively asked why a huge fine & a ban hadn't been handed out I thought I'd try and be helpful & explain it a bit as to why it might have ended up as it did, having worked in/with that system for a while. And it frustrated the hell out of me too.

It wasn't, by forum standards, anything like an attack on you; it merely pointed out what could and couldn't be done.

 

[Blue in Munich]

There are, or were, two sorts of magistrates; stipendiary magistrates, who were legally qualified and paid a salary at sat alone, and lay magistrates who sat in threes and did it out of the goodness of their hearts and with a lot of help from the usually long suffering clerk of the court. I say "were" because apparently stipendiary magistrates have now been replaced by district judges

So judges? You'd get rid of the lay magistrates and replace them with judges to over see the less serious cases magistrates currently review, such as minor theft, criminal damage, assaults, public disorder and motoring offences.

I suspect the only reason for magistrates is they are lower cost.

Ever heard the old expression "you get what you pay for"; never was this more true. And yes, I would have them replaced; stipes were generally more efficient, had a far better understanding, saw through the smokescreens and came to more logical conclusions than lay magistrates.

Perhaps fully bewigged and gowned-up judges might be over-egging it - but maybe ex/retired barristers and solicitors etc. whose views may be based on knowledge of the 'Law', and heaven forbid, be tempered with a modicum of compassion and open-mindedness.

In fairness to magistrates I believe they are reimbursed expenses only and not paid as such.

My view comes about really as I have known a few over the years (not professionally ) and hearing them expressing themselves warmly on all manner of issues during this time does not instil within me any confidence that their views are impartial or indeed well-balanced.

Having stood in front of more than a few professionally, I find some truth to that last paragraph where lay magistrates are concerned, which generally wasn't the case with the stipes.