Caught speeding 106mph on motorway

mikey72

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Oh dear, it's back for more.

Pass plus eh - and you only passed your test 5 years previously. I passed my test in 1989 and have been driving ever since, and guess what, I've never had a serious accident, even doing more than 20,000 miles a year.

What standard did you pass at with the ROSPA test, and do you re-test as you should to maintain that standard?

By the way, if you'd been driving faster the 'daft cow' would have done the u-turn several miles behind you. And if you didn't see her as she had no lights on, you were clearly driving beyond your abilities as you should have been able to stop within the distance of road illuminated by your headlamps - so you were not observing the conditions, and driving carelessly. What if that 'daft cow' had been a child who ran into the road, as you're so fond of mentioning? Whoops.

I don't generally drive according to the law. I drive according to what is safe. That means that I don't run red lights, I don't ignore pedestrian crossings, and I have a sound understanding of roads signage. What I don't do, what you appear to do, is look at a number on a stick and decide that that number is the speed at which it is safe to drive.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever inherently unsafe about doing 106mph on a clear empty stretch of motorway. Nothing.

I'd rather be parked if I got a puncture though.

tomstickland

Stephb1986 wrote: »

I hope that one day you do get caught by the police for driving like an utter idiot and I pray to god that no one gets hurt by your reckless driving.

What makes you so sure that they "drive like an utter idiot"?

HO87

And all of you moralisers would swear you'd never sped either? I doubt it very much. What is the point of all of the tub-thumping anyway? Its sooo easy to shout from the sidelines when the guy asked for advice. Instead of moralising how about addressing the original question?

There is little if any chance of a fixed penalty being offered and as a matter of fact the sentence the OP's relative can expect when the case progresses to court (based on a "guilty" plea at the first opportunity) is:

A fine of between 125 and 175% of his "relevant weekly income" (gross weekly take home minus tax and NI), a short-term ban of between 7 and 56 days OR 6 points.

If he has been driving for less than two years and he collects points for this offence then he may well find his licence is revoked by the DVLA. This will require him to apply for a new provisional and retake both tests.

As for avoiding the points/ban there is nothing in the OP's original post discloses any "special reasons" not to endorse. The avoidance of a ban would require that evidence is brought to show that unusual hardship would be suffered as a result. In general terms this would normally be viewed from the perspective of those around the driver not the driver himself. It may be possible to argue that such would be the additional burden on those around the OP's nephew by having to provide his mobility for him that this would represent undue hardship.

Well-argued mitigation should see the ban disappear but I suspect that he will collect a large fine and points as a consequence.

Crazy_Jamie

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

If I was travelling at 90mph I would already have passed the accident I may have encountered at 70mph - quite a while ago.

Alternatively you could encounter one travelling at 90mph that you would have avoided going at 70mph. The argument is completely circular and, unless you happen to be omniscient, is absolutely pointless. Not wading into the argument on either side, just nit picking

jimexbox

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Alternatively you could encounter one travelling at 90mph that you would have avoided going at 70mph. The argument is completely circular and, unless you happen to be omniscient, is absolutely pointless. Not wading into the argument on either side, just nit picking

OK, so you see an accident ahead blocking the road. Unfortunately you were traveling too fast to stop in time, thus crashing into a minor accident/breakdown, possibly killing some unfortunate person because of your excessive speed.

This is not moralising, is road safety. What next do 50 past a school is fine as long your playing loud music? Well they can here you coming.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Alternatively you could encounter one travelling at 90mph that you would have avoided going at 70mph. The argument is completely circular and, unless you happen to be omniscient, is absolutely pointless. Not wading into the argument on either side, just nit picking

Of course it's pointless. It's exactly the point I was making.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

jimexbox wrote: »

OK, so you see an accident ahead blocking the road. Unfortunately you were traveling too fast to stop in time, thus crashing into a minor accident/breakdown, possibly killing some unfortunate person because of your excessive speed.

What does this have to do with the speed limit? !!!!!!. INAPPROPRIATE SPEED KILLS, NOT 'SPEED'.

jimexbox wrote: »

This is not moralising, is road safety. What next do 50 past a school is fine as long your playing loud music? Well they can here you coming.

I don't see many children in school at 1am. Do you?

Crazy_Jamie

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers! wrote: »

Of course it's pointless. It's exactly the point I was making.

But the point that jimexbox was making was a different one in all fairness. You raised the point about how travelling at a different speed will, hypothetically, completely avoid accidents that would be encountered when travelling at a lower speed. That argument is circular. But his argument was relating to how differing speeds alter your time frame to react to unexpected events that do actually happen. It's a different argument, and is one part of what he is saying that is sound. Driving faster gives you less time to react to the unexpected. That much is fact.

For what it's worth, you are absolutely right that it is innappropriate speed that kills. The wider arguments on this issue have been touched upon but actually not yet been fully developed in this thread. If I were to say my piece I would agree with you that inappropriate speed kills and not speed per se, but I would also point out that from the point of view of legislating on speed, it would be very difficult (or nigh on impossible) to bring in speed limits that are variable depending on circumstances. For a number of reasons, not least because people have different degrees of driving ability which affects safety, and the status of driving conditions would have to leave something open to subjective views of drivers, which harms enforceability. Setting a speed limit that is safe the majority of the time (extreme conditions notwithstanding) is the best option for speed limits.

A further point is that believing it to be safe to go above the speed limit is no excuse once you are caught. There are ways to challenge the speed limit on a particular road, but the time to do that is not once you've already been caught breaking it. Breaking the law based on your own judgment is not an adequate form of protest. The OP, whether he was being safe or not, knowingly broke the law by some significant degree, and irrespective of the quality of his driving at the time or the conditions on the road he deserves punishment for that. If he is not punished then the system lacks consistency, and therefore legitimacy.

EDIT: Eh, looks like I am a bit more involved now. Oh well.

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

My rather simplistic view would be to remove all speed limits, and ban the use of speedometers. I don't believe there would be a rise in accident severity or frequency.

The sooner we get people away from thinking that the number on the stick is the safe speed at which to drive, the better. Teach them the COAST method of driving, and enforce it rigorously.

hewhoisnotintheknow

remove air bags, seat belts etc, fit a big spike onto the steering wheel, this will make the roads safer after a couple of years of people doing a bit of trial and error