Ticket for speeding on motorway

Wig

photome wrote: »

Hi Pedant here, I thought points were valid for 3 years and removed after 4 ?

LOL quite possibly.

Trebor16

Wig wrote: »

To me, that's no big deal and well worth the gamble, because you are not only saving yourself money & points but you are saving having to declare it on insurance policies in the future and you are keeping a clean licence which would have had those 3 points on it for the next 5 years. (yes pedants, 5 years, because they won't remove them for 5 years, even though they are only valid for 4 years.)

Total nonsense. Once the endorsement is expired they have no choice but to remove it to ensure compliance with the Data Protection Act. It will not stay on your licence for five years unless you don't bother to send it in to get it removed. If the insurance company ask about convictions within the last five years then you would have to tell them, but DVLA will have to remove the expired endorsement.

photome

Wig wrote: »

LOL quite possibly.

In that case, although you insist you are correct in everything you post, why should we take anything you say as correct, if you are wrong on that point

Lum

birkee wrote: »

Why you think magistrates are different to any other human beings is a bit odd.
The same problems afflict High Court judges just the same as a magistrate.

Indeed, but in the higher level courts there's more things in place to keep it in check, e.g. jurys. Judges also have a lot more experience and training.

I don't think magistrates are different to any other human beings, but most human beings don't have the ability to impose fines or other punishments. Well maybe the ones at the DVLA (think they) have this ability, but they don't count*.

* as human beings

Wig

photome wrote: »

In that case, although you insist you are correct in everything you post, why should we take anything you say as correct, if you are wrong on that point

Jeez, point out something with a little more importance on this thread that I have said which is incorrect. Everything else I have said has been corroberated by other people on this thread. And I have just confirmed it is 4 years they are valid for, not 3, so you were wrong and I was right. Now onto the question of when they will be removed (as Trebor16 has refuted this), I am certain my points were not allowed to be removed before 5 years even though they were "4 year points", possibly because mine were before the data protection Act? Such an important detail to get wrong aswell~!

So, so, sorry, for being correct on the no. of years they are valid for (4) and for saying what used to be the case, before the DVLA got their act together -no pun intended- for how long they stay on there for.

I don't care if you take anything I say as correct or not. People should never take things on internet forum as correct, they should always do as OP has done and asked searching questions for further help on certain aspects, and they should always look at the overall response to see if other people agree with points being made....and do their own research to confirm for themselves.

Like OP did in post #116
And s/he got his/her answer very kindly provided in post #118

Oh and BTW

photome wrote: »

In that case, although you insist you are correct in everything you post,

Where have I said this?

Trebor16

Wig wrote: »

Jeez, point out something with a little more importance on this thread that I have said which is incorrect. Everything else I have said has been corroberated by other people on this thread. And I have just confirmed it is 4 years they are valid for, not 3, so you were wrong and I was right. Now onto the question of when they will be removed (as Trebor16 has refuted this), I am certain my points were not allowed to be removed before 5 years even though they were "4 year points", possibly because mine were before the data protection Act? Such an important detail to get wrong aswell~!

The first Data Protection Act was brought in in 1984, so what was the use of bringing up the fact that you had points removed a few decades ago? Your certainty is therefore not rock solid by any stretch of the imagination.

Wig wrote:

So, so, sorry, for being correct on the no. of years they are valid for (4) and for saying what used to be the case, before the DVLA got their act together -no pun intended- for how long they stay on there for.

They count for totting up purposes for 3 years but stay on the licence for 4.

Trebor16

From the Directgov website:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqualifications/DG_4022550

"If you’re convicted of a motoring offence, the courts can fine you and endorse your driving licence with penalty points. Endorsements must stay on your driving licence for four or eleven years depending on the offence."

And this page gives more specific information about how long endorsements stay on in relation to specific offences:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/EndorsementsAndDisqualifications/DG_10022425

Note some endorsements stay on from the date of offence and others from the date of conviction.

There is nothing about staying on for five years in the above links.

Wig

Trebor16 wrote: »

The first Data Protection Act was brought in in 1984, so what was the use of bringing up the fact that you had points removed a few decades ago? Your certainty is therefore not rock solid by any stretch of the imagination.



They count for totting up purposes for 3 years but stay on the licence for 4.

Well slap my thigh and call me Brenda! I went to look at direct gov aswell which is where it said they stay on for 4. So photome was right about the 3/4 and I assumed, wrongly, the directgov '4' referred to the time they were valid for. Which is why I then felt I was right about my own 4/5. [non sarcastic tone]Sorry PM I did you a disservice.

I now think my own points must have been the same 3/4.

It was, as you say, 3 decades ago, so easily forgotten.

Can we talk about something important now?

Flyboy152

easy wrote: »

Your opinion ... The legislation doesn't actually work like that.

I don't honestly think that driving a vehicle designed to go fast (say a big Merc or a Porsche) at 120 MPH on an empty motorway in clear, dry conditions could really be considered 'dangerous driving'.


Sure, they'll nick you for speeding, but would have no grounds at all for dangerous driving.

easy wrote: »

Different issue entirely.

If you are caught speeding, and there was NO OTHER INCIDENT, they can't just tack on 'dangerous driving' because they feel like it. No evidence, for a start.

birkee wrote: »

No, they can't just tack on a dangerous driving charge.

No evidence to support it? How many times on TV have you seen a Police car replaying the video to someone they've stopped?

There seems to be great difficulty on here, in understanding the difference between speeding, and dangerouse driving. They are seperate, but can be combined in certain cases.

Driving a car that can do 140mph, at 140mph is dangerous driving on a public road. The car is at it's limit, has reduced control, and makes no allowance for other peoples actions.
Someone quoted doing 101mph on a quiet motorway, with no charge of dangerous driving.....now do the same thing on the M6 north of B'ham during the day..... They would throw away the key!
Same offence,.... speeding....but???

Regarding other peoples actions: Went to Scotland one time, and without going into reasons, was travelling North on the M6 at 1am in the morning. In one section, the motorway was virtually empty, and I was cruising in the NS lane at about 80mph. Passing one junction, a car came sliding down the slip road, straight into the middle lane, and just sat there.
If I had been doing 140mph, and hadn't been able to miss him, who would have been charged? And with what?
It wouldn't have been just a speeding ticket.

Here is a petty good example of speed being considered dangerous driving:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

The outcome of the case is somewhat irrelevant, however it shows that a speeding charge can be coupled with a charge for dangerous driving.

Wig

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Here is a petty good example of speed being considered dangerous driving:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/shropshire/4559173.stm

The outcome of the case is somewhat irrelevant, however it shows that a speeding charge can be coupled with a charge for dangerous driving.

I don't know how to find the case (on BBC news, and also referenced before on DT on MSE) but there was another one of young man possibly in a Porsche possibly near the seaside but definatley driving down a straight road overtaking with flat grass (parkland) either side of the road, going well over the limit like 100+ a two laned single carriageway.

Was charged with dangerous driving (I think) and was found not guilty as he had a clear view all around him, whilst the manoeuvre was speeding, it was found to be not dangerous.