Speeding ticket - smart motorway

Car_54

The_Unready said:

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/exceptional-hardship-loophole-lets-one-five-drivers-escape-ban-0

There you go - as you all seem to want to focus on the delivery rather than the message, hopefully that source will be more acceptable to you!

That article quotes stats up to 2020. A new - stricter - regime has been in force since then.

It also talks of a "loophole". There is no loophole, there is an explicit provision in the legislation.

Grey_Critic

***"The editors described the arguments for a ban as “centred on the Daily Mail’s reputation for poor fact checking, sensationalism and flat-out fabrication”.***

To be fair I think that applies to most of them these days. There was a time when they would actually print an apology for incorrect spelling

TooManyPoints

Just plead 'extreme hardship' 

Actually it's "exceptional hardship". It is estimated that around 10% - 15% of such arguments are successful. Here's the Magistrates' guidance when considering such a plea:

When considering whether there are grounds to reduce or avoid a totting up disqualification the court should have regard to the following:

It is for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof that such grounds exist. Other than very exceptionally, this will require evidence from the offender, and where such evidence is given, it must be sworn.

Where it is asserted that hardship would be caused, the court must be satisfied that it is not merely inconvenience, or hardship, but exceptional hardship for which the court must have evidence;

Almost every disqualification entails hardship for the person disqualified and their immediate family. This is part of the deterrent objective of the provisions combined with the preventative effect of the order not to drive.

If a motorist continues to offend after becoming aware of the risk to their licence of further penalty points, the court can take this circumstance into account.

Courts should be cautious before accepting assertions of exceptional hardship without evidence that alternatives (including alternative means of transport) for avoiding exceptional hardship are not viable;

Loss of employment will be an inevitable consequence of a driving ban for many people. Evidence that loss of employment would follow from disqualification is not in itself sufficient to demonstrate exceptional hardship; whether or not it does will depend on the circumstances of the offender and the consequences of that loss of employment on the offender and/or others.

robtay2802

Aretnap said:

As above, and assuming you were actually flashed by a real camera, unless your true speed was over 75mph you will be offered a fixed penalty for this offence and you will not be at risk of a ban.

However any further speeding offences between now and November WILL put you up to 12, and you'd be facing a ban regardless of when your case actually comes to court. So slow careful driving needs to be the order of the day for a while.

Thanks for this. I had wondered if the flash was from a real camera or not. It seemed all the other cameras except this one in this stretch of the A1M were not functioning... I guess I will find out if I get a letter!

robtay2802

Thanks for the comments all. It has helped settle my nerves a bit! Ultra careful driving from now on

jimjames

The_Unready said:

ontheroad1970 said:

The_Unready said:

ontheroad1970 said:

The_Unready said:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10304829/amp/More-35-000-motorists-12-points-avoided-bans-2017.html&ved=2ahUKEwii4IDml_P5AhWYQkEAHecAC0QQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2jP7jbPskxYr6tH7yh-0MV

I'm sure you'll be fine - it seems like driving bans for accruing 12 points are optional anyway ☹️

I wouldn't be persuaded to act or not act on the basis of hyperbole from an article from within the Daily Fail stable.

I'm not sure what your point is in focussing on the source of this data, as it's pretty much irrelevant?

Irrespective of the source, my point was more to highlight the fact that even amassing 12 penalty points doesn't (unfortunately, in my opinion) mean an automatic ban. Just plead 'extreme hardship' and you can apparently continue to break the law with impunity.

The response wasn't designed to advise the Op on what to do - he/she is obviously free to make their own mind up.

Do a bit more research and you will find that the vast majority of extraordinary hardship requests are denied.  They are also based mainly on the effects on others not the driver.

The majority may well be denied, but that doesn't alter the fact that a great many are accepted!

The URL shows it as only 20% accepted. That's far from a majority and while it might amount to a numerical large number it still means 80% are denied

https://www.cyclinguk.org/press-release/exceptional-hardship-loophole-lets-one-five-drivers-escape-ban-0

The_Unready

Read my post again. I didn't say the majority were accepted, I said a great many (applications) are accepted.

The linked research states that around 8,000 a year are accepted - that's a large number by anybody's standards!

Car_54

The_Unready said:

Read my post again. I didn't say the majority were accepted, I said a great many (applications) are accepted.

The linked research states that around 8,000 a year are accepted - that's a large number by anybody's standards!

That research covers the period before stricter guidelines were introduced in 2020, so one would expect the current figures to be much lower.

As for 8,000 being ".a large number by anybody's standards", not, it's not.

8,000 is a tiny number in the context of the 30-odd million drivers.

The_Unready

It's really not worth getting into an argument with you about this stuff. You seem to be obsessed with focussing on anything apart from the main point, which is that thousands of motorists escape driving bans each year when reaching 12 penalty points because they successfully claim extreme/excessive hardship. That is a fact.

 As such, they are free to drive on the roads, potentially as a menace to other road users given the fact that they obviously have little regard for the law.

That's all I'm going to say on this one now, but please feel free to continue to argue with yourself.

TooManyPoints

The only issue I would take with the "cycling.uk" article is that it describes the escape clause as a "loophole." AS Car_54 suggests, it is not. Utilising a loophole is exploiting an unintended deficiency in legislation. For example, the recently closed loophole that existed with mobile phone legislation was certainly a loophole. The legislators' clear aim was to prevent the use of hand-held mobile phones whilst driving, but it said that the device must be used for "interactive communication." When it was drafted, that was virtually all that mobile phones were designed for so it wasn't an issue. As phones became more multi-purpose it became an issue and it took Mr Ramsey Barreto to identify this deficiency and exploit it, so prompting a change in the law. But the "totting up" legislation actually provides an explicit  get out clause within the statute and legislators clearly expected it to be used.

I actually see no reason why the clause should be included. Offences that attract an immediate and mandatory ban (e.g. excess alcohol, dangerous driving) provide no such get-out. To be banned under totting up, however, a driver must commit at least two, and more often three or four offences and usually has adequate notice that his licence is in jeopardy. But it is what it is.