127mph and no ban?

[Alfie]

People can complain all they want. The bottom line is, if you have enough financial backing and a good lawyer, you will walk from it.
No matter what the view points of others are, simple fact is that money talks.

Im afraid you cant just dismiss others views like that. Some here have very very relevant views and experience and I can categorically assure you that the amount of money someone has does not have a bearing on whether they walk or not. It can, and often does, mean they are fined significantly more. A recent case I am aware of involved someone receiving an £80,000 fine for speeding because his weekly pay was inordinately large! In the case the OP posted, this person was dealt with in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. He received 6 points which is what the guidelines suggest. He didnt 'walk' as you put it.

 

[Yugguy]

This bloke has been fined peanuts, and as for being "unfortunate" is he feck as like, he chose to put his foot down.

 

[KennyN]

Sensible Magistrates reading the circumstances, the car was 100% safe at that speed as it could stop quicker than a normal vehicle travelling at 70mph..

But was the driver and those around the area at the time , i very much doubt it. The fact the car was capable does not mean the pilot was, after all the car is just doing what it is told to do.

I have a mate that was done for 113mph on his bike (R1M) on a quiet stretch of road around Oban, he is a self employed joiner with bills to pay but he still lost his , clean, licence for four months which cost him thousands in income and no amount of a "sob" story would have had any bearing on the case outcome.

This just gives the green light to people with fancy motors and money to employ a similar defence lawyer to fight their corner.

Kenny

 

[sl500amgsport]

This bloke has been fined peanuts, and as for being "unfortunate" is he feck as like, he chose to put his foot down.

I reckon with that car a sneeze while he was accelerating could have the same effect, a mere blip of the accelerator.

I spend a lot of my time on the road trying my best not to speed, I am seriously going to change my loake shoes with Dunlop soles for something less heavy, thank God for the speed limiter it is my saviour on Motorways!

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

 

[umblecumbuz]

... I am seriously going to change my loake shoes with Dunlop soles for something less heavy, thank God for the speed limiter it is my saviour on Motorways!
Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

Try Churches - much lighter.

 

[Naraic]

Im afraid you cant just dismiss others views like that. Some here have very very relevant views and experience and I can categorically assure you that the amount of money someone has does not have a bearing on whether they walk or not. It can, and often does, mean they are fined significantly more. A recent case I am aware of involved someone receiving an £80,000 fine for speeding because his weekly pay was inordinately large! In the case the OP posted, this person was dealt with in accordance with the sentencing guidelines. He received 6 points which is what the guidelines suggest. He didnt 'walk' as you put it.

Alfie, he walked, he should have been banned in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

• Where an offender is driving grossly in excess of the speed limit the court should consider a disqualification in excess of 56 days.

 

[dbanbery]

The guidelines say over 20% on the motorway is a ban - basically anything over 100mph. I know this because I got tailed by an unmarked one Saturday in my T16-S and got banned for an average speed of 107mph. That was a light punishment as the ban was a week and the fine was meagre. I did however have to spend £700 for representation by a solicitor. This guy probably spent another £1k on legal representation too.

Cars capability or not, those of us that know what it’s like to drive over 110 mph will know that the speed differential between other traffic at that speed means that people’s reactions won’t be any use. You don’t need to do 127mph to overtake something at 70 either. It’s reasonable to assume that he would have been travelling faster at any one point in that car too - because it would have been easy to.

Personally I think that the speed limits are based on outdated data (stopping distances of a 1960s mini with drums all round) but I also think that adding in an extra complication to motorway driving will cause problems. I also think that it’s reasonable to consider that while the Germans may have less accidents, the death rate on the autobahn are higher if you do have an accident.

Also, our road infrastructure is appalling, any increase in statutory speed limits will prompt a lot of road reorganisation. However desirable that may be, it’s highly unlikely that the current government will be interested in doing that.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Naraic]

Braking distances may be better than in the '60s, but thinking time is probably the same. So, at 127, you will travel a long long way before your brain tells your foot what to do with that brake pedal.

 

[keefysher]

Braking distances may be better than in the '60s, but thinking time is probably the same. So, at 127, you will travel a long long way before your brain tells your foot what to do with that brake pedal.

130.4 feet travelled at the average 0.7 seconds reaction time

 

[Alfie]

Alfie, he walked, he should have been banned in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

• Where an offender is driving grossly in excess of the speed limit the court should consider a disqualification in excess of 56 days.

He didnt walk. He got 6 points which is within the guidelines. The key in your quotation is 'The court should CONSIDER..' There were no agravating factors and he had loads of mitigation. I am not condoning what he did in any way at all, just stating that the court sentenced within the guidelines . Ive seen similar cases where far less fortunate persons also avoid a disqualification.

 

[Naraic]

It's hard to think what would be mitigating in a case involving non emergency speed of 127.

 

[LostKiwi]

I think the mitigating factors would have been he's an employer who uses his licence for work (whether anoyone else can move the trucks is a moot point as grandfather rights allow for 7.5t and he must have someone on his staff old enough surely) and the second one was probably his disabled child.
The thinking being that no other person should suffer for his punishment.

 

[dbanbery]

It's hard to think what would be mitigating in a case involving non emergency speed of 127.

“It’s a konigsegg” seems to be the justification for the speed.

The mitigation surrounding that is fair to consider, but surely if he’d have been banned for a month that would have been a lighter sentence than £1200 and six points?

FYI a ban for speeding on your record if less than 2 months isn’t as bad as a CD10 for insurance which they could have gone for if the policeman had seen anything to warrant that. If he was overtaking then they could have gone for that


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Alfie]

It's hard to think what would be mitigating in a case involving non emergency speed of 127.

Disabled child
Charity commitment
Early guilty plea
Employer
Sole HGV driver in a haulage related business
Clean record
Good character

A defendent can claim special circumstances which is what he has done, only once. If he gets caught again he cannot use this mitigation/reasons again.

 

[Naraic]

Diabled child
Charity commitment
Early guilty plea
Employer
Sole HGV driver in a haulage related business
Clean record
Good character

A defendent can claim special circumstances which is what he has done, only once. If he gets caught again he cannot use this mitigation/reasons again.

OK. I don't have the disabled child...but still I should be good for , what, 115?

He is driving one very very expensive car. He can afford a driver. He can afford an HGV driver. Good character, except when behind the wheel of a super car.
Is all reason lost...he was doing 127 whilst overtaking, there should be no mitigation.

 

[L John]

What's the maximum number of points that can be on a drivers licence and still be able to drive on the road legally.
Think of your answer before scrolling down.

A. 1 point
B. 12 points
C. Over 60 points as there's no absolute maximum.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Correct answer, over 60 (though for the vast majority it's 12).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/motorist-62-penalty-points-still-driving-legally/

 

[Alfie]

Its only the cases where there is a rich/well known person or an expensive car that get reported.

There are far far more cases where individuals avoid a disqualification but because they are in a less unusual car, its never reported.

This mans income was declared at £800 per week so perhaps he isnt as rich as his trappings show him to be? I dont know the answer to this but we do not have all the facts so we cannot make a sound judgement on it.

 

[dbanbery]

Its only the cases where there is a rich/well known person or an expensive car that get reported.

There are far far more cases where individuals avoid a disqualification but because they are in a less unusual car, its never reported.

This mans income was declared at £800 per week so perhaps he isnt as rich as his trappings show him to be? I dont know the answer to this but we do not have all the facts so we cannot make a sound judgement on it.

I agree with this.

I do however think that a short ban would have been less punishing in the long run and been manageable for a month or so. It seems that he may have lost £2400 in earnings but that might be less than the insurance on the six points?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[sonic]

Its all down to the magistrates on the day. Spent many hours in court wondering why the offender got what he did.
I got knocked off my motorbike 18 years ago by a 17 year old rider, who had only past his test a month before. He was fined £600 plus court costs & 6 points. Far more than I expected.

 

[McDonald]

A long history as a high mileage motorist without a blemish on his licence has to count for something. His charitable work is admirable and he needs his driving license to continue with that. This encounter with the law will have worried him, he's unlikely to repeat the offence. If he does, he'll surely incur a lengthy ban.

He is a lucky man. He owns a wonderful extravagant car and he has the time and resources to use it for good works. He's lucky he didn't kill himself or someone else. He's lucky he didn't lose his license. We're lucky we can sit on the sidelines and pass judgement without having the uncomfortable feeling that charity and goodwill have been stopped on our say so.