The Sunday Times, 3 June 2007
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/li ... 870320.ece
How a safe driver suddenly faced losing his licence
Tim Rayment was a model motorist who made a point of obeying the law to the letter. Then, in one forgetful and unlucky spell, he became a rueful casualty of speed-trap Britain. There’s something not quite right here, he says
Tony the taxi driver was not optimistic. “You’ve lost your licence,” he said. He had plenty of experience of conveying motorists to court for speeding cases, and mine promised to be an open-and-shut example.
How quickly we can say goodbye to our licences. For years I was quietly proud as a high-mileage driver that mine was clean. But in the space of 12 weeks I went from three penalty points to an almost certain ban, and as I stood last Tuesday before Gloucester magistrates I knew that my life was about to change.
When you hear the details, you might think that I deserve to lose the privilege of driving, and I am not going to disagree. There is no excuse for travelling, even briefly, in light traffic and good visibility, on a motorway at 100mph. Even so, as I faced justice on the very spot where Fred West, the serial killer, was remanded in custody, I could not help pondering how the motorist’s world has changed.
As a younger man I did my share of speeding. But mature people grow out of antisocial driving, and after the birth of my first child in 1997 I acquired the imagination that perhaps I should have had earlier.
Which means that these days you are likely to find me at the head of a queue of traffic travelling at around 30mph in built-up areas, and at exactly 40mph in a 40mph zone. My own mother criticised me recently for driving “like a grandad”.
This is not because I have points on my licence and wish to protect it. It is because it is right.
Of course, I still enjoy a good car on an interesting road and always will. But I throw black glances at anyone travelling at more than 35mph through the village where I live. I’ve never owned a radar detector, because I believe that people who are prosecuted for speeding deserve it: being caught means they were not paying attention.
I accept the case for speed cameras. And a clue to my general driving style is that I not only match a manufacturer’s economy claims but actually better the official figures, and by a significant degree.
Which makes it slightly odd that, thanks to those cameras, and three failures to follow my own principles, I was in the dock last week.
Offence number one happened in a line of traffic on one of those fast rural roads that goes from 60mph to 40 and then to 30, before going up to 60 again. We were travelling at 35mph. I slowed to pass some parked cars while the drivers ahead pressed on blithely at 35.
When the road was clear again I closed the gap to the cars ahead by increasing my speed to 38mph. And was filmed by a mobile camera van. I saw the van and lifted off, but too late. Three penalty points, £60 fine, £50 on the insurance.
Offence number two is what brought me to court on Tuesday. You’ll have to take my word for this, but I don’t do three-figure speeds any more. I’m not saying I was innocent – I hadn’t been monitoring my speed. But this must be the only time in years that I have travelled at licence-losing velocity on a British motorway – straight into the lens of a laser device that can read your speed from nearly a mile away. Again, I saw the police Mercedes, which was parked to one side of a bridge on the M5. Again, too late. The device read 100.3mph.
Then, idiotically, while waiting for my mandatory court appearance for breaking the motorway speed limit by more than 30mph, I repeated offence number one, was filmed by another mobile camera and collected another three points. Making six points before the court date. Which gives me the appearance of a serial offender from whom you, the public, must be protected.
Now don’t misunderstand me: I am not complaining. I broke the law and I accept my deserts. But I can’t help thinking that something here is not quite right, because I know that I am a slower, safer driver than in my younger days.
Was the balance wrong in the 1980s, when I would be stopped from time to time by police, given a warning and sent on my way? I think so. We needed to get tougher on speeding, especially in urban areas. But there is a difference between getting tough and abandoning all discretion.
It is divine retribution, you might think, that last week I appeared in these pages to tempt a devout member of the Amish community with a 200mph Bentley, and this week I am here to recount my appearance in the dock. Waiting for the court date, I went through all the little last times – no need to save 20p for checking tyre pressures; no more 600-mile round trips at weekends to see my 10-year-old son. I didn’t realise I have happy memories of motorway services up and down the M5, which is on my route to him, until the summons arrived, with its silent threat that soon I would not be using services at all. Under the totting-up process all the magistrates had to do was to add six points and I would be disqualified for at least six months.
Friends advised me to hire a lawyer such as the famous Mr Loophole, but I decided to speak for myself. I did not research the law; I simply told the truth. And a minor miracle happened.
After describing details of my life, I was banned as I expected. But only for seven days, and with no points added to my licence. Under section 34 of the Road Traffic Offences Act, and thanks to the precedent of a 2001 case, the magistrates ruled that a ban would cause “exceptional hardship” because of my family commitments. I was saved from a lengthy disqualification because I live in a rural area, and need a car to see my son.
I still have six points from the mobile camera vans, and the law is clear that exceptional hardship cannot save you more than once. Legal experts say few cases are likely to enjoy the same outcome, because totting-up is intended to impose a “reasonably substantial” disqualification on persistent offenders.
But it is a joy to find that there is still some human judgment in the system. We know there is none at the roadside. But it does exist in the courts. Thank you, Gloucester magistrates
Million face a ban – and new cameras are on the way
More than 1m British motorists are on the brink of losing their licences because of the rapid rise in speed camera numbers and the increasing use of digital technology.
According to a recent study, 16% of drivers – more than 5m – have penalty points for speeding and a fifth of these are just one camera flash from disqualification. The number of drivers three points from a ban has risen by 4% in just 12 months, according to the report by Direct Line insurance, putting huge numbers of people in danger of losing their jobs if they find themselves unable to drive.
Under the current totting-up system, four minor infringements could result in 12 points on your licence and an automatic ban.
Drivers have paid more than £300m in speeding fines in the past three years and nearly half of all speeding offences involve drivers breaking the limit by less than 10mph, according to Direct Line’s research.
In March The Sunday Times revealed that a new generation of digital Truvelo speed cameras undergoing trials on the A4 in London, was due to be installed across Britain. Truvelo cameras are front-facing so are able to photograph the driver as well as the numberplate, leaving no doubt about who was behind the wheel.
There are also plans to replace old-style Gatso cameras with digital versions capable of storing thousands of images.
It is thought the changes could double the number of drivers caught by speed traps because at the moment only an estimated one in four cameras are “live”, to limit the work needed in replacing film.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
) without a single point and you'll get no claims of speeding piety from me either. But since I don't have a bleeding heart, live in the country, son 300 miles away, pass the tissues sob story to peddle why should I most likely be given a harsher punishment for a similar offence? Sheesh, exceptional circumstances should mean just that - exceptional. And having children to care for isn't exceptional.