Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Fri Jul 03, 2026 05:12

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 11:59 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
I could add this to the BSM boss thread below as it linked in a way .. but the discussion there ist about the morality/ethics of his position versus his refusal to name the "unwitting culprit or criminal of century" :popcorn: :scratchchin:

This ist different und the question posed to the board ist .. would you ban these old ladies or would you think SAC or otther course of action? :scratchchin: (I could have made it a poll but there are not that many options :hehe: to spring to mind unless I want to be facetiously cynical :wink: )


Old lady was on 13 points. She was aged 84 years. Magistrates decide not to ban her because of mitigating factors:


1. Her older sisters are in their 90s und she needs her car to be able to visit them. They are in old folks homes.

2. She was pinged by the same camera as she pass each time within one week so she the first she knew about the three pings (giving her 9 points within 48 hours) was a fortnight later - so no time to "learn from error" :roll:

She must have received the other 4 points for something else but this was not specified in the programme.


Another lady calls into the programme. She knows of another old lady who receive 12 points within 8 hours as she hit by same Truvelo on outward/inward journeys. She go on holiday und the 84 year old find 4 NIPS on the doormat. The magistrates throw out the case as all received on the same day by the same camera und apparently declare "no time to learn from the initial ping"


Now ..another caller .. young lady at Uni und self employed phones in to say she got banned on 12 points (separate pings) but her plea of hardship was rejected despite the fact she could not work nor attend her lectures und had to drop out of the part time degree course as result.

She seemed to believe in cameras und a ban despite this experience - but I think she just saying that so as not to come across as "bitter und twisted" when I really listened again :wink: und picked up on inflections in the voice :wink: (which we foreigners seem to have an ear for as it help comprehension at times -especially when faced with funny accents as was the case in USA for me in particualr the other week :popcorn:)


Callers to the programme seemed to be sympathetic to the old lady overall. Some were scathing about her being pinged three times by same cam -- but this series of pings happen on same day - which appear to be a factor taken on board by the magistrates in this particular case :scratchchin: This lady suggested a SAC would have been more useful - but only SCP can offer SAC (or Durham's vancamvan team). Police officers can offer DIS. Magistrates cannot rule a compulsory DIS as the aforementioned courses as (from how I understand our probationer Mag und the still in training one ) these are offered as alternative to prosecution which result in fine or ban or whatever. :roll: but can be reduced with a course if a drunk/drug driver :roll:

So there would seem to be some meat on bone to gnaw over :popcorn: on this case.

A retired magistrate then phoned in to say he would have banned the old dear as "speed kills". Her speeds were 35 mph in a 30 mph.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 13:04 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
I would be far more worrid to hear that the old dear traveled everywher at 29mph and had bought and automatic
http://www.thisishampshire.net/news/451 ... ower_shop/
she was only trying to turn around!

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 09, 2009 20:38 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Blimey anton :shock:

Wildy forgot to mention the way that debate went. Wimmin :roll:


I heard the tale end of this during a quick "munch break" and much of the comments had to do with

1. Was she treated benignly because of her age and the fact she'd been driving since her 20s without so much as a parking ticket prior to these quick fire "assaults" on a clean licence as I understand her defence lawyer claimed (though no one has said what the other 4 points were for :popcorn: )

2. Then it went on to a debate as to when we should give up to face fact of old age. Now this is different for us all. My old maiden aunt (in her 80s) is now unable to care for herself without my sister's care for example and IG's own mother-in-law showed signs of going ga-ga in her mid 70s. My own parents are still quite robust in early 80s and both still drive and I feel safe enough :wink: with them at the wheel. Wildy's parents as you know - now late 70s and the old guy hit the road on my SOS call to him back in early March when I began to get rather seriously worried about Wildy and our twin daughters (both robust and now at the seriously cute to heart-melt more stage - Ahhhh :cloud9:) As you know from my elated announcement at the time - that guy :bow: drove her to the hospital at a blistering 3-figure rate of knots :lol: and then told a traffic pol in the peak jam on approach to "maternity in 'urry" to massage his "Arschloch" (rough translation of what I understand he actually said in his own language and which the officer apparently understood from the tone and circumstance :lol: and escort the rest of the way :lol:. ) That guy though - seriously decent driver even though he's now in his own words "past his peak" :lol: The guy is the only person on the planet who managed to teach all three of my own sisters how to heel n toe properly .. how to "listen to the engine and feel the speed" and to spot the danger - especially the speed trap long before the van or cam or car is apparent :lol: . That guy taught our three young drivers (his grandchildren) how to handle twisty alpine steepies with sheer drops on each side :yikes: in a "safe and straightforward style" :bow: The chap used to be an amateur racing and rally driver in his youth and Wildy (along with her two brothers and one sister) spent all her childhood watching and timing him on track :lol: - in addition to helping with the mechanics of his cars. It's why she knows so much :lol:)

Should he retire from driving? well no .. because he has his full faculties and as our own generation and our children - who have led "healthy balanced lifestyles" :wink: head off into old age - with a longer productive life expectancy - we should be reasonably skilled "enough" to continue driving well into our 80s and feeling the dementia hit us a decade or so later given computerised predictions to date in the medical field (source - "Lancet" piece a couple of months ago .. - yet to be "peer reviewed" :wink:) Note the punctuation here :wink:

BUT that generation now in their 80s were youngsters on a very nutritious but still "Oliveresque" diet. :scratchchin: Not all old folk suffer the indignity of senile dementia nor the cruelty of Alzheimers and we can still hold some of these symptoms at bay for a while if diagnosed early enough. But we - their children - need to be on the ball on this one :wink:

So it's another dilemma .. how to tactfully tell the old loved one if we think they are past it if they refuse to accept their fate.. and how to keep them independent and able to cope for themselves. :roll:

In the case of this old lady - No .. I think she is a safe enough driver per the account given and has been very lucky to find herself before an understanding team of magistrates in this instance. This situation is certainly not the same as that of the BSM boss (for comparison) who should have known better and whose points were dished out for his stupidity in not naming the driver and he does not have a real excuse for that nior any hardship simialr to that of this old lady .. hence he should have been banned on tot-up.

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 20:57 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
Mad Moggie wrote:
This situation is certainly not the same as that of the BSM boss (for comparison) who should have known better and whose points were dished out for his stupidity in not naming the driver and he does not have a real excuse for that nior any hardship simialr to that of this old lady .. hence he should have been banned on tot-up.
As far as s172 is concerned the law doesn't (so far at least) differentiate between "can't remember" and "won't say". In any event the matter of a totting ban is a separate issue and not directly related to the offence that brought it it about.

When dealing with elderly people whose life is centred on their having a driving licence I tend to favour a ban until a test is passed. That way, if they can satisfy an examiner that they are safe to drive they get back on the road in a few weeks, sometimes in a few days. If they can't pass a test they stay off the road.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 10, 2009 21:10 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
I think that what the retired JP said off pure memory here. The lady howeve had clean record und I think it was based on fact she made return journey on same day und pinged same cam at very low margin. :popcorn:

I can argue it ist result for common sense for the common man :lol:

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 19:50 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
WildCat wrote:
I think it was based on fact she made return journey on same day und pinged same cam at very low margin. :popcorn:
Courts do tend to have sympathy for that situation but I don't really understand why. Assuming the speeding was accidental, her observation was so poor that she failed to see the signs, twice, and failed to see the camera, twice. If somebody backs into another vehicle while trying to park, we consider it an aggravating feature if they try again and hit the other vehicle twice. In fact, in every other situation I can think of, repeating an activity at a level below the level required by law, is considered to make things worse and not to provide mitigation.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 11, 2009 20:10 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
fisherman wrote:
WildCat wrote:
I think it was based on fact she made return journey on same day und pinged same cam at very low margin. :popcorn:
Courts do tend to have sympathy for that situation but I don't really understand why. Assuming the speeding was accidental, her observation was so poor that she failed to see the signs, twice, and failed to see the camera, twice. If somebody backs into another vehicle while trying to park, we consider it an aggravating feature if they try again and hit the other vehicle twice. In fact, in every other situation I can think of, repeating an activity at a level below the level required by law, is considered to make things worse and not to provide mitigation.


Ja but we do no know the situation of this speed cam :wink:

Signs are not so obvious by way. You can easy miss those placed behind bushes or bus shelter :roll: I am one sassy person und so ist Ted .. we see NON HAZARD und sure enough a cam there :roll: We know none exist at the real hazard from experience of umpteen roads to date . Ist why we so scathing over the whole policy :wink:


We have one pal of Ted's. His Mama die a few years ago. (2004) We think a NIP cause 90 year old to just "cave in"
It was her first in over 60 year of :steering: On the morning of her funeral - Marty receive another NIP from very same camera. He got a right intimidating bullying when he explain his mama die - despite supplying proof of the matter. Result? Marty has zero time for SCP bullies und has now similar disrespect for police. Guy happens to be honest as day has 24 hours und he never break a law knowingly - but he still has little faith in system as result of his experience when trying to prove his Mama died with the correct documentation here. :roll: He never contact the MEN as he ist not that type .. but he the still a smouldering fire here. :yikes:

I really do think law has to take account of such matter to retain credibility in eyes of growing disillusioned who turn into poisonous snakes when the worm turn :popcorn: OK .. so I use or bastardise a saying of ours here. :roll:

I trust you understand me without being offended. I never ever intend to offend anyone.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 13:51 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
fisherman wrote:
Courts do tend to have sympathy for that situation but I don't really understand why. Assuming the speeding was accidental, her observation was so poor that she failed to see the signs, twice, and failed to see the camera, twice.

If it is a 30mph restriction with street lamps, especially if the camera was there when there was a higher speed restriction on the road, then the only difference would be the lack of signs. That can take some noticing.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 19:55 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
I would have thought that rows and rows of street lights were fairly easy to spot. Just consider 30 to be the maximum permissible speed until you see a sign saying otherwise.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 20:15 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
fisherman wrote:
I would have thought that rows and rows of street lights were fairly easy to spot. Just consider 30 to be the maximum permissible speed until you see a sign saying otherwise.


True ... but there are some road which have a 40 mph FEEL.


Both Jazz und Juiia tell me that A6 Swinton has 40 mph limit to Linnyshaw industrial border. It has residentials on one side. Likewise A572 (Leigh Road in Worsley proper area where they both reside :roll:)

BUT A666 - Swinton Clifton ist similar und ist really WIDER than average but 30mph und been a speed hit since the 50s per the locals :roll: But to the "new to area" - that road has the look und feel of a 40 mph urban .. und the lamp posts are not strictly 30 mph distance which suggest the road was originally 40 mph planned :? :?

My own rule of thumb ist of there no other sign anywhere - = ASSUME 30 mph! But that ist me :shock: :o Und ted und all the other Swiss und relatives related to them :lol:

But folk will still "feel" a road und drive to that "instinctive feel" perhaps? I try to think WHY here? I may be right... I may be wrong .. but we need to think hard here to work out why it happen? Oder?

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2009 21:44 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 02:50
Posts: 2868
Location: Dorset
fisherman wrote:
I would have thought that rows and rows of street lights were fairly easy to spot. Just consider 30 to be the maximum permissible speed until you see a sign saying otherwise.

I suppose it depends how many times she had driven that road before the new restriction. Might have been every day.

I got stuck behind someone who "assumed they must limit themselves to 30" the other day and obviously didn't see the derestriction signs. They were causing an enormous queue. That is a bad assumption.

_________________
Andrew.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 16:36 
Offline
Magistrate
Magistrate

Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 13:58
Posts: 1155
We will have to differ on this. Your way runs the risk of drivers with poor observation skills doing 60 in a 30 to avoid holding up others. As they have to have failed to see some pretty obvious signage to be in that situation its not a course i would recommend.

_________________
I am not a lawyer and can't give legal advice. I do have experience of the day to day working of courts and use that knowledge to help where possible. I do not represent any official body and post as an individual.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 20:24 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2005 00:01
Posts: 2258
Location: South Wales
fisherman wrote:
Courts do tend to have sympathy for that situation but I don't really understand why. Assuming the speeding was accidental, her observation was so poor that she failed to see the signs, twice, and failed to see the camera, twice. If somebody backs into another vehicle while trying to park, we consider it an aggravating feature if they try again and hit the other vehicle twice. In fact, in every other situation I can think of, repeating an activity at a level below the level required by law, is considered to make things worse and not to provide mitigation.


With cameras there is no feedback to say that you have done wrong until the letter lands on your doorstep a week later. If you hit a car there is a bang and your car gets jolted and it should be immediatly obvious that you have cocked up. If you then cock up again immedialy afterwards it points to a general ineptitude rather than a one off incident.

With a cam, it's a lot greyer than that, especially with the trend for ever lowering speed limits and the removal of :40: signs to make a road a 30 limit (or was it just vandals removing the signs? who knows until you get the ticket). You don't actually find out you've cocked up until a week later (more if on holiday or the SCP has a backlog of paperwork) so there's plenty of chance to commit the same offence over and over again.

There's a shorts stretch of :nsl: near me between two :30: villages. It's quite short but it's a good overtaking opportunity to get past the slow brigade before the next much longer but harder to overtake bit of :nsl: If they took the signs away and made it a 30 (which they could easilly do since there's streetlights and I think a couple of brick outhouses at the side of the road which could count as "built up") then I could quite easily rack up 30 points in 5 days if I didn't notice the new limit. This being the valleys they'd enforce by van too since fixed cameras don't tend to last very long. It's also quite reasonable to assume around here that if a road sign goes missing, it's most likely the work of a drunk teenager (who probably removed it at the same time as the front end of their car)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You can post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.037s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]