|
Good heavens, NW. You're not suggesting some sort of "Bias", are you?
|
Good heavens, NW. You're not suggesting some sort of "Bias", are you?
Of course not!
Now that we see how it works, any backroomer whose speed inadvertently drifts from 60mph to 113 ought to know that all they need to do is to promptly join the House of Lords, and their licence is safe.
There isn't even much of a probationary period: Lord Howard of Rising only became a peer last year.
|
|
|
|
>>An ordinary mortal might expect to lose her licence>>
As Lord Howard appears to be male, presumably you meant his/her...:-)
But the message such a decision gives is not good, although I was always taught the maxim: "Speed in the right place at the right time."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
>> An ordinary mortal might expect to lose her licence As Lord Howard appears to be male, presumably you meant his/her...:-)
Well, I did think that maybe there is also a boys-will-be-boys rule applying here :)
|
|
Look everyone I think you're all being unfair. I mean this guy was only hurrying so much because of all the charitable work he does for everyone. I really think there should be one law for those of a charitable bent and one for the rest of us. Perhaps there could be new speed limit signs made up showing the limit for the unworthy and another much higher figure for those on their way to charity events. What about separate lanes on the motorways so we don't impede their charitable progress?
|
Presumably his license is crucial for his job.
Given this, an 'ordinary mortal' would have had the same treatment - indeed a friend of mine was stopped for 115mph and given 6 points and a heft fine instead of a ban.
But hey, its more fun to think its a huge conspiracy, right?
|
I see two sides to this. Alright - naughty boy. But let's not lock him up. He never killed anyone after all. And let's be honest, even if he had he wouldn't get locked up; and I'm not saying that because of who he is.
Don't get me wrong. I am not condoning those speeds for one moment although I can see how prevailing conditions, time of day* and vehicle could make that speed perfectly ok.
StuartLi said something about "speed at the right place at the right time". Maybe he did. After all, no-one got hurt.
Gotta agree with Michael on this. It's not like he hasn't been punished at all. You can all rest in the knowledge that his next trangression of a speed limit will ban him.
I'm eager to put across that I'm neither condoning nor condemning him.
Go on - attack me.
*Interested to see how the time of day has been missed out from that article as has his car.
--
Adam
|
|
|
|
Well IF his licence is crucial to his job he ought to cherish it and be a bit more careful! I mean it's not easy to do nearly double the motorway speed limit accidentally is it.
|
I agree VM. But when have we ever done the right thing all the time?
--
Adam
|
You're right of course Adski, we all make mistakes and break rules from time to time but would you have been treated so leniently, even if you were on your way to do charitable work like helping me sort out my PC problems? :)
Incidentally, do we know what he was doing at the time of the offence? Was he on his way to a vitally important charity event or had he just popped out to pick up a take-away?
If it wasn't his first speeding offence it seems to me that he shouldn't have been given the benefit of any doubt let alone special treatment - certainly not at the speed he was travelling.
Oh, despite the above, I'd like to apologise for slightly overstating the offence - he was only doing 1.614x the motorway speed limit on an A road.
|
Fair point VM and I would expect some sort of leniency for PC repair callouts! ;-)
Answer me this though - would it change your opinion at all had the offence been committed at 1am on a deserted A road?
If not, then fair enough - I will concede to your opinion. If so, then you see my point.
--
Adam
|
|
Not really at that speed Adski - it's all very well claiming a road's deserted but how the hell does anyone who hasn't got the ability to see into the future know that for certain. Make no mistake if our peer wants to do 113mph on his estate and take the chance of killing himself I couldn't care less but if he wants to use public roads then he should respect the law and someone who sits in the House of Lords ought to know that better than most.
|
I should point out that I do agree with you VM. I'm just not explaining myself very well.
113 is stupid. I'm not saying I agree with a ban for that speed (on a motorway at least) but I am agreeing that it is dangerous - not least on a non-motorway road. If he was doing it at any other time of day then the dead of night then I think he deserves more of a fine.
However, (and I know this is going to be controversial, to the point where I can't believe I'm going to say it) but the way I see it is, let's say he was doing 80. Would there be such uproar? Yet if he hit someone, they're dead. You see where I'm going with this?
Again, I'll reiterate how I do agree with you. I'm just trying to provoke some nice, healthy debate.
:-)
--
Adam
|
"113 is stupid."
Oh for goodness sake! A person I know of (but whose name I of course forget!) who has pursued his hobby and driven with due regard to conditions - often slower than has pleased some other drivers - in well maintained vehicles all his life and never hurt anyone has done over 150 in safety not too long ago. He would be perfectly in charge toddling along at 113.
The real offence to many, of course, is to enjoy motoring.
This is getting to be an anti-motoring site, sometimes.
|
|
Just because a driver's done something stupid - 150mph - once, twice or even ten times doesn't make it safe or even sensible! Sooner or later a tragedy happens and the fact that the driver involved (if he/she is still alive) says "well it was ok when I did it last time" isn't going to compensate the innocent victims. I really have no problem with anyone enjoying motoring on public roads but those who feel there aren't enough thrills to be had at 70mph should go and get their fun on a track.
|
"those who feel there aren't enough thrills to be had at 70mph should go and get their fun on a track."
Thrills at 70 mph! Look, if a motorway is clear, as they can be at certain times, 70 is so fluffypinkdice boring and annoying to the competent as to be actually dangerous.
|
|
|
a friend of mine was stopped for 115mph and given 6 points and a heft fine instead of a ban.
Was your friend caught on an A-road or on a motorway? And did he already have 6 points on his license?
But hey, its more fun to think its a huge conspiracy, right?
You're the first person to suggest a conspiracy.
|
Oh come on. What are these "different rules if you are a Tory peer" then?
Don't be such a pedant NW! That's for the polls.....of the BR variety.
--
Adam
|
It's the latest universal excuse - 'but it's for charity'.
Any day, someone will kill somebody, 'for charity'.
|
There was an ambulance driver done for speeding not long ago, I seem to recall. Not doing anything like 113 mph but I seem to remember he had one hell of a job escaping the prosecution.
Perhaps our the lord should take up ambulance driving for charity?
|
Last year (so out of NIP territory): Empty UK motorway. Friend in his Merc canting along at 130MPH plus. Plod in unmarked but multi-aerialed new shape Vectra GSi appears on the scene. Matey wants to curly up and disappear somewhere else. Visions of no licence, no car, no job.
Plod literally points finger, mouths stern words, slows matey down to 70MPH for some distance, then disappears over the horizon.
Even if on a 'shout', which would appear to be the case, this was most charitable behaviour!
|
|
Looks like the government's plan to make speeding as antisocial as drink driving is working very well, judging by the replies here.
|
And another law for Police Chiefs ?
See tinyurl.com/cucvb
--
Roger. (Costa del Sol, España)
|
There was an ambulance driver done for speeding not long ago, I seem to recall. Not doing anything like 113 mph but I seem to remember he had one hell of a job escaping the prosecution.
Actually, it turned out that he wasn't an ambulance driver -- he was delivering an organ for transplant, and there was plenty of time to spare. There was no need for him to exceed the speed limit: by doing so he was simply endangering other road-users as well as his important cargo.
see www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=13406&...f
|
This story really annoys me and shows what sort of legal system we now have in this country. This government is all for a classless society except where peers are concerned it seems.
If this joker valued his freedom to do his charity work so much in the first place then he should not risked it by exceeding the speed limit.
I thought over 100mph equals ban.
I thought 12 points equals ban.
Well it would for us plebs I guess.
|
"shows what sort of legal system we now have in this country"
It's not a modern phenomenon - it has always been an 'us and them' setup which rarely fails to protect the chosen few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
