Hi, I drive between 1,000-1,500 miles a week up and down the country for my work (I work in film). This means I start at like 4/5am and finish past 10pm most days. Since working in the industry I've picked up nine points over time. My other points have all been doing between 34-38 in 30mph zones, so I'm not some kind of mad car racer, just the combination of lots of hours driving and usually driving tired. Last night I was travelling on m23 in the variable speed area. No congestion etc, no signs saying 50 so me and the other cars on the motorway were doing 65-70mph. Something flashed behind me so I'm assuming I've got a ticket, which means 12 points. Just wondered what's the deal with smart motorways? I thought if there's no signs saying 50 you can assume its the national speed limit for motorways. And in terms of arguing exceptional hardship has anyone recently ever dealt with it? I would lose my job if I lost my car along with my flat.
So, SLOW DOWN...
Why should he slow down on a motorway if he's doing 65-70mph?
|
Never assume it makes an ass out of u and me. Wait until a notice arrives. It could have been a car on the other carriageway.
In the meantime long hours day after day are not good for physical or mental health, as you are finding out at the moment.
|
|
|
|
First of all, the posted limit is the limit. You don’t know why it had been applied. There is no defence to the charge on that basis.
Secondly, you don’t mention whether you have done a speed awareness course. If you have not done one for an offence which occurred in the three years prior to this one and you were travelling at 64mph or lower you may be offered one. But let’s assume not. Check the dates of your previous points. It is the dates of the offences which count when calculating the three year period for “totting up.”
If you are on nine “active” points you will not be offered a fixed penalty. Instead the matter will be referred to court and will eventually result in a full court hearing which you will be invited to attend. The details of the previous offences are not relevant when you make an “Exceptional Hardship” (EH) plea (incidentally, are you sure you were done for 34 in a 30 as enforcement usually begins at 35mph). It is solely concerned with whether you or others will suffer hardship which is “exceptional” (that is, over and above that which anybody will normally suffer if banned). As mentioned, losing your job alone ins not normally sufficient to see success. Last October Magistrates were reminded of this and this is their latest guidance:
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.
If you post up here your proposed argument up here I’ll give you my view on its chances of success.
|
|
Thanks for the advice. I haven't really got a proposed argument for exceptional hardship but it would be:
*in terms of other modes of transport for work its not an option. Because of COVID, Film is strongly against using other modes of transport so I am not allowed to travel by bus, taxi etc. Also I am in a team of 20 who rely on me to use my car to transport big kit deliveries to and from diff locations and to the studio. The places I work cant be reached by bus or train especially for the times I start. I am usually the first on site and the last to leave and this can be anywhere in the country. I am also relied on to transport members of my team to different locations when necessary, and they also rely on me to be at set before cast/crew arrive etc. Production would write a letter explaining this if needs be to prove it etc. E.g for tomorrow I need to get from Chichester to Windsor for 6am whilst also detouring to the studio in Slough to collect kit and have a covid test. I would impact my team massively.
Its not like I work in the city in an office based job where I commute on the tube or bus, or work in a cafe where I could possibly share lifts with other people.
*Obviously the knock on effect would be I wouldn't be employable in the industry and would lose my job. I would suffer financially and wouldn't be able to pay my rent for my flat. My housemate would suffer as a consequence as I would be forced to break our contract and move out which would cause her issues. So I'm guessing if I had to move home its not really an option either.
But I'm sure the flash the smart motorway after it happened I slowed significantly to see what it was, and it flashed about 10 seconds later and the other car hadn't passed the same point yet. Could it have been the cameras being tested? Or is that not a thing?
|
*Obviously the knock on effect would be I wouldn't be employable in the industry and would lose my job. I would suffer financially and wouldn't be able to pay my rent for my flat. My housemate would suffer as a consequence as I would be forced to break our contract and move out which would cause her issues. So I'm guessing if I had to move home its not really an option either.
You are the one who will have to live with it if the unfortunate thing happens and YOU kill or seriously injure someone.
Then if by chance you are in prison for death by dangerous driving, it will have an effect on you.
(for some reason your reply popped up before i could post my other reply at 17.24
Edited by _ORB_ on 26/04/2021 at 17:31
|
|
|
The places I work cant be reached by bus or train especially for the times I start. I am usually the first on site and the last to leave and this can be anywhere in the country. I am also relied on to transport members of my team to different locations when necessary, E.g for tomorrow I need to get from Chichester to Windsor for 6am whilst also detouring to the studio in Slough to collect kit and have a covid test. I would impact my team massively.
If this journey is typical, it seems that the basic problem may be starting from Chichester - assuming that is where you are based. In the 'old days' many people chose to live convenient for work. Moving house is now too expensive and many stay put, driving silly distances instead. Unfortunately there are limits to that, and you seem to be rather near them, which pushes you over the speed limit occasionally.
Doesn't answer your query, but I don't think you can expect to successfully claim Hardship because your difficulty inconveniences several other people - who may have forced you into doing all the travelling.
Edited by Andrew-T on 27/04/2021 at 09:36
|
|
|
|
|
It stiil doesn't address the problem of the OP continually gathering points on their driving licence.
One way is to really reflect and act on it if "lucky " this time and not fined/banned.
The other way is to go through a year without a driving licenec like a friend a couple of years ago.
And if the OP has an accident and kills someone while at "35/45/55/65 etc in real numbers 5 or more mph over the limit.
Edited by _ORB_ on 26/04/2021 at 17:25
|
|
|
|
Why should he slow down on a motorway if he's doing 65-70mph?
If the variable spped limit is lower, not seeing it isn't an excuse.
|
|
Your EH argument seems to centre around losing your job and that your employer cannot do without you. That said, be prepared for these questions if you make such an argument in court:
What does your employer do when you are ill or on holiday?
What did your employer do before you worked for the company?
What would your employer do if you resigned?
What other employment avenues (that do not involve driving) have you explored?
The court may also wonder why, if you are so dependent on being able to drive, you continued to amass convictions which would ultimately lead to your disqualification. Whilst this does not directly relate to the hardship you may suffer, it shines a light on the credibility of your argument. The Magistrates might ask themselves (or even ask you) if your life would be thrown into such turmoil by a driving ban, why you continued to offend once you had reached six points, and certainly once you reached nine. I would certainly not mention that you are working up to seventeen hours a day and "driving tired" as a reason for your offending. I don't wish to sound harsh but these are the questions you will face, so be prepared.
All this assumes, of course, that you have been caught. If you are the Registered Keeper of the car you should be served with a NIP within 14 days of the offence.
Did you check the dates of your earlier convictions and have you done a course in the last three years?
|
|
Have you gone through this process before?
I have never taken a leave for any illness.I cant afford to as its the nature of the work. I don't hear of many people taking days off in film for many illnesses unless its particularly horrible or life threatening. You're classed as self employed so you don't get sick pay. In terms of holiday again people don't take holidays as you don't get any paid holiday leave. You get a 2 week hiatus which cast and crew get off half way through filming and that's the only time off you get.
Its a tv series, so each department builds a strong team which makes up the crew before filming starts, they will all stay on for the duration of the shoot until wrap. So I guess its a new company etc. formed to create this tv series.
If i resigned I honestly think i would get blacklisted from my department, meaning I would never be employed in that department in film/tv again. I haven't explored any other avenues. I have no work experience etc in anything else as I've been working really hard to get this job I've managed to get currently as its so cutthroat, like anyone applying for a job. I last did a course in September 2018.
I understand and thank you for your advice. I guess i should start planning on building a argument for EH. thanks again.
|
|
Whatever you do, and I really do wish a positive outcome for you, If you do get a ticket, fine and points and potentially a ban, showing genuine contrition might help, as well as doing some driving lessons with an advanced driving instructor may help.
Do be kind enough to let us know what happens later on
Good luck from us ..
|
Have you gone through this process before?
Let's just say I've seen it undertaken more times than I can remember.
I think your EH argument will be a struggle. I didn't realise you were self-employed. What you are asking the Magistrates to believe is that if you stopped doing work for the people you currently work for you would be unable to find work in that industry again. You would have to produce some evidence of that to make it credible. If you are prosecuted your matter will not come to court for around six months. This should be ample time for you to warn your employer (I'll call them that though I appreciate you're self-employed) of the possibility you may be unable to work for them for a while. It will also enable you to investigate alternative employment. You will need to be able to show what you've done in both those respects. It will not work if you expect the court to believe you have been taken by surprise at this possibility when you've had such a long warning period.
I don't want you to approach this thinking it is a walkover. It never was and it's become harder since Magistrates were reminded of the guidance. Many people believe it's just a matter of saying "But I'll lose my job." You can see from the guidance I provided that it is insufficient. I think the job aspect of your argument is frankly a bit flakey. What might stand a better chance of success would be to couple that with losing your home and the effect this would have on your housemate.
|
|
|
|
|
The loss of your licence under totting up is meant to be a penalty which has an effect on your life - everyone can claim that losing their licence will cause hardship so this isn't exceptional in my view - you'll have to find out what the magistrates view on this is.
|
|
|
|
|
Why should he slow down on a motorway if he's doing 65-70mph?
If the variable spped limit is lower, not seeing it isn't an excuse.
From what we know the op said there was no variable speed limit in place.
|
From what we know the op said there was no variable speed limit in place.
Then, If he gets a NIP he can ask for "photographs to help identify the driver." I believe the M23 cameras are the HADEC3 type. Those cameras take a photo of the vehicle and of the speed limit sign simultaneously. If no limit is shown, provided the alleged speed was 70mph or less, he should plead Not Guilty. I would be surprised if this was the case, particularly as the OP has majored on dealing with being convicted and not on defending the matter, but you never know.
|
Whatever you do, and I really do wish a positive outcome for you,
Why? If the OP was speeding the only outcome should be a conviction and since the OP has 9 points already an automatic ban.
But perhaps you consider that would be positive since the OP appears to not have learned from his 3 pervious convictions for the same offence.
|
|
You certainly know how to strike a sour note, Skidpan, as you've shown on other occasions. Thankfully, courts in this country are often able to exercise some discretion.
N.B. for you and some other posters, the OP is called Mimi, which might suggest a female.
Edited by FP on 27/04/2021 at 15:01
|
N.B. for you and some other posters, the OP is called Mimi, which might suggest a female.
I picked that up, but does anyone watch Inspector Montalbano ? :-)
|
|
|
You certainly know how to strike a sour note, Skidpan, as you've shown on other occasions. Thankfully, courts in this country are often able to exercise some discretion.
N.B. for you and some other posters, the OP is called Mimi, which might suggest a female.
And that's why people don't have faith in them anymore, especially when it comes to driving.
I don't often agree with Skidpan, but he's spot on here.
47mph in a 30 zone. Killed a kid, gets suspended sentence:
metro.co.uk/2021/04/23/grieving-dad-shouts-this-is.../
|
47mph in a 30 zone. Killed a kid, gets suspended sentence:
metro.co.uk/2021/04/23/grieving-dad-shouts-this-is.../
The press report says the child, an 11 year old, ran out from between vehicles. It's possible that at 30 he might have done less damage, life changing injury rather than death, but what good what a custodial sentence do?
Does anyone seriously think Ola Onubogu's case would be at the mind's forefront next time someone in a hurry does (nearly) 50 in a 30?
Edited by Bromptonaut on 28/04/2021 at 22:06
|
47mph in a 30 zone. Killed a kid, gets suspended sentence:
metro.co.uk/2021/04/23/grieving-dad-shouts-this-is.../
The press report says the child, an 11 year old, ran out from between vehicles. It's possible that at 30 he might have done less damage, life changing injury rather than death, but what good what a custodial sentence do?
Does anyone seriously think Ola Onubogu's case would be at the mind's forefront next time someone in a hurry does (nearly) 50 in a 30?
In the report it said that if he had been doing 30 he could have stopped in time so it would have litterally been the difference between life and death.
|
|
|
Whatever you do, and I really do wish a positive outcome for you,
Why? If the OP was speeding the only outcome should be a conviction and since the OP has 9 points already an automatic ban.
But perhaps you consider that would be positive since the OP appears to not have learned from his 3 pervious convictions for the same offence.
Skidpan,
I think you missed my sense of irony.
I meant that,
1. The OP learns a lesson.
But she must be aware that she won't get away with it twice, and maybe not once.
Maybe Mr loophole can help her for a very large fee?
I do see your point though.
|
You certainly know how to strike a sour note, Skidpan, as you've shown on other occasions. Thankfully, courts in this country are often able to exercise some discretion.
Been a driver now since 1974 and so far (probably more by luck than judgement) not had a single point. Did once incur the wrath of a Constable when I parked in a daft spot but I moved the car immediately and that was it. Never even had a parking ticket but came close once when I found after entering a multistory I had insufficient change for parking and went to the office for change. When I got back to the car (with the ticket i had just bought) a warden had just written a notice, I explained the circumstance and had to go back to the office with the ticket and notice to get it cancelled.
So its not a sour note. Why should anyone who repeatedly breaks motoring law and does not learn expect to get off because of some sorry excuse.
Man up and pay up and hopefully learn this time.
N.B. for you and some other posters, the OP is called Mimi, which might suggest a female.
Fair point but anyone using Smith as a surname is unlikely to use their real christian name as well.
|
|
<< .... anyone using Smith as a surname is unlikely to use their real christian name as well. >>
So should the real Smiths use some other surname ? What a daft assumption.
|
|
|
And that's why people don't have faith in them [the courts] anymore, especially when it comes to driving.
I don't often agree with Skidpan, but he's spot on here.
47mph in a 30 zone. Killed a kid, gets suspended sentence:
If you look at the sentencing guidelines for the offence here:
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving – Sentencing (sentencingcouncil.org.uk)
You will see that a six month prison sentence (even if suspended) sits squarely with those guidelines. Without any aggravating factors the offence would, in fact, normally be dealt with in the Magistrates' Court and a Community Order would be in accordance with the guidelines. In fact, as a stand alone offence 47mph in a 30mph limit would not normally be charged with careless driving at all. A simple charge of speeding would follow. The result (i.e. the death) has caused the matter to be charged as careless driving and I believe it has been sentenced correctly.
When people say they have lost faith in the courts they should really say they have lost faith in the Criminal Justice system (which is not the same thing at all). Courts can only impose sentences in accordance with the law and the sentencing guidelines. For those to be changed Parliament has to be involved because ultimately it sets the boundaries within which the Criminal Justice system must work. The courts are not always the reason why seemingly lenient sentences are imposed and there is a good argument to say that rarely is this the case.
Edited by Middleman on 28/04/2021 at 14:42
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
