What is life like with your car? Let us know and win £500 in John Lewis vouchers | No thanks
Keeping license - exceptional hardship - P3t3r

Guy caught doing 116mph and allowed to keep his licence because it would cause 'exceptional hardship'.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42643...9

It seems a bit unfair to me. He already had 6 points and he knew the risks but when he gets caught he expects to keep his license and job. At 116mph it was no mistake, he knew he was speeding.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - RT

Guy caught doing 116mph and allowed to keep his licence because it would cause 'exceptional hardship'.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-42643...9

It seems a bit unfair to me. He already had 6 points and he knew the risks but when he gets caught he expects to keep his license and job. At 116mph it was no mistake, he knew he was speeding.

It has got silly - the exceptional circumstances were originally required to relate to the offence, not the offender - as you say 116mph as tested so probably more at times, with 6 points already on, is taking the p**s

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - Manatee

Unfair possibly, but I wouldn't ban anybody just for doing 116mph so good luck to him.

I think he got extra sympathy because of his job.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - alan1302

Unfair possibly, but I wouldn't ban anybody just for doing 116mph so good luck to him.

I think he got extra sympathy because of his job.

How would you deal with it?

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - FP

"...I wouldn't ban anybody just for doing 116mph..."

Maybe you wouldn't, but it's available, according to sentencing guidelines:

"Disqualify 7 – 56 days OR 6 points" for 101 mph in a 70 limit. Additionally, "Where an offender is driving grossly in excess of the speed limit the court should consider a disqualification in excess of 56 days." (tinyurl.com/lwww6zz)

It seems to me that refusing to ban anyone for doing 116 mph goes against the guidelines. There’s no point in having the sentence available if it’s never used.

Clearly, in the view of the law, some people deserve it.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - RobJP

I know the road well, and drive it regularly.

The A55 has no hard shoulder and numerous very short slip roads (as well as 'normal' dual carriageway-type junctions). Along with lots of undulating terrain (blind summits in the area just between Caerwys and Holywell), a very steep section just further along to the west (Rhuallt hill) and a heavy volume of traffic at times (the ferry to/from Dublin is at the far end of it, so plenty of HGVs and holiday traffic at the time of the offence in July), along with the fact that tractors, etc. use it, it's grossly unsuitable for such speeds.

In fact, downright dangerous.

Rather disappointed by the leniency shown, to say the least.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - craig-pd130

I know the road well, and drive it regularly.

Same here, I'm usually hardly able to maintain the posted speed limit because of HGVs, caravans and old French diesels running on chip fat, let alone exceed it.

Yes, the guy's had an army career and was a paramedic at the Grenfell disaster but those don't excuse the excessive speed. The 6 points he already had should have been warning enough.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - Smileyman

I also know this road as Mrs S's family used to live in Holyhead.

Anyone who drives at 116 mph on a road like the A55 deserves to be banned from driving without second thought, the A55 is just a two lane dual carriageway, the speed differential between vehicles makes such speed outright dangerous, and of course other motorists will not anticipate the rate of approach and even if they did the approach would be so fast that it would be too late to react.

Granted anyone present at Grenfell will have experienced a level of shock and trauma thankfully most of us will never experience, but that does not excuse such speed.

Edited by Smileyman on 11/01/2018 at 23:34

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - bazza

It does seem as if it's one rule for one and one for another. It is a rather fast speed, which I would expect a short ban for. I know many modern cars and bikes are capable of that plus more, but the drivers certainly are not, myself included. I don't see what the gentleman's occupation or history has to do with it at all, it's irrelevant, lawyer's verbal diarrhoea, of which we hear so much in life.He got off very lucky.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - craig-pd130

I don't see what the gentleman's occupation or history has to do with it at all, it's irrelevant, lawyer's verbal diarrhoea, of which we hear so much in life.He got off very lucky.

He'd obviously hired one of the many 'Mr Loophole' lawyers to get away with it: remember Alex Ferguson escaping a ban for speeding because of 'gastric distress'?

Some family friends hired the same guy that represented Ferguson, the Beckhams etc, because the husband had been caught by a speed camera and already had 9 points. The lawyer suggested that as the offence was caught by a traditional GATSO camera and there was no way of telling from the photo who was driving at the time, the wife should state that she was driving and take the points & fine, sparing her hubby.

All credit to her, she refused to lie and so he got the fine and the ban :)

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - argybargy

I know the road well, and drive it regularly.

The A55 has no hard shoulder and numerous very short slip roads (as well as 'normal' dual carriageway-type junctions). Along with lots of undulating terrain (blind summits in the area just between Caerwys and Holywell), a very steep section just further along to the west (Rhuallt hill) and a heavy volume of traffic at times (the ferry to/from Dublin is at the far end of it, so plenty of HGVs and holiday traffic at the time of the offence in July), along with the fact that tractors, etc. use it, it's grossly unsuitable for such speeds.

In fact, downright dangerous.

Rather disappointed by the leniency shown, to say the least.

As another regular user of that road I absolutely agree. I suspect that the crucial phrase here is "Grenfell Tower", and that more lenient treatment is available to anyone who commits an offence and can convince a court that their subsequent behaviour was affected by direct experience of that disaster.

There are a whole host of emergency service workers and others who see tragedy and disaster day to day, but are never caught speeding or indeed commiting any other offence, and there really isn't any excuse for putting other road users in danger as this guy did.

An example should have been made, even if only in the form of a large fine alongside a short ban to enable him to quietly take sick leave until he was back on the road.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - John F

To acquire three points may be regarded as a misfortune; to acquire a further three within four years looks like carelessness (apologies to Oscar Wilde). But then to be caught driving with the speedo probably reading above 120mph on a non-motorway road suggests either an idiotic fool or a personality disorder - or both. Neither is worth wasting taxpayers' money on incarceration. Paramedics usually work in pairs (that's one of the reasons why their housecalls cost so much) so ability to drive is not essential.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - Alan

I saw the figures some time ago about the number of people who should have been banned but had been let off for exeptional harsdship. It surprised me at how many there were.

Some had been let off multiple times and were clearly taking the p***.

I can see the logic for one occurence possibly two in VERY VERY exceptional circumstances but some had managed much more than that.

Keeping license - exceptional hardship - FP

I completely fail to see the logical connection between being involved in the Grenfell disaster and being deal with leniently on a speeding offence.

Why does experiencing a traumatic event give someone licence to avoid the appropriate punishment for behaving dangerously on the road, risking the lives of others?

You could argue that, if someone has been damaged in some way by a traumatic event and they are not functioning properly as a driver as a result, it is a very good reason for getting them off the road. (Perhaps that was what Argybargy was getting at in his post.)

Edited by FP on 12/01/2018 at 13:22