Won't somebody think of the millionaires?

Kerguelen

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricke ... dship.html

It must be awful for him, having all those millions of pounds and not being able to afford to hire a professional driver.

Or maybe he should have bought a car with cruise control fitted, but what would I know about these things?

MountainMonster

Kerguelen wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/andrewflintoff/11062323/Andrew-Flintoff-spared-driving-ban-due-to-exceptional-hardship.html

It must be awful for him, having all those millions of pounds and not being able to afford to hire a professional driver.

Or maybe he should have bought a car with cruise control fitted, but what would I know about these things?

He probably was using cruise control. What a horrible life he has.

gingaman

How long till he speeds again, and then what, a bigger fine? Ban him now, give him a bike, and tell him to MTFU!

graham.

What with his defense being his inability to carry his kid's hockey sticks and so on, shouldn't that have been something for him to consider whenever he decided to "Put the pedal to the metal"!
It's not as though it was a first offence is it.
Beats me how some solicitors keep a straight face when delivering their little speeches!

Colinthecop

In this instance, I agree with VTechs post... 8)

tlw1

to be fair to him, in the same situation I would have made up some bullshoot excuse too

homers_double

He had helped to raise £800,000 for Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool and was attempting to raise another £40,000 to bring it up to £1 million, the amount raised for Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.

I know it's no excuse for speeding (and anyone who says they don't is lying through their pipe smoke stained teeth) but how many politicians and the like will have used the same excuse and got away with it, and much worse?

VTech

homers double wrote:

He had helped to raise £800,000 for Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool and was attempting to raise another £40,000 to bring it up to £1 million, the amount raised for Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.

I know it's no excuse for speeding (and anyone who says they don't is lying through their pipe smoke stained teeth) but how many politicians and the like will have used the same excuse and got away with it, and much worse?

Im shocked at the responses from some people above.
I agree with homers double.

He didn't argue about personal issues but those of others.
Remember, he can afford to have a year off work but what about the many others that rely on his work to make a living or the charities he tirelessly works for ?

Lets say any of you are working for a company and your boss speeds, not 120mph but just 87 on the motorway (we've all done it!) and gets a ban. He can't continue to work and shuts the place down and your all out of work. Would that be the right outcome ?

Also, remember that he does over 60,000m a year on the road so of course has more chance of speeding, I'm not saying its right, its just the way it is.

The court made the right judgement in this case and I applaud them for it.

graham.

VTech wrote:

homers double wrote:

He had helped to raise £800,000 for Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool and was attempting to raise another £40,000 to bring it up to £1 million, the amount raised for Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.

I know it's no excuse for speeding (and anyone who says they don't is lying through their pipe smoke stained teeth) but how many politicians and the like will have used the same excuse and got away with it, and much worse?

Im shocked at the responses from some people above.
I agree with homers double.

He didn't argue about personal issues but those of others.
Remember, he can afford to have a year off work but what about the many others that rely on his work to make a living or the charities he tirelessly works for ?

Lets say any of you are working for a company and your boss speeds, not 120mph but just 87 on the motorway (we've all done it!) and gets a ban. He can't continue to work and shuts the place down and your all out of work. Would that be the right outcome ?

Also, remember that he does over 60,000m a year on the road so of course has more chance of speeding, I'm not saying its right, its just the way it is.

The court made the right judgement in this case and I applaud them for it.

I refer my learned friend to my comment above.

"shouldn't that have been something for him to consider whenever he decided to "Put the pedal to the metal"!"

homers_double

Perhaps he was late for a charity event...

finchy

VTech wrote:

just 87 on the motorway (we've all done it!)

I haven't.

VTech

There are only two true reasons for mocking this guy in threads like this.

1) jealousy.
2) mocking someone for fun or personal pleasure.


he did wrong but the FACT is quite simple, banning him for 3 months would have been a negative, it would have helped no one and to me is similar to the way the courts used to fine people or put them in jail for non payment of TV licence.
there is no good to come from it, you can't afford to pay a bill so they put you in prison at a cost of £2000/week and you come out debt free, where is the sense in that. ??????

If someone come on here and said they only fined him a few quid and thats ridiculous then fine, i would agree with that, he has the means to pay more and so that would have been fair, please understand the word I'm using, FAIR !

Having said that, one of my customers once got a £550,000 for speeding at a little over 140mph ! that IMO was too much, again, not fair

slowbike

Yer sorry ... but I just don't agree with the court.


This isn't a millionaire "nobody" ... this is a millionaire celebrity whose actions influence many. Some of those are going to look at his actions (4 times caught speeding) and think that it's ok for him so it's ok for me.

I really don't buy the exceptional hardship either. As has been said the family could even afford to hire a driver for a ban - that would not prevent him from attending any of his appointments. If not then he could get a good discount from a taxi firm.
A ban would've sent a positive message to all the speeding drivers - the fine is immaterial.

Perhaps Flintoff could do the decent thing and ban himself from driving for 6 months - he could publicise that and be seen in a good way.

slowbike

VTech wrote:

he did wrong but the FACT is quite simple, banning him for 3 months would have been a negative, it would have helped no one

You're wrong.

It would've been publicised as much as this story was and it would send a clear message to the speedsters that even if you're as famous as AF then you still get banned for speeding.

What's next? Let Rolf out of jail because he's done so much for charity that his crimes amount to nothing and there's nothing to be gained from imprisoning him? Where's the punishment for doing wrong? Where's the incentive for others to behave (or at least not get caught) ... ?

VTech

Your acting as though this is a one-off incident.

Exceptional hardship cases happen daily, I'm sure colinthecop can vouch for that.

if I went to court and was about to go over the points and get a ban there is no way on earth they would ban me for 87 on a 70. I would plead hardship, tell them i would be forced to close the business and people would lose jobs and i would get a fine and be on my way.

He isn't being treated differently from anyone else just because he is famous, he is only being talked about because he is famous.

slowbike

and that's the problem ...

it's not just the 87 in a 70 - it's the repeated speeding ....

and you wouldn't be forced to close the business - that would be your choice. It may cost you more to get around for 3 or 6 months, but that's the punishment isn't it ... otherwise it's just a joke.

VTech

Slowbike wrote:

and that's the problem ...

it's not just the 87 in a 70 - it's the repeated speeding ....

and you wouldn't be forced to close the business - that would be your choice. It may cost you more to get around for 3 or 6 months, but that's the punishment isn't it ... otherwise it's just a joke.

It seems we are going round in circles yet the in most we agree !
The punishment he has been given is wrong but it is also right.

It was right in that he didn't lose his licence, he hasn't been drink driving and wasn't the same % over the limit at a lower speed where danger is possible, after all, remember that the RAC and AA have been campaigning for a speed limit of 80-90mph for years as in their opinion it would be safer. Speed limits were set in the 60's when breaking on cars was nothing like it is today.

It was wrong in that he wasn't fined enough, he should have had to pay around £5k imo.

He isn't a bad man and almost certainly has been caught previously due to the amount of miles he does, it makes sense that the more you drive, the more chance of issues. If he had been doing 40 in a 30 it would be a totally different kettle of fish, but he wasn't.

graham.

I was caught in one of those temporary speed trap thingies.
I wasn't going fast enough to get a fine but was sent on a speed awareness course, I attended with an open mind and learned a few things, mainly to change my behavior when driving.
Of course Mr F is more likely to get caught if he does more miles, but only if he keeps committing the offence.
I agree that a fine commensurate with income would be more welcome than a ban, as at least someone, somewhere benefits from that.
The sooner he stops committing the offence the sooner he stops getting caught. (Same as anyone else.)

Pross

VTech wrote:

homers double wrote:

He had helped to raise £800,000 for Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool and was attempting to raise another £40,000 to bring it up to £1 million, the amount raised for Great Ormond Street Hospital in London.

I know it's no excuse for speeding (and anyone who says they don't is lying through their pipe smoke stained teeth) but how many politicians and the like will have used the same excuse and got away with it, and much worse?

Im shocked at the responses from some people above.
I agree with homers double.

He didn't argue about personal issues but those of others.
Remember, he can afford to have a year off work but what about the many others that rely on his work to make a living or the charities he tirelessly works for ?

Lets say any of you are working for a company and your boss speeds, not 120mph but just 87 on the motorway (we've all done it!) and gets a ban. He can't continue to work and shuts the place down and your all out of work. Would that be the right outcome ?

Also, remember that he does over 60,000m a year on the road so of course has more chance of speeding, I'm not saying its right, its just the way it is.

The court made the right judgement in this case and I applaud them for it.

I have to disagree with that, my boss got a 6 month ban. He employed someone as driver and office assistant (and retained them as an office assistant once the ban ended). Basically, someone with money should find it easier to cope in a situation like this than a person with no money who finds themselves unable to get to work (not that I have sympathy in that case either).

I drive in excess of 30,000 miles a year and need my car for my job. Yes, I speed at times like virtually everyone and have picked up 3 points in the end but that doesn't make it excusable, it's a choice I make rather than being late for a meeting etc.

I have nothing against Freddy, having spent several hours with him when he was in our friends box at Chepstow races a few years ago he is a really nice bloke but ultimately he did wrong and should have got banned. I'm not blaming him for putting up a case to avoid the ban though, I think most of us would if we were able to in that situation. There's a fault in the system though that allows someone in that position to keep their licence on the grounds of hardship.

slowbike

VTech wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

and that's the problem ...

it's not just the 87 in a 70 - it's the repeated speeding ....

and you wouldn't be forced to close the business - that would be your choice. It may cost you more to get around for 3 or 6 months, but that's the punishment isn't it ... otherwise it's just a joke.

It seems we are going round in circles yet the in most we agree !
The punishment he has been given is wrong but it is also right.

It was right in that he didn't lose his licence, he hasn't been drink driving and wasn't the same % over the limit at a lower speed where danger is possible, after all, remember that the RAC and AA have been campaigning for a speed limit of 80-90mph for years as in their opinion it would be safer. Speed limits were set in the 60's when breaking on cars was nothing like it is today.

It was wrong in that he wasn't fined enough, he should have had to pay around £5k imo.

He isn't a bad man and almost certainly has been caught previously due to the amount of miles he does, it makes sense that the more you drive, the more chance of issues. If he had been doing 40 in a 30 it would be a totally different kettle of fish, but he wasn't.

Better braking doesn't reduce reaction times. It's not the absolute speed that is the problem - it's the differential. at 87mph he's going 58% faster than a truck - where as the speed limit of 70mph is just 27% faster.

I disagree with his disproportionate chances of getting caught speeding - the only time you're likely to get caught speeding is when you speed. IME you seem to get away with doing about 80mph (as indicated on your speedo - although it's nearer 76 actual as shown by GPS) on a motorway - provided the rest of the traffic is doing about the same.

I never suggested AF was a bad man - I don't know him - but I'd judge him to be a bad man if he thinks it's ok for him to regularly exceed the speed limit - think about the effect it would have on others if he is involved in a collision at that speed - his car (and family inside) would likely be ok, but the family in their Clio may not come out so well when his 2 tonne car smashes into their little vehicle.
Speed limits on motorways gives you an expectation of speed - we know lorries will do about 55-60, less on the hills, we generally expect cars to be doing >60 unless they're towing a caravan, we do not expect cars to be doing >80.
I don't expect AF had any valid reason for doing 87mph - so why should he get off what many lesser mortals (ie me) would be banned for.

city_boy

He should have been banned IMO!
It's not like it's a first offence. He's been done three times already and I'm sure he would have been aware of the consequences of being found guilty of a fourth offence. After 3 times you would have thought he would have put the interests of his family/others before his total disregard of the law (and safety of others) on the basis he could afford a top notch lawyer to successfully put across his sob story.

VTech

I think that every human in the world, apart from those that argue with me on this very forum should be exterminated.
That way the future of this planet would be safe in the knowledge that a superior race has been evolved.

Or, we can just continue to have a place full of false do-gooder keyboard warriors

mangetout_rodney

I wonder what costs more- a lawyer to fight the license ban or a driver for a year?

The cynic in me says the former.

VTech

Sevendeadly wrote:

I wonder what costs more- a lawyer to fight the license ban or a driver for a year?

The cynic in me says the former.

It depends on the speed, he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to get off at that speed, it simply wasn't high enough.
There was no chance he was ever going to get a ban at 87mph. Please don't argue with me guys, its just the way it is. i don't make the rules.

slowbike

Sevendeadly wrote:

I wonder what costs more- a lawyer to fight the license ban or a driver for a year?

The cynic in me says the former.

It was only a magistrates court - fairly cheap ...

homers_double

Gotta love the high flyers of this forum.

city_boy

VTech wrote:

There was no chance he was ever going to get a ban at 87mph. Please don't argue with me guys, its just the way it is. i don't make the rules.

He was due a ban for reaching 12 penalty points. You can get banned if you do 36mph in a 30mph zone if you do it FOUR times!

That's the way it is....them's the rules

Pross

VTech wrote:

Sevendeadly wrote:

I wonder what costs more- a lawyer to fight the license ban or a driver for a year?

The cynic in me says the former.

It depends on the speed, he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to get off at that speed, it simply wasn't high enough.
There was no chance he was ever going to get a ban at 87mph. Please don't argue with me guys, its just the way it is. i don't make the rules.

He was already on 9 points and would have got three more as a minimum and 12 points should result in a ban. That's the whole point of what everyone else has been saying. Also, he did use a lawyer and the lawyer was the one who put the case for him not being banned.

I don't normally join in the arguing with you but I'm wondering on this occasion if you even read the original article before taking the contrary point of view

VTech

Pross wrote:

VTech wrote:

Sevendeadly wrote:

I wonder what costs more- a lawyer to fight the license ban or a driver for a year?

The cynic in me says the former.

It depends on the speed, he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to get off at that speed, it simply wasn't high enough.
There was no chance he was ever going to get a ban at 87mph. Please don't argue with me guys, its just the way it is. i don't make the rules.

He was already on 9 points and would have got three more as a minimum and 12 points should result in a ban. That's the whole point of what everyone else has been saying. Also, he did use a lawyer and the lawyer was the one who put the case for him not being banned.

I don't normally join in the arguing with you but I'm wondering on this occasion if you even read the original article before taking the contrary point of view

I wonder if you bothered to read my comment above, the one you quoted me on.
I actually said "It depends on the speed, he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to get off at that speed, it simply wasn't high enough."

This was in response to someone asking about the lawyer fees.

What I wrote was factual, 12 points doesn't mean a ban by law, its a point at which a ban is possible, there is a difference.
I stand by the fact that doing 87 on a 70 would in almost all cases not result in a ban under the totting system if the other offences were similar. this would of course be different if past convictions were drink driving or other serious offences but the rules surrounding speeds just over the limit at 70 are not as strict.

Monkeypump

VTech wrote:

Pross wrote:

VTech wrote:

Sevendeadly wrote:

I wonder what costs more- a lawyer to fight the license ban or a driver for a year?

The cynic in me says the former.

It depends on the speed, he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to get off at that speed, it simply wasn't high enough.
There was no chance he was ever going to get a ban at 87mph. Please don't argue with me guys, its just the way it is. i don't make the rules.

He was already on 9 points and would have got three more as a minimum and 12 points should result in a ban. That's the whole point of what everyone else has been saying. Also, he did use a lawyer and the lawyer was the one who put the case for him not being banned.

I don't normally join in the arguing with you but I'm wondering on this occasion if you even read the original article before taking the contrary point of view

I wonder if you bothered to read my comment above, the one you quoted me on.
I actually said "It depends on the speed, he wouldn't have needed a lawyer to get off at that speed, it simply wasn't high enough."

This was in response to someone asking about the lawyer fees.

What I wrote was factual, 12 points doesn't mean a ban by law, its a point at which a ban is possible, there is a difference.
I stand by the fact that doing 87 on a 70 would in almost all cases not result in a ban under the totting system if the other offences were similar. this would have course be different if past convictions were drink driving or other serious offences but the rules surrounding speeds just over the limit at 70 are not as strict.

Vtech - I'm not sure if you're being deliberately belligerent or just digging your heels in. I think most of us agree that in normal circumstances, speeding at 87 wont' result in a ban. It didn't in this case. It resulted in 3 points, taking the driver to 12 points, the point at which it is normal to the licence to be revoked. This is the default action. Special action has to be taken to allow a driver to continue to drive with 12 points, which is what happened here. So he was given special dispensation. Is this fair?

Personally, I think this is a farce. He clearly has disregard for the law (as mentioned above, you only get caught breaking the law if you are breaking the law - this is a choice he made), and should be punished. The fine is inconsequential considering his wealth, so he should be made to suffer some inconvenience - this would be a fair mix of being commensurate with the offence, and his personal mans. He can easily afford a driver for, say, a year, and should be made to use that option.

I suspect he's laughing all the way home, and congratulating his lawyer for getting him off. Hopefully he won't be so lucky next time. Even more hopefully, he won't cause injury or worse next time he decides the law doesn't apply to him.

jordan_217

Fixed penalty at 79 mph and court summons at 96 mph according to the guidleines laid out by the association of Chief Police Officers. The guidance is 10% + 2mph of the advertised speed limit. I ride with two traffic coppers from neighboring constabularies and they issue a fixed penaly notice IAW these guidelines, apparently most constabularies do.

So while 87mph would'n't mean instant ban, it would be high enough for a fixed penalty notice of points and a fine. Either way you cut it he would have 12 pts and should be banned. I dont give a 5hi7 about his 'status', personal wealth or charity work; nobody should be above the law.