Won't somebody think of the millionaires?

VTech

Monkeypump wrote:

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.

I often get the feeling here that people react to me rather than what I write which is cool, just repetitive at times.
I wasn't referring to the 87mph issue, I was referring to the fact he wasn't banned. I truly believe that anyone in the same position, regardless of wealth would be able to walk from that courtroom with licence intact.
His speed which was just a tad over the limit given the 10% rule and under the immediate prosecution rule of around 92mph.

The punishment wasn't fair, I totally agree, his fine was pitiful and should have been a much higher figure in or around the £5k mark.
He shouldn't have been banned as that would have been too severe for the incident.

Ive tried to get you guys to look at this from a genuine "not famous or rich" viewpoint but it fails and I'm confident that this is only down to being me making the point but put it this way.

You have a guy who is a salesman, he is a good man, father, husband, good member of the community and he is a salesman, he does 60,000m a year and has 9 points, all for speeding and all within very small margins of the legal limit. He has no reckless or dangerous driving markers and of course hasn't been speeding in the lower ranges where danger is far more prominent.

He will, if losing his licence, lose his job and his home.

My point is simple, does that punishment seem fair for the offence committed, regardless of the fact he already had 9 points and that he knew the law. Does he deserve to lose everything ?

Of course many will say yes and thats fine but truth is, you know, and more importantly I know that really, you agree with me.

slowbike

VTech wrote:

He shouldn't have been banned as that would have been too severe for the incident.

For a single incident I'd agree - for repeated offences then there would have to have a good reason not to ban him.

The points system is supposed to be there as a warning method - he's ignored this warning at least 3 times and the forth time he's still free to drive.... what does he have to do to lose his licence?

VTech wrote:

Ive tried to get you guys to look at this from a genuine "not famous or rich" viewpoint but it fails and I'm confident that this is only down to being me making the point but put it this way.

You have a guy who is a salesman, he is a good man, father, husband, good member of the community and he is a salesman, he does 60,000m a year and has 9 points, all for speeding and all within very small margins of the legal limit. He has no reckless or dangerous driving markers and of course hasn't been speeding in the lower ranges where danger is far more prominent.

He will, if losing his licence, lose his job and his home.

My point is simple, does that punishment seem fair for the offence committed, regardless of the fact he already had 9 points and that he knew the law. Does he deserve to lose everything ?

How do you treat a child who disobeys? You set them boundaries and punishments, you may chose to give them a warning for the first, second and third incident, the forth incident the punishment kicks in...
If you don't follow through the child learns that they can get away with the act and that becomes the norm.

monkimark

If you don't get banned for 12 points because you have a job, who does get banned, just the unemployed?

Getting caught speeding 4 times doesn't mean you sped 4 times either of course it means that on 4 occasions you were speeding in a place where there was a police car (or camera or whatever) and you didn't notice it.

Perhaps there should be a special 'exceptional hardship' clause - you keep your license but you have to drive a crappy 10 year old 1 litre fiat Uno with a black box tracker ensuring you stay within the posted limits at all times or the ban comes into force. You could still do your vital work for charity/flogging office supplies but your status symbol car would be gone and you would be forced to comply with the speed limits.

Disclaimer: I have been known to ride above the speed limit but have been observant/lucky enough not to get caught, I'm not claiming to be an angel here.

finchy

VTech wrote:

You have a guy who is a salesman, he is a good man, father, husband, good member of the community and he is a salesman, he does 60,000m a year and has 9 points, all for speeding and all within very small margins of the legal limit. He has no reckless or dangerous driving markers and of course hasn't been speeding in the lower ranges where danger is far more prominent.

He will, if losing his licence, lose his job and his home.

Flintoff was driving at about 25% over the speed limit. The two cases aren't comparable.

VTech wrote:

My point is simple, does that punishment seem fair for the offence committed, regardless of the fact he already had 9 points and that he knew the law. Does he deserve to lose everything ?

Flintoff wouldn't lose everything. The two cases aren't comparable.

And even so, if a salesman continues to deliberately flout the law, he shouldn't be driving. A car is a lump of metal weighing over a ton and potentially lethal to other road users, including us cyclists.

VTech wrote:

Of course many will say yes and thats fine but truth is, you know, and more importantly I know that really, you agree with me.

No, we don't, and people were saying pretty much the same thing BEFORE you joined the thread.

city_boy

I'm sure most would agree that driving 'just above' the legal speed limit is a fairly minor misdemeanor and as mentioned by others, this is reflected in the totting up procedure whereby someone gets effectively 3 free hits (sometimes 4, when you can swap your first 3 points for a speed awareness course) before they are even at risk of a ban at the 4th (or 5th!) offence.

To my mind, a punishment for a crime should do 4 things. Firstly it is just that - a 'punishment' for the offence committed, secondly to deter the offendant from committing the crime again and thirdly to act as a deterrent to the others in society from commiting the offence.

Finally it could be argued that it fulfills societies need to see that offenders are brought to justice in a fair and proportionate way.

For a punishment to be effective it should impose at least some form of hardship on the offender and that would therefore be subjective depending upon the offenders personal situation.

I have only ever had two speeding convictions. The second of which resulted in an automatic court appearance. Prior to which I had to fill in a means form, in order that the court could, if they felt justified, fine me an amount that provided the proportionate level of hardship/punishment. (upto 125% of weekly pay, I believe).

I would suggest that the level of punishment handed out to Freddie meets none of the 4 criteria mentioned above.

mangetout_rodney

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

Ah ok- I'm not from the UK and never been in a court so I don't really know the system here.

diplodicus

Quick questions for vtec.

If he were to be caught again speeding, but no faster than 87mph in the next month or two would you say he deserved a ban then? How about twice more in the next 6 months, still no ban?

The hardship remains the same regardless of how many times he is caught, at what point would you ban?

VTech

City Boy wrote:

I'm sure most would agree that driving 'just above' the legal speed limit is a fairly minor misdemeanor and as mentioned by others, this is reflected in the totting up procedure whereby someone gets effectively 3 free hits (sometimes 4, when you can swap your first 3 points for a speed awareness course) before they are even at risk of a ban at the 4th (or 5th!) offence.

To my mind, a punishment for a crime should do 4 things. Firstly it is just that - a 'punishment' for the offence committed, secondy to deter the offendant from committing the crime again and thirdly to act as a deterrent to the others in society from commiting the offence.

Finally it could be argued that it fulfills societies need to see that offenders are brought to justice in a fair and proportionate way.

For a punishment to be effective it should impose at least some form of hardship on the offender and that would therefore be subjective depending upon the offenders personal situation.

I have only ever had two speeding convictions. The second of which resulted in an automatic court appearance. Prior to which I had to fill in a means form, in order that the court could, if they felt justified, fine me an amount that provided the proportionate level of hardship/punishment. (upto 125% of weekly pay, I believe).

I would suggest that the level of punishment handed out to Freddie meets none of the 4 criteria mentioned above.

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The punishment wasn't enough. Of course only an idiot would think that a ban would be the right thing but at the same time, he should have been fined a substantial amount of money, enough that would be both a deterrent to him and to others.
We have to remember that other people and factors are at stake here and that the law is the law. As I posted earlier, 12 points does NOT mean a ban. Its the point where a ban can be placed.

The "totting up" procedure is actually a law I am fully in favour with as it gives way to circumstances which is never a bad thing. Its a shame other laws are not similar.

Also, we have to remember that we always get the Chinese whisper effect similar to that of johnfinch who will have you believe he was driving 25% above the limit which on the face of it looks bad but the truth is different as he wasn't. If you took the law to the letter, you have 70mph (M62 motorway) and then +10% and 3mph so the limit would usually be around 80mph before a ticket making him less than 10% above the limit of a ticket.

Anyway, we need to move away from the lies that these forums bring where people suggest he acts above the law etc etc and for some mad reason people bring money into it and then blame me !!!!
Money has nothing to do with it, his money never got him off with a ban, he didn't get a ban because the law allowed it. Its all very simple, even as a millionaire with low intelligence

Answer to diplodocus, Yes, at this point he should be banned because the law says you can't use mitigating circumstances within a 2-3 month period.

Pross

VTech wrote:

I wasn't referring to the 87mph issue, I was referring to the fact he wasn't banned. I truly believe that anyone in the same position, regardless of wealth would be able to walk from that courtroom with licence intact.

I disagree, the vast amount of cases where someone picks up enough points to take them to 12 will result in a ban. Here's just one example (someone arguably famous) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/6107530.stm

VTech wrote:

His speed which was just a tad over the limit given the 10% rule and under the immediate prosecution rule of around 92mph.

If by a tad over you mean you mean 13% over the '10% rule' (which isn't even a rule and just a guide that some forces use) then yes he was. Take a look a page 131 of this which is the official guidance to magistrates rather than the law of urban myth http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/MCSG_(web)_-_Complete_8.pdf. He is actually far closer to the Band B level that could have resulted in an instant ban rather than one under totting up even if you give him a 10% allowance. He's been lucky to not be banned it really is as simple as that - no agenda about him being rich and famous, I've already said I've spent time with him and liked him.

VTech wrote:

The punishment wasn't fair, I totally agree, his fine was pitiful and should have been a much higher figure in or around the £5k mark.

Take a look at page 148 of the above document which details how fines are calculated. In this instance he was a Band A level fine so about half of his weekly wage. However, he has been fined £5k which is the absolute maximum a Magistrates Court can impose.

Monkeypump

Vtech - I side with you more often than not on this forum, but please do not presume to know what I think by assuming that in fact, I really agree with you on this. I do not, and I would hope that even you are not really that arrogant.

In your example of the salesman, somebody who relies on his car/licence to do his job has deliberately broken the law. By doing so, he has chosen - consciously or unwittingly - to risk his own job, and the financial welfare of his family. That's before we get into any physical danger he poses. Nobody is forced to speed - it is a choice. We can all abide by every speed limit in the land - we are given all the tools to do so.

If somebody is either that stupid, or that selfish, that they think it is okay to continue breaking the law after AT LEAST 3 warnings (assuming he hasn't been stopped and told to slow down, without further action) then I would advocate serious punishment, unless there were truly extenuating circumstances. Neither Freddy or your salesman qualify, I'm afraid.

I'm sure you will continue to argue this point until the thread is locked. Your opinion will, it seems, continue to be in the minority.

Please also be assured that I'm not disagreeing with you because it's you. I just happen to have a different opinion, and think your justifications in defending Freddy are ridiculous. I know that it will be hard for you to accept anything other than your own imperious opinion, but please try.

Pross

Also, you keep saying that 12 points isn't an automatic ban but the point at which one can be considered. This is incorrect, the sentencing guidance is that should a driver reach 12 points in a 3 year period, the Court guidelines are an automatic disqualification of 6 months should be imposed.

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/tottingup/drivingbantottingup.htm

You can get an instant ban when the speed exceeds the limit significantly even with a previously clean licence. This applies to 'as little' as 91mph on a motorway.

VTech

Pross wrote:

Also, you keep saying that 12 points isn't an automatic ban but the point at which one can be considered. This is incorrect, the sentencing guidance is that should a driver reach 12 points in a 3 year period, the Court guidelines are an automatic disqualification of 6 months should be imposed.

http://www.drivingban.co.uk/drivingban/tottingup/drivingbantottingup.htm

You can get an instant ban when the speed exceeds the limit significantly even with a previously clean licence. This applies to 'as little' as 91mph on a motorway.

Without wanting to argue with you, you have posted some daft responses, the first of which was the other band member a few posts back who was banned for speeding, you only gave the info that benefited your point but was implemented in the same way a politician tells the truth but deceives at the same time.

He was banned for driving at 61mph in a 50 zone, I have previously stated that imo (and thats all it is) it is more serious the lower the speed as it become built up areas and places of danger etc.
I would also like to add that for over 20 years previous to the singer being banned the speed limit on that road was actually 60mph of which he was 1mph over. The limit was changed not too soon before he was caught effectively making him a speeder which a few months before he wasn't.

I would also like to point out that the law does not say you must be banned at 12 points.

This is the exact law in question:

Can I avoid a "totting up" driving ban?


Yes. When considering a "totting up" disqualification, the Court has to take into account all mitigation presented and in certain circumstances, can allow a driver to keep their licence notwithstanding the fact that there may be more than 12 penalty points thereon. In order to retain your licence at 12 or more points, you will need to show "exceptional hardship".

I would also like to point you directly to the link you pointed me too in suggestion that 12 points and you have to be banned. On that very link, this is the EXACT wording: Can I avoid a driving ban if I reach 12 penalty points or more?
Yes, if the Court accepts a submission of exceptional hardship.

slowbike

VTech wrote:

This is the exact law in question:

Can I avoid a "totting up" driving ban?


Yes. When considering a "totting up" disqualification, the Court has to take into account all mitigation presented and in certain circumstances, can allow a driver to keep their licence notwithstanding the fact that there may be more than 12 penalty points thereon. In order to retain your licence at 12 or more points, you will need to show "exceptional hardship".

quite clearly that is not the law in question .. that is a question posted in a FAQ type style.

Again you are wrong. You continue to be wrong. Knowledgeable people tell you you are wrong and yet you call them an idiot?

If you are unwilling to try to understand then perhaps you should stop reading ... and stop responding with your claptrap ....

12 points should equal a ban - unless there is an absolutely vital reason why not - and that reason shouldn't be the inconvenience of having to use public transport.

Mikey23

Exceptional hardship my posterior ... Guy should have been banned, i would expect to be banned and i would expect you to be banned. Decision of magistrates weak and spineless. No need for three pages of debate ...

VTech

Slowbike wrote:

VTech wrote:

This is the exact law in question:

Can I avoid a "totting up" driving ban?


Yes. When considering a "totting up" disqualification, the Court has to take into account all mitigation presented and in certain circumstances, can allow a driver to keep their licence notwithstanding the fact that there may be more than 12 penalty points thereon. In order to retain your licence at 12 or more points, you will need to show "exceptional hardship".

quite clearly that is not the law in question .. that is a question posted in a FAQ type style.

Again you are wrong. You continue to be wrong. Knowledgeable people tell you you are wrong and yet you call them an idiot?

If you are unwilling to try to understand then perhaps you should stop reading ... and stop responding with your claptrap ....

12 points should equal a ban - unless there is an absolutely vital reason why not - and that reason shouldn't be the inconvenience of having to use public transport.

Im really enjoying this.

I will say it again, 12 points does not mean you must be banned. It means that you are at a point where a ban is the correct step, this of course doesn't stop a ban being made with less than 12 points if the offence justified it.
You can call me names, you do say or do anything but I'm right. That has been proven by the fact the freddie is still driving his bentley as a daily driver and an Aventador as his weekend fun car.

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, MR V has a clean licence 8)

city_boy

VTech wrote:

Also, we have to remember that we always get the Chinese whisper effect similar to that of johnfinch who will have you believe he was driving 25% above the limit which on the face of it looks bad but the truth is different as he wasn't. If you took the law to the letter, you have 70mph (M62 motorway) and then +10% and 3mph so the limit would usually be around 80mph before a ticket making him less than 10% above the limit of a ticket.

It's statements like this that don't do your cause any favours.

JF stated the FF was driving almost 25% over the speed limit. The speed limit on a motorway is 70mph and he was driving at 87mph. So in fact JF is perfectly correct and stating the "truth".

Driving just 1mph above the speed limit is a criminal offence. It's just that ACPO guidelines provide a guide threshold of 10% of the speed limit plus 2mph to trigger a conviction. So in theory you are allowed a leeway to break the law by 9mph (about 13%) in this instance before you face prosecution.

So your version that he is only "10% above the limit of a ticket" (which is already 13% above the legal limit) to try and trivialise his actions is further from the "truth" and more akin to "Chinese whispers" than anything anyone else has said.

CiB

FWIW I'm with VTech on this. Speeding on a motorway is less serious than in lower limit areas; courts should always take into account the effect of a ban, and where relevant previous offences should be taken into account. I won't be here for the next 3 hours arguing the ins & outs of it, just that VTech has made valid points. Exceptional Hardship isn't limited to the effects on the individual concerned.

Pross

VTech wrote:

Im really enjoying this.

I will say it again, 12 points does not mean you must be banned. It means that you are at a point where a ban is the correct step, this of course doesn't stop a ban being made with less than 12 points if the offence justified it.
You can call me names, you do say or do anything but I'm right.

I've always avoided getting into the regular disputes you have on here but I can now see why people get so frustrated with you. You have now subtely but significantly changed your position. What you previously said was 12 points is when a ban can be considered but is unlikely if it's just a minor (25% or so) indiscretion. You seem to finally be moving towards the reality which is that a ban is the starting point i.e. the default sentence unless mitigating circumstances are used which in this case was the claim of 'hardship', saying 'I was only 25% over' is unlikely to count as mitigation therefore the 12 points would equal a ban.

I can see why you've had past problems with lawyers if you always insist in misinterpreting the law to suit your arguments!

pblakeney

This story would appear to back up Vtech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -road.html

I know, I know. The source is a pain but the point remains.

Pross

VTech wrote:

Without wanting to argue with you, you have posted some daft responses, the first of which was the other band member a few posts back who was banned for speeding, you only gave the info that benefited your point but was implemented in the same way a politician tells the truth but deceives at the same time.

that's priceless! I posted links to the relevant legislation and the official magistrates sentencing guidelines rather than claiming what I would like to be the law is actually the law.

VTech wrote:

He was banned for driving at 61mph in a 50 zone, I have previously stated that imo (and thats all it is) it is more serious the lower the speed as it become built up areas and places of danger etc.
I would also like to add that for over 20 years previous to the singer being banned the speed limit on that road was actually 60mph of which he was 1mph over. The limit was changed not too soon before he was caught effectively making him a speeder which a few months before he wasn't.

I'm confused by this, you seem to say the offence is worse in your first sentence but then defend it on the basis of the recent speed limit change in the second. I would agree that speeding is worse in built up areas although the law doesn't make that distinction. Also, speed differential plays a huge part in the likelihood and severity of an accident and driving at nearly 90 affects both of those factors considerably more than at 70. 15m more just to react to something plus whatever extra distance it takes to scrub off the extra speed. However, the case I cited (one of a huge list I could have picked from) had the driver 20% over limit so less than with Freddie. I was citing it as a case where an offence that was arguably less serious (lower percentage over and as you've picked out yourself, the speed limit had been recently reduced which could have offered more of a case for mitigation.

Pross

PBlakeney wrote:

This story would appear to back up Vtech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -road.html

I know, I know. The source is a pain but the point remains.

Well, backs him up until it says 'normally drivers with 12 points get banned under the "trotting up" process without adding 'unless you only go over by a "small" margin in any of your offences'

Colinthecop

VTech wrote:

I would also like to add that for over 20 years previous to the singer being banned the speed limit on that road was actually 60mph of which he was 1mph over. The limit was changed not too soon before he was caught effectively making him a speeder which a few months before he wasn't.

But people should never drive through Balinluig... They should always stop at the very lovely roadside cafe.

Perhaps the Del Amitri fellow didnt know it was there as he sped past.

pblakeney

Pross wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

This story would appear to back up Vtech.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -road.html

I know, I know. The source is a pain but the point remains.

Well, backs him up until it says 'normally drivers with 12 points get banned under the "trotting up" process without adding 'unless you only go over by a "small" margin in any of your offences'

But still I would wager that "7,621 people are still driving with 12 points or more on their licence" is a much higher figure than people would have previously thought.
And 42 points is taking the wee wee.

VTech

Pross wrote:

VTech wrote:

Without wanting to argue with you, you have posted some daft responses, the first of which was the other band member a few posts back who was banned for speeding, you only gave the info that benefited your point but was implemented in the same way a politician tells the truth but deceives at the same time.

that's priceless! I posted links to the relevant legislation and the official magistrates sentencing guidelines rather than claiming what I would like to be the law is actually the law.

VTech wrote:

He was banned for driving at 61mph in a 50 zone, I have previously stated that imo (and thats all it is) it is more serious the lower the speed as it become built up areas and places of danger etc.
I would also like to add that for over 20 years previous to the singer being banned the speed limit on that road was actually 60mph of which he was 1mph over. The limit was changed not too soon before he was caught effectively making him a speeder which a few months before he wasn't.

I'm confused by this, you seem to say the offence is worse in your first sentence but then defend it on the basis of the recent speed limit change in the second. I would agree that speeding is worse in built up areas although the law doesn't make that distinction. Also, speed differential plays a huge part in the likelihood and severity of an accident and driving at nearly 90 affects both of those factors considerably more than at 70. 15m more just to react to something plus whatever extra distance it takes to scrub off the extra speed. However, the case I cited (one of a huge list I could have picked from) had the driver 20% over limit so less than with Freddie. I was citing it as a case where an offence that was arguably less serious (lower percentage over and as you've picked out yourself, the speed limit had been recently reduced which could have offered more of a case for mitigation.

Your acting the politician again.
I'm actually agreeing with his ban but just addig a side note of it was a touch of bad luck considering that although he was doing 61 he was in fact on a road that had a 60 limit for many years but was dropped. Make of that what you will.

I have also stated that I think the lower the speed limit broken the more severe the penalty as it is in those built up areas that are more dangerous. Why are you arguing with me on that post ?

I'm also not changing my mind either. I said that I wouldn't be banned if I had 12 points and I stand by that. You have to remember that it's almost always self incrimination that leads to fine or prosecution and a little bit of brain power can get you off with almost any minor offence. Please note I'm not condoning illegal actions

Anyone can legally and honestly plead severe circumstances for totting. Of course this may not work second or third time round but although colinthecop hasn't backed me up, I would happily bet that if he is indeed a police office and been in the force enough time he would have been upset at people getting away with things on many occasions.

Pross

Pross wrote:

I would agree that speeding is worse in built up areas although the law doesn't make that distinction.

VTech wrote:

I have also stated that I think the lower the speed limit broken the more severe the penalty as it is in those built up areas that are more dangerous. Why are you arguing with me on that post ?

:? OK it's getting surreal now, time to exit the thread for my own sanity

Mikey23

The context is different but ...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OirGBPMzjaQ

mamba80

If speeding on a motorway is such a heinous and dangerous crime, why is nt everyone banned for such acts ? why give them 3 or more chances in the 1st place? but of course, we all (should) know its not.

30 mph outside a school at 1500hrs is far an away more dangerous but will attract zero punishment - the law on traffic offenses is an axx, as is the justice system, on another day, he may well have got a 12month ban - people have been killed on bicycles and in so many cases the drivers will not get a ban, sometimes not even charged.

I couldn't give a monkeys about AF and him doing 87 mph, its nothing in a modern car, if he was bullying cars out of the way, under taking and tail gating, then ban him - but just for speeding? .... no chance.

and of course all those calling for him to be hung out, have never jumped a red light, rode on the pavement or ridden, the wrong way, down a one way street?????

finchy

mamba80 - have you ever seen a high-speed motorway crash? I saw one just a few weeks ago. Smash into something at 80+ mph, and you're in real danger, modern car or not.

Besides, it's not about protecting the speeding driver, it's about protecting other people.

Mikey23

What do i know, im just a grumpy old git but really dont get this moral relativism as espoused by many on this thread

socrates

Is the point here not that he broke the law. He did not get banned because he is famous. End of. Typical British celebrity status. If I lost my licence it would be difficult for my kids to get to school but I bet that would cut no ice with a magistrate.